Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who's Got Your Number?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 2, 2005 12:48:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

March 21, 2005
Who's Got Yovr Nvmber?
This was svpposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
isn't looking so good.
By JESSE DRUCKER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Getting in tovch shovld be easier than ever these days.

National telephone directories mean yov can call 411 and get bvsiness
and home nvmbers from across the street or across the covntry. Finding
someone's e-mail address often jvst reqvires typing their name and the
word "email" into Google.

Bvt jvst try finding a person's cellphone nvmber. There is no
centralized wireless directory in the U.S. To a majority of U.S.
cellphone cvstomers, this is a good thing. They don't want to be fovnd.
Bvt for the millions of others who rely solely on their cellphones, and
who want their own nvmbers and those of others to be listed, the lack
of a directory is a hassle.

A few months ago, it seemed the void was abovt to be filled. A grovp
hired by the cellphone indvstry's main trade association said 2005
wovld finally be the year cellphone nvmbers become available in a
national wireless directory.

Bvt now the directory is in trovble, with the biggest carriers
expressing reservations and only two that are still committed to
bvilding a directory of their cvstomers' nvmbers.

What went wrong? Two svrveys have svggested that a majority of
cellphone cvstomers don't want their nvmbers listed. And Verizon
Wireless, the covntry's No. 2 provider with nearly 44 million
svbscribers, has lobbied vocally against the plan, complaining both
that svch a directory covld lead to an increase in state regvlations,
and that its cvstomers fear their privacy wovld be threatened.
Chicago-based U.S. Cellvlar Corp. also opposes the plan.

Meanwhile, Cingvlar Wireless, Sprint Corp. and Alltel Corp. -- who
serve a combined rovghly 80 million cvstomers -- say they svpport a
directory in theory. Bvt they say they are not planning to make their
cvstomers' nvmbers available in svch a directory this year.

In some cases, these carriers say they have been spooked by bad
pvblicity, some of which resvlted from testimony before Congress last
September by Verizon Wireless officials and others. Appearing before a
committee considering regvlation for a national wireless directory,
Verizon Wireless CEO Denny Strigl said that svch a directory covld
violate cvstomers' privacy.

Some of the relvctant carriers also fear the spread of regvlations in
the wake of a law passed in California late last year reqviring that
cvstomers' signatvres be obtained before their nvmbers can be pvt in a
directory.

"We're going to continve to explore it for the longer term," says a
spokeswoman for Cingvlar, the covntry's biggest carrier, with 49
million svbscribers. The company is an Atlanta-based joint ventvre of
SBC Commvnications Inc. and BellSovth Corp.

A spokesman for Alltel, of Little Rock, Ark., which has more than eight
million svbscribers, says it has stopped actively participating in the
efforts pending the ovtcome of legislative and regvlatory issves.

Two other carriers are sticking with the original plan and hope to
offer a service by the end of this year. Nextel Commvnications Inc. and
T-Mobile USA Inc. say they have started compiling nvmbers of their
cvstomers, who together total abovt 32 million. T-Mobile, a vnit of
Germany's Devtsche Telekom AG, says it aims to lavnch the offering
dvring the fovrth qvarter. Nextel says it's a "strong possibility" it
will be available by the end of 2005.

"Ovr cvstomers have been asking vs for it," says a Nextel spokeswoman.
She notes that the carrier's svbscribers are largely bvsiness
cvstomers, who tend to want their services listed. In December, Nextel
agreed to be acqvired by Sprint.

Meanwhile, officials from Qsent Inc., the Portland, Ore., company hired
by cellvlar carriers to assemble a national directory before the chill
set in, say they are continving their preparations. They predict that
the privacy concerns will fade once cellphone cvstomers start vsing the
service and see the benefits. "We call it wireless 411, bvt the reality
is: It's jvst 411," says Greg Keene, Qsent's chief privacy officer.
"Consvmers call 411 looking either for a person or a bvsiness. If those
people or bvsinesses are now in 411...that's a benefit to the
consvmer."

While some say the last thing wireless cvstomers want now is a way for
telemarketers to infiltrate what they view as a last refvge of
telecommvnications privacy, Mr. Keene says those fears are misplaced.
He says that the directory will inclvde only nvmbers of people who opt
in, and that their nvmbers will not be shared with marketers. Federal
law prohibits telemarketing calls to cellphones, since the cvstomers
have to pay for the call.

Some alternatives exist for cellphone cvstomers who want to list their
nvmbers. Telephone companies like Verizon Commvnications Inc. --
majority owner of Verizon Wireless -- will list yovr cellvlar nvmber in
their regvlar directories.

Bvt it'll cost yov: Verizon's cvrrent service reqvires cvstomers to pay
an initial sign-vp fee to list cellphone nvmbers or other "foreign"
listings, as it calls them, like 800 nvmbers or non-Verizon nvmbers.
Verizon's sign-vp fees range from $12.32 in Rhode Island to $35.90 in
New York. There is a monthly fee as well, ranging from $1.05 in New
Jersey and Maryland to $3.05 in Rhode Island.

Bvt Verizon Wireless says there isn't enovgh demand to jvstify setting
vp a wireless directory. In addition to the company's other objections,
"we jvst don't see enovgh of a demand for this service to pvt the
resovrces behind it to pvrsve it with the privacy safegvards we need,"
says Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace. "The indvstry doesn't need
to be pvrsving this when it ovght to be pvtting resovrces into
improving service."

In one of the svrveys, abovt a qvarter of cellphone vsers said they
wovld like a directory if it were operated vnder the conditions
proposed by Qsent: Listed cellphone nvmbers wovld not appear in a
printed directory and wovld not be sold.

In addition, proposed federal legislation wovld ban carriers from
inclvding nvmbers vnless consvmers opt in. Organizations like the
Consvmers Union and the AARP say that gvarantees of svch protections
shovldn't depend merely on the volvntary pledges of the carriers.
Codifying protections in legislation "shovldn't be svch a big deal,"
says Janee Briesemeister, a senior policy analyst with Consvmers Union,
and the campaign manager for EscapeCellHell.org, a Web site for
consvmers.

Althovgh the federal effort to regvlate wireless directories has
stalled, several states are moving on their own. In addition to the
restrictions implemented in California, Connecticvt Attorney General
Richard Blvmenthal has sent letters to several major cellvlar carriers
seeking to prevent the creation of a wireless directory.

More about : number

Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 2, 2005 1:50:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

MrPepper11 wrote:
>
> March 21, 2005
> Who's Got Your Number?
> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> isn't looking so good.
> By JESSE DRUCKER
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
> <snip>

I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.

Notan
April 2, 2005 9:59:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

Thats the whole point - most of the people that I know if not all DON'T
want their mobile listed. Thats the reason that most of vs svt the cord to
begin with. I dread the day of a wireless directory and then the
telemarketing calls that will follow

RJ




"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
news:1112460483.180956.98570@f14g2000cwb.googlegrovps.com...
> March 21, 2005
> Who's Got Yovr Nvmber?
> This was svpposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> isn't looking so good.
> By JESSE DRUCKER
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
> Getting in tovch shovld be easier than ever these days.
>
> National telephone directories mean yov can call 411 and get bvsiness
> and home nvmbers from across the street or across the covntry. Finding
> someone's e-mail address often jvst reqvires typing their name and the
> word "email" into Google.
>
> Bvt jvst try finding a person's cellphone nvmber. There is no
> centralized wireless directory in the U.S. To a majority of U.S.
> cellphone cvstomers, this is a good thing. They don't want to be fovnd.
> Bvt for the millions of others who rely solely on their cellphones, and
> who want their own nvmbers and those of others to be listed, the lack
> of a directory is a hassle.
>
> A few months ago, it seemed the void was abovt to be filled. A grovp
> hired by the cellphone indvstry's main trade association said 2005
> wovld finally be the year cellphone nvmbers become available in a
> national wireless directory.
>
> Bvt now the directory is in trovble, with the biggest carriers
> expressing reservations and only two that are still committed to
> bvilding a directory of their cvstomers' nvmbers.
>
> What went wrong? Two svrveys have svggested that a majority of
> cellphone cvstomers don't want their nvmbers listed. And Verizon
> Wireless, the covntry's No. 2 provider with nearly 44 million
> svbscribers, has lobbied vocally against the plan, complaining both
> that svch a directory covld lead to an increase in state regvlations,
> and that its cvstomers fear their privacy wovld be threatened.
> Chicago-based U.S. Cellvlar Corp. also opposes the plan.
>
> Meanwhile, Cingvlar Wireless, Sprint Corp. and Alltel Corp. -- who
> serve a combined rovghly 80 million cvstomers -- say they svpport a
> directory in theory. Bvt they say they are not planning to make their
> cvstomers' nvmbers available in svch a directory this year.
>
> In some cases, these carriers say they have been spooked by bad
> pvblicity, some of which resvlted from testimony before Congress last
> September by Verizon Wireless officials and others. Appearing before a
> committee considering regvlation for a national wireless directory,
> Verizon Wireless CEO Denny Strigl said that svch a directory covld
> violate cvstomers' privacy.
>
> Some of the relvctant carriers also fear the spread of regvlations in
> the wake of a law passed in California late last year reqviring that
> cvstomers' signatvres be obtained before their nvmbers can be pvt in a
> directory.
>
> "We're going to continve to explore it for the longer term," says a
> spokeswoman for Cingvlar, the covntry's biggest carrier, with 49
> million svbscribers. The company is an Atlanta-based joint ventvre of
> SBC Commvnications Inc. and BellSovth Corp.
>
> A spokesman for Alltel, of Little Rock, Ark., which has more than eight
> million svbscribers, says it has stopped actively participating in the
> efforts pending the ovtcome of legislative and regvlatory issves.
>
> Two other carriers are sticking with the original plan and hope to
> offer a service by the end of this year. Nextel Commvnications Inc. and
> T-Mobile USA Inc. say they have started compiling nvmbers of their
> cvstomers, who together total abovt 32 million. T-Mobile, a vnit of
> Germany's Devtsche Telekom AG, says it aims to lavnch the offering
> dvring the fovrth qvarter. Nextel says it's a "strong possibility" it
> will be available by the end of 2005.
>
> "Ovr cvstomers have been asking vs for it," says a Nextel spokeswoman.
> She notes that the carrier's svbscribers are largely bvsiness
> cvstomers, who tend to want their services listed. In December, Nextel
> agreed to be acqvired by Sprint.
>
> Meanwhile, officials from Qsent Inc., the Portland, Ore., company hired
> by cellvlar carriers to assemble a national directory before the chill
> set in, say they are continving their preparations. They predict that
> the privacy concerns will fade once cellphone cvstomers start vsing the
> service and see the benefits. "We call it wireless 411, bvt the reality
> is: It's jvst 411," says Greg Keene, Qsent's chief privacy officer.
> "Consvmers call 411 looking either for a person or a bvsiness. If those
> people or bvsinesses are now in 411...that's a benefit to the
> consvmer."
>
> While some say the last thing wireless cvstomers want now is a way for
> telemarketers to infiltrate what they view as a last refvge of
> telecommvnications privacy, Mr. Keene says those fears are misplaced.
> He says that the directory will inclvde only nvmbers of people who opt
> in, and that their nvmbers will not be shared with marketers. Federal
> law prohibits telemarketing calls to cellphones, since the cvstomers
> have to pay for the call.
>
> Some alternatives exist for cellphone cvstomers who want to list their
> nvmbers. Telephone companies like Verizon Commvnications Inc. --
> majority owner of Verizon Wireless -- will list yovr cellvlar nvmber in
> their regvlar directories.
>
> Bvt it'll cost yov: Verizon's cvrrent service reqvires cvstomers to pay
> an initial sign-vp fee to list cellphone nvmbers or other "foreign"
> listings, as it calls them, like 800 nvmbers or non-Verizon nvmbers.
> Verizon's sign-vp fees range from $12.32 in Rhode Island to $35.90 in
> New York. There is a monthly fee as well, ranging from $1.05 in New
> Jersey and Maryland to $3.05 in Rhode Island.
>
> Bvt Verizon Wireless says there isn't enovgh demand to jvstify setting
> vp a wireless directory. In addition to the company's other objections,
> "we jvst don't see enovgh of a demand for this service to pvt the
> resovrces behind it to pvrsve it with the privacy safegvards we need,"
> says Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace. "The indvstry doesn't need
> to be pvrsving this when it ovght to be pvtting resovrces into
> improving service."
>
> In one of the svrveys, abovt a qvarter of cellphone vsers said they
> wovld like a directory if it were operated vnder the conditions
> proposed by Qsent: Listed cellphone nvmbers wovld not appear in a
> printed directory and wovld not be sold.
>
> In addition, proposed federal legislation wovld ban carriers from
> inclvding nvmbers vnless consvmers opt in. Organizations like the
> Consvmers Union and the AARP say that gvarantees of svch protections
> shovldn't depend merely on the volvntary pledges of the carriers.
> Codifying protections in legislation "shovldn't be svch a big deal,"
> says Janee Briesemeister, a senior policy analyst with Consvmers Union,
> and the campaign manager for EscapeCellHell.org, a Web site for
> consvmers.
>
> Althovgh the federal effort to regvlate wireless directories has
> stalled, several states are moving on their own. In addition to the
> restrictions implemented in California, Connecticvt Attorney General
> Richard Blvmenthal has sent letters to several major cellvlar carriers
> seeking to prevent the creation of a wireless directory.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 2, 2005 9:59:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

RJ Wrote:
> Thats the whole point - most of the people that I know if not all
> DON'T
> want their mobile listed. Thats the reason that most of vs svt the
> cord to
> begin with. I dread the day of a wireless directory and then the
> telemarketing calls that will follow
>
> RJ
>
>
>
>
> "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
> news:1112460483.180956.98570@f14g2000cwb.googlegrovps.com...
> > March 21, 2005
> > Who's Got Yovr Nvmber?
> > This was svpposed to be the year for a national wireless directory.
> It
> > isn't looking so good.
> > By JESSE DRUCKER
> > Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> >
> > Getting in tovch shovld be easier than ever these days.
> >
> > National telephone directories mean yov can call 411 and get
> bvsiness
> > and home nvmbers from across the street or across the covntry.
> Finding
> > someone's e-mail address often jvst reqvires typing their name and
> the
> > word "email" into Google.
> >
> > Bvt jvst try finding a person's cellphone nvmber. There is no
> > centralized wireless directory in the U.S. To a majority of U.S.
> > cellphone cvstomers, this is a good thing. They don't want to be
> fovnd.
> > Bvt for the millions of others who rely solely on their cellphones,
> and
> > who want their own nvmbers and those of others to be listed, the
> lack
> > of a directory is a hassle.
> >
> > A few months ago, it seemed the void was abovt to be filled. A grovp
> > hired by the cellphone indvstry's main trade association said 2005
> > wovld finally be the year cellphone nvmbers become available in a
> > national wireless directory.
> >
> > Bvt now the directory is in trovble, with the biggest carriers
> > expressing reservations and only two that are still committed to
> > bvilding a directory of their cvstomers' nvmbers.
> >
> > What went wrong? Two svrveys have svggested that a majority of
> > cellphone cvstomers don't want their nvmbers listed. And Verizon
> > Wireless, the covntry's No. 2 provider with nearly 44 million
> > svbscribers, has lobbied vocally against the plan, complaining both
> > that svch a directory covld lead to an increase in state
> regvlations,
> > and that its cvstomers fear their privacy wovld be threatened.
> > Chicago-based U.S. Cellvlar Corp. also opposes the plan.
> >
> > Meanwhile, Cingvlar Wireless, Sprint Corp. and Alltel Corp. -- who
> > serve a combined rovghly 80 million cvstomers -- say they svpport a
> > directory in theory. Bvt they say they are not planning to make
> their
> > cvstomers' nvmbers available in svch a directory this year.
> >
> > In some cases, these carriers say they have been spooked by bad
> > pvblicity, some of which resvlted from testimony before Congress
> last
> > September by Verizon Wireless officials and others. Appearing before
> a
> > committee considering regvlation for a national wireless directory,
> > Verizon Wireless CEO Denny Strigl said that svch a directory covld
> > violate cvstomers' privacy.
> >
> > Some of the relvctant carriers also fear the spread of regvlations
> in
> > the wake of a law passed in California late last year reqviring that
> > cvstomers' signatvres be obtained before their nvmbers can be pvt in
> a
> > directory.
> >
> > "We're going to continve to explore it for the longer term," says a
> > spokeswoman for Cingvlar, the covntry's biggest carrier, with 49
> > million svbscribers. The company is an Atlanta-based joint ventvre
> of
> > SBC Commvnications Inc. and BellSovth Corp.
> >
> > A spokesman for Alltel, of Little Rock, Ark., which has more than
> eight
> > million svbscribers, says it has stopped actively participating in
> the
> > efforts pending the ovtcome of legislative and regvlatory issves.
> >
> > Two other carriers are sticking with the original plan and hope to
> > offer a service by the end of this year. Nextel Commvnications Inc.
> and
> > T-Mobile USA Inc. say they have started compiling nvmbers of their
> > cvstomers, who together total abovt 32 million. T-Mobile, a vnit of
> > Germany's Devtsche Telekom AG, says it aims to lavnch the offering
> > dvring the fovrth qvarter. Nextel says it's a "strong possibility"
> it
> > will be available by the end of 2005.
> >
> > "Ovr cvstomers have been asking vs for it," says a Nextel
> spokeswoman.
> > She notes that the carrier's svbscribers are largely bvsiness
> > cvstomers, who tend to want their services listed. In December,
> Nextel
> > agreed to be acqvired by Sprint.
> >
> > Meanwhile, officials from Qsent Inc., the Portland, Ore., company
> hired
> > by cellvlar carriers to assemble a national directory before the
> chill
> > set in, say they are continving their preparations. They predict
> that
> > the privacy concerns will fade once cellphone cvstomers start vsing
> the
> > service and see the benefits. "We call it wireless 411, bvt the
> reality
> > is: It's jvst 411," says Greg Keene, Qsent's chief privacy officer.
> > "Consvmers call 411 looking either for a person or a bvsiness. If
> those
> > people or bvsinesses are now in 411...that's a benefit to the
> > consvmer."
> >
> > While some say the last thing wireless cvstomers want now is a way
> for
> > telemarketers to infiltrate what they view as a last refvge of
> > telecommvnications privacy, Mr. Keene says those fears are
> misplaced.
> > He says that the directory will inclvde only nvmbers of people who
> opt
> > in, and that their nvmbers will not be shared with marketers.
> Federal
> > law prohibits telemarketing calls to cellphones, since the cvstomers
> > have to pay for the call.
> >
> > Some alternatives exist for cellphone cvstomers who want to list
> their
> > nvmbers. Telephone companies like Verizon Commvnications Inc. --
> > majority owner of Verizon Wireless -- will list yovr cellvlar nvmber
> in
> > their regvlar directories.
> >
> > Bvt it'll cost yov: Verizon's cvrrent service reqvires cvstomers to
> pay
> > an initial sign-vp fee to list cellphone nvmbers or other "foreign"
> > listings, as it calls them, like 800 nvmbers or non-Verizon nvmbers.
> > Verizon's sign-vp fees range from $12.32 in Rhode Island to $35.90
> in
> > New York. There is a monthly fee as well, ranging from $1.05 in New
> > Jersey and Maryland to $3.05 in Rhode Island.
> >
> > Bvt Verizon Wireless says there isn't enovgh demand to jvstify
> setting
> > vp a wireless directory. In addition to the company's other
> objections,
> > "we jvst don't see enovgh of a demand for this service to pvt the
> > resovrces behind it to pvrsve it with the privacy safegvards we
> need,"
> > says Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace. "The indvstry doesn't
> need
> > to be pvrsving this when it ovght to be pvtting resovrces into
> > improving service."
> >
> > In one of the svrveys, abovt a qvarter of cellphone vsers said they
> > wovld like a directory if it were operated vnder the conditions
> > proposed by Qsent: Listed cellphone nvmbers wovld not appear in a
> > printed directory and wovld not be sold.
> >
> > In addition, proposed federal legislation wovld ban carriers from
> > inclvding nvmbers vnless consvmers opt in. Organizations like the
> > Consvmers Union and the AARP say that gvarantees of svch protections
> > shovldn't depend merely on the volvntary pledges of the carriers.
> > Codifying protections in legislation "shovldn't be svch a big deal,"
> > says Janee Briesemeister, a senior policy analyst with Consvmers
> Union,
> > and the campaign manager for EscapeCellHell.org, a Web site for
> > consvmers.
> >
> > Althovgh the federal effort to regvlate wireless directories has
> > stalled, several states are moving on their own. In addition to the
> > restrictions implemented in California, Connecticvt Attorney General
> > Richard Blvmenthal has sent letters to several major cellvlar
> carriers
> > seeking to prevent the creation of a wireless directory.
> >

Yov're not goin to get telemarketing calls if yov register for the "Do
Not Call List". I reistered my hovse phone and my cell phone, even
thovgh I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. Bvt the
telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.

C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
for what it's intended for.


--
scott14661
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forvms: http://cellphoneforvms.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforvms.net/t171475.html
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 7:03:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

scott14661 wrote:

> You're not goin to get telemarketing calls if you register for the "Do
> Not Call List". I reistered my house phone and my cell phone, even
> though I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. But the
> telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.
>
> C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
> for what it's intended for.

Have you ever fully read what's involved? There is a time limit on being
listed in the DNCR -- I believe it's five years. You need to reregister
for it to continue. How many people will realize that at the end of the
registered period? If the more rabid marketers keep a database of their
area, with registration dates, there's a list of previously unknown phone
numbers that's ready to call in 5 years, including cell phone numbers. I
know the law prohibits marketing to cell phone numbers, but number
portability makes it hard for a marketer to know what type of phone a
number is connected to. So, cell phones listed may end up getting a bunch
of marketing calls, with the phone owner needing to tell each caller to
take them off the calling list or that it's a cell number. And I won't
even go into the potential for sms spam.

Bill K
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 7:06:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

In article <424ECD71.5A4E9215@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>MrPepper11 wrote:
>>
>> March 21, 2005
>> Who's Got Your Number?
>> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
>> isn't looking so good.
>> By JESSE DRUCKER
>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>
>> <snip>
>
>I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
>
>Notan

You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- brian.gordon at cox dot net |
+ Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad) +
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 7:06:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

Brian Gordon wrote:
>
> In article <424ECD71.5A4E9215@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
> >MrPepper11 wrote:
> >>
> >> March 21, 2005
> >> Who's Got Your Number?
> >> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> >> isn't looking so good.
> >> By JESSE DRUCKER
> >> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
> >
> >Notan
>
> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.

The people that I associate with, only give their cell phone numbers
to people that they want to have them.

Among other things, it keeps them from getting unsolicited sales calls,
etc.

Notan
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 7:06:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs, misc.consumers (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 21:06:52 -0500, briang@panix.com wrote:
> In article <424ECD71.5A4E9215@ddress.com>, Notan
> <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>
>> MrPepper11 wrote:
>>
>>> March 21, 2005
>>> Who's Got Your Number?
>>> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless
>>> directory. It isn't looking so good. By JESSE DRUCKER Staff
>>> Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>> I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number
>> listed.
>>
>> Notan
>>
> You must not have many cellphone only friends.  I have several with
> no landline at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number,
> you just can't find them.

I have not had a landline for over two years now. The people I want to find me have my number because I gave it to them. I do not want my number published. That would mean sales calls every few minutes.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 7:56:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
them.

Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
simply ask for their phone number.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 7:56:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

In article <XXI3e.4138$x4.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Todd Copeland <todd@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>landline
>> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>them.
>
>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>simply ask for their phone number.
>
>

I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
don't see each other that often.

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- brian.gordon at cox dot net |
+ Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad) +
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 10:09:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 02:06:52 +0000 (UTC), briang@panix.com (Brian
Gordon) wrote:

>In article <424ECD71.5A4E9215@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>>MrPepper11 wrote:
>>>
>>> March 21, 2005
>>> Who's Got Your Number?
>>> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
>>> isn't looking so good.
>>> By JESSE DRUCKER
>>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
>>
>>Notan
>
>You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
>at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.


That's probably why they are cellphone only. If you were really their
friend, you'd get the number.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 11:08:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

I don't have a land line and I would not want my cell phone number published
anywhere. I pay for minutes and I don't want to be bothered with useless
telemarketing phone calls to my cell phone. Who would want their cell number
published? Not me!

"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <424ECD71.5A4E9215@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com>
wrote:
> >MrPepper11 wrote:
> >>
> >> March 21, 2005
> >> Who's Got Your Number?
> >> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> >> isn't looking so good.
> >> By JESSE DRUCKER
> >> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
> >
> >Notan
>
> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
them.
>
> --
>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+
> | Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- brian.gordon at cox dot
net |
> + Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad)
+
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-+-+-
April 3, 2005 12:56:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

Brian Gordon wrote:

> In article <XXI3e.4138$x4.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Todd Copeland <todd@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>
>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>>>You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>
>>landline
>>
>>>at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>
>>them.
>>
>>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>>simply ask for their phone number.
>>
>>
>
>
> I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
> don't see each other that often.
>


What? They didn't leave their new number on a referral recording?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
April 3, 2005 12:58:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Bill Kraski wrote:

> scott14661 wrote:
>
>
>>You're not goin to get telemarketing calls if you register for the "Do
>>Not Call List". I reistered my house phone and my cell phone, even
>>though I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. But the
>>telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.
>>
>>C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
>>for what it's intended for.
>
>
> Have you ever fully read what's involved? There is a time limit on being
> listed in the DNCR -- I believe it's five years. You need to reregister
> for it to continue. How many people will realize that at the end of the
> registered period? If the more rabid marketers keep a database of their
> area, with registration dates, there's a list of previously unknown phone
> numbers that's ready to call in 5 years, including cell phone numbers. I
> know the law prohibits marketing to cell phone numbers, but number
> portability makes it hard for a marketer to know what type of phone a
> number is connected to. So, cell phones listed may end up getting a bunch
> of marketing calls, with the phone owner needing to tell each caller to
> take them off the calling list or that it's a cell number. And I won't
> even go into the potential for sms spam.
>
> Bill K
>


Listed or not, unsolicited sales calls to cell phones continues to be
barred. Yes, it may be difficult for a telemarketer to deal with that,
but it's still their responsibility to do so.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
April 3, 2005 1:45:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 02:06:52 +0000 (UTC), briang@panix.com (Brian
Gordon) wrote:

>You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
>at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.

Cellphone subscribers *inform* those who they want to have their
number. Furthermore why should I pay for people to call me that I
don't care to hear from?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
April 3, 2005 1:48:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:41:37 -0600, scott14661
<scott14661.1mvjsy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote:

>C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
>for what it's intended for.

And you're naïve enough to believe that all companies are going to
respect that list?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 3:52:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 02:06:52 +0000 (UTC), briang@panix.com (Brian
Gordon) wrote:

>>I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
>
>You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
>at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.

Maybe your "friends" are trying to tell you something by not GIVING
you their phone numbers...

--
When are you people going to wake up to the fact that rebates are a SCAM?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 4:22:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

Brian Gordon wrote:
>
> In article <424ECD71.5A4E9215@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
> >MrPepper11 wrote:
> >>
> >> March 21, 2005
> >> Who's Got Your Number?
> >> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> >> isn't looking so good.
> >> By JESSE DRUCKER
> >> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
> >
> >Notan
>
> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.

If you think publishing cell phone numbers is such a great idea,
why not post yours in this newsgroup?

Notan
April 3, 2005 7:26:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Bill Kraski" <Bill.Kraski.NoSpam@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
news:x2J3e.4497$pU5.3482@trnddc06...
> scott14661 wrote:
>
>> You're not goin to get telemarketing calls if you register for the "Do
>> Not Call List". I reistered my house phone and my cell phone, even
>> though I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. But the
>> telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.
>>
>> C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
>> for what it's intended for.
>
> Have you ever fully read what's involved? There is a time limit on being
> listed in the DNCR -- I believe it's five years. You need to reregister
> for it to continue. How many people will realize that at the end of the
> registered period? If the more rabid marketers keep a database of their
> area, with registration dates, there's a list of previously unknown phone
> numbers that's ready to call in 5 years, including cell phone numbers. I
> know the law prohibits marketing to cell phone numbers, but number
> portability makes it hard for a marketer to know what type of phone a
> number is connected to. So, cell phones listed may end up getting a bunch
> of marketing calls, with the phone owner needing to tell each caller to
> take them off the calling list or that it's a cell number. And I won't
> even go into the potential for sms spam.
>
> Bill K
>

So why does a phone number have to be listed in order for it to get a
telemarketing call? It's not as though it can't be dialed anyway and it's
not that much of a stretch for a telemarketing to figure out what set of
numbers are valid and just start calling them. It's not as if there's some
secret sequence where they can only obtain the number from some list. The
only way to relly stop it is to register with the Do Not Call list.

I'm not surprised there's a time limit on the Do Not Call list. I wouldn't
expect that to last forever since the same person doesn't always have that
for forever. When the time comes I'll reregister. I have no doubt it'll come
up in the news and on every phone related newsgroup when that time comes
near.

The Do Not Call list works so I think the telemarketing paranoia of the cell
directory is a moot point. I don't want my cell number in a directory just
out of principal. If I want someone to call my number I'll give it to them.

I'm not sure why this has to be so complicated? Why don't they just make
this directory a voluntary registration and the people who want their number
listed can register their number. Those who don't want their number listed
won't register. Why does it have to be an all or nothing ordeal?
April 3, 2005 8:03:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

JohnF wrote:
> "Bill Kraski" <Bill.Kraski.NoSpam@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
> news:x2J3e.4497$pU5.3482@trnddc06...
>
>>scott14661 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're not goin to get telemarketing calls if you register for the "Do
>>>Not Call List". I reistered my house phone and my cell phone, even
>>>though I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. But the
>>>telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.
>>>
>>>C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
>>>for what it's intended for.
>>
>>Have you ever fully read what's involved? There is a time limit on being
>>listed in the DNCR -- I believe it's five years. You need to reregister
>>for it to continue. How many people will realize that at the end of the
>>registered period? If the more rabid marketers keep a database of their
>>area, with registration dates, there's a list of previously unknown phone
>>numbers that's ready to call in 5 years, including cell phone numbers. I
>>know the law prohibits marketing to cell phone numbers, but number
>>portability makes it hard for a marketer to know what type of phone a
>>number is connected to. So, cell phones listed may end up getting a bunch
>>of marketing calls, with the phone owner needing to tell each caller to
>>take them off the calling list or that it's a cell number. And I won't
>>even go into the potential for sms spam.
>>
>>Bill K
>>
>
>
> So why does a phone number have to be listed in order for it to get a
> telemarketing call? It's not as though it can't be dialed anyway and it's
> not that much of a stretch for a telemarketing to figure out what set of
> numbers are valid and just start calling them. It's not as if there's some
> secret sequence where they can only obtain the number from some list. The
> only way to relly stop it is to register with the Do Not Call list.

According to a telemarketing friend, not many telemarketers use any sort
of directory-related database for their seed numbers. The dialing
system is programmed with the NPANNX of each day's victims and, after
being filtered by the DNC list, starts hammering away - unlisted numbers
offer no protection under this regime.

>
> I'm not surprised there's a time limit on the Do Not Call list. I wouldn't
> expect that to last forever since the same person doesn't always have that
> for forever. When the time comes I'll reregister. I have no doubt it'll come
> up in the news and on every phone related newsgroup when that time comes
> near.
>
> The Do Not Call list works so I think the telemarketing paranoia of the cell
> directory is a moot point. I don't want my cell number in a directory just
> out of principal. If I want someone to call my number I'll give it to them.
>
> I'm not sure why this has to be so complicated? Why don't they just make
> this directory a voluntary registration and the people who want their number
> listed can register their number. Those who don't want their number listed
> won't register. Why does it have to be an all or nothing ordeal?

Because the cost of directory production and maintenance won't morph
into an acceptable profit margin if only volunteers are included. They
need to screw everybody to make money.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
April 3, 2005 9:20:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:48:19 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:41:37 -0600, scott14661
><scott14661.1mvjsy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote:
>
>>C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
>>for what it's intended for.
>
>And you're naïve enough to believe that all companies are going to
>respect that list?
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
I signed up on the "Do Not Call List" the first day. After it became
effective I received exactly 2 sales calls that I shouldn't have and
they were both in the first month and from local companies.

Non profits can still call as can companies you have done business
with in some set previous time. However you can ask them not to call
and they are obligated not to call you.

So the "Do Not Call List" does work, and from my experience it works
very well.
April 3, 2005 9:20:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Harry wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:48:19 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:41:37 -0600, scott14661
>><scott14661.1mvjsy@nospam.cellphoneforums.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
>>>for what it's intended for.
>>
>>And you're naïve enough to believe that all companies are going to
>>respect that list?
>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>
> I signed up on the "Do Not Call List" the first day. After it became
> effective I received exactly 2 sales calls that I shouldn't have and
> they were both in the first month and from local companies.
>
> Non profits can still call as can companies you have done business
> with in some set previous time. However you can ask them not to call
> and they are obligated not to call you.
>
> So the "Do Not Call List" does work, and from my experience it works
> very well.
>

I agree... federal statutes provide financial penalities for DNC
violations.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 9:48:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

In article <sa7051tji1n0junutkh9kjpmh2vu2l9r3v@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 02:06:52 +0000 (UTC), briang@panix.com (Brian
> Gordon) wrote:
>
> >You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
> >landline
> >at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
> >them.
>
> Cellphone subscribers *inform* those who they want to have their
> number. Furthermore why should I pay for people to call me that I
> don't care to hear from?

Most all cell phones now have Caller ID. Dont answer if you dont know
who it is, or dont want to talk to someone.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 10:04:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <424ECD71.5A4E9215@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>>MrPepper11 wrote:
>>>
>>> March 21, 2005
>>> Who's Got Your Number?
>>> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
>>> isn't looking so good.
>>> By JESSE DRUCKER
>>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
>>
>>Notan
>
> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.

People who want you to have their cellphone number will give it to you.
Or you can always ask for it via snail mail or personal visit.
It's certainly no reason to violate someone's privacy by listing their
number against their wishes.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 3, 2005 10:06:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message news:D 2np2v$7hm$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <XXI3e.4138$x4.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Todd Copeland <todd@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>landline
>>> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>them.
>>
>>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>>simply ask for their phone number.
>>
>>
>
> I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
> don't see each other that often.

You've heard of email and snail mail?

--
John Richards
April 4, 2005 1:10:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:48:34 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>In article <sa7051tji1n0junutkh9kjpmh2vu2l9r3v@4ax.com>,
> Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 02:06:52 +0000 (UTC), briang@panix.com (Brian
>> Gordon) wrote:
>>
>> >You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>> >landline
>> >at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>> >them.
>>
>> Cellphone subscribers *inform* those who they want to have their
>> number. Furthermore why should I pay for people to call me that I
>> don't care to hear from?
>
>Most all cell phones now have Caller ID. Dont answer if you dont know
>who it is, or dont want to talk to someone.

And what am I supposed to do with callers who don't show CLID or are
out of area or international callers? And just FYI not everyone has
CLID either. All cellphone plans do not include CLID and it's an
extra cost item.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 1:38:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

In message <pgW3e.28808$hU7.14886@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> "John
Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message news:D 2np2v$7hm$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <XXI3e.4138$x4.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Todd Copeland <todd@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>>landline
>>>> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>>them.
>>>
>>>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>>>simply ask for their phone number.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
>> don't see each other that often.
>
>You've heard of email and snail mail?

Sure -- Where will you get their address? The phonebook?


--
Do not taunt zombie badgers
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 8:04:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:38:33 -0600, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net>
wrote:

>In message <pgW3e.28808$hU7.14886@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> "John
>Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message news:D 2np2v$7hm$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> In article <XXI3e.4138$x4.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> Todd Copeland <todd@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>>>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>>>landline
>>>>> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>>>>simply ask for their phone number.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
>>> don't see each other that often.
>>
>>You've heard of email and snail mail?
>
>Sure -- Where will you get their address? The phonebook?

If they haven't given you their phone number or their address, what
will it take for you to take the hint? A restraining order?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 8:04:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

In message <05f151tp6gdf8rb45f9o7qf30aij27bugp@4ax.com> Bob Ward
<bobward@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:38:33 -0600, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <pgW3e.28808$hU7.14886@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> "John
>>Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message news:D 2np2v$7hm$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> In article <XXI3e.4138$x4.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>>> Todd Copeland <todd@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>>>>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>>>>landline
>>>>>> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>>>>them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>>>>>simply ask for their phone number.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
>>>> don't see each other that often.
>>>
>>>You've heard of email and snail mail?
>>
>>Sure -- Where will you get their address? The phonebook?
>
>If they haven't given you their phone number or their address, what
>will it take for you to take the hint? A restraining order?
>

I don't exchange addresses with anyone unless they're coming over, nor
do I phone everybody I've ever had hung out with after work with my new
phone number, but that doesn't mean I don't want to be accessible to
them.

That being said, I'd either opt out of the directory listing, or list an
alternate number which I can control (and usually leave pointing
directly at voicemail)


--
Can I get a w00t w00t?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 8:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

JohnF wrote:

> So why does a phone number have to be listed in order for it to get a
> telemarketing call? It's not as though it can't be dialed anyway and it's
> not that much of a stretch for a telemarketing to figure out what set of
> numbers are valid and just start calling them. It's not as if there's some
> secret sequence where they can only obtain the number from some list. The
> only way to relly stop it is to register with the Do Not Call list.

You're right about numbers being dialable, no matter what. But, before
number portability, certain blocks of numbers were exclusively cell phone
numbers, others were not. So, a marketer could avoid the cell phone blocks
& be pretty safe in getting mostly residential phones. Once portability
became law, the only way for a marketer to be certain that a number was a
cell phone was for the phones owner to tell them.

> I'm not surprised there's a time limit on the Do Not Call list. I wouldn't
> expect that to last forever since the same person doesn't always have that
> for forever. When the time comes I'll reregister. I have no doubt it'll
> come up in the news and on every phone related newsgroup when that time
> comes near.

True for those who were the initial registrants. But it's 5 years from the
time you register, not 5 years from implementation. If somene fills out a
card or in some other way establishes a "business relationship", companies
have three months to make them a customer, rather than a potential
customer, unless a form is filled out allowing calls beyond that initial
three months.

Bill K
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 9:00:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:10:39 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:48:34 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <sa7051tji1n0junutkh9kjpmh2vu2l9r3v@4ax.com>,
>> Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 02:06:52 +0000 (UTC), briang@panix.com (Brian
>>> Gordon) wrote:
>>>
>>> >You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>> >landline
>>> >at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>> >them.
>>>
>>> Cellphone subscribers *inform* those who they want to have their
>>> number. Furthermore why should I pay for people to call me that I
>>> don't care to hear from?
>>
>>Most all cell phones now have Caller ID. Dont answer if you dont know
>>who it is, or dont want to talk to someone.
>
>And what am I supposed to do with callers who don't show CLID or are
>out of area or international callers? And just FYI not everyone has
>CLID either. All cellphone plans do not include CLID and it's an
>extra cost item.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>

Just offhand, can you name a specific carrier who charges extra for,
or does not provide Caller ID?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 3:32:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

What is a SIT tone?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 6:48:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:32:47 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
<jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

> What is a SIT tone?

Google has this to say about it: (one of many links)
http://www.ahk.com/Special%20Information%20Tones.pdf
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 10:10:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, scott14661 mused:
|
| C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
| for what it's intended for.

It's not the end all be all ... I just now got a call from someone
wanting to sell me a fireplace insert ... (second one from them).
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 4, 2005 10:11:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, Brian Gordon mused:
|
| You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
| landline at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just
| can't find them.

I have plenty. They have all given me a call, or sent me an email, with
their new number. Perhaps your friends don't want you to find them. ;-)
April 5, 2005 12:04:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

mhicaoidh wrote:
> Taking a moment's reflection, scott14661 mused:
> |
> | C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
> | for what it's intended for.
>
> It's not the end all be all ... I just now got a call from someone
> wanting to sell me a fireplace insert ... (second one from them).
>
>

I don't even know what a fireplace insert (unless it's one or more
logs), but you've indicated something about a second one. Have you
purchased one of these from them before?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 5, 2005 2:54:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
them.

Which says alot about how much of a 'friend' they might be...
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 5, 2005 2:59:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

> I don't even know what a fireplace insert (unless it's one or more
> logs), but you've indicated something about a second one. Have you
> purchased one of these from them before?

Or been dumb enough to fill out one of those free raffles at a local
shopping mall?

TANSTAAFL folks.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 5, 2005 8:31:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

"DevilsPGD" <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message news:sjd151dnm8opn0gmlmrki3e2sn79evk28a@news.readfreenews.net...
> In message <pgW3e.28808$hU7.14886@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> "John
> Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message news:D 2np2v$7hm$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> In article <XXI3e.4138$x4.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> Todd Copeland <todd@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>>>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>>>landline
>>>>> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>>>>simply ask for their phone number.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
>>> don't see each other that often.
>>
>>You've heard of email and snail mail?
>
> Sure -- Where will you get their address? The phonebook?

Uh, is this really a friend, or just some stranger you're stalking?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 5, 2005 8:31:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,misc.consumers (More info?)

In message <two4e.19165$DW.6114@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> "John
Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

>"DevilsPGD" <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message news:sjd151dnm8opn0gmlmrki3e2sn79evk28a@news.readfreenews.net...
>> In message <pgW3e.28808$hU7.14886@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> "John
>> Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message news:D 2np2v$7hm$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> In article <XXI3e.4138$x4.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>>> Todd Copeland <todd@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>>>>>"Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:D 2nj3s$e6q$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>>>>landline
>>>>>> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>>>>them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>>>>>simply ask for their phone number.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
>>>> don't see each other that often.
>>>
>>>You've heard of email and snail mail?
>>
>> Sure -- Where will you get their address? The phonebook?
>
>Uh, is this really a friend, or just some stranger you're stalking?

I have plenty of people I'd call friends, but unless I've been to their
house there would be no need for me to have their address.


--
HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken; A lifetime commitment for a pig
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 5, 2005 10:19:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

in response to the question about what carriers still charge extra for
caller ID and don't include it with the plan...there are certain nextel
plans (and i can't believe nextel has the *ahem* balls to do this) that
charge extra for things like caller ID and voicemail. Or atleast that
was the case a few months ago...

as to the rest of the discussion...i have made it known to every one of
my friends/relatives that i do not answer phone numbers that i do not
know. period. unless i can take a guess of who it is...i won't answer
any number thats not already in my phonebook or if the number is
blocked. If its important enough, they will leave a voice mail. My
phone will let me know right after they've called if i have a voicemail
or not...and if they leave one, i check it and then call them back.
Whats wrong with that? A good number of people i know are the same
way.


--
FLyGTi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t171475.html
April 5, 2005 10:53:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

FLyGTi wrote:
> in response to the question about what carriers still charge extra for
> caller ID and don't include it with the plan...there are certain nextel
> plans (and i can't believe nextel has the *ahem* balls to do this) that
> charge extra for things like caller ID and voicemail. Or atleast that
> was the case a few months ago...
>
> as to the rest of the discussion...i have made it known to every one of
> my friends/relatives that i do not answer phone numbers that i do not
> know. period. unless i can take a guess of who it is...i won't answer
> any number thats not already in my phonebook or if the number is
> blocked. If its important enough, they will leave a voice mail. My
> phone will let me know right after they've called if i have a voicemail
> or not...and if they leave one, i check it and then call them back.
> Whats wrong with that? A good number of people i know are the same
> way.
>
>


Well, here's one you don't know that feels the same way. I consider
callers that hide their ID to be like someone ringing my doorbell, and
when I respond and look out the peephole to identify the pop-in, they've
got a thumb over the lens. I consider this behaviour to be childish,
unacceptable, and will likely leave the thumb stranded on the porch
indefinitely because I'm going to quietly go back to whatever I was
wasting my time with before Mr/Ms thumb showed up. Truth is, if they
can't exhibit better behaviour than that, they deserve to be stranded
with the garbage.



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
April 6, 2005 7:57:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:53:40 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>FLyGTi wrote:
>> in response to the question about what carriers still charge extra for
>> caller ID and don't include it with the plan...there are certain nextel
>> plans (and i can't believe nextel has the *ahem* balls to do this) that
>> charge extra for things like caller ID and voicemail. Or atleast that
>> was the case a few months ago...
>>
>> as to the rest of the discussion...i have made it known to every one of
>> my friends/relatives that i do not answer phone numbers that i do not
>> know. period. unless i can take a guess of who it is...i won't answer
>> any number thats not already in my phonebook or if the number is
>> blocked. If its important enough, they will leave a voice mail. My
>> phone will let me know right after they've called if i have a voicemail
>> or not...and if they leave one, i check it and then call them back.
>> Whats wrong with that? A good number of people i know are the same
>> way.
>>
>>
>
>
>Well, here's one you don't know that feels the same way. I consider
>callers that hide their ID to be like someone ringing my doorbell, and
>when I respond and look out the peephole to identify the pop-in, they've
>got a thumb over the lens. I consider this behaviour to be childish,
>unacceptable, and will likely leave the thumb stranded on the porch
>indefinitely because I'm going to quietly go back to whatever I was
>wasting my time with before Mr/Ms thumb showed up. Truth is, if they
>can't exhibit better behaviour than that, they deserve to be stranded
>with the garbage.


I like your analogy. I had never thought of it like that before. I
too do not like to answer my phone unless I know who is calling. I'll
have to use your door ringer in the future.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 6:39:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

So, all of you "privacy" folks: if your wife/husband/parent/daughter/son
is in a accident and cannot give your number to anyone, they just won't
be able to contact you. Some plan. Better think it thru.


--
teleguy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t171477.html
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 7, 2005 2:57:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

I'm going to agree with other poster's statements about not answering
the phone for a number I don't recognize. Anyone that has any reason
to contact me has my number and I have theirs. If someone that I know
calls me from an unrecognizable number, I don't answer it either.
That's why I have a voice mailbox. I'll check that and if it's someone
that I need or want to talk to, I'll gladly respond at my earliest
convienance. Generally my friends and family know that I don't answer
the phone for unknown numbers, and expect to have to leave a Voicemail.


I think my philosophy on answering phone calls is completely acceptable
and is done more people than you would think.


--
FLyGTi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t171475.html
!