I had to share my letter from

[LPPT]

I participated in an online letter campaign to let my Representatives know that I did not want companies given permission to solicit me on my cell phone.

My understanding is that companies could not make unsolicited calls and text to my cell phone. My understanding is I will have to jump through various hoops and renewals to put a stop to it, when I already had protection from it under an existing law.

I received this letter this morning.

 

I recently removed my land line for one reason, it was getting as many as 20 sales calls a day.

 

These companies may give a lot to their campaigns, but all the signs, post cards, and TV commercials will not persuade me to vote for someone that does not care about me.

 

I have been pleased with Mr. Gingrey up until now, but I will think of him every time I answer my cell phone and it is a sales pitch. This effects my quality of life on a daily basis and he needs to take that into consideration.

I hope that he makes the right decision on this and if it does pass it is very strict as to actual business and zero solicitation on upgrades or deals.

But I have never had any issues with any of the companies I am already doing business with calling to discuss current business and that is why I am highly suspicious of this.

The paragraph in red means to me that if I have ever done business with a company that they can call me and solicit me, such as upgrades to services, and special offers. I have done business with thousands of businesses during my life, I do not want to be bombarded by them with special deals and offers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for contacting me to express your opinion regarding H.R.

3035, the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011. As your Congressman,

I appreciate hearing your thoughts and welcome every opportunity to be

of service.

 

 

 

As you may be aware, H.R. 3035 was introduced by Representatives Lee

Terry (R-NE) and Edolphus Towns (D-NY) on September 22, 2011. If

enacted, it would facilitate informational, non-telemarketing,

communications between consumers and the companies with whom consumers

already choose to do business.

 

 

 

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), a company

can hand-dial a consumer on a mobile phone or could use an automated

dial to reach a consumer on a wireline phone. Currently, nearly 40% of

consumers rely on wireless phones as their primary or exclusive means

of communications, thereby excluding them from receiving the same

information as those with a wireline phone. H.R. 3035 maintains the

protections under TCPA that would prevent unwanted telemarketing calls

to one's mobile phone.

 

 

 

H.R. 3035 was referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee's

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, of which I am a member.

On November 4, 2011, the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on

H.R. 3035 to thoroughly examine the bill. Please be assured that I

will keep your thoughts in mind on this legislation as Subcommittee

continues to consider it.

 

 

 

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. If you feel that I may be

of additional assistance on this, or any other matter of importance to

you, please do not hesitate to contact me. I also invite you to sign

up for my weekly email newsletter, or to share your ideas and opinions,

by visiting my website at http://gingrey.house.gov

or emailing me at

gingrey.ga@mail.house.gov .

 

This is the TPCA

 

General provisions

 

Unless the recipient has given prior express consent, the TCPA and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules under the TCPA generally require:

 

Solicitors may not call residences before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., local time.

The solicitor must maintain a "Do Not Call" (DNC) list, which must be honored for 5 years.

Solicitors must provide their name, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or address at which that person or entity may be contacted.

Solicitation calls cannot be made to residences with artificial voices or recordings.

Calls cannot be made with artificial voices or recordings to cell phones or to any service in which the recipient is charged for the call.

Prerecorded or autodialed calls cannot engage two or more lines of a multi-line business or to any emergency number.

In a related section, unsolicited advertising faxes are also prohibited.

In the event of a violation of the TCPA, individuals are entitled to collect damages directly from a solicitor for $500 to $1,500 for each violation, or recover actual monetary loss, whichever is higher.

 

The major limitation of this law as enacted was that it was ineffective at proactively stopping unsolicited calls in that the consumer had to request of each telemarketer to be put onto that telemarketer's do-not-call list. This burden was lifted by the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act's establishment of the National Do Not Call Registry and adoption of the National Do-Not-Call list by the FCC in 2003

 

The CAN-SPAM Act made a minor amendment to the TCPA to explicitly apply the TCPA to calls and faxes originating from outside the U.S.

 

The portions of the TCPA related to unsolicited advertising faxes were amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

[jsbeagle]

Sounds like it does for Cell phones exactly what was done for land lines several years ago.

 

If your land line is on the Do Not Call list, then companies you have previously done business with CAN call you now, despite being on the list.

 

If you don't want calls on your cell phone, don't give the number out. Its not in the phone book like your land line.

[rednekkhikkchikk]

If you don't have a landline phone, your cell number is generally the one you use when you are filling out darn near anything these days that asks for a phone number (which is usually * required ).

 

 

 

In a related section, unsolicited advertising faxes are also

prohibited.

 

 

ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha

 

tell that to the fools wasting our ink & paper on a daily basis. I would tell them myself but they won't identify themselves because they are fully aware they are violating the law. Sure, they put an opt-out number on the fax. Who knows what they do with your # when you call and enter it into their system? Does that establish the relationship required to bring them into compliance? No thanks.

 

I'm sure the fine ladies & gentlemen who write these laws will do all they can to protect the (paying) public's privacy and peace of mind...

 

 

You should not have to jump through even one hoop to be spared never-ending sales pitches and the like via phone service that YOU pay for.

[NewsJunky]

Write to Congressman Tom Graves and see what he says about this. Paulding will be/is in the 14th District not in the 11th. Congressman Graves is running for the 14th and Phil Gingrey will be running in the 11th.

[LPPT]

Write to Congressman Tom Graves and see what he says about this. Paulding will be/is in the 14th District not in the 11th. Congressman Graves is running for the 14th and Phil Gingrey will be running in the 11th.

 

Thank you I will check, he is not the only one that got the letters, he was the only one that responded. I respect that he answered me, even in a form letter.

I am genuinely very concerned about this issue or I wouldn't have publicized the letter. This is a huge invasion of my privacy. I would like to think that they are regular folks like me and also hate all the calls. I received one today from Washington state, if I don't want anymore calls I have to listen to the message, follow the prompts to be removed from their list. I didn't ask to be on their list of people to call, I shouldn't have to waste my time getting removed. I am assuming that the law was protecting me from this as it should.

 

Rnck, I work in 2 offices that don't have fax machines for exactly that reason, you pay for the line and the paper to be annoyed all day

 

I have no issues with passive advertising, I need products and services like everyone else, this is an invasion of privacy as far as I am concerned. I should not have to beg you to stop filling up my voice mail everyday. I have better things to do than listen and erase for 10 minutes every day.

[NewsJunky]

Thank you I will check, he is not the only one that got the letters, he was the only one that responded. I respect that he answered me, even in a form letter.

I am genuinely very concerned about this issue or I wouldn't have publicized the letter. This is a huge invasion of my privacy. I would like to think that they are regular folks like me and also hate all the calls. I received one today from Washington state, if I don't want anymore calls I have to listen to the message, follow the prompts to be removed from their list. I didn't ask to be on their list of people to call, I shouldn't have to waste my time getting removed. I am assuming that the law was protecting me from this as it should.

 

Rnck, I work in 2 offices that don't have fax machines for exactly that reason, you pay for the line and the paper to be annoyed all day

 

I have no issues with passive advertising, I need products and services like everyone else, this is an invasion of privacy as far as I am concerned. I should not have to beg you to stop filling up my voice mail everyday. I have better things to do than listen and erase for 10 minutes every day.

I actually called Phil's office about this a few months ago. I agree with all of your statements.