[opendtv] Re: D.C. Circuit rejects FCC attempt to expand TCPA protections
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:00:02 -0400
On Mar 17, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Monty Solomon posted:
https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ideas/articles/2017/04/12/dc-circuit-rejects-fcc-attempt-to-expand-tcpa-protection
That act was about junk faxes, so not very relevant to today. What is
relevant to today is the reactions of our phony-baloney disingenuous and
crooked FCC Chairman.
No Bert. It was, as stated by Chairman Pai, an act intended to protect
consumers from unwanted solicitations via your beloved POTS networks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_1991
Junk faxes are one of several provisions of the act, with includes the national
do not call registry.
Before seeing this news piece, I saw the Chairman's reaction to it:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0316/DOC-349765A1.pdf
"Today's unanimous D.C. Circuit decision...
So, as have others, the Chairman is linking this antique act to spam phone
calls. Fair enough.
No just fair Bert. The act was written to protect us from spam phone calls.
Sadly it exempts the politicians who use all of these techniques during
political campaigns. I have no problem with my Congressman using robo calls for
updates; our Congressman now notifies us of town hall meetings via phone and
encourages us to join in these events live.
But what is far more sad is the daily barrage of calls I get on y cellphone
from ILLEGAL solicitations using untraceable spoofing techniques, or just plain
violating the law.
That's the only way it can still be relevant. But where the only issue with
the act was whether or not people should be able to opt out easily of all
such junk faxes, or only unsolicited ones, is a big who cares. What matters
more is the way this Chairman expanded the words in that old act, and what he
wants to conclude from it.
It is not a big who cares for a company caught violating the law. This case was
important, as many companies have escaped large fines by claiming that they had
at some time in the past a legal reason to call or fax a consumer. THis
decision gives the FCC another tool to deal with unsolicited calls.
So, he's doing it again. Every single time Chairman Pai complains about
"regulatory overreach," it is because he wants to shirk his responsibilities.
I've learned to expect that Chairman Pai is doing the exact opposite of what
his disingenuous rhetoric claims.
No Bert. YOU are doing it again. Thankfully you have given us a little break
recently. Talk about unsolicited spam!
The classic example, of course, is how he wants to wash his hands of
enforcing telecom neutrality in this country, calling his crooked campaign
"restoring Internet freedoms." What a phony. The FCC's job, from the start,
has been to enforce telecom neutrality. Not to encourage the telecoms to
block and degrade legitimate businesses, only to favor a handful of telecom
providers.
Sorry Bert, but the Net Neutrality decision has nothing to do with
telecommunications. ISP service is an information service as legally definite
do by COngress in 1996, and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006. Cable
broadband has nothing to do with telecommunications, although cable companies
CAN offer POTS service over their cables, just as is the case form Magic Jack
and other VOIP service. The intent of Congress was to remove the heavy handed
regulatory regime on telecommunications beginning in the early ‘80s. As a rule
consumers now enjoy much lower rates for traditional telecommunications
services AND multiple competitors in the rapidly evolving wireless telco/data
industry.
So this time, same phony-baloney rhetoric we have come to expect, pretending
that millions of Americans were at some sort of "risk," pretending he gives a
hoot about consumers, when in fact, he is only making it easier for the
vermin who inundate us with unsolicited calls. I've been noticing how these
unwelcome calls escalated while Chairman Pai has been in office, and it is
just this sort of crooked, backhanded behavior of the FCC that encourages
them.
No Bert, Chairman Pai has be very active in trying to deal with these illegal
calls. Unfortunately, the way the act is written, the telcos are not allowed to
block these calls; something to do with neutrality in connecting ALL telephone
calls...
The FCC does not have the authority to order the Telcos to block connections
from spoofed numbers. And blaming Chairman Pai for the escalation inn these
calls is just plain moronic.
It is downright idiotic to think that the courts would go after individuals
who use speed-dialing on their phones. Honestly, too stupid for words. And
yet, unwanted marketing calls of all types, be they robocalls or by real
people, have been increasing, in spite of the do-not-call list.
Yup. But this has been going on for more than a decade. One of the reasons is
that it was easy to fine companies that called cell phones. But with number
portability, and consumers switching carriers, the offenders have been able to
skirt the law.
Anything that weakens that do-not-call rule is bad news for all of us. As
always, phony oily rhetoric, pretending he's doing us a great favor, wow,
he's actually keeping all of us out of jail, while instead failing to do the
job the taxpayer expects him to do. Do your job! If you can't, resign!
He is doing his job Bert. Unfortunately WE are now resigned to your unwanted
solicitations.
As with Net Neutrality, the proper solution to these issues is for Congress to
act. In that regard I agree that they should “fire” the Chairman and the other
appointed cronies at the FCC. It is time to shut this agency down.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
