Talk:National Do Not Call Registry/Archives/2012

Major page cleanup September 2007
I noticed some advertising on the article and in the process of removing it, I ended up performing a major page cleanup. This is my first significant change on Wikipedia, so if you see something I've done wrong, please let me know or correct it. I also removed the tone flag that has been in the article since the first revisions. RyanAlbarelli 05:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: So what you have done is deleted a major portion of text in the name of editting and clean up. You have placed form over substance as you have not given an indication that you know about the subject or that you objected to the substance.  What use to be on the page was a detailed point by point listing of what was necessary for a cause of action under do not call.  You have replaced this with a link to FCC material - do you know whether the FCC material is in fact accurate and properly reflects the law?  I wrote the section you deleted -- and I guess I am getting tired of being edited by people who do not themselves know the subject matter.  It is unfortunate that the public no longer has the advantage of a detailed explanation of the legal cause of action.  But hey, we have to conform to your editing agenda.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcannon100 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Please check WP:Own. Nobody owns the material in Wikipedia, and if you think the data should be there, by all means put it back, with your sources noted. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Other
As far as I can tell, you cannot register business phone numbers unless you choose to register them as residential. I have also discovered that you cannot register a fax number, home or business, but that it is always illegal to send unsolicited faxes. So, if you're getting junk faxes you can report the sender to the FCC.

In [this] edit the editor claims to have made a phone call, which would be original research. Do we delete the content or leave it until a non-original source can be found? Smeggysmeg 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Phone conversations tend to present unreliable information. Look for true primary sources. In this case, this would include regulations, laws, orders, and agency fact sheets. All of those are available online. 192.104.54.21 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Fred

Exceptions

 * Political solicitations are not covered by the National Do Not Call Registry.
 * If the call is really for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is not covered.
 * I removed the above lines, because it would appear they are already covered in the first line of the section. Hence their inclusion is redundent. Mathmo Talk 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Update Needed
I see that 90 days was changed to 31 days, and I think that is correct. There were two recent changes that I do not see reflected, one may have been addressed which is the new requirement for telemarketers to update their do not call lists every 30 days. I am not sure of the exact wording so perhaps someone could check this out. The second is not exactly related to the do not call list but might be useful to include anyway and that is a new requirement that caller ID has to be used, beginning with number identification and continuing to include organization name and number (two line caller id). Anyone have any information on this?

Isn't Bush pro-telemarketer?
This article makes it seem like US President George W. Bush has been in favor of protecting the privacy rights of individuals against telemarketers, but hasn't he done other things to make it easier for the telemarketers? 12.201.36.174 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)User:Shanoman

Proposed New Article = National Do Not Call Registry
Proposed New Article = National Do Not Call Registry

Why? If we have an article for US Do not call registry, why not have an article for DO NOT CALL REGISTRY in general. Later in that we can have sections for different countries according to the rules and regulations of the respective country.

Dhoomady (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am For  the suggestion. Reason = the ideal situation is ..
 * National Do Not Call Registries
 * United States National Do Not Call Registry
 * United kingdom National Do Not Call Registry
 * Australia National Do Not Call Registry
 * Indian National Do Not Call Registry

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

i totally agree with the first person because if we keep do not call registary in general and keep different sections for different countries according to rules and regulations of the respective countries then the people who want to access the do not call registary of their respective countries can easily get the needfull like the second person above came here for the suggestion of the respective countries mentioned above Anoopnair2050 (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)