[LINK] Re: 'Do not call' phone list Bill shelved
lannet at lannet.com.au
Mon Nov 7 14:07:49 EST 2005
Brendan Scott wrote:
> Howard Lowndes wrote:
>> Jan Whitaker wrote:
>>> At 05:09 PM 4/11/2005, Brendan Scott wrote:
>>>> The most effective weapon against telemarketers would be a
>>>> requirement for them to present CLI on all telemarketing calls they
>>> Now that is the best idea I've heard. I don't know how else one is to
>>> track if they are contacted by a firm a second time or who is really
>>> calling against your wishes when a DNC comes into place. I get that
>>> many where I don't even understand the speaker that I couldn't tell
>>> you what company just called 5 seconds after I've hung up the phone.
>>> I understand that o/s calls show up as some special indication on a
>>> CLI display [I don't have one, so can't confirm].
>> Because of the differing ways in which CLID presentation is
>> implemented country to country (and even telco to telco sometimes)
>> almost all calls originating o/s do not display CLID. What your
>> handset displays in such cases is very much a function of your telco
>> and/or your handset. This is why the requirement for telemarketers to
>> display CLID would not be practical.
> Some responses:
> (a) There is no reason why calls originating from overseas (or in a non
> conditioned exchange within Australia - if there are any) can't be
> routed through a local number which presents CLI. The cost of
> compliance would be minimal. The point is that a unique number is
> consistently presented.
> (b) the requirement is to present CLI in accordance with established
> standards, not to ensure it displays properly on recipient's phone.
> (c) it is probably not strictly necessary, but consider also to have the
> cli presented being uniquely associated with one company (ie don't let a
> number of different companies present the same number).
> Requiring presentation of CLI provides sufficient information to allow
> the market to decide the right balance between privacy concerns and the
> needs of commercial interests.
It's all well and good having regulation in place to require CLID, but
how are you going to enforce it when the call centre is in Delhi or Pune
or Mumbai. You could make the Australian contracting party liable but
I'm not too sure how well that would stand up in court - you would
probably have a much better idea than me.
Also, software such as Asterisk can spoof outgoing CLID esp on VoIP
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people <http://lannet.com.au>
When you just want a system that works, you choose Linux;
When you want a system that works, just, you choose Microsoft.
Flatter government, not fatter government;
Get rid of the Australian states.
More information about the Link