Talk:Robocall/Archives/2012

Robocall???

Does anyone still use robocalls at least as describe in this article? I have received automated telemarketing calls in NZ and although I don't know for sure, I highly doubt they are robocalls as describe in this article. Almost definitely, it's completely computerised nothing mechanical involved. Perhaps robocall is just the name that has stuck in the US even though the process is different or perhaps there is a legal reason why they use robocalls but I think this article is probably very confusing to many people. It sounds like the US is still stuck in the 70s Nil Einne 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people hate getting robocalls, so there's not much point for a telemarketer who wants to sell you something to use them. But political campaigns typically use them to publicize endorsements. You pick up the phone, and the recording startsFor example: "Hello, this is John Kerry, I'm calling to endorse Deval Patrick. Deval ..... " or "Hi, this is Mike Smith. I'm a registered Democrat and a working man. This year I'm voting for the Republican Keith Mercurio because he understands...."

Most people slam the phone down within seconds, as soon as they realize that it's a recording. You don't need to be polite to a recorded voice. This common response was the basis of a new use of robocalls in the 2006 offterm election, as the NRCC sent out robocalls in about 50 Congressional races, scripted so that (if you hung up after 10 seconds) you assumed Democrats were making the call. "Hello, I'm calling with information about [the Democratic candidate]..." Then the script has a little pause, where most people would hang up. People who got many repeats of these calls, sometimes late at night or in early morning, called Democratic offices to complain about "their" outrageous robocall campaign. I'm hoping that existing laws against harassing phone calls will be used to prosecute those responsible, and that new laws will further limit the use of such tactics. betsythedevine 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people may hate robocalls, but enough people respond to them so that it's worth the fairly low cost to the telemarketing company to use them. This is one of the basic principles of telemarketing. It's called "trolling for suckers."24.61.102.223 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

External link

An analysis of current US state by state law is growing at Winning Calls and should be included as a reference in this article. User Calltech is prohibiting such a link under cover of WP:EL. However, it is suspicious that user Calltech protects a link on Voice broadcasting to a commercial website by Database Systems Corp. 71.208.176.112 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL, particularly regarding adding links to a commercial website which you have done here and at Voice broadcasting. WP is not a forum to promote your website or business. Thank you. Calltech 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Calltech for not restoring the Database Systems Corp. link I deleted from Voice broadcasting as you had previously protected this link during several page edits spanning over several months. WP is not a forum to promote your website or business. 71.208.176.112 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Robocall removal website is NOT linkspam

The Link in the article on Robocalls is NOT linkspam, it is a useful reference for consumers to remove themselves from receiving Robocalls. I have nothing to do with that organization. As far as I can tell they are a non-profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.85.109 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no force of law backing that website or the registry. It is essentially an online petition. The website has advertising banners and attempts to up-sell users to an annual pay service. Neither appear to have any guaranteed result except to allow the operators of the organization appear on television and say they have X number of names in the database. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

References to CNN article with advice on blocking Robocalls is timely and relevant

Whomever keeps deleting the valid, timely, and relevant citations to the CNN which mentions a way that people can opt-out of Robocalls is committing VANDALISM and apparently a supporter of McCain whose agenda is to hide the truth and important information so that people can opt out of these harassing robocalls. Leave this information in the article, or you will be reported to WP authorities and the article will be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.85.16 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek Article

Here is a great article on the history, rhetoric, and strategy of Robocalls in Newsweek: Stop Calling Me!--HoboJones (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Sources on Robocall Law

This legal essay, Regulating Robocalls, has details on all the state and federal laws covering robocalls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.166.76 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This essay seems to have been self-published by its author onto an open website. Does it have some additional pedigree that would help it to meet WP:V? betsythedevine (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So far the only independent pedigree I see is praise from http://politicalactivitylaw.com/?p=1187 68.40.166.76 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Robocalls are often a very effective way to target a specific group of people without bothering those who might not have an interest in a particular product or service. Most Robo-calls are sent to a purchased list of phone number with demographics that match the products being sold.

These are highly dubious statements. In fact, many robocalls in the US are illegally and indiscriminately made by scofflaw telemarketing outfits, using false caller ID numbers, without regard for one's interest in the product or status on the Do Not Call list. It would not surprise me if the majority of these calls are made by companies using illegal practices.

Even disregarding the illegal calls, the main advantage of robocalls is that they are extremely cheap for the telemarketing companies, thus they can use them much less discriminately than live human calls. Whether or not they bother people who do might not have an interest in the product is not an issue to most telemarketing companies. Dforest (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate Uses

Shouldn't this article list some of the legitimate uses of robocalls? E.g., important public notices such as disaster information and school closings. Wouldn't it be legitimate for a political candidate to use robocalls to respond to a last minute (election eve) disinformation campaign by his opponents? There are probably others.Bostoner (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

UK

This article doesn't cover anywhere other than the US (as happens often) but they do exist elsewhere - this UK ruling is one example. 86.149.132.143 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Robocalls have been used in the Australian Federal Election 2007 and Tasmanian State Election 2010 as mentioned in this news article. Notable that the "Electoral Commissioner ... confirmed there were no electoral laws controlling political phone calls." Barrylb (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada

I've removed the entire section about the robocall controversy in Canada. This article is about laws regarding robocalls not current events on investigations. If Canada passes a law about the use of robocalls by political parties, then it could be mentioned. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the article on robocalls should be limited to laws about them. Political use of robocalls is just as significant as laws about them. This article is called "Robocalls", not "Laws relating to robocalls". I'm restoring the section. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 06:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)