On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:54:00 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
jonathan@localhost wrote:

Michael Cargill wrote:

"Just Another Legal Fan" wrote in message
ups.com...
I thought this one was a windup but no.... In the US, spammers can
now legally call your mobile and YOU pay for the call! What the ****
is the matter with these Yanks?

Erm, I think you will find that it is an urban myth.

It isn't quite an urban myth. In the US, you do pay to receive calls on
your cell phone.

Quite true.

It is illegal for telemarketers to call mobiles, but I suspect that is about
as difficult to enforce there as it is to enforce telemarketing regulations
here.

Also true. It seems to work fairly well - I've lived in the US for
several years. Since signing-up for the 'do not call' I've received
very very few calls on my house phone. I've *never* had a problem from
telemarketers on my cell - the few calls I have had were from my bank
trying to sell me crap, and stopped when I told them to.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

"Just Another Residents Fan" wrote in message
ups.com...

TNR wrote:

Just like most things you post Tilley, bullshit.

New Romantic my arse!!!

I got told today by someone who you have known for years
that you are just a old man who is always on the ****......

Typical !!!!

You be suprised if you ever find out who it is...

There you go again.

TNR

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:33:50 +0100, Broadback
wrote:

Sounds like it, or there'd be a massive class-action lawsuit in the offing!

So what is the difference between that and UK receiving, for example,
unsolicited "Jokes" on their mobiles for which they have to pay?

It is only possible for that to happen if you have *asked* to receive
the "service".

Haha. Legally, yes, but in practice, there's nothing to stop
unscrupulous text cos doing so anyway. And they do.


IOW they may not be sent unsolicited.

Indeed - "may" not. Not "are" not, nor "can" not.

The acceptance
is usually tacked onto the end of the conditions you agree to if
requesting a "free" ringtone, game or picture for your mobile, and so
it catched out lots of children.

Catched?

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:18:01 +0100, Dave Newt
wrote:

The acceptance
is usually tacked onto the end of the conditions you agree to if
requesting a "free" ringtone, game or picture for your mobile, and so
it catched out lots of children.

Catched?

Typo, sorry. Should have been "... catches out lots of children". I
hate it when a typo results in what looks like dreadfully ignorant
grammar!

I do not believe that such reverse-charge texts *are* sent out
unsolicited. I've had the same mobile number for about 10 years
(except that it had a "7" added to the front at some point), and I
have never received a single one. It appears only to affect people
who are prone to getting ringtones and games.

--
Cynic

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:18:01 +0100, Dave Newt
wrote:

The acceptance
is usually tacked onto the end of the conditions you agree to if
requesting a "free" ringtone, game or picture for your mobile, and so
it catched out lots of children.

Catched?

Typo, sorry. Should have been "... catches out lots of children". I
hate it when a typo results in what looks like dreadfully ignorant
grammar!

I hate pedants who pick up on an obvious typo!

Alan

TNR wrote:

You be suprised if you ever find out who it is...

There you go again.

Glug glug glug lard arse...

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:21:02 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
wrote:

The acceptance
is usually tacked onto the end of the conditions you agree to if
requesting a "free" ringtone, game or picture for your mobile, and so
it catched out lots of children.

Catched?

Typo, sorry. Should have been "... catches out lots of children". I
hate it when a typo results in what looks like dreadfully ignorant
grammar!

I hate pedants who pick up on an obvious typo!

It was not *that* obviously a typo - though I hope the regulars know
that my grammar is gooder that that. :-)

--
Cynic

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:21:02 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
wrote:

The acceptance
is usually tacked onto the end of the conditions you agree to if
requesting a "free" ringtone, game or picture for your mobile, and so
it catched out lots of children.

Catched?

Typo, sorry. Should have been "... catches out lots of children". I
hate it when a typo results in what looks like dreadfully ignorant
grammar!

I hate pedants who pick up on an obvious typo!

It was not *that* obviously a typo - though I hope the regulars know
that my grammar is gooder that that. :-)

It's obviously better than mine!(:-)

Alan



--
Cynic

In uk.legal Jonathan Bryce jonathan@localhost wrote:
Michael Cargill wrote:

Erm, I think you will find that it is an urban myth.

It isn't quite an urban myth. In the US, you do pay to receive calls on
your cell phone.

It is illegal for telemarketers to call mobiles, but I suspect that is about
as difficult to enforce there as it is to enforce telemarketing regulations
here.

How would a telemarketer *know* that they are calling a mobile if they
are simply calling random numbers, or numbers in a sequence?

Axel

In uk.legal on Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Paul Hyett wrote :
In uk.legal on Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Michael Cargill
wrote :
"Just Another Legal Fan" wrote in message
roups.com...
I thought this one was a windup but no.... In the US, spammers can
now legally call your mobile and YOU pay for the call! What the ****
is the matter with these Yanks?

Erm, I think you will find that it is an urban myth.

Sounds like it, or there'd be a massive class-action lawsuit in the
offing!

No, I was wrong - cell phone users *are* charged for both incoming &
outgoing calls in the US - though probably cheaper overall than British
charges.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:41:49 GMT, wrote:

How would a telemarketer *know* that they are calling a mobile if they
are simply calling random numbers, or numbers in a sequence?

By the prefix - same as they know whether they are phoning London or
Baltimore. IIUC all numbers beginning with "07" in the UK are
mobiles.

--
Cynic

In uk.legal Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:41:49 GMT, wrote:

How would a telemarketer *know* that they are calling a mobile if they
are simply calling random numbers, or numbers in a sequence?

By the prefix - same as they know whether they are phoning London or
Baltimore. IIUC all numbers beginning with "07" in the UK are
mobiles.

My US mobile has the same prefix (i.e. the first 3 digits of a 3-3-4
format number) as the land line I use. I should check up on the
billing, although I don't think that incoming calls incur charges
on my part... although I use it so little that everything gets
absorbed by the monthly minute allowance.

Axel

Paul Hyett wrote:

No, I was wrong - cell phone users *are* charged for both incoming &
outgoing calls in the US - though probably cheaper overall than British
charges.

Unlikely. It costs more to call from one side of america to the other than
it does to call from britain to america.

wrote:

It is illegal for telemarketers to call mobiles, but I suspect that is
about as difficult to enforce there as it is to enforce telemarketing
regulations here.

How would a telemarketer *know* that they are calling a mobile if they
are simply calling random numbers, or numbers in a sequence?

Exactly. That is the problem.

Cynic wrote:

By the prefix - same as they know whether they are phoning London or
Baltimore. IIUC all numbers beginning with "07" in the UK are
mobiles.

US cell phones get the same area codes as land lines in the same area.
There is no way of telling by looking at the number, and the cost to the
outbound caller is the same for both.