back to article Net neutrality haters spam Californians with annoying robocalls

The California State Assembly is voting today on a revised net neutrality bill for the state – one that would likely create a standard that other states will adopt. Needless to say, cable companies – who successfully lobbied to kill such rules at the federal level – are not excited about the move. In fact, the bill at the …

  1. Shadow Systems

    I got that call this morning.

    I let my answering machine record the robocall blurb then hit 1 to get connected to my political rep. The robocall wanted me to demand my rep vote against the bill, I told them to vote FOR it, then I played them the recording of the robocall. I suggested they ask any callers they got to demand their rep not vote for the bill if they had gotten that robocall as well, then tell the caller that the robocall was a scam.

    I hope more folks demand their reps vote FOR the bill & thus use the robocaller's tactics against them. Not only do we NOT do what you wanted, we do the exact opposite in effort to show you just what a bunch of shitbags you are.

    Bastards.

  2. Kev99

    Robocall prevention?

    Telcos need to know who to bill for services, and with whom to interconnect. This requires them to know the originating phone number. So why can't they use that technology to block spoofing and some robocalls?

    1. Geoffrey W

      Re: Robocall prevention?

      It's amazing what Telcos can do. I got a call from my wife, her personal number and caller ID, and she was sitting next to me at the time with her hands doing non-telco related things. I asked her what she wanted - she shrugged and said "I dunno...". What a wasted phone call. Women, huh...?

  3. Someone Else Silver badge

    Shocked! Shocked, I say!! NOT!!!

    From the article:

    Well, you'll be surprised to hear they are not who you imagine. Unless you equate health insurance companies, oil companies, drug companies, banks and car manufacturers with civil justice.

    Kieran, you're from this side of the pond, so please excuse me while I correct you: Nobody on this side of the pond who has ever received a robocall would be surprised by this. Nobody!

    1. Geoffrey W
      Happy

      Re: Shocked! Shocked, I say!! NOT!!!

      I'm someone also from your side of the pond, so allow me to suggest you adjust your British Sarcasm detector as it appears to be a little out of tune and firing on only one cylinder.

      1. A. Coatsworth
        Happy

        Re: Shocked! Shocked, I say!! NOT!!!

        I have a bigger problem with this paragraph:

        In fact the Civil Justice Association of California is the big catch-all lobbying organization in California for every American mega-corporation you've heard of: Eli Lilly, ExxonMobil, Ford, Koch Companies, GlaxoSmithKline, Shell, State Farm and so on

        As someone who lives in the left hand side of the Pond, but waaaay south of the border, I have NEVER heard about several of these megacorps. Hopefully, my life will continue as usual if I don't even take the time to DDG Eli Lilly or Koch.

        That's not to say I don't care about the whole net neutrality brouhaha... far from it

        1. Geoffrey W
          Happy

          Re: Shocked! Shocked, I say!! NOT!!!

          I live left-pondian but am very much right-pondian and even I've heard of Lilly Pharmaceuticals and Koch Industries. These are mega global corps intent on, along with all the other mega corps, extracting every penny we the little people possess so they can have it all, you hear, all of it, everything. You need to get out more while you still can... :-)

        2. Someone Else Silver badge

          @A. Coatsworth -- Re: Shocked! Shocked, I say!! NOT!!!

          As someone who lives in the left hand side of the Pond, but waaaay south of the border, I have NEVER heard about several of these megacorps. Hopefully, my life will continue as usual if I don't even take the time to DDG Eli Lilly or Koch.

          I envy you....

      2. Someone Else Silver badge

        @Geoffrey W -- Re: Shocked! Shocked, I say!! NOT!!!

        Being of Brit descent, I get their peculiar form of humo(u)r. Kieran's bylines are from the San Francisco bureau, so I would have expected that all that wry British Sarcasm would have been washed out by now, replaced by good ol' Yankee in-yer-face, smack-em-down, confrontational humor. YMMV.

        1. Geoffrey W

          Re: @Geoffrey W -- Shocked! Shocked, I say!! NOT!!!

          RE: American humour

          Americans do sarcasm too. I think their problem with me, and presumably most other Brits, is that I tend to be a bit sarcastic all the time, about pretty much anything, and they don't expect sarcasm in those situations so they don't know how to react. I can't help it. I'm sorry. [/s]

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Six of one...

    "We also love the addition of "a proposal by San Francisco politicians" – as if it matters where in California a lawmaker that proposes a bill comes from."

    IMO they could just as well said "California politicians" with similar effect, but the SF angle is slightly more alarming to most people in the country, so that's what was used.

    1. Cuddles Silver badge

      Re: Six of one...

      "IMO they could just as well said "California politicians" with similar effect, but the SF angle is slightly more alarming to most people in the country, so that's what was used."

      It's the California State Assembly voting on a Californian bill that will affect only California. Blaming it on Californians probably isn't going to be particularly alarming to residents of California.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Six of one...

        > "Blaming it on Californians probably isn't going to be particularly alarming to residents of California."

        Who's blaming it on "Californians" in general? And BTW, know that California as a state has a deep split between (on the one hand) the rich coastal enclaves and "immigrants" (Democrats mostly), and on the other, the interior folks who are much more conservative, not being quite as rich and privileged. That's what's driving all the talk of splitting up California into two or three separate states. Those conservatives are tired of having their lives dominated by two mega cities brimming with fat cats and the newly arrived Democrat voters who do for them.

        I grew up in that state, and I no longer recognize it.

        1. Geoffrey W

          Re: Six of one...

          I'm an outsider to California but my impression is that the move to split California into two is driven mostly by those rich mega city technocrats and not the other way round. It's the rich SF/LA area residents who seem to begrudge their finances filtering out to the great unwashed in the rest of the state and want to form their own state, or perhaps their own republic.

          A general principal seems to be that the more money you have the more conservative you tend to be.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Six of one...

            > "...my impression is that the move to split California into two is driven mostly by those rich mega city technocrats and not the other way round."

            No, the rich Democrat urbanites are happy the way it is, with them in complete charge of the entire state and its tax revenue. Why would they want to give up power? It's the long-standing inhabitants (whites and the hispanics/latinos who arrived centuries before them) who are getting the shaft.

    2. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: Six of one...

      "San Francisco Poilitiicans" is dog-whistlese for "Loony Lefty Types That Are After Your Hard Earned Cash To Give Away To Freaks And Illegals".

      Unfortunately a lot of the electorate are what we euphemistically call "Low Information Voters". They respond to dog whistles which is why they're getting calls like this. (The original target was seniors, BTW.)

  5. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Bring it on

    I can't think of anything more likely to turn anyone against something than pestering them in this way.

    The only way this works in sales is that it gets a small percentage of takers at the expense of pissing off a large majority.

    If there are a large number of competing alternatives (e.g. double glazing, the obvious example) there's no way of knowing whether those pissed off would have bought from the caller, the competition or, indeed, not bought anything. In that case the salesmen can, with no fear of contradiction, believe they've made a gain. When the choices are limited - for, against or ignore - the cumulative risk of turning ignore into against makes it a pretty dumb proposition.

  6. Eddy Ito

    There is of course absolutely no suggestion that net neutrality rules would somehow increase cell phone bills – that is complete nonsense.

    Oh, I don't about that. If it's from a sockpuppet of AT&T and Verizon, I could easily see them upping everyone's cell phone bill if this passes.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021