November 18th, 2009
Bureau Of Transportation | One more mouth to feed.5 comments
November 11th, 2009
Washington Co. DA’s Office | Abusing a domestic violence law.25 comments
November 4th, 2009
University Of Oregon | Who’s killing Rudolph?7 comments
October 28th, 2009
Metro | A blowhard answer to global warming? 6 comments
October 21st, 2009
Michael Ruppert | Peak trouble for an Oregon author.23 comments
October 7th, 2009
Beaverton Police | Zero tolerance for video recorders.11 comments
September 30th, 2009
Lynn Peterson | C’mon, Dems. Are Kitzhaber and Bradbury that formidable?3 comments
September 23rd, 2009
Denny Doyle | Beaverton mayor hits a foul ball.3 comments
September 2nd, 2009
Oregon Bankers Association | For bailouts, then against them.6 comments
August 19th, 2009
Wal-Mart | Save money. Live worse.9 comments
![]() |
[May 22nd, 2002] Two weeks ago, the Better Business Bureau sponsored its annual Scam Jam, an event held to assist consumers from getting ripped off by scammers--many of them telemarketers.
Little did many of the attendees--or most Oregonians--know the one of the biggest ripoffs is an offering from Qwest that professes to protect consumers against those same telemarketers.
Here's the deal: Oregon's Department of Justice offers a program called "No Call" (www.ornocall.com), which, for $6.50 for the first year and $3 per year thereafter, allows people to list themselves on a no-call list to which telemarketers must adhere. Violators face fines of up to $25,000 and the Department of Justice has already levied more than $450,000 in fines.
By law, Qwest is supposed to tell customers about this feature either by inserts in their phone bills or by "conspicuous publication of the notice in the consumer information of local telephone directories."
A reader of the current Qwest directory will have to look hard to find information about the state's program amid the sea of other boilerplate. Brant Wolf of the Oregon Telecommunications Association, which administers the no-call service for the state, says Qwest's notification is hardly conspicuous.
"They put the information in the book," Wolf says. "But it's just verbiage."
Qwest spokeswoman Mary Healy says Wolf's cry is just sour grapes because Qwest and other phone companies have declined to allow his organization to publicize "no-call" in bill inserts. "They wanted us to promote their service that they profit from," Healy says.
Qwest is, of course, under no obligation to help a competitor, though Wolf notes that "lots of the smaller phone companies provide full-page ads and forms you can clip out and fax in to get the service."
The telecom giant crosses into roguishness because its own privacy services, "security screen" and "caller identification," cost far more than the state's program--$83.40 annually for caller ID and $35.40 for security screening, which you cannot get without caller ID--and, more importantly, they are less effective.
Neither provides a true impediment to pesky peddlers because, as Healy acknowledges, Qwest has no authority to penalize them.
"Qwest is doing what the law requires," Wolf says. "But are they really trying to serve the consumer? It doesn't seem like it."
The Rogue Desk is now--for a short time only--accepting nominations. Call (503) 243-2122, ext. 380, or fax or email or....
RECENT COMMENTS ON “Qwest”













