1. The subscribers who do not wish to receive telemarketing calls are required to be registered with NCPR which gives them a flexibility of receiving preferential calls or blocking them 100%.
2. The telemarketing business is to be carried out by only and only registered telemarketers and each of the registered telemarketers will originate the calls from a number starting with 140 so that receiver can identify the call and opt whether to attend or not. This identified series is for all subscribers who are not registered with NCPR because the registered NCPR subscribers are not required to be disturbed from telemarketing calls at all or preferential blockers.
I seek now views of the two sets of the members whether they are being disturbed by the telemarketers 1) The subscribers who are registered with NCPR and 2) the subscribers who are not registered as per above two criteria laid down by TRAI. The 2nd set of members may please inform as to whether they are able to identify the telemarketing call or not as per TRAI regulations. You may like to visit my blog to have more information about telemarketing business. The link is
In my experience, the so called regulations by TRAI which also provides for a fine of Rs. 500/- for non-compliance is only to benefit the TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS and not to give any respite to the consumer who pays for the service.
Despite DND registration, tele-marketing calls, SMSs keep coming without any restraint.
The very concept of registered tele-marketing is a crude joke on the consumers. Why should a consumer be troubled by these agencies which are generally outsourced and the Principal company remains unscathed? The principal company - be it a consumer company, a bank or an insurance company etc. pays the outsourced company to make the calls and send SMSs.
The telecom service provider gains by such traffic and seldom takes any step to curb the menace despite the so called TRAI regulations.
TRAI does not guarantee any relief to the consumer and only says that it would attempt to impress upon the telecom service provider for discipline but the consumer may have to approach legal recourse for inconveniences.
Writing to TRAI also is of scant or no use as no action is taken nor perhaps TRAI has any authority to take punitive measures.
When DND complaint is lodged, the telecom service provider takes devious methods to dodge any action and provides lame excuses such as the complaint is written after the mandatory 3 days period, hence no action is warranted, even when the complaint is lodged on the very same day of the offending call or SMS.
Secondly, the telecom service provider does not take any action when the offending caller is its subscriber.
Thirdly, the telecom service provider evades action under some pretext or the other when the offending caller is from a bank or insurance company from whom the telecom service provider is enjoying financial facilities.
Everyone, the TRAI, the Govt., the service provider, the marketers etc. need money and they would reach out to the subscribers as the data of the mobile phone users is 'SOLD' to these outsourced agencies by the telecom service provider itself, by the banks who violate KYC norms, the insurance companies by flouting privacy conditions and even the courts do not provide relief as evidence of such offense is hard to come-by.
Telecom service providers also play havoc by sending bills with wrong address even when their record and verification agencies have provided the correct address along with the correct address proof and the telecom service provider refuses to correct this despite months of follow up. Finally the telecom service provider takes a stand that they have sent the bills properly month on month but the consumer is falsifying to harass. Writing to TRAI on this has the same result as shouting on the deaf ears.
So, who is TRAI meant for - is it the consumer's safe guard of privacy or the monetary gains of the telecom service provider and these tele-marketers? In the bargain, even the TRAI gains favors when complaints are lodged and no respite provided to the complainant.
Who pays for all this misery, it is the Consumer who has to finally resign to the stand of continued harassment and suffering. more