Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #272745

Complaint Review: RMG Communications - Clearwater Florida

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Holiday Florida
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • RMG Communications 2451 McMullen Booth Rd. Clearwater, Florida U.S.A.

RMG Communications Illegal fax blast service, needs to be shut down! Clearwater Florida

*Consumer Suggestion: This is an official CITATION, They have been busted (sort of).

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

This company is listed as a "fax service". But it is just an automatic dialer, calling prefix by prefix in numerical order. From what I could uncover, fishing for fax tones to add to their fax list so they can sell them. They have called my house no less than 30+ times in the past month at all hours of the day and night. You can't call or fax back, no one is there if you answer, sometimes fax tones.

There are dozens of complaints online, just look up RMG Communications or the number they call from 727-683-1570, and you'll see. Their carrier is Deltacomm but they are aware of the problem and say they can't do anything. I called Verizon's Unlawful Call Center, and they said they are getting 15-20+ complaints a day, so hundreds of people are being harassed by this company. This company is most likely just a new alias for the much prosecuted HOT LEADS company that was driven out of TX and GA, and other areas. I think it is horrible that the punishment is so light, they can just pack up and move elsewhere and start over each time.

And for the companies that hire these people to fax blast for them, find another way. What they are doing is illegal, and probably generates little to no revenue. Who buys health insurance off an unknown company that faxes you an ad at 3AM? Think of all the wasted calls, faxes, fax cartridges, paper, and time.
Not to mention all the innocent people getting calls on their home phone and cell phone at all hours of the night repeatedly for weeks and months.

This company should be shut down, and all involved, locked up. Deltacomm should be fined for not doing anything about it. If any other business found out it's client was practicing illegal activities with their services, they would be forced to shut it down. Apparently they aren't.

Fedup
Holiday, Florida
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 09/06/2007 09:23 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/rmg-communications/clearwater-florida-33759/rmg-communications-illegal-fax-blast-service-needs-to-be-shut-down-clearwater-florida-272745. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
1Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#1 Consumer Suggestion

This is an official CITATION, They have been busted (sort of).

AUTHOR: Dennis Ray - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, September 06, 2007

This is an official CITATION, They have been busted (sort of).

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1790A1.pdf




September 9, 2006

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

RMG Communications

Attn: Greg Horne

3401 Norman Berry Drive

Suite 114

East Point, GA 30344

RMG Communications

Attn: Greg Horne

6009 W. Parker Road

Suite 149-114

Plano, TX 75093

RE: EB-06-TC-250

Dear Mr. Horne:

This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5),
for violations of the Act and the Federal Communications Commission's
rules that govern telephone solicitations and unsolicited advertisements.
As explained below, future violations of the Act or Commission's rules in
this regard may subject you and your company to monetary forfeitures.

It has come to our attention that your company, acting under your
direction, apparently sent one or more unsolicited advertisements to
telephone facsimile machines in violation of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the
Communications Act, as described in the attached complaint(s). Section
227(b)(1)(C) makes it "unlawful for any person within the United States,
or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the
United States . . . to use a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or
other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile
machine." As relevant here, an "unsolicited advertisement" is "any
material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without
that person's prior express invitation or permission." Under Commission
rules and orders in effect during the relevant period here, the Commission
considered an established business relationship between a fax sender and
recipient to constitute prior express invitation or permission to send a
facsimile advertisement. Mere distribution or publication of a fax number,
however, does not establish consent to receive advertisements by fax.

If, after receipt of this citation, you or your company violate the
Communications Act or the Commission's rules in any manner described
herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed
$11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation.

You may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this
letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission's Field
Office nearest to your place of business, (2) a written statement, or (3)
a teleconference interview with the Commission's Telecommunications
Consumers Division in Washington, DC. Your response should specify the
actions that you are taking to ensure that you do not violate the
Commission's rules governing telephone solicitation and unsolicited
advertisements, as described above.

The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Atlanta Office,
Atlanta, Georgia; please contact Al McCloud at (202) 418-2499 if you wish
to schedule a personal interview. You should schedule any interview to
take place within 30 days of the date of this letter.

You should send any written statement within 30 days of the date of this
letter to:

Kurt A. Schroeder

Deputy Chief

Telecommunications Consumers Division

Enforcement Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

445-12^th Street, S.W., Rm. 4-C222

Washington, D.C. 20554

Reference EB-06-TC-250 when corresponding with the Commission.

Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon
request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need
including as much detail as you can. Also include a way we can contact you
if we need more information. Please allow at least 5 days advance notice;
last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send
an e-mail to [1]fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau:

For sign language interpreters, CART, and other reasonable accommodations:

202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty);

For accessible format materials (braille, large print, electronic files,
and audio

format): 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty).

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552(a)(e)(3), we are informing
you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant material information
before it, including information that you disclose in your interview or
written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is
required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act and the
Commission's rules.

The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment
of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

Kurt A. Schroeder

Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division

Enforcement Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

Enclosures

47 U.S.C. S 227; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200. A copy of these provisions is
enclosed for your convenience. Section 227 was added to the Communications
Act by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and is most commonly
known as the TCPA. The TCPA and the Commission's parallel rules restrict a
variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and
use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements,
including fax advertising. We refer in this citation to the Commission's
rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter.
Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. 47 U.S.C. S
64.1200(a)(3); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 - Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, Report and Order
and Third Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3787 (2006) (2006 TCPA
Report and Order).

We have attached 3 complaints at issue in this citation. At least 124
additional similar complaints are not attached but are available from the
FCC's complaint database.

47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(C); see also 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(3) (providing
that no person or entity may . . . use a telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a
telephone facsimile machine). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules
define "telephone facsimile machine" as "equipment which has the capacity
to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic
signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or to
transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received
over a regular telephone line onto paper." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(2); 47
C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(8). The Commission has stated that "[t]he TCPA's
definition of 'telephone facsimile machine' broadly applies to any
equipment that has the capacity to send or receive text or images." Thus,
"faxes sent to personal computers equipped with, or attached to, modems
and to computerized fax servers are subject to the TCPA's prohibition on
unsolicited faxes. . . [although] the prohibition does not extend to
facsimile messages sent as email over the Internet." Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14131-32 (2003) (2003 TCPA Report and Order).

47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(4) (1991); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(10) (2003); see 47
U.S.C. S 227 (a)(4) (2005); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(13) (2006) (amending
the definition of "unsolicited advertisement" to specify that prior
express invitation or permission may be "in writing or otherwise").

See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12405 (1995)
(1995 TCPA Reconsideration Order). The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005,
Pub. L. 109-21, 119 Stat. 359 (2005), and the Commission's parallel rules,
which took effect August 1, 2006, further specify, the conditions under
which an established business relationship provides an exception to the
prohibition on unsolicited fax advertising.

1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that mere publication of
a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate
consent to receive fax advertising).

Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1790

2

2

Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1790

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

References

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now