Rudolf said:
Everybody loves Phil. If by everybody you mean no-one but his mother.
The real question is (spelling you out as you did not get it) "Why is that
acceptable to disturb business people?"
Answering those unwanted calls is a waste of time and money.
Because Phil will stick to the letter of what the 'do not call register'
stands for. Nothing useful. He doesn't count "allowed" callers as callers.
In real life, we the end users really don't care if the call comes from
someone flogging penis enlargement pills, or the royal society for charity.
At the end of the day, it's still one more call we have to take that is
counter-productive to our working day. This doesn't matter to Phil, because
it's within the do not call register "rules".
The do not call register has that many exceptions that it would make
virtually no difference at the end of the day to the telemarketers.
In fact, relating to your question to business customers, I can only
possibly see it get WORSE. If they had unabated freedom to call anyone,
anytime, and now they don't, they will _NOT_ just call less to meet their
restrictions. They will concentrate their calls to the demographic and hours
they can.
In other words, it's going to get worse. Or, at least, it's not going to
get better anyway.
I KNOW some have noted a reduction in calls, but personally (and the the
only reliable guide I have, is myself), I haven't noted ANY difference at all.
This has nothing to do with being acceptable. The do not call register is
purely a political move to make it "look like" they're doing something about
it, when in fact, it's little more than nothing.
This political smoke and mirrors doesn't last long, but it doesn't have to-
it just has to fool enough people for long enough to get to the next election.
Much like the wonderful free downloadable $186 million NetAlert "web filter"
software that was hacked by a teenager.