kolling@decwrl.DEC.COM (Karen Kolling) (02/12/86)
> I thought it might serve as an indication to the rest of you that we > can indeed make this stuff illegal. Ever notice that these jerks (oops, I should be more polite) never identify the company in the recording, so you can't call THEM up and complain. Now if we could only outlaw sales phone calls made by humans. As a feeble gesture of protest, I never buy anything sold this way, and if I'm doing business with the company already, I stop. Goodbye subscription to the Sunday NY Times, because their sales dept wouldn't stop calling and trying to sell me the daily Times, etc.
flackc@stolaf.UUCP (Chap Flack) (02/13/86)
> > I thought it might serve as an indication to the rest of you that we > > can indeed make this stuff illegal. But if we made the stuff illegal, we'd miss all the fun, like the time I came home to find that a computer had called up and conversed for five minutes with my answering machine. :-) -- --------------------- Chap Flack ihnp4!stolaf!agnes!flackc Carleton College ihnp4!stolaf!flackc Northfield, MN 55057
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (02/15/86)
The last time I got a computerized call I left a message that if they called me again I would sue them for invasion of privacy. Don't know if it worked, but I haven't had such a call since (several months.) Yes, didn't know who it was, but I assume we both could figure out it wouldn't be too hard to discover (respond affirmatively next time and when they follow up, call your lawyer.) I don't even know if you could win such a law suit but if they think you can and stop bothering you, you win. -Barry Shein, Boston University
edg@micropro.UUCP (Ed Greenberg) (02/17/86)
>> > I thought it might serve as an indication to the rest of you that we >> > can indeed make this stuff illegal. But we DID make this stuff illegal! At least in Califoo, the PUC requires that all computerized calls be preceded by a human that asks permission to unleash the machine. That's the gist of the proposed law in whatever state is under discussion here. Unfortunately, this law is totally unenforcible. The PUC referred me to the Phone Company, but they warned me that I had to identify the callers. Now we all know that the callers never identify who they are, rather, they invite YOU to identify YOURSELF!!! Thus, they call and call and call. The Phone Co. has no interest in putting them out of business, since they're generating revenue (probably for the calls, at least for the basic lines) and you can't even report them. Since the annoyance factor is so high in trying to identify these people and reporting them just for spite, the "law" has no teeth at all. Now: Getting rid of these machines. THEY DO NOT HOLD THE LINE UP BEYOND 15 SECONDS... 30 AT THE MOST. It is human curiosity that keeps you from clearing your line. Most people hang up and immediately pick up again, to see if they've lost the call. All you must do is hang up and walk away. Count off 30 seconds on your watch. Pick up the phone and your dial tone will be there. -e -- Ed Greenberg | {hplabs,glacier}!well!micropro!edg MicroPro International Corp. | {ucbvax,decwrl}!dual!micropro!edg San Rafael, California | {lll-crg,ptsfa}!micropro!edg
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/20/86)
[ Discussions about automated phone call machines for sales presentations.] > But we DID make this stuff illegal! At least in Califoo, the PUC > requires that all computerized calls be preceded by a human that asks > permission to unleash the machine. That's the gist of the proposed law > in whatever state is under discussion here. > > Unfortunately, this law is totally unenforcible. The PUC referred me > to the Phone Company, but they warned me that I had to identify the > callers. Now we all know that the callers never identify who they are, > rather, they invite YOU to identify YOURSELF!!! > > Thus, they call and call and call. The Phone Co. has no interest in > putting them out of business, since they're generating revenue > (probably for the calls, at least for the basic lines) and you can't > even report them. > > Since the annoyance factor is so high in trying to identify these > people and reporting them just for spite, the "law" has no teeth at all. > > Now: Getting rid of these machines. THEY DO NOT HOLD THE LINE UP > BEYOND 15 SECONDS... 30 AT THE MOST. It is human curiosity > that keeps you from clearing your line. Most people hang up and > immediately pick up again, to see if they've lost the call. All you > must do is hang up and walk away. Count off 30 seconds on your watch. > Pick up the phone and your dial tone will be there. > -e > -- > Ed Greenberg | {hplabs,glacier}!well!micropro!edg > MicroPro International Corp. | {ucbvax,decwrl}!dual!micropro!edg > San Rafael, California | {lll-crg,ptsfa}!micropro!edg When someone's life is bleeding away, 30 seconds is a long time. With a modern (electronic) exchange, you can't break the connection on most anyone in just a few seconds. What makes these nuisance devices so difficult to disconnect? If my inability to call an ambulance or police because of one of these machines caused someone to suffer serious injury or death, I would feel perfectly justified tracking down the company originating the call and KILLING whoever was responsible for it. I've had my phone tied for three minutes before -- it's true that I didn't leave it hung up for 30 seconds (I didn't think ANYTHING could deal with disconnect that long without hanging up), and next time I will let it wait longer. On second thought, maybe I will listen to the pitch and have someone call me back so I can get the company name.
kpk@gitpyr.UUCP (02/24/86)
There is a method to "get back" at computerized calls that do
not identify themselves (as most do not), but it is only
appropriate to those of us who are really ticked off and willing
to do something about it:
EVERY computerized call gets my name, phone number, and a request
to PLEASE call me. When they do, I ask the caller to identify
himself, and then I hem and haw away a few minutes of their time
(often excusing myself to answer a call at the door ... 5 minutes
later..."Oh, are you still on the line, sorry I was gone so long...").
When I think I've finally exhausted their patience, I tell them
that I have no intention of purchasing their product.
It's probably not effective, but
IT'S SOOOOOOOOO SATISFYING!!!!!steves@tektools.UUCP (steve shellans) (03/15/86)
In article <1463@gitpyr.UUCP> kpk@gitpyr.UUCP writes: > >There is a method to "get back" at computerized calls that do >not identify themselves (as most do not), but it is only >appropriate to those of us who are really ticked off and willing >to do something about it: > > EVERY computerized call gets my name, phone number, and a request >to PLEASE call me. When they do, I ask the caller to identify >himself, and then I hem and haw away a few minutes of their time >(often excusing myself to answer a call at the door ... 5 minutes >later..."Oh, are you still on the line, sorry I was gone so long..."). >When I think I've finally exhausted their patience, I tell them >that I have no intention of purchasing their product. > > It's probably not effective, but > > IT'S SOOOOOOOOO SATISFYING!!!!! I, also, have the same desire. But here is one thing to consider. The person who calls you back is just a poor working stiff, trying to make ends meet. Often, its a second job for someone, or a housewife trying to earn a few extra dollars. The caller gets paid a commission only. To compensate for strategies like the one you describe, the company need only use more people -- it costs them next to nothing. So, bottom line, 99% of that strategy impacts the wrong party. You might argue that if the caller had to deal with a lot of responses like that, his or her commission would be so low on an hourly basis, that it would not be worth their time to do it, and they would quit. Trouble is, the 'management' would just get someone else -- no matter how many people quit, there's always someone else who would get suckered in.
dts@cullvax.UUCP (Daniel T Senie) (03/17/86)
I find that computerized solicitation machines tend to call me mid-day. Since
I am never home them, my answering machine takes the call. Since I NEVER
answer any of the silly things anyway, this arrangement is great!
If nobody answers the phone, the machine will try again later, but if the
machine picks up, they can't tell, and assume a human hung up on them!
--
Daniel T. Senie TEL.: (617) 329-7700 x3168
Cullinet Software, Inc. UUCP: seismo!{ll-xn,harvard}!rclex!cullvax!dts
400 Blue Hill Drive ARPA: rclex!cullvax!dts@ll-xn.ARPA
Westwood, MA 02090-2198