sw@indetech.com (Steve Warner) (11/15/90)
Tonight I received the first telemarketing call in some months. The
call went something like this...
Me: Hello?
TMS (Telemarket Slease): Is Jane Frazzlebottom there?
Me: Sorry - there is no one here by THAT name!
TMS: Is John Frazzlebottom there then.. This is AT(&)(N)T Calling...
Me: No - No one here by that name either, sorry.
TMS: Did I call the correct number (415) nXX-xxxx?
Me: Yes that is my number now
TMS: Oh - you must have had the number only a short while then.
Me: (catching on to this crap) What company did you say you are
with???
TMS: AT(&)(N)T. [sounded like AT&T but was slurred very expertly]
Me: Did you say AT [AND] T or AT [N] T.
TMS: AT [N] T.
Me: You guys are a joke.
Click.
This was obviously going to degrade into some sort of push to switch
to their brand of rotten LD service. And if I hadn't seen someone HERE
mention that someone was using ATNT as a company name - I may have
fallen for it too.
The line they called me on is one of three, which I changed numbers
to, in order to get PAC*BELL message center. Previously my lines were
on a new prefix which never got telemarketing.
As soon as I hung up, it rang again - annoyed I answered, thinking it
was ATNT again - the caller asked if my paper was arriving ok, this
is the {San Jose Mercury News} calling. (This REALLY happened.)
Time to change that number BACK to the orginal prefix!
Steve Warner fremont, ca, USA etc replys to: sun!indetech!stables!sw
[Moderator's Note: A story in TELECOM Digest in 1988 told about a
fellow here in Chicago who had incorporated his business using the
name "The Phone Company". He was selling an insurance policy dealing
with phone repair/replacements as needed, just like Illinois Bell with
their 'Line Backer' service. The Illinois Consumer Protection Office
made him stop. I feel rather certain ATNT is so close in sound to AT
and T that when Mother finds out about his scheme he'll get sued and
be forced at the least to change his name to something not infringing
on theirs. PAT]dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (11/18/90)
In article <68864@bu.edu.bu.edu>, stables!sw@indetech.com (Steve Warner) writes: > to their brand of rotten LD service. And if I hadn't seen someone HERE > mention that someone was using ATNT as a company name - I may have > [Moderator's Note: A story in TELECOM Digest in 1988 told about a > fellow here in Chicago who had incorporated his business using the > name "The Phone Company". He was selling an insurance policy > dealing... A friend of mine here in New Jersey owns an unincorporated business which operates under the name New Jersey Telephone Bell Company. As far as I know, his business has never done much advertising, and is not particularly visible. Perhaps this is why the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, a local utility, hasn't bothered him. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [Moderator's Note: Well this guy in Chicago had phone solictors calling people, telling them they were calling from "The Phone Company", and inviting them to sign a contract giving them free repair of their telephone and the use of a loaner set as needed. Needless to say most folks thought he was calling from the phone company. His fatal mistake was in telling one person he contacted that he was associated with IBT. He accidentally called an IBT security guy at home to peddle his repair/telephone loaner service. IBT later admitted they could not stop him from being incorporated as "The Phone Company" since IBT does not own that trademark. Nor could they prevent him from sending out bills each month which looked amazingly like theirs. They *could* stop him from saying he was associated with IBT, and they did. In the meantime, the Illinois Consumer Fraud office convinced the man it would be a good idea to abandon his use of the phrase "The Phone Company". PAT]
omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) (11/20/90)
Here's one to watch out for. I got a call from a guy:
Hi, Mr. Hartnett, how're you doin' today? {standard telemarketing opener}
{ whenever someone asks that - I know they're a salesman/woman }
You didn't get the extra premium on the last batch of computer ribbons
you ordered from us - a Sony clock radio - so we're sending it out
right away. Someone from our shipping department will get back to you
and get the details as to where to send it.
{ At this point, I know he's a liar. we buy *all* our ribbons from
a local guy. So I bite my tongue and hang on for the ride. }
Yes, sir, and we'll also put down oral approvals for your standard
offer...
{ I interrupt now: }
Are you trying to set me up with a printer order?
{ He slowly starts to lose it, then he goes overboard. }
No, no, we're just trying to adjust the gerbils and the frimjims ...
we need to know the exact size so you can fit them correctly up your ...
{ He hangs up }
Beware these guys, they often get a secretary. We had a period where
we went through a new secretary once a week for about eight weeks. I
think he nabbed them for about three orders. We refused them,
naturally, but it's still a pain.
Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu.CSNET
Brown University Computer Science omh@cs.brown.edu
uunet!brunix!omhDavid Lesher <wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> (04/06/91)
We got hit by the {Miami Herald's} Telesleeze dialer yesterday.
Seeing as we just got DID with about one hundred incoming numbers, it
was a royal pain. I immediately asked the name of the man in charge of
this verbal whorehouse. He actually accepted my call. (Gee - working
for the people I do has SOME advantages ;_) I demanded he remove our
entire trunk group from his machine. Time will tell if he does or not.
But the real reason I write today was his claim that newspapers are
immune to the law about telesleezi. He said it was a First Amendment
issue. I pointed out that I had reread the First Amendment very
recently, and sure did not see anything about newspaper telemarketing
in it ;-} He backed off, and said it was a Supreme Court decision. I
did believe THAT either, so I checked. Here's what I found:
Florida Statute section 501.059 allows residential subscribers to get
on a "no sales solicitation calls" listing maintained by the Dept of
Agriculture Division of Consumer Services ($10 first time, $5 yearly
renewal).
Once you're on the list, unsolicited telephone sales calls can not be
made to you except (1) in response to your express request, (2)
primarily in connection with an existing debt or contract, (3) to any
person with whom the solicitor has a prior or existing business
relationship, or (4) by a newspaper publisher or his agent or employee
in connection with his business.
(This from a friend in the state gov't.)
So I guess the newspaper lobbyist got their bonus paid this year.
John Hignon, I suggest that you do NOT move to Florida.
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM