wnp@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) (12/03/89)
In TELECOM Digest 9/541, Bill Parrish <bparrish@hprnd.hp.com> discusses Phone Solicitation in a hospital labor room and goes on to comment: > My feeling is that this kind of thing is getting out-of-hand and will > have to be dealt with just because of the volume of junk calls. If a > woman in labor can't even be free of this kind of peskiness, something > legislative is probably called for. The reason she can't be free from this kind of peskiness is the way this industry works. A friend of mine who complained at being called at an inopportune time and wanted to be excempted from future calls was told that they just call numbers in sequence, without even knowing in advance what type of subscriber is on the other end -- a residence, a business, a hospital, etc. And that is the thing which needs to be outlawed -- it should be prohibited to place calls to random numbers. If the direct marketers want to use the telephone, let them research their prospective customers, and call only numbers where they know at least the name of the private individual (if that's their target) or business (another legitimate target) who happens to be the subscriber. Hospital patient lines are not legitimate targets, nor are payphones in high schools, etc. -- there are certain groups of people, and certain environments, which should be protected from this nuisance. And it should be possible to get one's name struck from the lists of phone subscribers thus compiled. But I suspect that this is all to idealistic, and nothing will happen to change the way the marketing industry works. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: (Office) [43] (2236) 71521-465 (Home) [43] (1) 22-46-913 UUCP: uunet!mcvax!tuvie!iiasa!wnp DOMAIN: iiasa!wnp@tuvie.at
wnp@relay.eu.net> (12/03/89)
In TELECOM Digest 9/541, Bill Parrish <bparrish@hprnd.hp.com> discusses Phone Solicitation in a hospital labor room and goes on to comment: > My feeling is that this kind of thing is getting out-of-hand and will > have to be dealt with just because of the volume of junk calls. If a > woman in labor can't even be free of this kind of peskiness, something > legislative is probably called for. The reason she can't be free from this kind of peskiness is the way this industry works. A friend of mine who complained at being called at an inopportune time and wanted to be excempted from future calls was told that they just call numbers in sequence, without even knowing in advance what type of subscriber is on the other end -- a residence, a business, a hospital, etc. And that is the thing which needs to be outlawed -- it should be prohibited to place calls to random numbers. If the direct marketers want to use the telephone, let them research their prospective customers, and call only numbers where they know at least the name of the private individual (if that's their target) or business (another legitimate target) who happens to be the subscriber. Hospital patient lines are not legitimate targets, nor are payphones in high schools, etc. -- there are certain groups of people, and certain environments, which should be protected from this nuisance. And it should be possible to get one's name struck from the lists of phone subscribers thus compiled. But I suspect that this is all to idealistic, and nothing will happen to change the way the marketing industry works. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: (Office) [43] (2236) 71521-465 (Home) [43] (1) 22-46-913 UUCP: uunet!mcvax!tuvie!iiasa!wnp DOMAIN: iiasa!wnp@tuvie.at
Ge' Weijers <ge@sci.kun.nl> (12/07/89)
iiasa!wnp@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >And that is the thing which needs to be outlawed -- it should be >prohibited to place calls to random numbers. If the direct marketers >want to use the telephone, let them research their prospective >customers, and call only numbers where they know at least the name of >the private individual (if that's their target) or business (another >legitimate target) who happens to be the subscriber. It would be enough if public opinion would consider those who use unsolicited phone calls to be unreliable. Never deal with companies that use phones in such an intrusive way. Let them go broke. Don't give the courts something extra to do. A nice technical solution: put a 'what-a-jerk' button on every phone, by using the # or * keys. If you're annoyed push it. If a telephone subscriber gets too many black marks he is disconnected, except for emergency numbers. Ge' Weijers Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands tel. +3180612483 (UTC-2)
Steven_Tenney <10e@hpcvia.cv.hp.com> (12/07/89)
Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want any telemarketers/solicitors calling. If telemarketers do call the particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could be fined heavily (up to $25,000). Needless to say this will kill the computerized random calling technique in Oregon.
briang@bari.sun.com (Brian Gordon) (12/09/89)
In article <1902@accuvax.nwu.edu> 10e@hpcvia.cv.hp.com (Steven_Tenney) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 557, message 5 of 11 >Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol >placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want >any telemarketers/solicitors calling. If telemarketers do call the >particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could >be fined heavily (up to $25,000). Needless to say this will kill the >computerized random calling technique in Oregon. ... but only FROM telephones in Oregon. Callers in other states won't be affected by an Oregon law, and probably won't even have access to the "symbols" even if they wanted to comply. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Brian G. Gordon briang@Corp.Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) | | ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (12/10/89)
In article <1902@accuvax.nwu.edu> 10e@hpcvia.cv.hp.com (Steven_Tenney) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 557, message 5 of 11 >Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol >placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want >any telemarketers/solicitors calling. If telemarketers do call the >particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could >be fined heavily (up to $25,000). Needless to say this will kill the >computerized random calling technique in Oregon. Oh, dream on! Do you think for one microsecond that ALL or even most telemarketing directed at Oregonians originates inside Oregon? No offense, but I seriously doubt that major telemarketers set up boiler rooms in Oregon itself. And how will the phone police *prove* (remember proof? it's required in court) that any particular calls originated within the state boundaries of Oregon? In California, junk callers are required to get the victim's permission before sicking a machine on them. When I tried to turn one in that didn't, they said, "Oh, we make all of our telemarketing calls from Wisconsin." I knew they were lying, but it was EOD (end of discussion). I predict the new law will have negligible effect on the computerized random calling technique in Oregon. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !