lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) (09/06/89)
Readers of TELECOM are familiar with discussions about how much some of
us would like to get Caller*ID so that we can fight back at
telemarketers. Well, the other day, I lost my cool, and decided to "do
something" about these calls; so I sent the attached letter to the
business that was bothering me, with copies to a number of others that
may help change the situation. I will keep you posted on any replies
that I may get.
/ Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 2227308 or (805) 9639431 ext 358
ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only
My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!
Santa Barbara, 31 Aug 1989
To: Santa Barbara NewsPress
Attn: Circulation Department
Cc: NewsPress "Letters" editor
Cc: Jack O'Connell, California State Assembly
Cc: General Telephone
Cc: California Public Utilities Commission
Cc: USENET comp.dcom.telecom (an electronic newsletter)
Cc: Consumer's Union
Re: Telephone Solicitations
I consider myself a reasonably calm individual, but there are a few hot
buttons that make me want to SCREAM. One of these is the ever
increasing privacy invasion caused by the ugly industry that calls
itself "Telemarketing". I get at least 5 calls every week from
political and charitable fundraisers as well as businesses, such as my
local newspaper with whom I already have a subscription.
Besides being a nuisance to consumer victims like me, I have been told
that "telemarketing" is a sweatshop industry pervaded by poor wages and
working conditions, often with no health insurance for its workers and
other unfair labor practices.
I feel uncertain as to what my best response should be to this menace.
I have tried unceremoniously hanging up on these calls, but that just
seems to make them call back. I have tried being systematically abusive
to the callers, hoping in the long run to make it hard for these
operators to find employees, but so far it does not work. I have tried
to "blacklist" and refuse to do business with companies and refuse to
support allegedly charitable organizations that engage in this
practice, but I find that I cannot give up my daily newspaper even
though they keep calling my unlisted number to sell subscriptions. I
have come to the conclusion that this practice should simply be
outlawed. A properly drawn bill might even take care of the "junk fax"
problem at the same time.
I would suggest the following initiatives might be useful:
1. A bill making it illegal to place or to order a subordinate to place
more than 10 unsolicited calls in a day to people who do not want them
or with whom you have had no prior business relationship. Such
misdemeanor to be punishable by up to 30 days in jail and or a fine of
up to $10,000 and forfeiture of equipment used to make such calls.
2. An order by the PUC to require all local exchange carriers to
install on their telephone switching systems the feature package
required to implement customerinitiated call tracing whenever such
software is available for the equipment installed. This feature causes
the switch note note the originating number of the last incoming call
for each subscriber line, and allows a customer dialed 3digit code
(such as #32) to cause this information to be written to a maintenance
log, from where it can be retrieved and released to law enforcement
authorities. This software is already available for the 5ESS switches
used in most areas, and this feature has been offered to the public in
several eastern states as part of the CLASS feature package (whose main
feature is the optional "Caller*ID" display.
3. A ruling by the PUC (may need support by federal legislation) that
calls into California are governed by California regulations. This
would put an end to the way California companies have been
circumventing the regulations governing telemarketing by contracting to
outofstate telemarketing organizations.
While the Caller*ID package has been regarded as controversial, and
even been opposed by the ACLU, I believe that implementing "Call Trace"
by itself would be an uncontroversial benefit. The privacy issues that
have been so divisive about the Caller*ID feature do not arise in this
context.
This would allow us to quickly put an end to obscene callers who
currently can harass women with relative impunity so long as they go
after a new woman each night.
Ending telemarketing solicitations would be a worthwhile thing.
Allowing for a small number of calls per day would allow reasonable
business use of the telephone to call customers for purposes of
verifying their address, follow up on orders etc. I believe that the
majority of businesses would support such an initiative, since they are
getting to be as annoyed with the telemarketing nuisance as I am.
Yours respectfully,
Lars Poulsen
125 South Ontare Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
/ Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 2227308 or (805) 9639431 ext 358
ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only
My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!newman@uunet.uu.net (Bo Newman) (09/07/89)
My regrets to the regular sane readers of and posters to this news.group. To the poster who wants to legislate the use of the telephone (10 calls per day e.t.c): My suggestion, and it is a sure fire -) one, is to buy two items. First a celluar phone, one of the portable ones you can take anywhere. The second is a small inflatable raft. Now the procedure for eliminating all ^JUNK CALLS^ to you. Inflate the raft, place the celluar phone in it, get in a paddle FAR OUT TO SEA (at least 100 Miles). Turn off the phone, and PULL THE CORK ON THE RAFT. That would accomplish two things, it would totally eliminate any chance of you being bothered by ^JUNK CALLS^ and second (and of far greater value to the free world) it would eliminate another irrational, isolationist, closed minded voice trying to freeze progress (and far trade) because it is i n c o n v e n i e n t ! (But then that could apply to just about any form of human contact if you really work at it.) ***** Disclaimer ? you bet, all of them. I got hot, I'll cool off, no one else need apply.
karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) (09/09/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0349m01@vector.dallas.tx.us> lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 349, message 1 of 4 >Readers of TELECOM are familiar with discussions about how much some of >us would like to get Caller*ID so that we can fight back at >telemarketers. Well, the other day, I lost my cool, and decided to "do >something" about these calls; so I sent the attached letter to the >business that was bothering me, with copies to a number of others that >may help change the situation. I will keep you posted on any replies >that I may get. IMHO you're out of line. When you get a telephone you lose that sense of "privacy" that you so cherish. The same is true when you use a charge plate, or register a vehicle, or do any one of a number of other "public" things. Next you'll scream about "junk mail" -- although it costs you nothing to throw it away (just as it costs you nothing, including your time, to IGNORE that ringing phone.) It's time that our society started putting responsibility with the INDIVIDUAL. Legislation is not the answer. Your suggestions are insulting. The solution to the problem you are facing is simple -- don't answer the telephone. We have become a society enslaved to that damn little bell, and it's time that the people realize that just because it rings YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER IT. If you want to insure that you don't miss something important then buy an answering machine and screen your calls -- tell your friends and relatives what you're up to so they don't hang up on it. Instant problem solved. The number of people who are hung up on legislative solutions amazes me. We used to be a country of free-thinking and free-acting people. Now we all of a sudden want to call for laws to ban this, that and the other thing. Whether it's telephone solicitations, guns or drugs, the point is the same. We are increasingly unwilling to take responsibility for our own lives and instead look to the government to solve all our problems. The trouble with this "solution" is that it isn't one -- in getting our carrot (regulation of this or that) we give up our freedom. You don't like telemarketing? I don't either. But you don't hear me screaming for laws -- I simply turn on the answering machine, and only pick up the phone if I want to. The rest can listen to my incredibly boring message, and waste the tape in the machine if they're so inclined. It can always be erased. Why is it that people think they're enslaved to that darn little bell? I am master of my machines, not the other way around. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (09/12/89)
Karl's "solution" to junk calls (use an answering machine to answer all your calls) doesn't work. Suppose I get an answering machine and use it to screen all my calls. Now suppose all my friends and relatives do the same. We'll never reach each other, because we're all just taping each other's messages instead of having conversations. There is a real and significant difference between junk mail and junk calls that Karl doesn't seem to understand. I can deal with junk mail at my leisure. I cannot do that with telephone calls. The telephone interrupts me. I refuse to screen all my calls with an answering machine because of the problem stated above. And I get _mighty_ upset when I jump out of the shower, or off the pot, to run and answer the phone, and it turns out to be some asshole selling timeshare condominiums. I agree completely that business users should be prohibited from making unsolicited telephone calls to residence telephones. (This would also stop telephone polls, a highly desirable side effect.) Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146 [Moderator's Note: Well Mr. Campbell, why don't you install a pot next to your phone, er, uh, I mean a phone next to your pot. Then put the pending call on hold or otherwise muffle the mouthpiece when you engage in the normal hygenic practices associated with concluding your visit to the water closet. Just the other day I had the dubious distinction of being seated on my throne when what should arrive on the devil's instrument but a call from the Rosehill Corporation, managing agents for our local industry, the Rosehill Cemetery. The young man wanted to sell me a prepaid burial plan and gravesite. My answer was a three letter word, "NOE", and I had but barely resumed my originally scheduled activities when the thing rang again. This time it was the <Chicago Tribune> wanting to know if my papers 'were arriving okay each day'. Thank goodness for my wall trimline phone in the kitchen with the 25 foot cord which stretches down the hallway and into the door of the water closet. PT]
miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) (09/13/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0365m06@vector.dallas.tx.us>, karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes: > [much about modern lack of individual responsibility deleted] > If you want to insure that you don't miss something important then buy an > answering machine and screen your calls -- tell your friends and relatives > what you're up to so they don't hang up on it. Instant problem solved. Fine--except for one problem. What about those folks who can't afford an answering machine? There are millions of the new "working poor" who need a telephone for their jobs, yet barely get by on a hand-to-mouth existence. I don't think it's fair for you and me to be able to solve our problems by spending money, while it's an option that many people don't have. It's just another example of how the "haves" have so many advantages over the "have-nots". And the argument that "answering machines aren't very expensive" doesn't apply. What is "not very expensive" to a single working mother who's trying to decide whether to buy beans vs. bread for the kids tonight? Imagine her some evening, frantically trying to cook dinner, stop the kids from fighting while getting them to do homework, do the house cleaning, all in a short enough time to maybe get a few hours sleep before the boss calls again--all interrupted by three calls from people trying to sell her some aluminum siding. Don't get me wrong--I think the bulk of Karl's article is very good, and his points about our society seeking legislative solutions for everything are highly valid. I urge everyone to re-read Karl's article, and think about how we all abrogate the responsibilities that we should be maintaining. I think Karl has zeroed in well on one of our most glaring faults. But I must take issue with his paragraph above. The idea that you can solve your problem by purchasing Product X only applies to those who have the money. Remember that such solutions always leave out a certain percentage of people--who are already rather resentful at being left out of the mainstream--and serves to futher widen the rich-poor gap. Note also that I am not proposing any specific alternative; I intend merely to point out the problems that exist with this approach. NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/14/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0370m08@vector.dallas.tx.us>, miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) writes: > Fine--except for one problem. What about those folks who can't afford an > answering machine? There are millions of the new "working poor" who need a > telephone for their jobs, yet barely get by on a hand-to-mouth existence. I > don't think it's fair for you and me to be able to solve our problems by > spending money, while it's an option that many people don't have. It's just > another example of how the "haves" have so many advantages over the > "have-nots". One of the nasty little realities of life, and it applies to telephone service as well, is that those with money can afford to have more than those without. To my knowledge, it has always been that way. One of my clients owns about fifteen automobiles, including some very expensive classic cars, while I drive an '85 Blazer and a motorcycle. Not really fair, is it? In this case, unlike depravation of food and shelter, the receipt of junk calls is hardly life-threatening. I know people who have their butler screen their calls, but it hasn't occurred to me to hire one for myself. Glad no one has suggested that as a solution, since as a member of the working poor, I can't afford one:-) Yes the "haves" have many advantages over the "have-nots". Else why would anyone want to become a "have"? It's also true by definition. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (09/17/89)
I said I hate to jump off the pot to answer phone calls from salespeople, and Our Moderator recommended: -[Moderator's Note: Well Mr. Campbell, why don't you install a pot next to -your phone, er, uh, I mean a phone next to your pot. Then put the pending -call on hold ... Why should I spend MY time and money to rewire MY house just to reduce the hassle level from assholes who invade MY personal space to sell me crap I neither want nor need? It is just as rude for total strangers to call me at home to sell me stuff as it would be for them to stop me on the street to sell me stuff. Or to knock on my door. Fortunately, door-to-door salesmen seem to have gone the way of the dodo. What we need for telephones are the moral equivalent of the "No soliciting" signs many apartment complexes have. Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146 [Moderator's Note: But strangers do stop passers-by on the street; if not to sell something, then just to beg for money or cigarettes, etc. And the Jehovah Witness people still come to my door every week without fail. Have you ever had to get off the pot to answer to the door for them? It is true that door-to-door salesmen for the larger commercial organizations have pretty much gone the way of the California Condor, but we still have many intinerant sales people, ala Fuller Brush salesmen coming around. What is your response to the innocent wrong number caller when you jump off the pot for them? As a purely pragmatic thing, it just makes sense to have a phone in a place where you don't want to be subject to a quick, untimely exit. Either that, or an answering machine. PT]
karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) (09/17/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0378m07@vector.dallas.tx.us> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 378, message 7 of 9 >Karl's "solution" to junk calls (use an answering machine to answer all your >calls) doesn't work. Suppose I get an answering machine and use it to >screen all my calls. Now suppose all my friends and relatives do the same. >We'll never reach each other, because we're all just taping each other's >messages instead of having conversations. Not if you SCREEN calls with the machine. The idea being here that you turn the volume up on the machine enough to hear it from where you normally are. Then you simply LISTEN to the incoming call. The person calling you identifies themselves after the beep, you hear them, and if you like the sound of the caller's voice THEN you are interrupted -- and pick up the phone. The machine that I have (and I suspect most modern ones as well) will drop off the line if I pick up any extension in the house during a call. Thus I can either (1) be interrupted and pick up the phone immediately, (2) let the call time out in 4 rings and allow the machine to get it, THEN decide whether or not to pick up after the person identifies themselves, or (3) let the machine take a message and call the person back later (if I want to). Maximum choice, minimum hassle. Works great if I am on the pot too -- the machine takes the call, and I can call back when I get done using the toilet or showering or whatever. >There is a real and significant difference between junk mail and junk calls >that Karl doesn't seem to understand. I can deal with junk mail at my >leisure. I cannot do that with telephone calls. The telephone interrupts >me. The telephone does not have to interrupt you. You can mask the interrupt in one of three ways: 1) Turn off the ringer. Then no one can get through to you except when you want to be interrupted (by turning on the ringer again). This has the undesirable effect that if someone you want to interrupt you calls, they can't reach you either. Such is (one) price of privacy. 2) Use an answering machine to screen the calls. This means you get to hear who it is on the other end BEFORE you pick up the phone. This has lots of advantages over even Caller*ID -- caller id gives you a number, but doesn't necessarily identify the >caller<, which is the purpose of this exercise. The machine does, since you get to hear a voice first. Finally, a Caller*ID number display may not guarantee you a return phone call path, as some lines are (on ESS switches) configured for outgoing calls only. There is a further advantage -- most telemarketers hang up when they get a machine, so in many cases all you hear is "ring ring ring <click>..... <click>!" Since I have started doing this I have not had to answer <one> "junk call", yet all my friends and relatives still manage to get through.... seems as though it solves the problem to me! 3) Ignore the ringer when you don't want to be bothered. Why do you have to answer something just because it is beeping for your attention? I certainly am not compelled to pick up the phone when it rings -- I do it by choice. >I refuse to screen all my calls with an answering machine because of >the problem stated above. And I get _mighty_ upset when I jump out of >the shower, or off the pot, to run and answer the phone, and it turns out >to be some asshole selling timeshare condominiums. > >I agree completely that business users should be prohibited from making >unsolicited telephone calls to residence telephones..... Why prohibit anything? Is having a telephone, and a silent one at that, a God-given right? I think not. You have several means at your disposal to deal with the problem. When you have telephone service installed you implicitly, by having an incoming number, make it possible for me to dial it. If the possibility of that phone ringing bothers you, then deal with it. Instead of taking responsibility for your own choices and results, you (and lots of other people) want the government to do it for you. Feh. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) (09/17/89)
[Our moderator writes:] >.... As a purely pragmatic thing, it just makes sense to have a >phone in a place where you don't want to be subject to a quick, untimely >exit. Either that, or an answering machine. PT] Or just let the damn phone ring. I installed the telephone for my convenience; when it is inconvenient to answer it, I don't. I often don't answer my front door either. Around here, most people who come to my door without appointment are either selling candy or religion, and they've clearly already ignored my "no soliciting" sign. Only my own overinflated respect for human life and the law keeps me from killing them on the spot and relieving the world of yet another pest. If there were a "kill calling party" button on your phone.... An interesting exercise: put a scorepad next to your phone. Each time you answer an incoming call, put a check in either the column "important" or "not important" (perhaps "worth answering" or "not worth answering" would be better categories). At the end of a month or so, count up the checks and you'll have some statistical basis for the "but it might be important" argument for your almost-Pavlovian response to a ringing phone. If the bell annoys you, stuff cotton into it so that it's a pleasant and unobtrusive sound. Perhaps this is the wrong newsgroup for rational(?) arguments about the importance of telephones to modern home life (grin). - Brian
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0380m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes: > Why should I spend MY time and money to rewire MY house just to reduce the > hassle level from assholes who invade MY personal space to sell me crap I > neither want nor need? Because you're the one who doesn't want it invaded. Surely, you don't expect the world to cater to your every whim? Life deals you what it deals you and it's up to you to handle it. But you have stumbled on to the very solution that I use to keep the solicitors away. Read on... > What we need for telephones are the > moral equivalent of the "No soliciting" signs many apartment complexes have. I don't know about moral equivalent, but I can suggest the practical equivalent. Callers who dial my listed number are all confronted with my machine. It offers callers three choices: 1. Leave a message, 2. Page me on my beeper, or 3. Force the call through to The-Real-Me. There is no default; if no DTMF digit is entered the system hangs up after 30 seconds. For the page and call-through options, there are appropriate warnings about misuse. In the two years that I have had this system, I can't recall being paged unnecessarily. Solicitors that "come through" have been warned about solicitation, so it's very easy to hang up on them. No automatic solicitation machine can get through (but who knows what the next generation may bring:-). My greeting recording changes according to the time of day, changing the options when I really don't want to be disturbed. With two years of experience, I can tell you that the system works. Now I'll answer your flames in advance. Callers without DTMF can't get through. I don't know of anyone I wish to speak to that doesn't have a touchtone phone. It's not cheap. A Watson and the host computer will set you back at least $1,500 (but if you have an old XT with at least a 20 meg drive, this could be new life for it.) On the "have not" to "have" scale, I would put this solution somewhere between "using a machine" and "hiring a butler". Remember, my first choice would be to have a butler:-) In addition, I have an electronic key set mounted next to the porcelain convenience that can access all necessary lines (soon the front door, also) just to be prepared for all eventualities. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (09/18/89)
A moderator note...
) ... As a purely pragmatic thing, it just makes sense to have a phone
) in a place where you don't want to be subject to a quick, untimely
) exit. Either that, or an answering machine.
In a pig's eye, perhaps. There is one important fact being
overlooked here: I put the instrument of the devil in for my
convenience, not that of every Tom, Dick, and Olan Mills salesman.
If the thing rings while it's not convenient for me to answer it, and
that includes meal-times as well as swimming and visits to the throne
room, it doesn't get answered. It is senseless to be a slave to that
ringing bell, hopping to serve at the whim of any salesman able to
compose a string of digits.
If a call is important enough to really want my attention (or even
if the caller merely perceives that it is important), he may call
back later when it may be more convenient for me to answer.
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or... {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tannerdoug@letni.uucp (Doug Davis) (09/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0384m02@vector.dallas.tx.us> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >The machine that I have (and I suspect most modern ones as well) will drop >off the line if I pick up any extension in the house during a call. If not, for 7.95 at Radio Shack, or 9.95 at your local att fone center you can purchase a little device that will do it for you.. I hacked one of these together to breath more life into my old answering machine and was so proud of it I took the schematics and put 'em on the cad machine at work. Then I gave 'em to a fellow fone hacker and he told me for 1/2 the cost of the parts I could have purchased something that did the same thing..... I thought I had something there (sniffle) ;-( BTW, the next release of the comic collection (or is that commical? :-) ) of fun things to do with your cellular phone is coming out Oct 1. If you want yours included, better get it here soon. Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740 {sys1.tandy.com, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug "comp.unix.aix is an Oxymoron."