PDA

View Full Version : Do Not Call List - The man who stopped it



atticus05
2003-Sep-26, 06:30 PM
Hello

Many if not all of you are probably familiar with the National Do Not Call List. You may also be aware of the two federal judges who recently put a stop to it going into effect on October 1st as planned.

However you may not know of Robert Wientzen, he is the CEO of the Direct Marketing Association and the main person behind the lawsuits putting a stop to the list. Here's a link to a recent CNN.com interview:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/cnna.wientzen/index.html

He makes three whole points in the interview see if you can find them all :roll:

My personal favorite is the supposed 18 year old do not call list that already exsists. How many times have you told a telemarketer to never call again and gotten another call the same day? Personally I'd like to see a copy of Mr. Wientzen's list.

It should be interesting to see what congress does in the next couple of days.

~Atticus05

atticus05
2003-Sep-26, 06:42 PM
Heh...

I just realized this may be a slightly political post, hope I didn't offend anyone. If so I appologize, let me know (send me a priveate message) and I'll remove it.

~Atticus05

Beaver
2003-Sep-26, 06:58 PM
I realy do not understand the debate, they claim it voilates the second amendment on free speach, but if you ask someone to stop following you or phoning you they have too, its called harassment.

NASA Fan
2003-Sep-26, 07:23 PM
My limited understanding of free speech, is that if I choose to I can go out and tell the world that I think that the lunar landings were faked--(I know we landed on the moon--just using an example of a lie), or I can say that I think that President Bush is a "doo-doo head" (trying to find a silly insult), or I can say that I think that God is a woman who lives in the tiger cage at the San Diego Zoo. These are examples of free speech.

From what I remember from History, the founding fathers were trying to give us free speech on religion, and politics (amongst other things), somehow I doubt that they wanted to include people harrasing you.

tuffel999
2003-Sep-26, 09:16 PM
they claim it voilates the second amendment on free speach

Well 1 problem. There is only one admendment on free speech nad it is the 1st admendment.

Now about the argument, it is crap. Free speech is meant to protect unpopular political views, literature, movies, (and now video games according to the courts) and other forms of intelligent communication of ideas. Calling during dinner to sell me x,y,or z is Harassment not speech. The problem is a government agency made a law that was not passed by congress. The FTC cannot make laws and that is what they did. Now congress is racing to pass a law so the FTC can enforce the registry.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030926/ts_alt_afp/us_telemarketing_030926142313

Hopefully this will be sorted out quickly.

SeanF
2003-Sep-26, 09:55 PM
Congress passed a bill yesterday giving the FTC authority, and President Bush said he will sign it. However, Another judge has put a hold on the list (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030926/D7TPP29G0.html), this time on a First Amendment basis.

The argument is that the law is unconstitutional because it does not apply to charities, poll takers, or politicians.

Yoshua
2003-Sep-26, 10:46 PM
Frankly anyone who calls me who I have not given my number to is violating my privacy. I don't see how the first amendment can protect someone in that case.

mike alexander
2003-Sep-26, 11:17 PM
Personally, it's a non-issue.

If I don't feel like going to the phone when it rings I let the answering machine grab it and check later.

If I do pick up and someone is selling me something I just say No Thank You and hang up.

If I am in the extremely rare foul mood when the call comes I might suggest a variant mating ritual and then hang up.

This seems a false issue, allowing politicos to posture and fume about not much, really. Much more importent stuff to think about.

Chuck
2003-Sep-26, 11:23 PM
Maybe they could rename the list. Call it "The list of people who don't want their personal property used for advertising without their permission". This would include disallowing advertisers from spray painting ads on your house and car, sending ads to your computer, and using your phone to deliver their messages. Then freedom of speech would not be involved. They can talk all they want. They just can't use your personal possessions without your permission.

space cadet
2003-Sep-26, 11:47 PM
Chuck

that is possibly the most brilliant idea I've heard all day. Can I hug you?

Great Satan
2003-Sep-27, 12:02 AM
Here, Here, Mike Alexander!! =D> =D> =D>

Consider the mechanics. No one is knocking on your door to harass you, rather a company owns a phone system and by right, they determine the rules.

Ideally, and--with local de-monopolization--a practicality, each company could set its own rules.

The problem is, many rules don't take into account changes. For example, rules about "obscene language" don't take into account definitions of obscentity by space or time, or if such is consenting as in phone s*x.

Generally, the idea is to be liberal with the rules--or lose to those who are--Bell found this out the hard way with competitors; unless something grevious occurs.

As for this list, again, it belongs less in the courts and more in the corporo-quasi-courts. Let the company keep lists, abjudicate complaints, and, if they decide it necessary, bar users; and if the users don't like it, they can use another service.


As for me, I take my time in answering calls and ignore them when I feel like it--technology was made for our benefit, not the other way around. I use call screening; and when some annoying telemarketer/surveyer calls (on a phone with neither screening nor answering machine), I simply ask them to "hold on a minute," set the phone aside, and go back to what I was doing for a few 10's of minutes. (If you hang up on them, they simply immediately go to another to annoy; and if you swear at them--well, the employee has your number). 8) :) 8)

xbck1
2003-Sep-27, 12:12 AM
I like telemarketers. I can make fun of them, I can harass them back, I can do fun things with them (see here (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=135352&highlight=&sid=141a15f9e6f4 4d4ea20519103d288e28#135352) :D ), and I can rant and rave at them all I want and they can't do anything about it. I see them as a free way to vent steam after an aggravating day.

But, if they call when I'm in the middle of dinner, I'll be rather peeved. So, yes, the Do Not Call list is a good idea, but I think that by law telemarketers should not be allowed to call after the hour of 5:00 pm anyways so that they can't call you at dinner time unless you are eating an early dinner.

I still think that people should have fun with their telemarketers. If one calls, I just say either, "No," and hang up, or I treat them really weird and have fun with them. If more people did that, those telemarketers would drop like flies because of how they treat potential customers after a long day of being harassed. :D

Chuck
2003-Sep-27, 12:36 AM
Another way to deal with it is to tax them out of existence. Put a large tax per call on unsolicited sales calls. Then their constitutional rights wouldn't be violated. They can call all they want. There's legal precdence for taxing away rights. The second amendment says we can have guns but they're heavily taxed. That's clearly an attempt by the government to reduce the number of armed civilians. Why can't the tax abuse be used in our favor for once?

Great Satan
2003-Sep-27, 12:53 AM
Sorry Chuck,

As much as I feel that the right to overthrow tyrannies--domestic and foreign, and aquiring/maintaining the ability to do such, is important, the Second Amendment has two problems that allows wiggle room for the legislators.

First, it's poorly written. The so-called left/liberal would tell the NRA guy, "We aren't infringing on the Second Amendment. You want an armed militia? You got it. It's the National Guard." The NRA guy would counter that it refers to individuals.

"Well, let's stop the water flow into the reactor. After all, the professor said 'You can't put too much water in the reactor.' "

"No, no. What he meant is that you can't put too much water in the reactor implying that it's impossible. What he meant is that you don't have to worry about flooding it--and that the danger lies in too little water."

"No it doesn't, he meant turn off the water in situations like these."

"No, he meant the exact opposite!"

Later at a beach.

Waitress: "My, look in the distance. It looks like a mushroom cloud."

Professor sipping a magarita before leaving: "It is. You know you just can't look at those mushroom clouds for too long." :D :P :D

Second, speech is speech. Arms are real. Few Americans favor confiscation of hunting rifles. More would agree to confiscating handguns. Still more assault rifles. More still would with bazookas. Very few would defend the right for individuals to own nuclear bombs.

Hence wiggle room for legislators.

Chuck
2003-Sep-27, 12:58 AM
I agree, there's lots of wiggle room. It would be nice to see them wiggle around the first amendment by taxing telephone solicitors.

gethen
2003-Sep-27, 01:07 AM
Two or three points worth mentioning:

1. I'm not sure this is a free speech issue, since I pay a monthly bill for phone service. Therefore, I'm being forced to pay to be bothered by telemarketers. Where's the free part?
2. I usually just say, "I'm not interested. Don't call here again." Then I immediately hang up. I'm unwilling to waste any more time on it.
3. What happens to all the telemarketers' employees when they shut down? It's not like there are lots of jobs out there right now.

Musashi
2003-Sep-27, 01:16 AM
As for point 3, here is my thoughts... How do telemarketing comapnies make money? It must have to do something with actually selling something, so they should love the do not call list. It makes their job easier. Now, they don't have to call people who will not buy things. Anyone left must want to buy something.

And, if they do have to fire people, that sucks, but businesses shouldn't be protected because they may have to fire people. If that was the case, I could start a retail organization, and if no one bought my stuff, I could whine that if the governement didn't give me money or subsidies or something, I would have to fire people. It is the nature of business to stay competative or fold.

Chuck
2003-Sep-27, 01:27 AM
I don't think that their need for jobs gives them the right to annoy me every day. Right now it's a minor annoyance, especially since I use dialup and stay online most of the evening. There are usually one to three such calls on my answering machine when I get home from work, but after that my line is busy.

Maybe if they started calling more often and called around the clock, and your friends couldn't call you because your line is always busy, you'd feel differently about it. Is it all right to annoy people as long as they don't do it constantly? Where do you draw the line? I think it should be drawn at zero calls unless I agree to receive them.

The same applies to spammers, but I've started using Mailblocks for my email which has eliminated the spam problem.

gethen
2003-Sep-27, 01:35 AM
Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of telemarketing by any stretch of the imagination. I just find it interesting that all those congressmen are jumping on the wagon so fast to pass this law, and no one is talking about how the jobs lost might be replaced.
Did anyone see the guy on CNN yesterday who went to some telemarketer convention in a big city (Washington D.C?) and started calling all the conventioneers in their hotel rooms at 3:00 a.m? Seems he got tired of being called by telemarketers during the day while he was sleeping after working the night shift. He recorded some of the calls and it was pretty funny.

tuffel999
2003-Sep-27, 01:49 AM
My general feeling is screw the telemarketers they annoy me bottom line. I hate big government so I normally don't support new legislation on principle but I want these people of my back and i am tired of having ot do the leg work to do it.

As for this discussion about the 2nd admendment that has popped up, well I pay my fees, I carry my gun permits, and I worked for the government. I have jumped through all of the governments hoops (carry permit, background check, and registration) to own my guns and I am responsible so leave my freaking guns alone. Has anyone ever tried to LEGALLY purchase an assault rifle? Do you know the paper work, the background checks, the fees(over $200), and the 90 day waiting period plus the cost of the legal gun(easily over $1200). It's nuts!! Noone legally buys an assault rifle and then goes on a killing spree, it takes to long. People who want to ban assault rifles or handguns have never tried to legally purchase one.

beskeptical
2003-Sep-27, 03:30 AM
Warning, venting below!

Why would telemarketers NOT use the do not call list? It has nothing to do with lost jobs. That's a lie because how could not calling the non-buying public mean less earnings? It defies logic.

What the real problem is are the auto dialing machines, and maybe the hassle of implementing the do not call list.

The auto dial machines are programed to dial and dial. You get several hang up calls because when the machine dialed your number, there was no free operator. The machine notes it and puts your number back to be called again. In the meantime, the sales people have a person on the line every time they pick up the phone. I'm sorry, but that sucks.

And, implementing the do not call list means the callers would have to check their millions of names and numbers for millions of names and numbers. Seems to me like that would create jobs, not lose them.

If it comes down to a free speech argument in front of the Supreme Court, I hope someone asks them what happens when a person gets 10 calls a day, or 20, or 30? At what point is 'free speech' still the key issue and not the right of 'pursuit of happiness'? I should have the right to peace and quiet and the free use of my phone in my own house. I should not be forced to pay for a telephone zapper nor caller ID to stop telemarketers. I should not have to have an answering machine screen my calls. I should not have to unplug my phone to sleep during the day. Arrrrrrrrrggggghhh!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

And why do they insist on lying about the purpose of the call. I had two calls within the last hour.

First one, "Is Ginger there?"
"Do I know you?"
"Yes, this is Bob from VarTec"
"Bob from where?"
"From VarTec, your long distance phone company" :roll:

Not only do I not know 'Bob', I don't have a long distance phone company. We use 1010 numbers. I use more than one so clearly 'Bob' wanted to sell me VarTec services.

Second call, "Is Virgina there?"
"Who's calling?"
"Renton Subaru" (I bought a new car from them this summer.)
"Are you selling something?"
"No"
"OK, what do you want?"
"Our records show you have 3,500 miles on your car and it is due for service."
"My car does not have 3,500 miles on it yet."
"OK, I'll make a note of that"
"How is this not selling something? Clearly you want to sell me service."
"Uh..the car dealership told me to call you."

Almost every day I am here, I get several calls a day. It has gotten insane. I almost never give my number out. I've only given it out when I had to, and I'm still on a hundred call lists. I tell them not to call but I get just as many calls regardless. ](*,)

THEY DESERVE TO BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!

Lusion
2003-Sep-27, 04:48 AM
The do not call list is a good idea. Giving the FCC the power to make laws is not.

I haven't actually read any of the court decisions, but I can see how this would be a free speach issue. It's not so much the do not call list in itself, as it is the empowerment of the FCC.

Celestial Mechanic
2003-Sep-27, 04:56 AM
Your right to free speech ends when my phone rings.

Colt
2003-Sep-27, 07:37 AM
We must not have as many telemarketers in Alaska. We only get a few calls a month and they're usually for some sort of local thing here in Anchorage which I don't mind listening about. It must be some phone companies charging the telemarketers longdistance and even overseas charges just to call Alaska. :P I love this state.


As for the gun ownership bit, and not to turn this into a political debate about that.. The National Guard is not the People. And Tuffel is right, you have to have an insane amount of paperwork and background checking, not to mention the money involved, to even own an automatic rifle (and if I recall you have to pay $200 annual tax). Once you finally get your hands on the thing the ammunition it will eat is expensive. The AK-47 assault rifles used in the Hollywood shootings were not legal rifles if I recall correctly and I'm not even sure they were automatic. The most ironic thing about that whole ordeal is that the police officers had to go into a civilian gunshop and borrow some rifles. :-? A sad episode to say the least. :( -Colt

Musashi
2003-Sep-27, 08:35 AM
Oh yeah, they were automatic! But they were NOT purchased legally. And yes, the cops had to go into B&B guns in L.A. to get the firepower to fight back. Stupid side note, the families of the robber;s sued the city of L.A. for wrongful death... case thrown out of court.

Dragonlor
2003-Sep-27, 10:19 AM
Telemarketing, the lowest form of existance.

Gmann
2003-Sep-27, 01:23 PM
In Missouri, we have our own State do not call list. It seems to work pretty well. If somone who is not protected by the built in loopholes, calls you, and you inform them, they are supposed to take you off their list. They usually hang up fast. If they keep calling, you send a complaint to the State Attorney General, and HE will tell them. There have been a few of these out of state operators that have been dragged into State Courts, and raked over the coals. My phone does not ring nearly as much as it used to. =D>

mutant
2003-Sep-27, 03:53 PM
I think the main problem is that the courts are becoming so politically correct that they are no longer able to make a rational decision on anything. This do not call list debacle is just the latest example. Heaven forbid if we can't please everyone.

I am going to my attorney tomorrow and sue my neighbor. He is parting his hair on the wrong side and it offends me. I'll show him.

TriangleMan
2003-Sep-27, 04:20 PM
No telemarketers in Bermuda! aaaaahhhhhh . . . . 8)

Chuck
2003-Sep-27, 04:28 PM
So the Bermuda market is wide open? Hmmmm....

Captain Kidd
2003-Sep-27, 06:33 PM
We circumvented the telemarketers currently. We never got a land line for our house and use a cell. The main reason we went for one was when I was trying to get a job. I had resumes out on places like monster and headhunter and directly with certain companies. When I started getting good leads, I was loathed to leave the phone, but I hated have my foot tied down. I didn’t trust the other people in the house to take a message, more “yeah, he’s not here… whatever. <click>” and I’m wondering why that dream job never called me back. So I guarded that phone. Now we have a cell and if one of us needs to go somewhere fine, take the phone. Plus the number is unlisted so we’ve yet to get a telemarketer, a friend received one on his cell though…

I’m slightly worried that if the DNC is killed, then they’ll start demanding/buying cell numbers so that they can ‘continue to exercise their free speech.’ I have a set number of minutes, each call is a minimum of 1 minute, so even if I hang up instantly, I’m still out a minute and that can add up over a month.

That’s definitely more that exercising free speech if they cause me to start paying excess minute fees.

Although I'm still fuzzy on how this can be strewn as a free speech issue in the first place.
Hmm, counter lawsuit: they're voilating my free speech rights by forcing me to talk to them. After all, don't I have the free speech right to NOT talk?

TriangleMan
2003-Sep-27, 07:46 PM
So the Bermuda market is wide open? Hmmmm....

Yep, but its long-distance to call. :P
Plus there's only 60,000 people on the island so if you call locally the residents will find you eventually. 8-[

Chuck
2003-Sep-27, 09:45 PM
Another way would be to charge telemarketers for calling you. It shouldn't be too hard for the phone companies to set it up.

You would get to set an amount you wish to be paid for receiving calls and can optionally set up a code number to give to friends to be used to bypass the charge. When someone calls you, the phone company gives the caller a computer generated message containing the amount of the charge and how to agree to pay it. For example:

"This call costs 25¢ to complete. If you wish to pay the 25¢ press star one or enter the bypass code."

If the caller agrees to pay then your phone bill is reduced by 25¢ and the caller pays 25¢ more. Your friends who have the code would enter it and ring your phone without paying. Your old high school buddy who wants to get in touch with you would agree to pay and be connected. Then you give him your code number so he can call you again for free. Maybe there could be a way to cancel the charge, so if you press star nine during the conversation the 25¢ would not be charged.

If a telemarketer agrees to pay the fee then everything is fine. You get 25¢ and the satisfaction of knowing that some twit just paid a quarter for the privilege of having you hang up on him. If he wants to call back to complain about your rudeness he can pay again.

This can have other applications too. If you don't want anyone but your friends to call you, you just set the fee a lot higher. If you want to dispense information for a fee you could use this instead of trying to charge peoples' credit cards or getting a 900 number.

The phone company could probably set this up with computer programming alone without needing more hardware.

Kaptain K
2003-Sep-28, 02:11 AM
Texas has a state do not call list. It is not affected by the national flap. It costs $2.25 to get listed. The state levies a $1000 fine per violation. =D> To bad they don't share it with the victims. 8)

NASA Fan
2003-Sep-28, 03:02 AM
I live in an apartment and I have had calls from companies wanting to clean my carpets (which the apartment complex does for free), roof work, siding, and refinancing my house morgage, despite the fact that I do not own a house.

I just screen my calls, if I accidentially pick up the phone I just say "no thanks" politely and hang up. Why politely--because my mom raised me to be nice. When she hears me be nice she gives me a hard time about that--go figure.

Kaptain K
2003-Sep-28, 03:21 AM
Actually, I don't have a problem with telemarketers. If I am at home, I am either online or asleep (the phone is not in the bedroom). It is easy to delete unwanted messages from my machine.

beskeptical
2003-Sep-28, 04:42 AM
Everyone's suggested solutions might work for them but they don't for me.

I have always had an unlisted number, that doesn't stop you from getting on a list when you have to give your number to book a hotel room or buy a car. And, the auto dial machines have your name and number even though it isn't listed. I'm certain the phone companies sell the numbers, unlisted or not. Half the calls I get are from phone companies or credit card peddlers.

And, we have the rule that when you tell them to take you off their list they are supposed to. I have done that many many times. The number of calls has continually increased anyway.

I'm also certain my neighborhood is in a million 'target markets'. That's why some of you get less calls. It may not be the state you are in, it may be the neighborhood. Also, I have a home office. I am in and out but am often home during the day. If you work, you may not realize you are getting half the number of sales calls while you aren't there. They rarely leave messages.

Anyone with kids cannot unplug their phone. And, since my son occasionally calls with problems at school, I can't exactly let the answering machine get the call because there would be no way to call him back. And, we have a two story house. I am not always in the room the machine is in. If I have to run to hear the machine, I might as well just pick up the phone.

I can't use the tele zapper because I get auto dialed faxes from the public health every time they need to alert providers to outbreaks in the area. My fax has its own number but it is on the regular line with only a different ring.

We could PAY for caller ID and I will probably compromise my principles and get it. It doesn't seem right to pay the phone company to stop the phone company from calling you.

I just want to explain that these calls are worse for some of us. It's easy to think the problem is minor and easily solved if you aren't the one getting sales calls several times almost every single day.

Anyway, I know most of you are sympathetic. I'd just hate to be seen as a whiner because that isn't the case. This telemarketing thing, with their new dialing technology is really getting intrusive.

johnb
2003-Sep-28, 10:33 AM
I have two strategies( admittedly both require me to answer the phone, but I do`nt mind that).
1. answer phone then leave them hanging, e.g. whoops I have to do something!
2. I keep a whistle by the phone. If I`m feelin really horrible, or they have made a second call, guess what?

Gmann
2003-Sep-28, 12:22 PM
We could PAY for caller ID and I will probably compromise my principles and get it. It doesn't seem right to pay the phone company to stop the phone company from calling you.


Caller ID will not help. Many of the telemarketers are not located in your state. the caller ID will say that the call is from out of the area, and will no give specific information as to who is calling. It could be a telemarketer, or it might Aunt/Uncle whoever, trying to pass on important information. Either way, you won't know until you answer.

In a totally non-related area, it was mentioned on C2C last night that the Denver Judge that ruled the no-call list unconstitutional is, himself, on that list. He apparently signed up before all of this nonsense came to a head. Go figure #-o

dgruss23
2003-Sep-28, 12:36 PM
Beskeptical. I agree 100% with your feelings on your "Venting" post on the previous page. And thanks, I wasn't aware that all those calls where you pick up and nobody is there are telemarketing calls with no operator available.

I subscribe to the "better be quick" approach: If I don't hear an immediate response from the person on the other end I hang up. Most of the time the telemarketers are too slow. About once or twice a month I end up hanging up on a friend or relative, but they always call right back.

The other night my wife got into a fight with a telemarketer because he called for me, but then would not say who he was. The patronizing lecture she gave the idiot who was playing these games was pretty funny.

Gmann
2003-Sep-28, 01:16 PM
One of my favorite things to do is to stop them in the middle of their spiel, and ask a question about something in the first or second sentence of their script, and then listen. Most of the time, they will get so confused, because they lost their place in the script (some will even start over) that they will have no idea what to do, and hang up. This is a good way to separate the true salesman from someone who is doing this because they are too old to stay in Kindergarten.

beskeptical
2003-Sep-29, 06:34 AM
Beskeptical. I agree 100% with your feelings on your "Venting" post on the previous page. And thanks, I wasn't aware that all those calls where you pick up and nobody is there are telemarketing calls with no operator available.Thanks, it's nice just to know someone listened to you vent :D . The hang up calls are even described in the front of the phone book as being auto dialed. Guess who uses the autodialers? :roll:


....The other night my wife got into a fight with a telemarketer because he called for me, but then would not say who he was. The patronizing lecture she gave the idiot who was playing these games was pretty funny.
My son likes to say funny things to them also. They almost never say why they are calling when he asks.

But be careful, if you make them mad sometimes they call back to get even. The other day my son did the ol' cou..loser..gh and hung up. The guy called right back and tried to tell me about my rude child as if I would care. He still wouldn't say what company he was calling from. Anyway, I reminded my son that passive-agressive works best. Give 'em a hard time but don't let 'em know for sure. BTW, I like the question routine. :lol:

I know, I know, some of you feel for the working stiff. But they took the job, no one made them. I politely ask them to hold and wait till they hang up. At least I can waste their time like they waste mine.

mike alexander
2003-Sep-29, 04:12 PM
As usual, beskeptical (among others) raises some valid points. My wife also raised a few (she works from home and intercepts most of the calls). Therefore...I get internally confilcted, a normal condition. There are practical and legal issues.

The autodial banks are definitely annoying. I don't LIKE getting such calls. One practical (if imperfect) solution is to allow the phone to ring for a while. Most of the autodialers seem to stop after 3-5 rings. Getting call screening or somesuch is also an option; granted it costs more, but technology seems to do that. I have to buy a new computer every so often just so I can run the newer software. Heck, I can't buy a new printer for my 166 because they need either speed or ports it doesn't have.

Question: there are laws limiting commercial solicitation (e.g., banning door-to door sales). Are these applicable to other forms of marketing?

I also wonder if this is so annoying because it is still relatively new, and we haven't learned to either cope with it or put it down in the background. Anyone watching mass media is inundated with commercial solicitation, yet many of us have learned to tune it out (commercial=bathroom break).

It's just that I don't see this going away. The same technology and market philosophy that has given us the truly amazing telecomminications we enjoy has also brought the marketing home. Look at the Internet and how advertising has moved into the available niches there (ah, evolution in action again). Is this quite literally the price we pay for our toys?

To paraphrase Bob Heinlein, we are going to have to learn to live with this horror.

Chuck
2003-Sep-29, 05:01 PM
I think that charging callers for calling you would solve the problem. See my post above on the 27th. Telephone solicitors are unlikely to pay to talk to people since most won't buy anything. They'd lose money in the long run. A friend who calls you for the first time shouldn't mind having to pay a one time token fee which you could refund if you wanted to. It would probably become customary to refund it if the caller had any legitimate business with you at all. The best part about it is that the government is not involved so no one's first amendment rights would be violated. I own my phone and if I want to charge others for using it, that's my business. If I want to hire the phone company as my agent to collect the fees, that's between me and the phone company. The telemarketers won't like it, but there's nothing illegal or questionable about it.

Other than that, I suppose would could have machines that intercept our calls and ask for a password. If the caller enters the password then your phone rings. If the caller doesn't then he has five seconds to leave a recorded message. That's enough to leave a name and phone number but not enough for any kind of sales pitch.

parejkoj
2003-Sep-29, 05:10 PM
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I sure hope there is one! I've gotten then same mess of calls from home-repair joints, but I've only ever rented houses. *grumble*

But since we are swapping stories, here's my best one: Last year we had a dedicated ISDN line to JPL for mission critical calls and video-conferencing. This line was unlisted, no local service, no long distance (dedicated line!) and supposedly only incoming calls from JPL were allowed. Some phone company kept calling it asking if we wanted long distance service! I was the first person to get such a call and it confused the heck out of me, since they shouldn't have been able to call in the first place!

I don't remember what the end resolution of this was, but I do know that said phone company got several irate calls from both my supervisor and the person in charge of the line at JPL. Makes me wish they really did have black helicopters, to put the smack down on such people... Hmmm... that sounds like a good use of those government conspiracy teams: cracking the heads of telemarketers. :)

mike alexander
2003-Sep-29, 05:34 PM
Although my favorite is the local company that calls at regular intervals asking if we have any cracked windsheilds that need repairing. I kep looking out the window to see if someone is out there with a rock.

"Do you need me now? Good!"

beskeptical
2003-Sep-29, 07:28 PM
..... One practical (if imperfect) solution is to allow the phone to ring for a while. Most of the autodialers seem to stop after 3-5 rings.
............
Question: there are laws limiting commercial solicitation (e.g., banning door-to door sales). Are these applicable to other forms of marketing?
............
Anyone watching mass media is inundated with commercial solicitation, yet many of us have learned to tune it out (commercial=bathroom break).
............
To paraphrase Bob Heinlein, we are going to have to learn to live with this horror.My fax picks up when I don't answer the double ring. If I put the answering machine on more rings before answering, it would be annoying and some folks would think the fax was turned off. We already have 3 numbers and a cell phone. Another line for the fax would be costly.

A small community here tried to outlaw door to door soliciters and I think they got shut down on similar grounds.

I can tune out commercials but I also turn the TV on in the first place and get programs for the cost of the commercial intrusions. I don't get anything for the sales calls except irritable. :wink:

Well, I just got a call interrupting this post. Gee, what a coincidence. :roll: I could tell from the background noise and time of day it was a sales call so I answered but didn't say anything. The guy burped a gross burp. I wasn't sure if it was accidental or not. After a minute he said, "hello", which confirmed I didn't know the person. Then he hung up. Well, that's a silent call back at 'em. I'm satisfied. Maybe I'll try a new technique of letting them answer first. :-k This could be interesting.

mike alexander
2003-Sep-29, 07:52 PM
Yeah, everything seems imperfect. The multiple ring wait on an autodialer only means that someone picked up before you did. The tiger ate the slowest guy.

As I said, I'm conflicted on this. Part is that the telephone is, so far, a fairly unique device. Anyone of a certain age who hears the phone ring at 11:30 PM knows what I mean. Unlike television, which actually can be turned off without undue effects, the telephone is a signalling device as well as a communications or advertising device. The problem (unlike, say, email) is that it is much harder to differentiate between something important (Mom had a stroke) vs. blather (Need your windshield fixed?).

But I personally don't like the blanket-banning approach, either.

Is a technological fix possible? Commercial calls are required to have a different ring pattern? Easily detected, easily disconnected, yet preserving the openness. Yes, it would mean buying a new phone. But phones are just a chip with a handset nowadays, and are pretty cheap.

mjparme
2003-Sep-29, 08:26 PM
I think the courts are right in listening to a free speech argument since you should always take any attack on free speech seriously.

However, the free speech argument should fail here because the Do Not Call list is opt-in. I am telling the telemarkerters I do not want to hear what they have to say. Just like if I see something on TV I don't like I can change the channel, if I see something in a book I don't like I can stop reading it, if I hear someting on the radio I don't like I can turn it off. If I don't want someone calling me I should be able to tell them not to call me. They are invading my home using my property, their "speech" is intrusive.

SeanF
2003-Sep-29, 09:08 PM
I think the courts are right in listening to a free speech argument since you should always take any attack on free speech seriously.

However, the free speech argument should fail here because the Do Not Call list is opt-in. I am telling the telemarkerters I do not want to hear what they have to say. Just like if I see something on TV I don't like I can change the channel, if I see something in a book I don't like I can stop reading it, if I hear someting on the radio I don't like I can turn it off. If I don't want someone calling me I should be able to tell them not to call me. They are invading my home using my property, their "speech" is intrusive.

As I mentioned above, political parties, poll takers, and charities can still call you even if you're on the list. I think the First Amendment argument is that even though you are choosing to put your number on the list, it is the government choosing who can't call and who can, not you (or even the public in general). Therefore, the government is restricting their speech, not you.

I don't know if they'll win based on that or not . . .

mjparme
2003-Sep-29, 09:35 PM
I think the First Amendment argument is that even though you are choosing to put your number on the list, it is the government choosing who can't call and who can,

Ahh ok, that makes sense. You see that fairly often where laws fail because they tried to target something specific whereas if they covered everything it would pass First Amendment scrutiny.

mike alexander
2003-Sep-29, 09:44 PM
SeanF reiterates
As I mentioned above, political parties, poll takers, and charities can still call you even if you're on the list.

Which was another reason I didn't like the current iteration of the law. I especially disliked the pols exempting themselves from the law they wrote.

Chutzpah.

gethen
2003-Sep-29, 10:07 PM
As I understand it, the second ruling on the do not call list said that the telemarketers were being discriminated against, as their right to free speech was being impinged, while the rights of charities, pols, etc., were not being restricted. Of course, the post office restricts the mail they'll deliver if you ask (you can report unsolicited porn and they'll go after the mailers) so I don't see how this is any different. But I'm also not sure how much difference the list will make. Some folks have said it will affect as little as 20% of the calling oufits. Has anyone heard a more optimistic number?

wedgebert
2003-Sep-29, 10:57 PM
SeanF reiterates
As I mentioned above, political parties, poll takers, and charities can still call you even if you're on the list.

Which was another reason I didn't like the current iteration of the law. I especially disliked the pols exempting themselves from the law they wrote.

Chutzpah.

I have a simple solution to that. If I get a call for a politican, I tell them that because of that call I will no longer vote for them.

This is part of my general strategy of never voting for anyone who annoys me. Luckily for me, that means I don't have to vote because at some point, every canidate annoys me.

SeanF
2003-Sep-30, 03:40 PM
Of course, the post office restricts the mail they'll deliver if you ask (you can report unsolicited porn and they'll go after the mailers) so I don't see how this is any different. But I'm also not sure how much difference the list will make.

This is different because you have to tell the Post Office which specific companies to not deliver mail from. It's not a matter of the government deciding whose mail to deliver.

Also, the PO simply doesn't deliver the mail. They're not bringing criminal charges and fining the company sending it . . .

jkmccrann
2005-Dec-01, 08:20 AM
Absolutely there should be no question that a law allowing for the creation of a `Do Not Call List' should not be in any sort of contravention of Free Speech. I in fact have some insight into this industry, given that while at uni I used to work part-time at a research company, on the phones making outbound calls.

In fact (even though I live in Australia) we sometimes made calls to the USA and apparently still do given what I've been told by friends who still work there, which means making calls at all hours of the night. One thing I will say is, I have to commend you guys on the whole, pretty much 100% of you guys that I spoke to on the phone were very, very polite. It was specialised research, for Rockwell & Agilent (who make a lot of high-tech sort of equipment if you haven't heard of them), so respondents were not surprised to receive a call.

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-01, 07:32 PM
This is not an issue anymore. The Do Not Call List has been implemented for a while now. Companies are getting fined for violating it.

Jeff Root
2005-Dec-01, 09:06 PM
Is jkmccrann on the do-not-answer list?

sts60
2005-Dec-01, 10:28 PM
It's one thing to practice necromancy on threads that still have some relevance. But this issue has been over for two years.

beskeptical
2005-Dec-02, 11:10 AM
It's one thing to practice necromancy on threads that still have some relevance. But this issue has been over for two years.
Darn, just when I was going to make an addition to the topic...

We put our numbers on the do not call list when it started. Our junk calls went from 3 or more a day to one a month usually in the guise of a survey. But some jerk distributor I bought something from for my business managed to let my fax number out to a fax spammer. Not only did they start faxing every day, but if I unplugged the fax, their rude machine would make attempts every 30 minutes until I relented. (The fax is a different number but there are two numbers on the line so I can't just take the phone off the hook, but I digress.)

Anyway, while I'm still looking into suing for that $500 per illegal fax, I had the number changed. It took several attempts since the first new number was some bank loan officers old fax line. That was awful. The phone rang with a fax within an hour of getting it.

The phone company then gave me a number that supposedly had never been assigned to anyone in the past. Well, it's not on the do not call list yet. I came home the first day to no less than 5 recorded advertisements on my answering machine. I get call after call every day on the machine. And the phone rings twice as often when I'm here, always with a recorded advertisement. In other words machines are dialing every number not on the do not call list by the hundreds, maybe even by more than that. There are no people involved anymore. Just a machine trying to get your attention.

Who would listen to any of these ads? The marketers must send out a billion calls to get one fool to hear the stupid ad through to the end. But then what do they care, it's just a machine they plug in. They pay for a phone line and electricity, but obviously no wages to anyone. If you want to scream at the guy you expect to answer at the end of the recording, it isn't going to happen. Instead, you just go through some automated answer by following the menu...push 1 if...enter your number...etc. You can't even tell them to take your name off their list. It's mind boggling.

Clearly they changed some of the rules to let more garbage through while implementing the do not call list. In the past a real person had to say hello before pushing the start button on the recorded ad, and I only rarely ever had a recorded ad left on my answering machine. They could easily fill up your recording time. It is disgusting, to say the least.

I have to wait now for the do not call entry to take effect. I'm tempted to just discontinue the number but I don't want to give the other number out to anyone as a fax number. If some other fax spammer gets it, I could have to change my regular phone number.

kashi
2005-Dec-02, 12:07 PM
My most notable experience with an Indian telemarketer goes like this:

Telemarketer: "is a Mrs. ____ home?"
Me: "no"
T: "when would she be back?"
Me: "don't know"
T: "okay I'll call back then"

I'm fairly sure they just follow a script.

gwiz
2005-Dec-02, 12:20 PM
We've got a national list here in the UK, I registered for it a few months ago and the sales calls dwindled to one every few weeks. Now, if I've got time on my hands, I can get their details then tell them they're breaking the law.

Enzp
2005-Dec-02, 12:25 PM
SOmetimes I am rude, and sometimes I play with them. If I am not busy, I figure I can waste their time just as effectively as they can mine.

I get the DUn and Bradstreet "surveys" all the time. They assure me it is not a marketing call, but I know better. My company is tiny, but one time I told the survey that we had about 1500 employees and some other nonsense. All of a sudden my mail changed. I started getting things mailed to the HR director. Near holidays I would get several thick gift catalogs - one for HR, one for general manager,and a couple more. All for employer gifts to staff type items. I'd get all manner of offerings for things a company of that size might use. DUn and Bradstreet must be making a bundle selling lists, considering the bulk of things I got. Now I just hang up on D&B, I get enough mail.

I gave up on fax. I unplugged a couple years ago. I don't know what your business needs are, but in mine, I figure anything that could be faxed can also be scanned and emailed. I can't imagine any suppliers or other businesses that haven't the capability of scanning. No fax, no waste paper, no phone line tied up, win-win. When someone asks my fax number I just say "we no longer support fax."

Chuck
2005-Dec-02, 03:34 PM
At work I have a computer receive faxes. Then I look through them and print the ones I want. No wasted ink or paper.

mickal555
2005-Dec-02, 05:35 PM
Darn, just when I was going to make an addition to the topic...

We put our numbers on the do not call list when it started. Our junk calls went from 3 or more a day to one a month usually in the guise of a survey. But some jerk distributor I bought something from for my business managed to let my fax number out to a fax spammer. Not only did they start faxing every day, but if I unplugged the fax, their rude machine would make attempts every 30 minutes until I relented. (The fax is a different number but there are two numbers on the line so I can't just take the phone off the hook, but I digress.)

Anyway, while I'm still looking into suing for that $500 per illegal fax, I had the number changed. It took several attempts since the first new number was some bank loan officers old fax line. That was awful. The phone rang with a fax within an hour of getting it.

The phone company then gave me a number that supposedly had never been assigned to anyone in the past. Well, it's not on the do not call list yet. I came home the first day to no less than 5 recorded advertisements on my answering machine. I get call after call every day on the machine. And the phone rings twice as often when I'm here, always with a recorded advertisement. In other words machines are dialing every number not on the do not call list by the hundreds, maybe even by more than that. There are no people involved anymore. Just a machine trying to get your attention.

Who would listen to any of these ads? The marketers must send out a billion calls to get one fool to hear the stupid ad through to the end. But then what do they care, it's just a machine they plug in. They pay for a phone line and electricity, but obviously no wages to anyone. If you want to scream at the guy you expect to answer at the end of the recording, it isn't going to happen. Instead, you just go through some automated answer by following the menu...push 1 if...enter your number...etc. You can't even tell them to take your name off their list. It's mind boggling.

Clearly they changed some of the rules to let more garbage through while implementing the do not call list. In the past a real person had to say hello before pushing the start button on the recorded ad, and I only rarely ever had a recorded ad left on my answering machine. They could easily fill up your recording time. It is disgusting, to say the least.

I have to wait now for the do not call entry to take effect. I'm tempted to just discontinue the number but I don't want to give the other number out to anyone as a fax number. If some other fax spammer gets it, I could have to change my regular phone number.

Wow...

You get a lot of calls...

We don't...

about 24% of our calls are from someone looking for the " "(gah- I can't remember the name... grrrr )

and 16% are telemarkerters
-most if not all, are from india

It's funny because we have two numbers(cause my dad works for telstra) and they arn't that similer they differ by about 200 combinations and as soon as I hang up on one the other rings(it has a different ring pattern)

one indian lady(who had a voice of an end of middle aged cross-dresser)
"Hallo"
"er... hi"
"I ask if this is the head of the household?"
"um.... yeah why not"
"OK, can I ask your name?"
*pause*
"hmmm..... greg? nah um, wait... er.... bob- yeah bob"
"hello bob"
"what is your current anual household income *gives a range*"
"yeah couple of mill"
"could you please state your anual household income using of these options *repeats range*"
"whats the highest- put that down"
"*I got bored and hung up at this point*"

dvb
2005-Dec-02, 05:59 PM
lol Mickal

Canada is finally catching up with the times. New legislation has passed for a do not call list. The database won't be in place until early 2006, but it's about time, none the less.

Here's the juicy part. :)

http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/0/85256a5d006b9720852570c70058f78e?OpenDocument


Penalties of up to $1500 per offending call for individuals and up to $15 000 per offending call for corporations would be imposed for telemarketers who fail to respect the list. Funding to operate the list will be obtained on a cost-recovery basis from telemarketers themselves.

Lianachan
2005-Dec-02, 06:09 PM
The one in the UK works well, but doesn't seem to be widely known about.

beskeptical
2005-Dec-02, 07:24 PM
At work I have a computer receive faxes. Then I look through them and print the ones I want. No wasted ink or paper.I'll probably go that route if my current problem recurs or my fax machine breaks down.

beskeptical
2005-Dec-02, 07:31 PM
Wow...

You get a lot of calls...

We don't...

....Just wait until the Internet long distance phone system becomes the norm and there are no more toll charges.

I love the jokes. I did that often before the do not call list. My son always came up with good ones as well.

But you can't have any fun with a stupid recording.

On another note I get frequent misdialed numbers because I have the same number as the 'IT' department of the phone company with one digit off the area code. I was so sick of them continuing to call at all hours with no concern about correcting the problem that I started telling them to hold instead of that they have the wrong number.

Sometimes I tell them to bug off, I've had a bad day without saying they have the wrong number. Or, I've told them the system is down and to call back in an hour. [tee he he]

Gillianren
2005-Dec-02, 11:27 PM
Who would listen to any of these ads? The marketers must send out a billion calls to get one fool to hear the stupid ad through to the end. But then what do they care, it's just a machine they plug in. They pay for a phone line and electricity, but obviously no wages to anyone. If you want to scream at the guy you expect to answer at the end of the recording, it isn't going to happen. Instead, you just go through some automated answer by following the menu...push 1 if...enter your number...etc. You can't even tell them to take your name off their list. It's mind boggling.

I've done live outbound calling. (Not often, as I've a phobia of making cold calls and would have panic attacks, but still.) I can tell you for an absolute fact that making one sale in an eight-hour day is about average. We got a bonus for every actual sale, and it was a big deal to get even as many as five sales in an eight-hour day.

I can also say that being rude to the person at the other end, when there is a person at the other end, is extremely unfair. Anyone who has much in the way of authority in the company will never be on the other end of that phone line. (I once had a customer on inbound demand, at 8 PM Pacific time, demand to speak to the vice president of the company whose name appeared on the application he'd been mailed. Because, you know, that's going to happen.) Politely asking that your name be removed from their calling list is much more effective.

I realize, Beskeptical, that your problem won't be solved by such a situation. However, I thought I'd get my two cents' worth in.

SeanF
2005-Dec-02, 11:46 PM
I can also say that being rude to the person at the other end, when there is a person at the other end, is extremely unfair. Anyone who has much in the way of authority in the company will never be on the other end of that phone line.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. In my opinion, cold calls themselves are inherently rude, and I don't see why it's "unfair" to be rude back to someone who's being rude to me, just because someone else is paying them to do it.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-03, 01:09 AM
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. In my opinion, cold calls themselves are inherently rude, and I don't see why it's "unfair" to be rude back to someone who's being rude to me, just because someone else is paying them to do it.

Because they didn't set the policy. I, for example, was initially hired for inbound. It was a job, and one I desperately needed, as Olympia's job market is very, very slow. The person is being as polite as they can (being rude is a very easy way to get fired in that job!), and believe me, they'd rather not be calling you. Most of those doing the actual work in that job think the idea's a stupid one, given the sheer number of man-hours that go into one sale.

Yes, the calling is rude, but being rude to the person on the other end of the phone isn't going to do any good to anyone. It'll just make that individual's day harder, and believe me, it's a pretty hard day anyway, due to both the scores of rude people they deal with in any day and the company's thoughtless policies. What you want to do is make them stop, right? Yelling at the person on the other end won't do that. Maybe, and I doubt it, complaining to someone with the authority to stop the company's policy of unsolicited calling might help. But the best thing to do, the thing that I believe will eventually spell the end of the industry if enough people do it, is get on the DNC list. (If you tell a solicitor from my former employer not to call you, you're on the company's DNC list for ten years--not the client's, though you're on that, too, but the company's. Which in our specific case meant about four clients at any given time when the company was still doing outbound.)

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-03, 02:56 AM
Politely asking that your name be removed from their calling list is much more effective.


Perhaps today, but I'm on the DNC list anyway. This is why I used to sometimes get rude: I had times where I would tell the representative that I absolutely wasn't interested, they had been calling every other day, and would they please stop calling? They would often say they had taken down my name and number ... and they would call again two days later. After going through that cycle a few times, I wasn't so pleasant. Sometimes I would just hang up, but sometimes it was more like "I'VE TOLD YOU A DOZEN TIMES TO STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH THESE [insert swear word of choice here] STUPID PHONE CALLS! *SLAM*" I don't apologize for that, I was fed up. Note that the calls were usually in the middle of dinner.

Some companies would "only" repeat call every month, others would be on a much shorter cycle, but there were no more than one or two companies that actually stopped repeat calling.

I never bought a product through one of these calls, and made a point of telling them that I had noted their company as one I would not deal with in the future, because of the calls.

Before the DNC list, the situation was just ridiculous. You needed a machine just to cut down on wasted time answering the phone.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-03, 03:32 AM
Perhaps today, but I'm on the DNC list anyway. This is why I used to sometimes get rude: I had times where I would tell the representative that I absolutely wasn't interested, they had been calling every other day, and would they please stop calling? They would often say they had taken down my name and number ... and they would call again two days later. After going through that cycle a few times, I wasn't so pleasant. Sometimes I would just hang up, but sometimes it was more like "I'VE TOLD YOU A DOZEN TIMES TO STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH THESE [insert swear word of choice here] STUPID PHONE CALLS! *SLAM*" I don't apologize for that, I was fed up. Note that the calls were usually in the middle of dinner.

Well, you know, it does actually take time to clear you out of lists. We were supposed to advise that it would take a few weeks. Besides, it's often different companies, but people only remember that it was, say, for a credit card. (Not everyone understands that there are many different banks that all offer Visa cards, for example.) I know this for a fact, having had people tell me they'd already told one bank to stop calling/mailing them, and I was doing calls at the time for a different bank.

However, I do understand your frustration. I would also like to point out that people came in starting at 7 AM (which meant they could legally start calling the east coast) and left at as late as 8 PM, which (if I remember properly; it's been four years since I needed to know this) was as late as they could legally call on the west coast. Trust me, they work more than just during dinner; it was merely your bad luck that the dialer only got you then!

Chuck
2005-Dec-03, 05:12 AM
Even if they delete a number from their list they get it back when they buy someone else's list.

I don't see how people who are rude to others for a living can reasonably expect politeness from their victims. It would be different if they didn't know they were causing a problem but they all know it by now since it's a decades old problem. They're annoying people intentionally.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-03, 07:41 AM
Even if they delete a number from their list they get it back when they buy someone else's list.

I don't see how people who are rude to others for a living can reasonably expect politeness from their victims. It would be different if they didn't know they were causing a problem but they all know it by now since it's a decades old problem. They're annoying people intentionally.

Actually, no. They don't delete the number; they add it to the DNC list. If they buy another list that has that number on it, the number remains deleted from the call list. (No, really.)

As to "being rude for a living," that's harder. Yes, we knew that what we were doing was annoying people. Believe me, we got told that all the time. (I had a customer make me cry once when I was trying to get out of the call because he wouldn't let me read the thing I had to read before disconnecting.)

Most of my coworkers were single parents or people with no other job experience. Most of my coworkers were poorly educated; I was practically unique in having a college education. (And I've got other problems.) More than a few of my coworkers had had some kind of problem earlier in life that meant they'd been out of the job market for a while--unplanned pregnancies, drug addictions, and in at least one case, jail time. Add to that the fact that, when I took the job, there was a hiring freeze for state employees, the biggest employer in the area. (Yay, state capital!) In fact, quite a lot of state employees--and Boeing employees--had recently been fired. This meant a surfeit of overqualified people for every job in town. (Including that one.)

Yes, everyone there (just about) would rather be doing anything other than calling people up and asking them to apply for a credit card. However, when it's a choice, as it was for me, between doing a much-hated job and being homeless, well, you do what you have to.

Again, get angry at the people who make the decision that outgoing calls are an effective sales tool. Maybe that'll actually change something.

Chuck
2005-Dec-03, 08:46 AM
Back in the nineties some insurance selling telephone solicitors kept calling at work even though we asked them not to call so finally my boss asked to talk to a supervisor. He asked the supervisor why we hadn't been removed from the list and the supervisor said we were but they regularly bought other lists and added them to their own. Maybe that wasn't true and they just never bothered to remove people.

In any case, the problem got so bad that we now have a mandatory national do not call list. I had been getting from one to three calls per day on my answering machine while I was at work. Now I get about one per month. They probably tried to call me in the evening as well but I'm still using dialup and spend a lot of time online. I don't know what the people who used to call me are doing for employment now. I don't think any of them starved in the street.

beskeptical
2005-Dec-03, 08:14 PM
...
As to "being rude for a living," that's harder. Yes, we knew that what we were doing was annoying people. Believe me, we got told that all the time. (I had a customer make me cry once when I was trying to get out of the call because he wouldn't let me read the thing I had to read before disconnecting.)

Most of my coworkers were single parents or people with no other job experience. Most of my coworkers were poorly educated; I was practically unique in having a college education. (And I've got other problems.) More than a few of my coworkers had had some kind of problem earlier in life that meant they'd been out of the job market for a while--unplanned pregnancies, drug addictions, and in at least one case, jail time. Add to that the fact that, when I took the job, there was a hiring freeze for state employees, the biggest employer in the area. (Yay, state capital!) In fact, quite a lot of state employees--and Boeing employees--had recently been fired. This meant a surfeit of overqualified people for every job in town. (Including that one.)...

Again, get angry at the people who make the decision that outgoing calls are an effective sales tool. ....
Sorry Gilli, don't want to make you mad at me but I respectfully disagree. If I had a job where I was paid to harass people in their private homes with unwanted sales calls then I should expect some of those people to be a bit nasty. I don't care what your situation is as far as difficult circumstances, that doesn't give you the right to call me in my home.

These calls have at times (before the DNC list), made my telephone, which I paid for, unusable. Either I take it off the hook or I can't take a nap or whatever. One would like to have an open line for the kids to call in an emergency. I shouldn't have to pay for caller ID to stop answering sales calls that I never solicited, and that doesn't stop the phone from ringing unless I pay again to block unlisted calls.

If you call me for sales, you can expect me to tell you how disgusted I am that you are invading the privacy of my home and you are not welcome. You can expect me to tell you that my phone is not your avenue to use for your private gain. You want to use my phone for your business activity, then pay my phone bill. And if you want me to say that to your boss instead of to you then give me the boss's home number and I will.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-03, 08:26 PM
I just use a cell phone. They haven't found a way to telemarket those yet, I think.

SeanF
2005-Dec-03, 09:13 PM
Gillian, I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you here. I can understand being in such a tough situation that this type of job was a "necessary evil" for you, but that doesn't justify it, and it doesn't make it arbitrarily wrong for the callee to be rude back to you. When you take a job because it's the only job you can get, that means you have to deal with the negatives of that job. People being rude back at you is one of them.


(I had a customer make me cry once when I was trying to get out of the call because he wouldn't let me read the thing I had to read before disconnecting.)
Now, see, that's just ridiculous. The policy, I mean. Not only are you calling people who don't want to be called, but you're supposed to tell them that they can't even hang up on you until they listen to you? Come on.

mickal555
2005-Dec-04, 06:50 PM
Way's to annoy Telemarketers! (http://www.scotsons-shack.com/telemarketers.htm)







Sorry Gillian (really)

mickal555
2005-Dec-04, 06:51 PM
Wow I just noticed- look at the poll!

I think this is the first time we've had one around for a while with a 0%!!

mugaliens
2005-Dec-04, 07:29 PM
How about a National Call list? Unless you submit your name, it would be illegal to call you at home. Same goes for junk mail.

The incentive for consumers would be special reduced prices (for those who elect it) and no phone calls or junk mail (for those who elect not). The saving for marketers would be drastically reduced marketing costs.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-04, 07:39 PM
How about a National Call list? Unless you submit your name, it would be illegal to call you at home. Same goes for junk mail.

The incentive for consumers would be special reduced prices (for those who elect it) and no phone calls or junk mail (for those who elect not). The saving for marketers would be drastically reduced marketing costs.

That's actually not a bad idea...

mugaliens
2005-Dec-04, 09:02 PM
Wow I just noticed- look at the poll!

I think this is the first time we've had one around for a while with a 0%!!

I'm sorry! Didn't mean to be the only dissenter!


That's actually not a bad idea...

Thanks. Marketers used to respect people's rights. Now they don't. Wish we did something.

Chuck
2005-Dec-04, 10:36 PM
Way's to annoy Telemarketers! (http://www.scotsons-shack.com/telemarketers.htm)







Sorry Gillian (really)


Some of those are amusing. What I do at work is insist that the telemarketer give me the name of the person he wants to talk to. They usually ask for the person in charge of the company's insurance plan or the office supplies buyer or something. I say "I don't know who that is. All I have is a list of names." That seems to annoy them. I don't know why.