NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/dcom/telecom/12746

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 4.6 KB | 102 lines

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!telecom-request
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:06:05 CST
From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works
Reply-To: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Approved: [e-mail]
X-Submissions-To: [e-mail]
X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 925, Message 5 of 9
Lines: 87

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:

> [e-mail] (Jim Haynes) writes:

>> instead of crusading for a national list of people who don't want to
>> receive telephone solicitations, we should crusade for a list of those
>> who do want them, and permit only the people on that list to be
>> called.

Sounds like a list I would *NOT* want to be on ... and it sounds like
a good idea, too. Too bad the high-paid lawyers won't allow their
respective telemarketing firms (and the bribes those firms may well be
handing to certain, uhh, key people) to be subjected to such hassles
(just as they dodged the auto-dialer bit for now).

> Simple mechanisms exist to prevent autodialers from reaching you.

Such as?  Remember, Caller-ID isn't available everywhere, and (as far
as I know) doesn't identify the calling party as an auto-dialer (i.e,
non-human) as such.  So even if you do have Caller-ID, you can't just
tell the system to block any call that's from an auto-dialer (*ANY*
auto-dialer, *ANYWHERE*), and pass any others.  Some people can't
afford to ignore all calls except those from a set of specific
numbers, so you have to know the offending machine's number ahead of
time (meaning you have to be called to avoid being called).  So
Caller-ID is obviously not a very good answer.

I assume, therefore, that there is another device out there which
*DOES* identify whether the calling party is human or machine, and can
block all calls from one or the other.  I also assume that this is
available for a price that the average person can afford, and is not a
hassle to them to use (i.e., you don't force the caller to go through
a menu or anything just to get to you --- it all happens behind the
scenes).

Anyone care to enlighten me as to what this device is, and where I
can send my $10 or $15 to get it?  or do I just run down to K-Mart for
it?  :-)

> This country needs to rid itself of regulation. This country needs
> to have more of its citizens accept some minimal level of
> responsibility without resorting to whining for the government to
> always do something.

Responsibility does not mean allowing telemarketing machines to call
at whatever time they just happen to get to your number, and interfere
with your time/privacy at home.  Not wanting to get annoying automated
calls does not imply a lack of responsibility.  Telemarketing calls
are bad enough to begin with.  Non-human telemarketing calls are out
of the question.

> If you don't like outbound automated calls, do something about it. As
> my Dad says, there is no law which says that you must pick up your
> phone when it rings.

Well, obviously, we can't all just never answer our phone.  What if the
person on the other end is an important caller?  What happens if they're
not calling from a number you know (defeats using Caller-ID and only
allowing a few numbers to pass)?  If you never answer your phone,
there's no telling what kind of calls you could miss ...

Any other bright ideas?  Anyone know a way to key in a DTMF sequence
that will, uhh, confuse (i.e., lock up) an auto-dialer that's called
you (preferably while keeping a long-distance call up for an extended
time, thus making them pay the toll for using your phone for their
business ... but if nothing else, shutting the blasted thing down for
a while)?

Along the same lines as the above, if you have call-forwarding, can
you forward a call after it is established (like you can on a PBX)?
It seems that the easiest thing to do then would be to immediately
forward the call to time and temperature ... it still sees a phone
off-hook, hears voices, and who knows, might even sell something to
T&T.  ;-}

Yes, I'm rather unhappy about that ruling, but I don't have the money
to buy a ruling that would reverse it.


jim
#include <std_disclaimer.h>                                 73 DE N5IAL (/4)
INTERNET: [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]
          [e-mail]       (OLD): [e-mail]
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb        AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL       ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W