How the "Do Not Call" Situation SHOULD have been handled.........

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Blaster - 26 Sep 2003 19:08 GMT

I Hate Telemarketing calls, & signed up for the list as soon as it
became available.. But...
I think the judge was essentially right. Giving this kind of
power, to non-elected bureacrats in in a government agency (FTC), is a
little scary. I do belive ( & hope) our ELECTED officials can instate
a legal version FAST, but I'm not willing to erode our due process &
freedoms either.

Why didn't the FREE MARKET come up with a solution long ago??
How's This for an Idea:
*** For example, caller ID boxes cost almost nothing. Imagine a
similar caller ID box with a "Block Telemarketer" button. If you pick
up the phone & it's a telemarketing call, you hit the button, & any
future calls from that # would be "recognized & intercepted" by the
box, & your phone wouldn't ring. The only "law" needed (if it ain't
already so), would be that telemarketers must transmit their caller
ID. There isn't any reason why this feature couldn't be incorpoated
into Phones & cellphones too.
Free downloadable files would surely appear all over the 'net, with
"bad number lists" that you could download into your "box" (similar to
Spyware/Virus updates), that would essentially give people access to
the latest telemarketers phone #'s, & all this WITHOUT any "law",
"regulations" or goverment interference! These boxes would also be
able to "catch" the telemarketers that are exempt from the current
proposed FTC list, & the bad ones that would ignore the list anyway.
Best of all, these type devices would create a New industry, new
sales & possible boost for the economy!
<Idea is mine - All Rights Reserved 9/26/2003> !!

Reply to this Message

The Ghost of General Lee - 26 Sep 2003 20:13 GMT

>x-no-archive:yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> How's This for an Idea:
> *** For example, caller ID boxes cost almost nothing.

While true of the boxes, the same cannot be universally said about
subscribing to the service.

>Imagine a
>similar caller ID box with a "Block Telemarketer" button. If you pick
>up the phone & it's a telemarketing call, you hit the button, & any
>future calls from that # would be "recognized & intercepted" by the
>box, & your phone wouldn't ring.

There's already something along those lines available. It's called
call block service. Yet another subscription paid to the phone
company, and most have a limit of 6 numbers you can block.

>The only "law" needed (if it ain't
>already so), would be that telemarketers must transmit their caller
>ID. There isn't any reason why this feature couldn't be incorpoated
>into Phones & cellphones too.

It wouldn't have to be at the phone level. IIRC, there are flags that
get transmitted along with the CID info. Require telemarketers (and
the like) to transmit a special flag, the cell companies see that flag
and stop the call dead at the switch.

> Free downloadable files would surely appear all over the 'net, with
>"bad number lists" that you could download into your "box" (similar to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Best of all, these type devices would create a New industry, new
>sales & possible boost for the economy!

And yank even more money out of our pockets to defeat something we
shouldn't even have to be fighting. You are thinking along the right
lines, it just needs some fine tuning.

Reply to this Message

Signal Strength - 26 Sep 2003 20:49 GMT

x-no-archive:yes From: The Ghost of General Lee ghost@general.lee Date:
9/26/2003 3:13 PM Eastern:

A- "...It wouldn't have to be at the phone level. IIRC, there are flags that
get transmitted along with the CID info. Require telemarketers (and
the like) to transmit a special flag, the cell companies see that flag
and stop the call dead at the switch...."

### - I think you missed the point. It doesn't "have" to be at the phone
level, but it definatley "Should" be at the phone level, where WE have the all
the control, & don't need to rely on big corporations, phone companies, laws,
regs, courts & lobbyists, as would be the case if we tried to require all the
various phone companies to "flag" the calls to be at the switch" & Require
telemarketers to send special "flags".
_____________________________

B - ".... .And yank even more money out of our pockets to defeat something we
shouldn't even have to be fighting. You are thinking along the right lines, it
just needs some fine tuning...."

I would suspect most people would rather spend $29.99-59.99 on one of these
"blocker boxes/phones" right now, rather than wait for a call list full of
loopholes & exemptions, that telemarketers only have to check once every 90
days, & that that "boiler room operations" will soon learn how to close up
shop & re- open under a different name every 90 days to get around anyway.

Reply to this Message

The Ghost of General Lee - 26 Sep 2003 21:44 GMT

>x-no-archive:yes From: The Ghost of General Lee ghost@general.lee Date:
>9/26/2003 3:13 PM Eastern:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>various phone companies to "flag" the calls to be at the switch" & Require
>telemarketers to send special "flags".

Name one phone that would have the memory necessary to hold such a
black list. You would need a mini hard drive in each phone, and would
have to update it on a daily basis. The solution suggested presumes
requiring telemarketers to send out correct CID info, so it wouldn't
be much of a step further to have them send out a flag.

>B - ".... .And yank even more money out of our pockets to defeat something we
>shouldn't even have to be fighting. You are thinking along the right lines, it
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>days, & that that "boiler room operations" will soon learn how to close up
>shop & re- open under a different name every 90 days to get around anyway.

It's more than just the boxes. The solution proposed would basically
require everyone to subscribe to CID service in order for it to work.
Are you willing to tell the elderly on fixed incomes that they must
spend $4-$8/month (plus the cost of these magic boxes) for CID service
just to put an end to harassment by telemarketers? Or are you going
to require all phone companies to provide CID service as part of basic
service?

In a perfect world, you have the telemarketers (and pollsters and
survey takers and charities and politicians) all sending their special
flags, and your local phone company is responsible for honoring your
blocking requests. You wouldn't even need to subscribe to CID service
for this to work. But as I said, that's in a perfect world, which
will never exist.

Reply to this Message

Signal Strength - 26 Sep 2003 22:48 GMT

x-no-archive:yes From: The Ghost of General Lee ghost@general.lee Date:
9/26/2003 4:44 PM Eastern Standard Time:
""""....Name one phone that would have the memory necessary to hold such a
black list. You would need a mini hard drive in each phone, and would have to
update it on a daily basis....."

Seems like an exaggeration. I think a few thousand # memory would block
more calls than "the List". Remember, Most major Telemarketers are placing
calls on behalf of hundreds of clients, so there are far less than you may
think. The "box" mentioned would have no problem. As far as cellphones (&
Land Phones)... I currently have a Thin handheld Police scanner receiver, (
Alinco DJ-X2000T), that has Two Thousand channels capacity, & in addition to
storing up to 9 digits in each memory, It can hold a full Alphanumeric Name, 4
digit Pl code, & numerous other Parameters, in each of its' 2,000 slots,
bringing the effective storage up to perhaps 10 times the 2,000. Based on other
similar receivers, the the cost of it's memory is probably not even 1/20th of
it's retail price.
It doesn't have a "hard drive" & has been on the market for years, & i'm sure
today could have even 10x that, or more, if there was a market for it!.....
As far as "update it daily?? Why?? .
Once loaded with the current info database, I doubt it would become obsolete
overnight. & besides, "You" can control the addition of numbers at Your will,
on a per call basis, or once every 90 days (like the current list proposal),
or whatever.

"""".... The solution proposed would basically require everyone to subscribe
to CID service in order for it to work...."

All cellphone lines essentially already have Caller ID. "Many" landlines
already do. As far as "the elderly" ect... I think that this box concept could
lead to a "minimal" CID offshoot service, with a Senior discount & phone Co
owned box, for perhaps $1/mnth.
Besides, to quote you " Require the Flag & Require the Phone companies to
catch it at the switch"-- Who the heck do you think is going to pay for all of
that?? The equipment, software, manpower & database & upkeep "required" at the
phone company??? They are going to be "required" to keep track of everone who
does & doesn;t want the calls, set up this whole capture system, have
additional complaints & cust service calls....
unlike the do-able "box" Your "soulution is a unattainable fantasy.
Telco's don't want the headache of having to modifying their sys to "flag",
setting up cust databases ect, & would all band togeather, with the
Telemarketers, to defeat such a proposal.
I agree that the box isn't a 100% perfect world idea, but it seems way better
than anything else out there.

Reply to this Message

Peter Pan - 27 Sep 2003 00:05 GMT

> """".... The solution proposed would basically require everyone to subscribe
> to CID service in order for it to work...."

> I agree that the box isn't a 100% perfect world idea, but it seems way better
> than anything else out there.

The problems I see are
A) People have to spend MONEY on a device to stop the a*holes
B) or People have to spend MONEY on an upgrade to phone service to pay for
the flag
C) People that have lifeline service MUST SPEND MORE MONEY just to stop the
a*holes from calling
D) the database may be unmaintainable or at least will cost more MONEY

I heard a proposed idea that was actually free, know how they have hunting
seasons on certain animals at certain times? Make the open season on
telemarketers 364 days (can't shoot em on Christmas). Know how they have
pictures of missing kids on milk cartons? Put pix of Telemarketers on beer
cans. That way only people with guns have to spend MONEY on bullets, and if
you really want to thin them out quickly, put a bounty on em! (Use the money
saved by replacing shot up traffic signs to pay the bounties).

Reply to this Message

The Ghost of General Lee - 27 Sep 2003 03:33 GMT

>x-no-archive:yes From: The Ghost of General Lee ghost@general.lee Date:
>9/26/2003 4:44 PM Eastern Standard Time:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>on a per call basis, or once every 90 days (like the current list proposal),
>or whatever.

This would require every cell user to replace their phone, and those
who have just signed up for a two year contract would have to wait two
years before they would become "protected" from telemarketers. The
list would become obsolete the very instant a new telemarketer gets a
new phone line (IOW, every day), because it would be cost advantageous
for them to have their numbers changed on a regular basis to defeat
your system. And the thought of having to add each new number to your
personal list is preposterous. That gives telemarketers a free call
to every cell phone from every phone line they have. Then they'll
take a page out of the spammer's handbook, change their numbers after
a month, and hit every phone again. And it would still penalize
prepaid customers, as they would have to foot the bill for every call
so their phone could reject them. I thought the point of all of this
was to prevent telemarketers from hitting your phone, not dealing with
the issue (and paying for the calls) after they did it.

> """".... The solution proposed would basically require everyone to subscribe
>to CID service in order for it to work...."
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>lead to a "minimal" CID offshoot service, with a Senior discount & phone Co
>owned box, for perhaps $1/mnth.

So you are now injecting a means test into the equation, where the
phone company has to create a new bureaucracy to check the ages of
their customers, or their financial resources to see if they qualify
for the discount. And now you suggest the phone company would own
these boxes, which they would have to maintain, creating even more
ongoing costs for them.

Requiring 300 million people to go out and purchase a box and
subscribe to a service just to put an end to this annoyance is an
undue burden. And it still wouldn't deal with issues like forwarded
calls or lines being tied up by the box rejecting a call when the
customer tries to use the line for an emergency call. And if a
business wants to opt into this system, you'll run into
incompatibility issues with some PBX systems and the like.

> Besides, to quote you " Require the Flag & Require the Phone companies to
>catch it at the switch"-- Who the heck do you think is going to pay for all of
>that?? The equipment, software, manpower & database & upkeep "required" at the
>phone company??? They are going to be "required" to keep track of everone who
>does & doesn;t want the calls, set up this whole capture system, have
>additional complaints & cust service calls....

It's really not much different than 900 blocking service they offer
now, just in reverse. It won't require any new hardware, just minor
reprogramming of their switches. Flags are already being sent. A
"P" flag indicates a private call, and most phone company software is
already written to reject those calls upon customer demand. The
switches can intercept that flag, whether or not the call recipient
has CID service. I know this to be a fact because I once had a second
line at home (pre-DSL days). Instead of paying extra for CID, I had
call return service and anonymous call reject (yes, you can order ACR
service from BellSouth *without* having CID), so if I wanted to know
who had just called, I just dialed *69 and got the number read back to
me.

There won't be a separate database, just an added field in the
customer record. When a business gets a new phone line that will be
used for telemarketing purposes, that line is marked as such during
the ordering process, so there would be no need for any other manpower
or upkeep. You seem concerned about who is going to pay for this
option, but don't seem to mind forcing everyone to get new cell phones
and buy these magic boxes for their land lines and pay extra for a
monthly service. I don't follow the logic here.

> unlike the do-able "box" Your "soulution is a unattainable fantasy.

Your system is beyond fantasy. The software to stop calls based upon
CID flags exists today. See above.

> Telco's don't want the headache of having to modifying their sys to "flag",
>setting up cust databases ect, & would all band togeather, with the
>Telemarketers, to defeat such a proposal.
> I agree that the box isn't a 100% perfect world idea, but it seems way better
>than anything else out there.
>

Phone companies have several things in their favor now. They control
both the entry and termination points of the calls. They already have
some limited control of telemarketing activities via tarrifs, and
using the carrot approach of tax breaks from the government would make
them more willing to implement an effective blocking system.

Reply to this Message

Mark Allread - 26 Sep 2003 22:13 GMT

I think the judge was essentially right. Giving this kind of

> power, to non-elected bureacrats in in a government agency (FTC), is a
> little scary.

In exactly what way? The "list" is a collection of numbers which THE PEOPLE
WHO PAY FOR THE PHONE LINES enter their own numbers into. There is
absolutely
no "power" given to the FTC except that freely given by those people.

Consider it a vote.

BTW, I'd like to know exactly why the telemarketing industry wants to
contact
people who clearly don't want to be contacted. I refuse to deal with
telemarketers
and spammers, so the only reason for them to call me is to piss me off.
They should
be actively supporting the list, since the remaining "callable" numbers
can be
considered much more likely to be interested in whatever they're pitching,
and they
wouldn't be wasting money calling disinterested parties.

Signature

Mark

Reply to this Message

Philip K - 27 Sep 2003 06:40 GMT

My land phone rings every 30 minutes from 9 am to 9pm every day with "Private Caller"
or "Outside Area" displayed on CID box, i.e. telemarketing computer switches. Verizon
sold me their "Caller Intercept" service for a monthly fee and I tried it, but my employer's
phone switch sends a zeroed-out CID signal, so those (important) calls would go into the
Caller Intercept menu. Since I can't ask them to record their name every time they try
to reach me at home, and giving out a PIN to every one at works seems pointless,
I stopped the Caller Intercept service.

I have actually begun disconnecting the phone cord on my home phone during certain hours,
in frustration. I leave the cell on for emergencies. Free speech is great, sure, but this is just
madness, plain and simple.

Phil

Reply to this Message

Samauri - 30 Sep 2003 13:41 GMT

>> My land phone rings every 30 minutes from 9 am to 9pm every day with "Private Caller"
>> or "Outside Area" displayed on CID box, i.e. telemarketing computer switches. Verizon
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
>> Phil

Why not just have your important work calls go to your cellphone?

Reply to this Message

Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX - 28 Sep 2003 19:28 GMT

If the courts decide the no call list is unconstitutional
because it discriminates between types of speech, then:

a. modify the list to allow the victim to specify which
types of unsolicited calls to refuse

or b. allow paying phone customers to place their name on
a list offering for fee answering of calls and provide the
means for those called to collect these fees. This is the
"Private Citizen" model, and it does not infringe anyone's
free speech.

or c. Force telcos to allow calling party pays as an option
for phone service at an affordable cost.

Chuck Forsberg caf@omen.com www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665

Reply to this Message

Al Klein - 28 Sep 2003 21:55 GMT

>If the courts decide the no call list is unconstitutional
>because it discriminates between types of speech, then:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Chuck Forsberg

Hiya Chuck. Never did thank you for ZMODEM, so thanks.

How about just make telemarketing calls caller pays? If you want to
do business you pay for it.

Reply to this Message