I see what you're getting at: the telemarketer in this hypothetical
situation is not being "cynical", he's just being eager, in the
annoying but also charming manner of sales people everywhere. I could
continue to flame endlessly on this topic, but I'll grant that there's
a distinction to make.

(KidDon) wrote in message . com...
[snip]
________________________________
One simple example/hypothetical. A person hearing on the news that a
free do not call list is available via 60 seconds on the internet may
very well sign up on the spur of the moment, and never receive
telemarketing calls again. That does not necessarily mean that person
would have always been an unwilling recipient and/or would have always
said no to a properly targeted marketing pitch for the right product
or service. For example, let's say that a skilled telemarketer calls
and says something like: Hello, I'm Joe Smith from FinestMortgage.*
Is this Mr. Johnson? I see from public records that you have a [VA,
FHA, etc...] loan on your home at 10%. With minimal paperwork and no
closing costs out of your pocket, I may be able to refinance that loan
at 7% and save you $189 per month. Doesn't that sound good to
you?.....etc....." That same person might very well be interested.

*This is a fictional name I picked at random. If there is a real
FinestMortgage out there, this is not intended to reflect on it or
refer to it in any way.

Bruce Draney wrote in message ...
Paul Rubin wrote:

Bruce Draney writes:
What most people haven't realized is that the government cannot afford
to prosecute no-call list violations by telemarketers which are certain
to occur.

They can pay for it by imposing big fines on the telemarketers they
convict, and seizing the assets of those who don't pay up.

If you believe this then that's fine, but I'm here to tell you the cost
to prosecute millions of violations will far exceed the fines and the
seized assets.

They are never going to prosecute millions of violators. Rather,
they would presecute the most egregious of violators. While there are
certainly millions of violations that occur, there are far fewer
telemarking companies that are in business.

You also forget that "The threat is worse than its execution".
Many telemarketers will think that is is cheaper and more prudent to
obey the Do Not Call lists, than to risk prosecution. Aside from the
fines, the cost of defending against prosecution are not trivial.

Just because the Government cannot afford to prosecute ALL
violators does not mean that they cannot prosecute ANY violators.

I think the law will help curb it, but it will not stop it, and the
disreputable swindlers will still be the biggest violators.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Bruce Draney wrote in message ...
Mike Murray wrote:

On 25 Sep 2003 11:34:18 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote:

What most people haven't realized is that the government cannot afford
to prosecute no-call list violations by telemarketers which are certain
to occur.

Maybe they can't afford to prosecute *all* of them. But they can go
after the big ones -- the guys who have assets -- the fines are big
enough that these cases will pay for themselves.

I think I said that they would set a couple of examples and hope that
everyone else follows along. Do you suppose they'll be some loopholes
that telemarketers will find here? I just have a sneaking suspicion
they might, like calling from Canada or Mexico, or just off the coast of
the U.S..


Hmmm, but that might be a tad more expensive for telemarketers, if
they have to call from outside the US. On the other hand, perhaps
that's the trend: they can hire telemarketers from Pakistan, and pay
the callers pennies on the dollar. Halfway across the globe, the
callers would have to work the graveyard shift, but big deal.

Besides, in some way, I suspect that it would be easier to enforce
a ban against telemarketers from outside of the US. The phone
companies could simply trace the call, and block all further incoming
phone calls from that phone number.


How many federal prosecutors do you suppose the Bush
administration is going to put on prosecuting an accidental (or a
deliberate) no call list member being bothered?

How many prosecutors has he assigned to go after small pot growers?
They obviously won't do it on a onesie-twosie basis -- they'll go
after the egregious violators -- a thousand calls at ten grand a pop
-- pretty soon you're talking real money.

We'll just have to wait and see how much enforcement there really is.
I'm betting there will very little money or resource devoted to it. In
typical the federal government will pay lip service to the idea and gut
the funding for it for the most part. Judging by the present
administration's Education plan, which has virtually no funding to back
up its vast promises, I'd expect about the same level of financial and
personnel or less to be involved in this concept.


And how many telemarketers *pretend* to be market researchers? And
how many calls which appear to be "market research" really build
sucker lists of prequalified prospects that the telemarketers will
later zero in on?

This is a definite concern and one that bears watching.



Market researchers are not much different than telemarketers. They
use *my* private facilities, at *their* time and convenience, to
conduct activities for their own financial gain. If market research
really is a loophole, it's one that ought to be closed.

It won't be, because in many cases market research is essential for the
Federal government itself, for the political process and for the
economy.


Let private enterprise solve this. People who *want* to participate
in market research can enter their rates in a central database, and
the market researcher automagically gets billed when the call is made.

Not going to happen.


there are in fact many reputable telemarketing companies that
will comply with the law,

Good for them. They have access to the do-not-call list. They should
have no problem staying out of trouble.

There are also a lot of disreputable ones who won't follow it and will
never get caught or prosecuted.


while the swindlers and thieves will find ways to break or
circumvent the laws and stay one step ahead of the authorities who will
never have the money to prosecute them.

This is a problem of laws, swindlers and thieves in general.






Yes, there are all kinds of hoops though which we can jump, all kinds
of ways we can inconvenience ourselves, to save the telemarketer the
hassle of looking at a do-not-call list.

You jump through hoops all of the time for almost every other aspect of
your life as well, but if you want to rant at t-marketers feel free. If
they're the greatest of your worries, you're in pretty good shape.


One of the cheapest and easiest ways is the caller ID.

Caller ID costs about 5 bucks a month, and is often offered only as
part of a more expensive package. Why should an individual buy this,
if that individual has no other use for it?

Is this a serious question? $5.00 a month? Wow. Stop the presses,
$5.00 a month, how outrageous. Let's see I could stop most
telemarketing calls bothering my family for $5.00 a month, or I could
get the government to prosecute and fine all telemarketers calling me
for billions a year. Which is the better deal?

It wouldn't cost anything close to "billions a year".
And you can do the math: if 50,000,000 eventually want to get put on a
Do Not Call list, and they have to pay $60/year, that also works out
to Billions of dollars a year, just to "stop" "most" telemarketing
calls with Caller ID.

Of course, Caller ID only gives you the information on whether to
answer the call: you still have your phone ring.

Interestingly, almost ALL telemarketers block Caller ID
information, rather than identify the name of the company, and the
number from where they are calling.



So you're jumping through hoops on *every* phone call, peering at the
caller-id, waiting until the caller starts leaving a message before
picking up the phone. Incidentally, doesn't this constrain the type
of answering machine you can use? Maybe not every family wants to
leave a speaker phone on all the time. Maybe some people prefer to
use the central office answering facility, in which case, you'd have
to retrieve the call when it was done and maybe return it on *your*
nickel if was important.

Not at all. I'm not so anal, that I have to answer a ringing phone
just to see if it's an annoying telemarketer.


All this for calls you'd normally just answer. Jesus.

I have seen counter people waiting on me in person, tell me to hold on
while they answer the telephone so it doesn't ring more than three
times. Tell me about how anal-retentive Americans are about being a
telephone slave.


Because of time constraints, telemarketers and market researchers rely
upon the "McDonalds, drive thru" behavior of most Americans in the 21st
century. The corporate "secret" is that the phone is almost always
answered by the 5th ring if someone is home. Therefore most
telemarketing companies set their dialing systems to ring no more than 5
times before moving on to the next "customer". Time is money even for
telemarketers.

Wrong! There's no cost to them at all. The marketeer isn't just
sitting there waiting for you to answer. Most telemarketers use
predictive dialers. These machines dial several numbers concurrently
and pass control to the marketeer only when the phone is answered (or
some set number of rings have occurred). Get a lot of those calls
where no one is on the other end? That's probably a predictive dialer
where some other sucker answered just before you did, and the machine
gave *him* to the marketeer and discarded you.

Bzzzzt!!!!! Thanks for playing. What has he won Johnny? Telemarketers
are paid by the hour. They aren't sitting waiting for you to answer
your phone after it's rung 5 times. Whether they're dialing three
numbers or 100 numbers at once, they aren't letting yours ring for more
than 3-5 times I can guarantee you, unless they're dialing manually.



I can't believe you're serious. You're at your desk. The phone
rings, and you sit there like a gork watching it until it rings five
times, annoying everybody else in the house. And you lack the virtue
of patience if you fail to do this? I don't think so.

It sounds to me that you've conditioned yourself to be a phone slave,
which is why you and other Americans like you continually get ****ed off
at telemarketers. If you're sitting at your desk and picking up the
phone on the first ring, no wonder you want the government to protect
you from telemarketers. Good luck by the way.



Is it because a ringing phone is annoying? Is it because you can't
continue reading your paper or writing your document or whatever until
it's finished ringing?

Is it because you have conditioned yourself to be a slave to a ringing
phone? Ask yourself why if you don't want to be disturbed by a ringing
phone you don't read your paper in a room where there is no phone, or
why you don't turn off the phone until your paper reading is done?


Relax while the phone is ringing? Sure. Besides, if enough people
do this, won't they just set their predictive dialers to ring a while
longer?

Time and money are the two biggest reasons. Plus, they know that
people like you cannot let a phone ring more than 3 times before picking
it up, regardless of whether it's a meaningless or important call.


Nor do laws against theft protect against thieves. Or laws against
assault protect against bullies. But they kinda inhibit 'em from
getting on a good roll.

So your view is that the government must make your phone management
skills more efficient and that anything you, yourself might do to
prevent you from being harrassed by unwanted phone calls is jumping
through hoops.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Not that anyone's interested, but...

I say let's go to the radio/television model of advertising. There,
it's the ads that pay for the shows you get.

Yep! I say if the telemarketers want to call me, they better chip in
on the phone bill! Same with spam and pop-up ads, let them pay my
online charges!!!

Radishes

On 30 Sep 2003 19:53:16 -0700, (Isidor
Gunsberg) wrote:

Bruce: Somehow, my news service didn't include your reply to my post,
so I'm replying indirectly to you through Isidor's.

Yes, there are all kinds of hoops though which we can jump, all kinds
of ways we can inconvenience ourselves, to save the telemarketer the
hassle of looking at a do-not-call list.

You jump through hoops all of the time for almost every other aspect of
your life as well, but if you want to rant at t-marketers feel free. If
they're the greatest of your worries, you're in pretty good shape.

You might say you're blessed to have hemorrhoids instead of rectal
cancer, but they're both a pain in the ass.

One of the cheapest and easiest ways is the caller ID.

Caller ID costs about 5 bucks a month, and is often offered only as
part of a more expensive package. Why should an individual buy this,
if that individual has no other use for it?

Is this a serious question? $5.00 a month? Wow. Stop the presses,
$5.00 a month, how outrageous. Let's see I could stop most
telemarketing calls bothering my family for $5.00 a month, or I could
get the government to prosecute and fine all telemarketers calling me
for billions a year. Which is the better deal?

Your five bucks won't stop 'em. Caller ID only solves on small part
of the puzzle, as Isidor points out, below:

It wouldn't cost anything close to "billions a year".
And you can do the math: if 50,000,000 eventually want to get put on a
Do Not Call list, and they have to pay $60/year, that also works out
to Billions of dollars a year, just to "stop" "most" telemarketing
calls with Caller ID.

Of course, Caller ID only gives you the information on whether to
answer the call: you still have your phone ring.

Interestingly, almost ALL telemarketers block Caller ID
information, rather than identify the name of the company, and the
number from where they are calling.

So you're jumping through hoops on *every* phone call, peering at the
caller-id, waiting until the caller starts leaving a message before
picking up the phone. Incidentally, doesn't this constrain the type
of answering machine you can use? Maybe not every family wants to
leave a speaker phone on all the time. Maybe some people prefer to
use the central office answering facility, in which case, you'd have
to retrieve the call when it was done and maybe return it on *your*
nickel if was important.

Not at all. I'm not so anal, that I have to answer a ringing phone
just to see if it's an annoying telemarketer.

Telemarketers count on you thinking it's somebody other than them.
How many times do they leave a message?

If you never got any calls that required immediate attention, you
could just shut your ringer off and review your messages every few
hours (I used to do that at work, BTW). Maybe your daughter's car has
broken down and she's calling from a pay phone with her only quarter.
Maybe it's some other kind of emergency. There's lots of valid
reasons other than anal curiosity why you might want to answer that
phone.

Because of time constraints, telemarketers and market researchers rely
upon the "McDonalds, drive thru" behavior of most Americans in the 21st
century. The corporate "secret" is that the phone is almost always
answered by the 5th ring if someone is home. Therefore most
telemarketing companies set their dialing systems to ring no more than 5
times before moving on to the next "customer". Time is money even for
telemarketers.

Wrong! There's no cost to them at all. The marketeer isn't just
sitting there waiting for you to answer. Most telemarketers use
predictive dialers. These machines dial several numbers concurrently
and pass control to the marketeer only when the phone is answered (or
some set number of rings have occurred).

Telemarketers
are paid by the hour. They aren't sitting waiting for you to answer
your phone after it's rung 5 times. Whether they're dialing three
numbers or 100 numbers at once, they aren't letting yours ring for more
than 3-5 times I can guarantee you, unless they're dialing manually.

It's all based on statistics. The companies adjust their predictive
dialing software to maximize the time the marketeer is actually
selling rather than waiting on the phone. I'm sure there's some
incremental cost to, e.g., dialing 10 numbers rather than 6, but not
much compared to the labor. If people start waiting to answer their
phone, they'll bump the number of calls.

It sounds to me that you've conditioned yourself to be a phone slave,
which is why you and other Americans like you continually get ****ed off
at telemarketers. If you're sitting at your desk and picking up the
phone on the first ring, no wonder you want the government to protect
you from telemarketers.

No, I don't do that. I have a telezapper and I've set my phone to
pick up on the second ring. The speaker phone is connected to the
answering machine, and by now, most people who regularly call me know
I screen my calls, so they identify themselves and I pick up. Those
that don't know me usually leave a message if the call is for an
"honest" reason. I think I've gotten maybe two telemarketing messages
left on the machine in the last six months.

I haven't had a telemarketing problem for the last couple of years. I
get maybe three or four what I believe to be TM (i.e., hangup) calls a
week. Before I started doing this, I was getting between fifteen and
twenty calls a *day*. It was a major irritation.

But these mooches, besides costing me time and money to "manage" their
calls, have constrained the way I utilize equipment for which I've
paid. And I don't like it.

Good luck by the way.

With forty or fifty million people ****ed off enough at the
telemarketeers to take the time to get on the do-not-call registry,
the solution's not gonna involve much luck. We've got a steamroller
going, and no politician is going to stand in front of it. It's gonna
stop, even if it takes a constitutional amendment clarifying and
constraining the rights of commercial speech (which is not as absolute
as you might think, as Nike found out recently).

Is it because a ringing phone is annoying? Is it because you can't
continue reading your paper or writing your document or whatever until
it's finished ringing?

Is it because you have conditioned yourself to be a slave to a ringing
phone? Ask yourself why if you don't want to be disturbed by a ringing
phone you don't read your paper in a room where there is no phone, or
why you don't turn off the phone until your paper reading is done?

Again, assuming that I have no valid personal reasons for wanting to
receive calls when I'm doing other activities. Maybe I work 3rd shift
and sleep during the day, but expect personal calls important enough
to be awakened for. The right of telemarketers to mooch off equipment
for which I've paid supersedes my right to use that equipment as I see
fit ?

So your view is that the government must make your phone management
skills more efficient and that anything you, yourself might do to
prevent you from being harrassed by unwanted phone calls is jumping
through hoops.

Jumping through hoops seems like the best term for it.

Why do the telemarketing calls stop after 9 PM and not start up until
some time in the morning? You think it's because the telemarketers
are nice considerate guys or the vast majority of phone users have the
improved "phone management skills" you talk about? Hell, no. It's
the good old government, gonna kick their butts for me if they break
the rules. And there *will* be new rules, and some companies who
can't live by 'em going out of business.

(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message
. com...
Hmmm, but that might be a tad more expensive for telemarketers, if they have
to call from outside the US. On the other hand, perhaps that's the trend:
they can hire telemarketers from Pakistan, and pay the callers pennies on
the dollar. Halfway across the globe, the callers would have to work the
graveyard shift, but big deal.

Evidently, some corporations in the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada
already have relocated their customer service centres (for telephone inquiries)
to India. The Indian customer service representatives are able to speak fluent,
idiomatic American or British (though perhaps not Canadian) English. And they
may have been carefully trained to adopt convincing American, British, or
Canadian telephone personalities, giving the impression that the service call
has been answered by someone in the country of the corporation's nominal origin.

'We are better deceived by having some truth told us than none.'
--Charlotte Lennox (Henrietta)

--Nick

(RSHaas) wrote in message ...
"Don't I have a right not to be forced to hear your sales pitch? (Richard
Peterson)
==============
You certainly have the right to hang up, block calls, use available
technology to screen or divert calls, and so on.
The question is.. can you enlist the aid of the government to prevent me
from calling? One problem I see in the telemarketing ban is that it focuses on
one form of commercial speech. You turn on the TV and commercials come into
your home using your personal TV and your electric power. So ban that, huh?
That means the networks have to send you only programming but not the
commercials because you are a spoiled brat that can't be troubled. And the
newspapers. You don't like all the ads. Ban them, too. Your edition of the
newspaper much come scrubbed clean of ads. All that so you can live in an open
capitalist society that is trimmed in such a way that it fits your personal
perfect way.. regardless of the consequences beyond your comfort zone.
The smart thing the telemarketers should do is ignore the ban.. set off 60
million complaints that would flood the court system and tie it up for decades
as it tried to process those cases.

RSHaas

Well, the Government has many weapons in its arsenal. For
instance, it can mandate a graduated tax, based on the number of phone
calls made. The tax wouldn't kick in until after a point that is well
beyond normal individual usage.

Also, the Government can mandate that Telemarketers practise full
disclosure, including giving the full company name, the address of the
entity, etc...It would forbid any use of Caller ID Block by
Telemarketers.


The Government could mandate that the phone company have an
automated Do No Call message play whenever a phone # signed up with
the Do Not Call list is reached.

Further, for any Telemarker that gets through, the person receiving
the call could push a single button, which would trigger the same Do
Not Call message.

So, even if a Telemarketer is allowed one call to a number, on the
basis of Free Speech, any subsequent calls by that Telemarketer could
be determined to be a form of harrassment, which could lead to stiff
fines.

Fines and taxes collected from Telemarketers could pay for the
provision of these services.

The slickest lawyers in the world won't be able to save the
telemarketers.

snip

Well, the Government has many weapons in its arsenal. For
instance, it can mandate a graduated tax, based on the number of phone
calls made. The tax wouldn't kick in until after a point that is well
beyond normal individual usage.

Also, the Government can mandate that Telemarketers practise full
disclosure, including giving the full company name, the address of the
entity, etc...It would forbid any use of Caller ID Block by
Telemarketers.


The Government could mandate that the phone company have an
automated Do No Call message play whenever a phone # signed up with
the Do Not Call list is reached.

Further, for any Telemarker that gets through, the person receiving
the call could push a single button, which would trigger the same Do
Not Call message.

So, even if a Telemarketer is allowed one call to a number, on the
basis of Free Speech, any subsequent calls by that Telemarketer could
be determined to be a form of harrassment, which could lead to stiff
fines.

Fines and taxes collected from Telemarketers could pay for the
provision of these services.

The slickest lawyers in the world won't be able to save the
telemarketers.

Personally, I support all of these measures. However, I do not believe the
gub'ment could support any of these ideas to an appreciable degree.




Tony D.