Let me get this straight: there are people who are arguing that one should *not* be able to say, "I do not wish to have my phone turned into a sales venue."
People should not be allowed to opt-out of unsolicited intrusions because that's an infringment of the commercial imperative of a company.
Don't get it.
You can put up a sign on your drive saying "No trespassing" but you cannot put up a sign saying "Don't call me if you're selling something."
There's been a subtle piece of bullisht attempted here: the DNC does not reduce the right of anyone to call any old punter: just people who have gone out of their way to register their disapproval. Boy. Some of y'all love this capitalism shiiiit too much, and God knows I love it. Been good to me, but DAMN.
Passing laws to inhibit communication is a very bad idea. If you allow the government the power to block freedom of speech from corporations it could keep Green Peace from soliciting funds or publishing studies on the environment.
The DNC list specifically allows charities (such as Greenpeace) to continue to solicit via the phone.
Let me get this straight: there are people who are arguing that one should *not* be able to say, "I do not wish to have my phone turned into a sales venue."
People should not be allowed to opt-out of unsolicited intrusions because that's an infringment of the commercial imperative of a company.
Don't get it.
You can put up a sign on your drive saying "No trespassing" but you cannot put up a sign saying "Don't call me if you're selling something."
There's been a subtle piece of bullisht attempted here: the DNC does not reduce the right of anyone to call any old punter: just people who have gone out of their way to register their disapproval. Boy. Some of y'all love this capitalism shiiiit too much, and God knows I love it. Been good to me, but DAMN.
Let's break this down:
1. There is no mechanism in place to opt out of being called by telemarketers. And the government is prohibited from interfereing in free speech, period. This law will be turned over by the court, no question. But, let's say that it does not. How do you enforce such a law? You can't. So why waste your time? Petition your phone company to set something up to block telemarketers. You will never stop it either way.
2. People are buying from these people or they would not do it. They are providing a service. Where do you stop. The guy from your dealership that calls you trimonthly to remind you it is time to change your oil is calling to sell you his oil changing service and hopefully more services in the future. The beautician calling to remind you of your appiontment is making a follow up sales call. The computer tech that calls you to tell you you need a new component is making a sales call.How about your stock broker? A lot of things that take place on the phone are related to sales and commerce.
Let's say you are running late to an appointment, and you have to stop because an ambulance is holding up traffic, do poll congress to outlaw ambulances from blocking traffic? WAIT, I don't want to know the answer. I withdraw the question.
1. There is no mechanism in place to opt out of being called by telemarketers. And the government is prohibited from interfereing in free speech, period. This law will be turned over by the court, no question. But, let's say that it does not. How do you enforce such a law? You can't. So why waste your time? Petition your phone company to set something up to block telemarketers. You will never stop it either way.
Yes you will. As I posted earlier in another thread:
2. People are buying from these people or they would not do it. They are providing a service. Where do you stop. The guy from your dealership that calls you trimonthly to remind you it is time to change your oil is calling to sell you his oil changing service and hopefully more services in the future. The beautician calling to remind you of your appiontment is making a follow up sales call. The computer tech that calls you to tell you you need a new component is making a sales call.How about your stock broker? A lot of things that take place on the phone are related to sales and commerce.
The telemarketers are not providing a service to you, they are soliciting your business. They are only providing a service to the company which has hired them.
Almost all of the examples you've given of businesses calling your home are pre-existing relationships which one would expect phone contact. The argument here revolves around unsolicited commercial phone calls.
I would expect my stockbroker to call if there is an opportunity or problem. I am glad to be reminded of a dentist/doctor/hair appointment. I appreciate my car dealer calling to remind me of an upcoming service deadline (especially if it involves work that is essential to the warranty).
I'm still trying to figure out where you pulled the 'computer tech' example from, though. I don't think I've ever had the computer store call my home to say, "Hey, time for you to buy a new video card".
Someone cold-calling to inquire if I want my carpets shampooed, my chimney cleaned, or my driveway paved is unwanted and I should have the option to stop it.
Quote:
Let's say you are running late to an appointment, and you have to stop because an ambulance is holding up traffic, do poll congress to outlaw ambulances from blocking traffic? WAIT, I don't want to know the answer. I withdraw the question.
Your hypothetical situation relates in what way? Are you really that stupid?
It's not like those ambulances are slamming on the brakes in front of you and blaring HMO advertisements over the loudspeaker.
The DNC list specifically allows charities (such as Greenpeace) to continue to solicit via the phone.
Oh, so they are passing a law that will allow tele-marketers to call you endlessly if they want you to give them money for nothing, but if they want to give you an item or a service for your money they will become criminals and have to pay a fine of up to $120,000.00 -- That makes a lot of sense.
I get far more tele-marketers for nonprofit companies calling me to solicit funds than people trying to sell me products.
Anyway, the government should not be allowed to pass this law, and I truly hope it is found unconstitutional.
Oh, so they are passing a law that will allow tele-marketers to call you endlessly if they want you to give them money for nothing, but if they want to give you an item or a service for your money they will become criminals and have to pay a fine of up to $120,000.00 -- That makes a lot of sense.
I get far more tele-marketers for nonprofit companies calling me to solicit funds than people trying to sell me products.
Anyway, the government should not be allowed to pass this law, and I truly hope it is found unconstitutional.
The telemarketers are not providing a service to you, they are soliciting your business. They are only providing a service to the company which has hired them.
Almost all of the examples you've given of businesses calling your home are pre-existing relationships which one would expect phone contact. The argument here revolves around unsolicited commercial phone calls.
I would expect my stockbroker to call if there is an opportunity or problem. I am glad to be reminded of a dentist/doctor/hair appointment. I appreciate my car dealer calling to remind me of an upcoming service deadline (especially if it involves work that is essential to the warranty).
I'm still trying to figure out where you pulled the 'computer tech' example from, though. I don't think I've ever had the computer store call my home to say, "Hey, time for you to buy a new video card".
Someone cold-calling to inquire if I want my carpets shampooed, my chimney cleaned, or my driveway paved is unwanted and I should have the option to stop it.
Your hypothetical situation relates in what way? Are you really that stupid?
It's not like those ambulances are slamming on the brakes in front of you and blaring HMO advertisements over the loudspeaker.
It relates in the fact that it is a inconveniece not a form of harrasment. Thogh at the time it may seem so to some.
I am not saying that you don't have the right to ask to be exempted from these calls. What I am saying is, YOU have the power NOW to stop or hinder, accept or deny these calls as you see fit. No act of congress needed.
Let's be realistic, sales is a science. Contact x number of people and y number will respond. These guys just go down a list that anyone can buy, calling the number and doing their pitch. They will find a way to reach as many people as they can. So, I see no reality in hoping a national list will stop them. How will they access the 50M number list? Give me a break.
Telemarketers are subcontractors for other people usually. Sometimes companies themselves will call you. I have in the past done market research on my own using the yellow pages. So by blocking telemarketers you will be preventing commerce or putting penalties on free and legal commerce.
Not only that, it will be making criminals out of people just trying to make a living. It could have detrimental effects on segments of the economy. So when that happens and sales lag and rices drop on a stock you own, taxes edge up yet onother notch, unemployment will increase, I guess something will be acheaved then. Right?
Is it really that big of a hassle to you? I don't know.
I have fun with those guys when they call. I try to sell them something. I look at it as a sales oppertunity for me.
It relates in the fact that it is a inconveniece not a form of harrasment. Thogh at the time it may seem so to some.
I am not saying that you don't have the right to ask to be exempted from these calls. What I am saying is, YOU have the power NOW to stop or hinder, accept or deny these calls as you see fit. No act of congress needed.
I prefer not to have to worry about whether a call is a marketing call or a personal call.
Quote:
Let's be realistic, sales is a science. Contact x number of people and y number will respond. These guys just go down a list that anyone can buy, calling the number and doing their pitch. They will find a way to reach as many people as they can. So, I see no reality in hoping a national list will stop them. How will they access the 50M number list? Give me a break.
It's not my concern how they access the list, or how they remove those numbers from their call-lists or computer dialling software.
Quote:
Telemarketers are subcontractors for other people usually. Sometimes companies themselves will call you. I have in the past done market research on my own using the yellow pages. So by blocking telemarketers you will be preventing commerce or putting penalties on free and legal commerce.
Let me get this straight. You did market research using the Yellow Pages? You were bold enough to call people who had listed advertisements containing their phone number? Wow. Next time, might I suggest that you follow your line of reasoning and dial random numbers to conduct your market research. I'm sure you'll have great success.
The only commerce I am preventing by blocking a telemarketer is commerce between myself and the telemarketer. He can feel free to contact someone who hasn't opted-out.
Quote:
Not only that, it will be making criminals out of people just trying to make a living. It could have detrimental effects on segments of the economy. So when that happens and sales lag and rices drop on a stock you own, taxes edge up yet onother notch, unemployment will increase, I guess something will be acheaved then. Right?
You are bringing up the same old argument. If the telemarketing companies have 50 million less numbers to call, they will be operating more efficiently. Yes some people will lose their jobs, but I won't be losing any sleep over that.
Quote:
Is it really that big of a hassle to you? I don't know.
I have fun with those guys when they call. I try to sell them something. I look at it as a sales oppertunity for me.
Hope you have luck selling to a minimum wage telemarketer.
I prefer not to have to worry about whether a call is a marketing call or a personal call.
It's not my concern how they access the list, or how they remove those numbers from their call-lists or computer dialling software.
Let me get this straight. You did market research using the Yellow Pages? You were bold enough to call people who had listed advertisements containing their phone number? Wow. Next time, might I suggest that you follow your line of reasoning and dial random numbers to conduct your market research. I'm sure you'll have great success.
The only commerce I am preventing by blocking a telemarketer is commerce between myself and the telemarketer. He can feel free to contact someone who hasn't opted-out.
You are bringing up the same old argument. If the telemarketing companies have 50 million less numbers to call, they will be operating more efficiently. Yes some people will lose their jobs, but I won't be losing any sleep over that.
Hope you have luck selling to a minimum wage telemarketer.
Let's go at this from another angle:
We agree that at times the calls can be inconvenient. We agree that opting out should be an option. Right.
Here is where we differ, maybe.
There are terrorists in seemingly all countries including this one, that would like nothing more than to kill you, me, my kids, your parents, or any amarican. Essentially WWIII is going on around us as we speek. I know you are asking "What does this have to do with this discussion?"
Well, obviously these are things that require leaders to pay close attention to. Well there are politicians in Washington that actually think that they need to spend precious time on this just because some people are "bothered by telemarketers." If this law is not overuled by the courts, it is a stepping stone for some of the same pandering pinheads to then further restrict rights of law abiding citizens. Do you want to leave it up to these same politicians that don't have there priorities straight.
Using this same logic, let say you have a neighbor who does not like the sound of yor kids playing in the afternoon because it interupts his power nap. He could argue that the noise that your kids are making is too loud and it is intruding into his home. Stating, "I should not have to hear kids when I am sleeping, should I? The parents should take them to the park if they want to play" He could then patition and raise a fuss and then group together a mob of like minded kid shunners, and enact a law that kids should only play in designated noise zones, using the telemarketing arguement. Don't laugh, suits have been won and laws passed for sillier reasons. Now, any one that has kids knows that they need to play and laugh and make noise to be healthy normal kids. How would you enforce that? Normal parents would become neglegent and criminal for being normal and wanting what is best for them. So one person's inconvenience now becomes eveyy parents inconvenience. It is just a shift of inconvenience.
The same is true of the DNC list law... thing.
I know it sounds far fetched. But so did sueing McDonald's for serving their coffie too hot. Or how about the sueing them because their food is so good that it made someone fat. It seems it will have no end untill people think ahead a little.
So what am saying is that sometimes we as citizens might want to put up with things a bit if only to protect the civil rights of everyone. America used to be known for it's relentless persuit of solutions to problems. That reputation is fading. We are becoming the "Whining Nation".
We agree that at times the calls can be inconvenient. We agree that opting out should be an option. Right.
Excellent. DNC list it is, then.
Quote:
Here is where we differ, maybe.
There are terrorists in seemingly all countries including this one, that would like nothing more than to kill you, me, my kids, your parents, or any amarican. Essentially WWIII is going on around us as we speek. I know you are asking "What does this have to do with this discussion?"
Well, obviously these are things that require leaders to pay close attention to. Well there are politicians in Washington that actually think that they need to spend precious time on this just because some people are "bothered by telemarketers." If this law is not overuled by the courts, it is a stepping stone for some of the same pandering pinheads to then further restrict rights of law abiding citizens. Do you want to leave it up to these same politicians that don't have there priorities straight.
Using this same logic, let say you have a neighbor who does not like the sound of yor kids playing in the afternoon because it interupts his power nap. He could argue that the noise that your kids are making is too loud and it is intruding into his home. Stating, "I should not have to hear kids when I am sleeping, should I? The parents should take them to the park if they want to play" He could then patition and raise a fuss and then group together a mob of like minded kid shunners, and enact a law that kids should only play in designated noise zones, using the telemarketing arguement. Don't laugh, suits have been won and laws passed for sillier reasons. Now, any one that has kids knows that they need to play and laugh and make noise to be healthy normal kids. How would you enforce that? Normal parents would become neglegent and criminal for being normal and wanting what is best for them. So one person's inconvenience now becomes eveyy parents inconvenience. It is just a shift of inconvenience.
You'll be glad to know that your municipality will already have Noise By-Laws. Yes, the area you live in has already been overtaken by pandering pinheads!!!
I don't think you'll find too many areas in life that aren't regulated in one way or another.
Quote:
The same is true of the DNC list law... thing.
I know it sounds far fetched. But so did sueing McDonald's for serving their coffie too hot. Or how about the sueing them because their food is so good that it made someone fat. It seems it will have no end untill people think ahead a little.
You are criticizing the 'stupid' segment of the population. Anyone who spills a hot coffee on their lap deserves a few months of pain, and certainly not a cash award.
How about some praise for those in the population who have decided they no longer want to be push-marketed to in their homes.
Quote:
So what am saying is that sometimes we as citizens might want to put up with things a bit if only to protect the civil rights of everyone. America used to be known for it's relentless persuit of solutions to problems. That reputation is fading. We are becoming the "Whining Nation".
The DMA aren't protecting the civil rights of everyone in the country. The DMA are protecting their profits by making sure that their rights are protected.
You'll be glad to know that your municipality will already have Noise By-Laws. Yes, the area you live in has already been overtaken by pandering pinheads!!!
I don't think you'll find too many areas in life that aren't regulated in one way or another.
You are criticizing the 'stupid' segment of the population. Anyone who spills a hot coffee on their lap deserves a few months of pain, and certainly not a cash award.
How about some praise for those in the population who have decided they no longer want to be push-marketed to in their homes.
The DMA aren't protecting the civil rights of everyone in the country. The DMA are protecting their profits by making sure that their rights are protected.
Good points made. I am not sure i will agree with you on some but very good discussion.
Oh. I know about the noise thing here. You see, I am a musician and I was effected by those laws. It is a shame. It cut down my income by limiting the venues that I could play at. Good thing that is not my day job.
Good points made. I am not sure i will agree with you on some but very good discussion.
Oh. I know about the noise thing here. You see, I am a musician and I was effected by those laws. It is a shame. It cut down my income by limiting the venues that I could play at. Good thing that is not my day job.
Perhaps you can send me a cd of your music so I can blast it down the phone to those damned carpet cleaning companies.
I'm gonna start the national "*uck you registry" where you sign up and commit to curse out any sales calls you recieve from now on. Hopefully the massive demoralization of the phone workers will help put a stop to these whiny pain in the @ss phone pirates. The nonsense that people kick up in an attempt to legitimize the illegit is amazing.
The US is based on the will of the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE want a *ucking list, we should get a *ucking list. Constitution be damned! (and you can quote that one...) All this 'free speech' argument is doing is trying to protect an already out of control agency. Imagine if instead of your mail coming in a 'queue' which you can manage (like an answering machine) imagine if it litterally fell from the ceiling into the middle of the dinning room table during a meal? Or perhaps if it was slipped under the door while you are on the John? Or how about if it was crumpled into a ball and thrown at you while you are napping, jolting you awake?
The fundamental differences in the various ways of marketing sales to me each need customized solutions to keep them legitimate. Simply saying "you can't divide types of speech" and "you can't stop free speech" isn't even addressing the problem. Instead of being DEFENSIVE I'd like to see some pro-active work from companies to protect the intrests of their financial backers.
Should this legistlation fail I'd call on every American to thumb through their portfolios and asking companies they support if they use direct phone solicitation as a sales method. If they do, feel free to unload the stock and buy some AAPL. Then sign up for my "*uck You Registry" so we can execrise our OWN free speech rights and start telling them how displeased we are with the calls in a language that they can understand (since apparantly they don't understand the civil method of starting a DNC list).
I'm gonna start the national "*uck you registry" where you sign up and commit to curse out any sales calls you recieve from now on. Hopefully the massive demoralization of the phone workers will help put a stop to these whiny pain in the @ss phone pirates. The nonsense that people kick up in an attempt to legitimize the illegit is amazing.
The US is based on the will of the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE want a *ucking list, we should get a *ucking list. Constitution be damned! (and you can quote that one...) All this 'free speech' argument is doing is trying to protect an already out of control agency. Imagine if instead of your mail coming in a 'queue' which you can manage (like an answering machine) imagine if it litterally fell from the ceiling into the middle of the dinning room table during a meal? Or perhaps if it was slipped under the door while you are on the John? Or how about if it was crumpled into a ball and thrown at you while you are napping, jolting you awake?
The fundamental differences in the various ways of marketing sales to me each need customized solutions to keep them legitimate. Simply saying "you can't divide types of speech" and "you can't stop free speech" isn't even addressing the problem. Instead of being DEFENSIVE I'd like to see some pro-active work from companies to protect the intrests of their financial backers.
Should this legistlation fail I'd call on every American to thumb through their portfolios and asking companies they support if they use direct phone solicitation as a sales method. If they do, feel free to unload the stock and buy some AAPL. Then sign up for my "*uck You Registry" so we can execrise our OWN free speech rights and start telling them how displeased we are with the calls in a language that they can understand (since apparantly they don't understand the civil method of starting a DNC list).
Hey calm down you got your list.
It is not worth the paper it is written on, but you got your list.
This is the attitude that I am talking about. "Screw everything and everyone so that I can be appeased.", is not a good place to start from when it comes to setting standards for free speech.
You are right that some on should and I beleive that someone will come up with a private sector solution for this.
As far as the stockholders forcing complience, that is a great idea. But it requires a little work on individuals part. Why hasn't anyone done this before?
I guess the first step is to get the governmenbt involved in an an attempt to curb free speech rights. Free speech is free speech, start taking away little peices and you start redefining the meaning. That is why it must be lumped together.
Use your free speech to get companies to comply make your money talk. It will have more teeth than any bill that congress can pass.
Comments
Let me get this straight: there are people who are arguing that one should *not* be able to say, "I do not wish to have my phone turned into a sales venue."
People should not be allowed to opt-out of unsolicited intrusions because that's an infringment of the commercial imperative of a company.
Don't get it.
You can put up a sign on your drive saying "No trespassing" but you cannot put up a sign saying "Don't call me if you're selling something."
There's been a subtle piece of bullisht attempted here: the DNC does not reduce the right of anyone to call any old punter: just people who have gone out of their way to register their disapproval. Boy. Some of y'all love this capitalism shiiiit too much, and God knows I love it. Been good to me, but DAMN.
Originally posted by Res
Passing laws to inhibit communication is a very bad idea. If you allow the government the power to block freedom of speech from corporations it could keep Green Peace from soliciting funds or publishing studies on the environment.
The DNC list specifically allows charities (such as Greenpeace) to continue to solicit via the phone.
Originally posted by Harald
Hold on hold on hold on.
Let me get this straight: there are people who are arguing that one should *not* be able to say, "I do not wish to have my phone turned into a sales venue."
People should not be allowed to opt-out of unsolicited intrusions because that's an infringment of the commercial imperative of a company.
Don't get it.
You can put up a sign on your drive saying "No trespassing" but you cannot put up a sign saying "Don't call me if you're selling something."
There's been a subtle piece of bullisht attempted here: the DNC does not reduce the right of anyone to call any old punter: just people who have gone out of their way to register their disapproval. Boy. Some of y'all love this capitalism shiiiit too much, and God knows I love it. Been good to me, but DAMN.
Let's break this down:
1. There is no mechanism in place to opt out of being called by telemarketers. And the government is prohibited from interfereing in free speech, period. This law will be turned over by the court, no question. But, let's say that it does not. How do you enforce such a law? You can't. So why waste your time? Petition your phone company to set something up to block telemarketers. You will never stop it either way.
2. People are buying from these people or they would not do it. They are providing a service. Where do you stop. The guy from your dealership that calls you trimonthly to remind you it is time to change your oil is calling to sell you his oil changing service and hopefully more services in the future. The beautician calling to remind you of your appiontment is making a follow up sales call. The computer tech that calls you to tell you you need a new component is making a sales call.How about your stock broker? A lot of things that take place on the phone are related to sales and commerce.
Let's say you are running late to an appointment, and you have to stop because an ambulance is holding up traffic, do poll congress to outlaw ambulances from blocking traffic? WAIT, I don't want to know the answer. I withdraw the question.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's break this down:
1. There is no mechanism in place to opt out of being called by telemarketers. And the government is prohibited from interfereing in free speech, period. This law will be turned over by the court, no question. But, let's say that it does not. How do you enforce such a law? You can't. So why waste your time? Petition your phone company to set something up to block telemarketers. You will never stop it either way.
Yes you will. As I posted earlier in another thread:
FCC to take over FTC role in DNC list enforcement
2. People are buying from these people or they would not do it. They are providing a service. Where do you stop. The guy from your dealership that calls you trimonthly to remind you it is time to change your oil is calling to sell you his oil changing service and hopefully more services in the future. The beautician calling to remind you of your appiontment is making a follow up sales call. The computer tech that calls you to tell you you need a new component is making a sales call.How about your stock broker? A lot of things that take place on the phone are related to sales and commerce.
The telemarketers are not providing a service to you, they are soliciting your business. They are only providing a service to the company which has hired them.
Almost all of the examples you've given of businesses calling your home are pre-existing relationships which one would expect phone contact. The argument here revolves around unsolicited commercial phone calls.
I would expect my stockbroker to call if there is an opportunity or problem. I am glad to be reminded of a dentist/doctor/hair appointment. I appreciate my car dealer calling to remind me of an upcoming service deadline (especially if it involves work that is essential to the warranty).
I'm still trying to figure out where you pulled the 'computer tech' example from, though. I don't think I've ever had the computer store call my home to say, "Hey, time for you to buy a new video card".
Someone cold-calling to inquire if I want my carpets shampooed, my chimney cleaned, or my driveway paved is unwanted and I should have the option to stop it.
Let's say you are running late to an appointment, and you have to stop because an ambulance is holding up traffic, do poll congress to outlaw ambulances from blocking traffic? WAIT, I don't want to know the answer. I withdraw the question.
Your hypothetical situation relates in what way? Are you really that stupid?
It's not like those ambulances are slamming on the brakes in front of you and blaring HMO advertisements over the loudspeaker.
Originally posted by audiopollution
The DNC list specifically allows charities (such as Greenpeace) to continue to solicit via the phone.
Oh, so they are passing a law that will allow tele-marketers to call you endlessly if they want you to give them money for nothing, but if they want to give you an item or a service for your money they will become criminals and have to pay a fine of up to $120,000.00 -- That makes a lot of sense.
I get far more tele-marketers for nonprofit companies calling me to solicit funds than people trying to sell me products.
Anyway, the government should not be allowed to pass this law, and I truly hope it is found unconstitutional.
Originally posted by Res
Oh, so they are passing a law that will allow tele-marketers to call you endlessly if they want you to give them money for nothing, but if they want to give you an item or a service for your money they will become criminals and have to pay a fine of up to $120,000.00 -- That makes a lot of sense.
I get far more tele-marketers for nonprofit companies calling me to solicit funds than people trying to sell me products.
Anyway, the government should not be allowed to pass this law, and I truly hope it is found unconstitutional.
It won't be. Sign up on the DNC list now.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Yes you will. As I posted earlier in another thread:
FCC to take over FTC role in DNC list enforcement
The telemarketers are not providing a service to you, they are soliciting your business. They are only providing a service to the company which has hired them.
Almost all of the examples you've given of businesses calling your home are pre-existing relationships which one would expect phone contact. The argument here revolves around unsolicited commercial phone calls.
I would expect my stockbroker to call if there is an opportunity or problem. I am glad to be reminded of a dentist/doctor/hair appointment. I appreciate my car dealer calling to remind me of an upcoming service deadline (especially if it involves work that is essential to the warranty).
I'm still trying to figure out where you pulled the 'computer tech' example from, though. I don't think I've ever had the computer store call my home to say, "Hey, time for you to buy a new video card".
Someone cold-calling to inquire if I want my carpets shampooed, my chimney cleaned, or my driveway paved is unwanted and I should have the option to stop it.
Your hypothetical situation relates in what way? Are you really that stupid?
It's not like those ambulances are slamming on the brakes in front of you and blaring HMO advertisements over the loudspeaker.
It relates in the fact that it is a inconveniece not a form of harrasment. Thogh at the time it may seem so to some.
I am not saying that you don't have the right to ask to be exempted from these calls. What I am saying is, YOU have the power NOW to stop or hinder, accept or deny these calls as you see fit. No act of congress needed.
Let's be realistic, sales is a science. Contact x number of people and y number will respond. These guys just go down a list that anyone can buy, calling the number and doing their pitch. They will find a way to reach as many people as they can. So, I see no reality in hoping a national list will stop them. How will they access the 50M number list? Give me a break.
Telemarketers are subcontractors for other people usually. Sometimes companies themselves will call you. I have in the past done market research on my own using the yellow pages. So by blocking telemarketers you will be preventing commerce or putting penalties on free and legal commerce.
Not only that, it will be making criminals out of people just trying to make a living. It could have detrimental effects on segments of the economy. So when that happens and sales lag and rices drop on a stock you own, taxes edge up yet onother notch, unemployment will increase, I guess something will be acheaved then. Right?
Is it really that big of a hassle to you? I don't know.
I have fun with those guys when they call. I try to sell them something. I look at it as a sales oppertunity for me.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It relates in the fact that it is a inconveniece not a form of harrasment. Thogh at the time it may seem so to some.
I am not saying that you don't have the right to ask to be exempted from these calls. What I am saying is, YOU have the power NOW to stop or hinder, accept or deny these calls as you see fit. No act of congress needed.
I prefer not to have to worry about whether a call is a marketing call or a personal call.
Let's be realistic, sales is a science. Contact x number of people and y number will respond. These guys just go down a list that anyone can buy, calling the number and doing their pitch. They will find a way to reach as many people as they can. So, I see no reality in hoping a national list will stop them. How will they access the 50M number list? Give me a break.
It's not my concern how they access the list, or how they remove those numbers from their call-lists or computer dialling software.
Telemarketers are subcontractors for other people usually. Sometimes companies themselves will call you. I have in the past done market research on my own using the yellow pages. So by blocking telemarketers you will be preventing commerce or putting penalties on free and legal commerce.
Let me get this straight. You did market research using the Yellow Pages? You were bold enough to call people who had listed advertisements containing their phone number? Wow. Next time, might I suggest that you follow your line of reasoning and dial random numbers to conduct your market research. I'm sure you'll have great success.
The only commerce I am preventing by blocking a telemarketer is commerce between myself and the telemarketer. He can feel free to contact someone who hasn't opted-out.
Not only that, it will be making criminals out of people just trying to make a living. It could have detrimental effects on segments of the economy. So when that happens and sales lag and rices drop on a stock you own, taxes edge up yet onother notch, unemployment will increase, I guess something will be acheaved then. Right?
You are bringing up the same old argument. If the telemarketing companies have 50 million less numbers to call, they will be operating more efficiently. Yes some people will lose their jobs, but I won't be losing any sleep over that.
Is it really that big of a hassle to you? I don't know.
I have fun with those guys when they call. I try to sell them something. I look at it as a sales oppertunity for me.
Hope you have luck selling to a minimum wage telemarketer.
Originally posted by audiopollution
I prefer not to have to worry about whether a call is a marketing call or a personal call.
It's not my concern how they access the list, or how they remove those numbers from their call-lists or computer dialling software.
Let me get this straight. You did market research using the Yellow Pages? You were bold enough to call people who had listed advertisements containing their phone number? Wow. Next time, might I suggest that you follow your line of reasoning and dial random numbers to conduct your market research. I'm sure you'll have great success.
The only commerce I am preventing by blocking a telemarketer is commerce between myself and the telemarketer. He can feel free to contact someone who hasn't opted-out.
You are bringing up the same old argument. If the telemarketing companies have 50 million less numbers to call, they will be operating more efficiently. Yes some people will lose their jobs, but I won't be losing any sleep over that.
Hope you have luck selling to a minimum wage telemarketer.
Let's go at this from another angle:
We agree that at times the calls can be inconvenient. We agree that opting out should be an option. Right.
Here is where we differ, maybe.
There are terrorists in seemingly all countries including this one, that would like nothing more than to kill you, me, my kids, your parents, or any amarican. Essentially WWIII is going on around us as we speek. I know you are asking "What does this have to do with this discussion?"
Well, obviously these are things that require leaders to pay close attention to. Well there are politicians in Washington that actually think that they need to spend precious time on this just because some people are "bothered by telemarketers." If this law is not overuled by the courts, it is a stepping stone for some of the same pandering pinheads to then further restrict rights of law abiding citizens. Do you want to leave it up to these same politicians that don't have there priorities straight.
Using this same logic, let say you have a neighbor who does not like the sound of yor kids playing in the afternoon because it interupts his power nap. He could argue that the noise that your kids are making is too loud and it is intruding into his home. Stating, "I should not have to hear kids when I am sleeping, should I? The parents should take them to the park if they want to play" He could then patition and raise a fuss and then group together a mob of like minded kid shunners, and enact a law that kids should only play in designated noise zones, using the telemarketing arguement. Don't laugh, suits have been won and laws passed for sillier reasons. Now, any one that has kids knows that they need to play and laugh and make noise to be healthy normal kids. How would you enforce that? Normal parents would become neglegent and criminal for being normal and wanting what is best for them. So one person's inconvenience now becomes eveyy parents inconvenience. It is just a shift of inconvenience.
The same is true of the DNC list law... thing.
I know it sounds far fetched. But so did sueing McDonald's for serving their coffie too hot. Or how about the sueing them because their food is so good that it made someone fat. It seems it will have no end untill people think ahead a little.
So what am saying is that sometimes we as citizens might want to put up with things a bit if only to protect the civil rights of everyone. America used to be known for it's relentless persuit of solutions to problems. That reputation is fading. We are becoming the "Whining Nation".
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's go at this from another angle:
We agree that at times the calls can be inconvenient. We agree that opting out should be an option. Right.
Excellent. DNC list it is, then.
Here is where we differ, maybe.
There are terrorists in seemingly all countries including this one, that would like nothing more than to kill you, me, my kids, your parents, or any amarican. Essentially WWIII is going on around us as we speek. I know you are asking "What does this have to do with this discussion?"
Well, obviously these are things that require leaders to pay close attention to. Well there are politicians in Washington that actually think that they need to spend precious time on this just because some people are "bothered by telemarketers." If this law is not overuled by the courts, it is a stepping stone for some of the same pandering pinheads to then further restrict rights of law abiding citizens. Do you want to leave it up to these same politicians that don't have there priorities straight.
Using this same logic, let say you have a neighbor who does not like the sound of yor kids playing in the afternoon because it interupts his power nap. He could argue that the noise that your kids are making is too loud and it is intruding into his home. Stating, "I should not have to hear kids when I am sleeping, should I? The parents should take them to the park if they want to play" He could then patition and raise a fuss and then group together a mob of like minded kid shunners, and enact a law that kids should only play in designated noise zones, using the telemarketing arguement. Don't laugh, suits have been won and laws passed for sillier reasons. Now, any one that has kids knows that they need to play and laugh and make noise to be healthy normal kids. How would you enforce that? Normal parents would become neglegent and criminal for being normal and wanting what is best for them. So one person's inconvenience now becomes eveyy parents inconvenience. It is just a shift of inconvenience.
You'll be glad to know that your municipality will already have Noise By-Laws. Yes, the area you live in has already been overtaken by pandering pinheads!!!
I don't think you'll find too many areas in life that aren't regulated in one way or another.
The same is true of the DNC list law... thing.
I know it sounds far fetched. But so did sueing McDonald's for serving their coffie too hot. Or how about the sueing them because their food is so good that it made someone fat. It seems it will have no end untill people think ahead a little.
You are criticizing the 'stupid' segment of the population. Anyone who spills a hot coffee on their lap deserves a few months of pain, and certainly not a cash award.
How about some praise for those in the population who have decided they no longer want to be push-marketed to in their homes.
So what am saying is that sometimes we as citizens might want to put up with things a bit if only to protect the civil rights of everyone. America used to be known for it's relentless persuit of solutions to problems. That reputation is fading. We are becoming the "Whining Nation".
The DMA aren't protecting the civil rights of everyone in the country. The DMA are protecting their profits by making sure that their rights are protected.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Excellent. DNC list it is, then.
You'll be glad to know that your municipality will already have Noise By-Laws. Yes, the area you live in has already been overtaken by pandering pinheads!!!
I don't think you'll find too many areas in life that aren't regulated in one way or another.
You are criticizing the 'stupid' segment of the population. Anyone who spills a hot coffee on their lap deserves a few months of pain, and certainly not a cash award.
How about some praise for those in the population who have decided they no longer want to be push-marketed to in their homes.
The DMA aren't protecting the civil rights of everyone in the country. The DMA are protecting their profits by making sure that their rights are protected.
Good points made. I am not sure i will agree with you on some but very good discussion.
Oh. I know about the noise thing here. You see, I am a musician and I was effected by those laws. It is a shame. It cut down my income by limiting the venues that I could play at. Good thing that is not my day job.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Good points made. I am not sure i will agree with you on some but very good discussion.
Oh. I know about the noise thing here. You see, I am a musician and I was effected by those laws. It is a shame. It cut down my income by limiting the venues that I could play at. Good thing that is not my day job.
Perhaps you can send me a cd of your music so I can blast it down the phone to those damned carpet cleaning companies.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Perhaps you can send me a cd of your music so I can blast it down the phone to those damned carpet cleaning companies.
There is some songs in mp3 on my old band's site at www.johnnyshadit.com they magt work.
The US is based on the will of the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE want a *ucking list, we should get a *ucking list. Constitution be damned! (and you can quote that one...) All this 'free speech' argument is doing is trying to protect an already out of control agency. Imagine if instead of your mail coming in a 'queue' which you can manage (like an answering machine) imagine if it litterally fell from the ceiling into the middle of the dinning room table during a meal? Or perhaps if it was slipped under the door while you are on the John? Or how about if it was crumpled into a ball and thrown at you while you are napping, jolting you awake?
The fundamental differences in the various ways of marketing sales to me each need customized solutions to keep them legitimate. Simply saying "you can't divide types of speech" and "you can't stop free speech" isn't even addressing the problem. Instead of being DEFENSIVE I'd like to see some pro-active work from companies to protect the intrests of their financial backers.
Should this legistlation fail I'd call on every American to thumb through their portfolios and asking companies they support if they use direct phone solicitation as a sales method. If they do, feel free to unload the stock and buy some AAPL. Then sign up for my "*uck You Registry" so we can execrise our OWN free speech rights and start telling them how displeased we are with the calls in a language that they can understand (since apparantly they don't understand the civil method of starting a DNC list).
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
I'm gonna start the national "*uck you registry" where you sign up and commit to curse out any sales calls you recieve from now on. Hopefully the massive demoralization of the phone workers will help put a stop to these whiny pain in the @ss phone pirates. The nonsense that people kick up in an attempt to legitimize the illegit is amazing.
The US is based on the will of the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE want a *ucking list, we should get a *ucking list. Constitution be damned! (and you can quote that one...) All this 'free speech' argument is doing is trying to protect an already out of control agency. Imagine if instead of your mail coming in a 'queue' which you can manage (like an answering machine) imagine if it litterally fell from the ceiling into the middle of the dinning room table during a meal? Or perhaps if it was slipped under the door while you are on the John? Or how about if it was crumpled into a ball and thrown at you while you are napping, jolting you awake?
The fundamental differences in the various ways of marketing sales to me each need customized solutions to keep them legitimate. Simply saying "you can't divide types of speech" and "you can't stop free speech" isn't even addressing the problem. Instead of being DEFENSIVE I'd like to see some pro-active work from companies to protect the intrests of their financial backers.
Should this legistlation fail I'd call on every American to thumb through their portfolios and asking companies they support if they use direct phone solicitation as a sales method. If they do, feel free to unload the stock and buy some AAPL. Then sign up for my "*uck You Registry" so we can execrise our OWN free speech rights and start telling them how displeased we are with the calls in a language that they can understand (since apparantly they don't understand the civil method of starting a DNC list).
Hey calm down you got your list.
It is not worth the paper it is written on, but you got your list.
This is the attitude that I am talking about. "Screw everything and everyone so that I can be appeased.", is not a good place to start from when it comes to setting standards for free speech.
You are right that some on should and I beleive that someone will come up with a private sector solution for this.
As far as the stockholders forcing complience, that is a great idea. But it requires a little work on individuals part. Why hasn't anyone done this before?
I guess the first step is to get the governmenbt involved in an an attempt to curb free speech rights. Free speech is free speech, start taking away little peices and you start redefining the meaning. That is why it must be lumped together.
Use your free speech to get companies to comply make your money talk. It will have more teeth than any bill that congress can pass.