Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? Message-ID: Date: 5 Sep 89 18:54:39 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 105 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 349, message 1 of 4 Readers of TELECOM are familiar with discussions about how much some of us would like to get Caller*ID so that we can fight back at telemarketers. Well, the other day, I lost my cool, and decided to "do something" about these calls; so I sent the attached letter to the business that was bothering me, with copies to a number of others that may help change the situation. I will keep you posted on any replies that I may get. / Lars Poulsen (800) 2227308 or (805) 9639431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! Santa Barbara, 31 Aug 1989 To: Santa Barbara NewsPress Attn: Circulation Department Cc: NewsPress "Letters" editor Cc: Jack O'Connell, California State Assembly Cc: General Telephone Cc: California Public Utilities Commission Cc: USENET comp.dcom.telecom (an electronic newsletter) Cc: Consumer's Union Re: Telephone Solicitations I consider myself a reasonably calm individual, but there are a few hot buttons that make me want to SCREAM. One of these is the ever increasing privacy invasion caused by the ugly industry that calls itself "Telemarketing". I get at least 5 calls every week from political and charitable fundraisers as well as businesses, such as my local newspaper with whom I already have a subscription. Besides being a nuisance to consumer victims like me, I have been told that "telemarketing" is a sweatshop industry pervaded by poor wages and working conditions, often with no health insurance for its workers and other unfair labor practices. I feel uncertain as to what my best response should be to this menace. I have tried unceremoniously hanging up on these calls, but that just seems to make them call back. I have tried being systematically abusive to the callers, hoping in the long run to make it hard for these operators to find employees, but so far it does not work. I have tried to "blacklist" and refuse to do business with companies and refuse to support allegedly charitable organizations that engage in this practice, but I find that I cannot give up my daily newspaper even though they keep calling my unlisted number to sell subscriptions. I have come to the conclusion that this practice should simply be outlawed. A properly drawn bill might even take care of the "junk fax" problem at the same time. I would suggest the following initiatives might be useful: 1. A bill making it illegal to place or to order a subordinate to place more than 10 unsolicited calls in a day to people who do not want them or with whom you have had no prior business relationship. Such misdemeanor to be punishable by up to 30 days in jail and or a fine of up to $10,000 and forfeiture of equipment used to make such calls. 2. An order by the PUC to require all local exchange carriers to install on their telephone switching systems the feature package required to implement customerinitiated call tracing whenever such software is available for the equipment installed. This feature causes the switch note note the originating number of the last incoming call for each subscriber line, and allows a customer dialed 3digit code (such as #32) to cause this information to be written to a maintenance log, from where it can be retrieved and released to law enforcement authorities. This software is already available for the 5ESS switches used in most areas, and this feature has been offered to the public in several eastern states as part of the CLASS feature package (whose main feature is the optional "Caller*ID" display. 3. A ruling by the PUC (may need support by federal legislation) that calls into California are governed by California regulations. This would put an end to the way California companies have been circumventing the regulations governing telemarketing by contracting to outofstate telemarketing organizations. While the Caller*ID package has been regarded as controversial, and even been opposed by the ACLU, I believe that implementing "Call Trace" by itself would be an uncontroversial benefit. The privacy issues that have been so divisive about the Caller*ID feature do not arise in this context. This would allow us to quickly put an end to obscene callers who currently can harass women with relative impunity so long as they go after a new woman each night. Ending telemarketing solicitations would be a worthwhile thing. Allowing for a small number of calls per day would allow reasonable business use of the telephone to call customers for purposes of verifying their address, follow up on orders etc. I believe that the majority of businesses would support such an initiative, since they are getting to be as annoyed with the telemarketing nuisance as I am. Yours respectfully, Lars Poulsen 125 South Ontare Road Santa Barbara, CA 93105 / Lars Poulsen (800) 2227308 or (805) 9639431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!