Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Message-ID: <telecom-v09i0384m02@vector.dallas.tx.us>
Date: 17 Sep 89 11:05:06 GMT
Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US
Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL
Lines: 75
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 384, message 2 of 5

In article <telecom-v09i0378m07@vector.dallas.tx.us> campbell@redsox.UUCP
(Larry Campbell) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 378, message 7 of 9

>Karl's "solution" to junk calls (use an answering machine to answer all your
>calls) doesn't work.  Suppose I get an answering machine and use it to
>screen all my calls.  Now suppose all my friends and relatives do the same.
>We'll never reach each other, because we're all just taping each other's
>messages instead of having conversations.

Not if you SCREEN calls with the machine.  The idea being here that you turn
the volume up on the machine enough to hear it from where you normally are.
Then you simply LISTEN to the incoming call.  The person calling you
identifies themselves after the beep, you hear them, and if you like the
sound of the caller's voice THEN you are interrupted -- and pick up the phone.

The machine that I have (and I suspect most modern ones as well) will drop
off the line if I pick up any extension in the house during a call.  Thus I
can either (1) be interrupted and pick up the phone immediately, (2) let the
call time out in 4 rings and allow the machine to get it, THEN decide
whether or not to pick up after the person identifies themselves, or (3) let
the machine take a message and call the person back later (if I want to).
Maximum choice, minimum hassle.  Works great if I am on the pot too -- the
machine takes the call, and I can call back when I get done using the
toilet or showering or whatever.

>There is a real and significant difference between junk mail and junk calls
>that Karl doesn't seem to understand.  I can deal with junk mail at my
>leisure.  I cannot do that with telephone calls.  The telephone interrupts
>me.

The telephone does not have to interrupt you.  You can mask the interrupt in
one of three ways:

1) Turn off the ringer.  Then no one can get through to you except when you
want to be interrupted (by turning on the ringer again).  This has the
undesirable effect that if someone you want to interrupt you calls, they
can't reach you either.  Such is (one) price of privacy.

2) Use an answering machine to screen the calls.  This means you get to hear
who it is on the other end BEFORE you pick up the phone.  This has lots of
advantages over even Caller*ID -- caller id gives you a number, but doesn't
necessarily identify the >caller<, which is the purpose of this exercise.
The machine does, since you get to hear a voice first.  Finally, a Caller*ID
number display may not guarantee you a return phone call path, as some lines
are (on ESS switches) configured for outgoing calls only.  There is a
further advantage -- most telemarketers hang up when they get a machine, so
in many cases all you hear is "ring ring ring <click>..... <click>!"  Since
I have started doing this I have not had to answer <one> "junk call", yet
all my friends and relatives still manage to get through.... seems as though
it solves the problem to me!

3) Ignore the ringer when you don't want to be bothered.  Why do you have to
answer something just because it is beeping for your attention?  I certainly
am not compelled to pick up the phone when it rings -- I do it by choice.

>I refuse to screen all my calls with an answering machine because of
>the problem stated above.  And I get _mighty_ upset when I jump out of
>the shower, or off the pot, to run and answer the phone, and it turns out
>to be some asshole selling timeshare condominiums.
>
>I agree completely that business users should be prohibited from making
>unsolicited telephone calls to residence telephones.....

Why prohibit anything?  Is having a telephone, and a silent one at that, a
God-given right?  I think not.  You have several means at your disposal to
deal with the problem.  When you have telephone service installed you
implicitly, by having an incoming number, make it possible for me to dial
it.  If the possibility of that phone ringing bothers you, then deal with
it.  Instead of taking responsibility for your own choices and results,
you (and lots of other people) want the government to do it for you.  Feh.

Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.		"Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"