Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!suze From: suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) Newsgroups: net.consumers Subject: Re: The Consumer-Activist's way to curtail phone solicitation Message-ID: <883@terak.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Nov-85 13:24:30 EST Article-I.D.: terak.883 Posted: Mon Nov 18 13:24:30 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 04:37:37 EST References: <1405@mtgzz.UUCP> <2610@ut-ngp.UUCP> Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA Lines: 91 > Given that neither phone-companies nor phone-solicitors will cooperate > in a satisfactory way to protect you (me) from these obnoxious intrusions > the only way to deal with this problem is legislation. > > So lets get our act together and try to work into this direction. > > I suggest the following: > > 1) Let's hear from people in whose state there exists such a law. Arizona has a law regulating telephone solicitation. I don't know all of its provisions, but some are the time of day telephone solicitation may take place (I'm not sure of the start hour, but 8 or 9 pm is the latest allowed). There is some provision (but I'm not sure what) about calls from areas in a different time zone, I have no idea how this could be enforced since virtually all of Arizona is usually in one time zone. (I believe that one reservation on the northern border goes to MDT in the summer rather than staying on MST with the rest of the state.) There is some provision for computer calls the requires they let the called party disconnect the connection by hanging up (and not call back). This law was enacted since I've been here, so it's at most three years old. > and some FLAMESssssssss.... > > NO, it's not your right to make a living by calling me to solicit !! Sorry, I disagree. However, telephone solicitators haven't got the right to expect you to speak with them. > NO, I should not have to disconnect the phone to not get solicited !! Agree > NO, I should not have to call DMA to my *NAME* !! on a list of those that > don't want to get solicited. First, at most it should be my phone-number > and not my name, that gets listed, and second, it doesn't work. At least, > I can't tell a reduction in calls. BTW, requesting no junk-mail hasn't > reduced the paper-flood either, or so it seems. Oh, well .... I more or less agree > NO, I should not have to *PAY* for an unlisted number to not get solicited. Agree > Besides, it doesn't work. Numbers are collected from checks you write, > whereas other solicitors dial all numbers in sequence !!! Agree > NO, I will NOT guarantee that I'll I'll always find a friendly and calm > way to fend off those phone-solicitors. Noone has a right to expect me > to sleep only at night !!! Or be more receptive for phone-solicitations > between 5 and 8pm, just because YOU think that you don't interupt > anything important then. Agree, I usually react to them in the mood I am in at the time combined with how the act to me and what has been interrupted. What angers me as much as junk phone calls is all the new "services" such as "Open Line" which is a call and pay by the minute gossip line. They are not apparently charge calls, so kids can call and build up a large bill unbeknownst to their parents (fortunately ours are too intelligent to do this) but also give a medium for such things as occurred to us this summer. A young, obnoxious teenager in the neighborhood took a liking to my stepdaughter (it was NOT reciprocated) he got tired of her refusing to talk to him on the phone or come outside to visit. So he passed her name and our phone number onto discussions on Open Line. Don't know what exactly he said, but for a while we were getting quite a rash of phone calls from that. Our number is unlisted. He got it from another kid in the neighborhood. We did not give it to him. We considered demanding that the phone company change our number at no cost since they caused it to be made publically available (by having Open Line) and suing him (his parents) for the cost if they wouldn't. Since the hassle only lasted a couple of weeks we didn't pursue it. -- ************************************************************** Suzanne Barnett-Scott uucp: ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze phone: (602) 998-4800 us mail: CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division (Formerly Terak Corporation) 14151 N 76th street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260