Von
Veteran Member, Advertiser
Ranchman, VERY WELL SAID!!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Do Not Call List
- Thread starter dieselsmoke1
- Start date
- Views: 4252
- Status
bgott
Veteran Member
OkeeDon and Ranchman have responded to this way better than I could ever hope to.
"Anyone of you that supports this, without any grasp of its actual effects, what it entails and its real purpose, well, all I can say is you have no idea of the contempt I feel for you."
I can deal with the contempt. I spent around four years repossessing cars so I have dealt with people feeling contempt towards me, up close and personal. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif What interests me in your reply is the " and it's real purpose" part. S'up wid dat?
On edit, it seems to me that most of the "live person" calls I get these days sound like they come from India. Outsourcing? If that's the case, do they enjoy the same free speech rights we do? If I'm going to be forced to allow my privacy to be invaded it might as well be by domestic welfare cases rather than by foreign.
"Anyone of you that supports this, without any grasp of its actual effects, what it entails and its real purpose, well, all I can say is you have no idea of the contempt I feel for you."
I can deal with the contempt. I spent around four years repossessing cars so I have dealt with people feeling contempt towards me, up close and personal. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif What interests me in your reply is the " and it's real purpose" part. S'up wid dat?
On edit, it seems to me that most of the "live person" calls I get these days sound like they come from India. Outsourcing? If that's the case, do they enjoy the same free speech rights we do? If I'm going to be forced to allow my privacy to be invaded it might as well be by domestic welfare cases rather than by foreign.
Kelvin
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2000
- Messages
- 798
- Location
- East Tennessee
- Tractor
- B2910 & BX23 (previously B2150 & B7100D)
You can add me to the list of people that you can feel contempt for.
I pay my monthly phone bill for MY benefit. While everyone in the United States has a freedom of speech, they do not enjoy that freedom in my house, whether it be in person or on the phone.
I have already had telemarketers call my cell phone. I suppose that you think that is perfectly acceptable, as well? Do you mind if I pass my cell phone bill to you so that YOU can support the telemarketers?
Kelvin
I pay my monthly phone bill for MY benefit. While everyone in the United States has a freedom of speech, they do not enjoy that freedom in my house, whether it be in person or on the phone.
I have already had telemarketers call my cell phone. I suppose that you think that is perfectly acceptable, as well? Do you mind if I pass my cell phone bill to you so that YOU can support the telemarketers?
Kelvin
MikePA
Super Moderator
I was not agreeing with the judges characterization of the Do Not Call List as a First Amendment issue. I was merely stating the first amendment argument applied to the caller and not the person being called.
<font color="blue">On this web site, you tell us there are certain words we are not to use as it is family type site. Doesn't that break the freedom of speech??</font>
Nope. The first ammendment specifically mentions that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. TBN is not mentioned.
<font color="blue">On this web site, you tell us there are certain words we are not to use as it is family type site. Doesn't that break the freedom of speech??</font>
Nope. The first ammendment specifically mentions that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. TBN is not mentioned.
Bird
Rest in Peace
Ranchman, I'm glad I hadn't responded yet, 'cause you said it way better than I could have.
And I just read a news story (don't know about the accuracy) that says the judge who says the list is unconstitutional has his office phone on that list. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif It did go on to say that they were unable to contact him so don't know whether he, personally, put it on the list.
And I just read a news story (don't know about the accuracy) that says the judge who says the list is unconstitutional has his office phone on that list. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif It did go on to say that they were unable to contact him so don't know whether he, personally, put it on the list.
Bird -
Yea - how ironic is that!?!? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Here's an AP story I found regarding the judge being on the list like you were talking about. Maybe it was the same one you had read - 'course being from the AP it will be everywhere soon. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Yea - how ironic is that!?!? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Here's an AP story I found regarding the judge being on the list like you were talking about. Maybe it was the same one you had read - 'course being from the AP it will be everywhere soon. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Alan L.
Elite Member
This list should be the best thing that could happen to telemarketers. They don't have to waste their time calling people who don't want to be called.
If my name is on the list, thats the same as saying "no trespassin" on my property. Is it unconstitutional not to allows trespassers?
The list should be allowed, but right now I'm not on it. I don't get many calls, and when I do I just hang up without listening to them. Usually its a dead giveaway, because I say "hello" and there is silence on the other end for a couple of seconds. I just hang up then.
At work I don't take any calls that I don't recognize on my caller ID, and if they are either block or out of area I don't take them. They go to voice mail.
I'm hoping for some kind of legislation that will stop spam. Maybe a similar kind of list. This is damaging to our business, because 95% our our email is junk. In the process of filtering the junk mail, we lose some good ones. That is damaging, and they shouldn't have the right to do that, any more than they should be able to burn cell phone minutes or fax supplies.
If my name is on the list, thats the same as saying "no trespassin" on my property. Is it unconstitutional not to allows trespassers?
The list should be allowed, but right now I'm not on it. I don't get many calls, and when I do I just hang up without listening to them. Usually its a dead giveaway, because I say "hello" and there is silence on the other end for a couple of seconds. I just hang up then.
At work I don't take any calls that I don't recognize on my caller ID, and if they are either block or out of area I don't take them. They go to voice mail.
I'm hoping for some kind of legislation that will stop spam. Maybe a similar kind of list. This is damaging to our business, because 95% our our email is junk. In the process of filtering the junk mail, we lose some good ones. That is damaging, and they shouldn't have the right to do that, any more than they should be able to burn cell phone minutes or fax supplies.
DaveNH
Gold Member
" Currently the “no call list” has about 50 million folks signed up. Since the U.S. population in 2003 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau) is about 290 Million, you are only losing about 17% of your market.
I don't believe it's possible to calculate the “loss of market” based upon total population.
The fifty million phone numbers that are register may represent families of 1, 2, 3, 4 or more people and one person may have registered more than one phone number.
-----------------------------------
Sprint (NYSE: FON, PCS) and Gryphon Networks are reminding businesses engaged in outbound calls to consumers that they have one week to comply with the national Do-Not-Call (DNC) registry provisions of the Amended Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). Beginning on Oct. 1, 2003, most businesses will be prohibited from calling a number listed on the national DNC registry, which presently represents 48.4 million phone numbers, or approximately 29 percent of the total residential numbers in the United States today. The Federal Trade Commission projects 60 million phone numbers will be on the national DNC registry by the Oct. 1, 2003, compliance deadline.
Sprint and Gryphon's numbers
I don't believe it's possible to calculate the “loss of market” based upon total population.
The fifty million phone numbers that are register may represent families of 1, 2, 3, 4 or more people and one person may have registered more than one phone number.
-----------------------------------
Sprint (NYSE: FON, PCS) and Gryphon Networks are reminding businesses engaged in outbound calls to consumers that they have one week to comply with the national Do-Not-Call (DNC) registry provisions of the Amended Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). Beginning on Oct. 1, 2003, most businesses will be prohibited from calling a number listed on the national DNC registry, which presently represents 48.4 million phone numbers, or approximately 29 percent of the total residential numbers in the United States today. The Federal Trade Commission projects 60 million phone numbers will be on the national DNC registry by the Oct. 1, 2003, compliance deadline.
Sprint and Gryphon's numbers
Henro
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,005
- Location
- Few miles north of Pgh, PA
- Tractor
- Kubota B2910, BX2200, KX41-2V mini EX
In my opinion there should be no exceptions to who can call and who can't...stop them all including the politicians seeking donations!
We have a fax machine with a dedicated phone line...occasionally get junk faxes [not often]. Those are not only disturbing us, but are taking money out of our pocket. Ink costs money...paper does too...these people are stealing from us...it is the principle...not the amount of our loss...
Many communities around here require permits before you can go house to house soliciting...why should the phone be any different. We never, ever get a knock on the door...
This is the age of cordless phones...but I can tell you when we did not have one [and everyone doesn't] and I was injured with some broken ribs and other things...it was a real sorry event when I had to struggle to the phone just to say no...
My heart goes out to those who have to suffer to get to the phone just to find no reason to be there.
/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif Big time to telemarketers and those who support them!
We have a fax machine with a dedicated phone line...occasionally get junk faxes [not often]. Those are not only disturbing us, but are taking money out of our pocket. Ink costs money...paper does too...these people are stealing from us...it is the principle...not the amount of our loss...
Many communities around here require permits before you can go house to house soliciting...why should the phone be any different. We never, ever get a knock on the door...
This is the age of cordless phones...but I can tell you when we did not have one [and everyone doesn't] and I was injured with some broken ribs and other things...it was a real sorry event when I had to struggle to the phone just to say no...
My heart goes out to those who have to suffer to get to the phone just to find no reason to be there.
/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif Big time to telemarketers and those who support them!
DaveNH -
<font color="blue">I don't believe it's possible to calculate the “loss of market” based upon total population. </font>
Ugh. I knew I shouldn’t have responded as I’d feel urged to defend my post at some point. (That’s why I pretty much gave up a while back when it came posting on non-tractor related stuff on TBN. Should have just kept my mouth shut - er - fingers static this time too. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif) Oh well.... /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I'm guilty of an over simplification in my census scenario, because yes, I agree, there are a LOT of other factors that determine a potential customer segment. The 17% was based on the entire U.S. population, and since not every American has a phone, the 290M would have to be cut down. 'Course in addition to the non-phone-enabled population, you have the whole thing demographics thing (age, ***, race, income, religious affiliation, political affiliation, housing, etc. etc. ) as it would affect the number of viable harass-ee’s, I mean “customers” for a given telemarketer (based on what he's selling.)
Unfortunately in my attempt to circumvent all the minutia associated with determining a market segment for a business, yes, I threw out an artificially low statistic - my bad. But whether it is 17%, 25%, 50%, etc. (and, again, there is no one “true” number because of all the stuff mentioned in my first paragraph), the principle I was trying to illustrate holds true - i.e.
(1) even with the list in place, there will be a large pool of phone numbers available for telemarketers to call; (there will NEVER be 100% participation in the list so there will ALWAYS be someone to bug);
(2) the overall U.S. population is increasing thereby providing an ever increasing customer base to harass (unless there is some cataclysmic event like an asteroid hitting the earth or something like that); and
(3) markets & economies are ever changing and when one door closes - be it buggy whips or the telemarketing industry - additional ones open up. ('course the temarketing industry will not go the way of the do-do due to the no-call list.) (Your Sprint link helps to illustrate this marketplace/job creation aspect.)
Now, the initial reply I would anticipate from someone advocating the telemarketer position in this thread would be, "If that's the case, then the $30K number thrown out earlier by someone else is a similar argument - i.e. an incorrect “statistic” meant to illustrate a point (i.e. increases in costs will hurt the small businessman.)"
On the surface, this seems to be true, however (1) my “statistic” was not given in an attempt to scare and alarm as the $30K one was, and (2) going from a cost of $30,000 and “weeks and weeks” of effort to comply to a cost close to $0 and hours (if not minutes) to comply based on hard numbers provided by the government (who you purchase the list from) negates the entire point that was trying to be made.
So, yes, the census-based percentage I cited should be larger - but regardless of its size, it will only be an estimate at best as the number will vary depending on a wide variety of factors WAY beyond the scope of this thread. And since the actual percentage is moot to the core points I was making anyway, I'm more than happy to give it up.
Next time I guess I should go in to more detail - that’s if there is enough space to store my post on the server. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
---------
PS: Your point about 2, 3, 4, etc. individuals being "blocked" by a single phone # being on the list works both ways - e.g if a phone number is not on the list, 2, 3, 4, etc. people within the household can be solicited via a single phone line. In other words, all else being equal, as long as the # of participants in the no-call list is below 50% for any given market segment population, this fact actually works in favor of the telemarketer. Only when the participant rate goes to >50% will it serve as an additional restriction on potential “customers” that can be accessed via a phone. Just something to think about.
<font color="blue">I don't believe it's possible to calculate the “loss of market” based upon total population. </font>
Ugh. I knew I shouldn’t have responded as I’d feel urged to defend my post at some point. (That’s why I pretty much gave up a while back when it came posting on non-tractor related stuff on TBN. Should have just kept my mouth shut - er - fingers static this time too. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif) Oh well.... /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I'm guilty of an over simplification in my census scenario, because yes, I agree, there are a LOT of other factors that determine a potential customer segment. The 17% was based on the entire U.S. population, and since not every American has a phone, the 290M would have to be cut down. 'Course in addition to the non-phone-enabled population, you have the whole thing demographics thing (age, ***, race, income, religious affiliation, political affiliation, housing, etc. etc. ) as it would affect the number of viable harass-ee’s, I mean “customers” for a given telemarketer (based on what he's selling.)
Unfortunately in my attempt to circumvent all the minutia associated with determining a market segment for a business, yes, I threw out an artificially low statistic - my bad. But whether it is 17%, 25%, 50%, etc. (and, again, there is no one “true” number because of all the stuff mentioned in my first paragraph), the principle I was trying to illustrate holds true - i.e.
(1) even with the list in place, there will be a large pool of phone numbers available for telemarketers to call; (there will NEVER be 100% participation in the list so there will ALWAYS be someone to bug);
(2) the overall U.S. population is increasing thereby providing an ever increasing customer base to harass (unless there is some cataclysmic event like an asteroid hitting the earth or something like that); and
(3) markets & economies are ever changing and when one door closes - be it buggy whips or the telemarketing industry - additional ones open up. ('course the temarketing industry will not go the way of the do-do due to the no-call list.) (Your Sprint link helps to illustrate this marketplace/job creation aspect.)
Now, the initial reply I would anticipate from someone advocating the telemarketer position in this thread would be, "If that's the case, then the $30K number thrown out earlier by someone else is a similar argument - i.e. an incorrect “statistic” meant to illustrate a point (i.e. increases in costs will hurt the small businessman.)"
On the surface, this seems to be true, however (1) my “statistic” was not given in an attempt to scare and alarm as the $30K one was, and (2) going from a cost of $30,000 and “weeks and weeks” of effort to comply to a cost close to $0 and hours (if not minutes) to comply based on hard numbers provided by the government (who you purchase the list from) negates the entire point that was trying to be made.
So, yes, the census-based percentage I cited should be larger - but regardless of its size, it will only be an estimate at best as the number will vary depending on a wide variety of factors WAY beyond the scope of this thread. And since the actual percentage is moot to the core points I was making anyway, I'm more than happy to give it up.
Next time I guess I should go in to more detail - that’s if there is enough space to store my post on the server. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
---------
PS: Your point about 2, 3, 4, etc. individuals being "blocked" by a single phone # being on the list works both ways - e.g if a phone number is not on the list, 2, 3, 4, etc. people within the household can be solicited via a single phone line. In other words, all else being equal, as long as the # of participants in the no-call list is below 50% for any given market segment population, this fact actually works in favor of the telemarketer. Only when the participant rate goes to >50% will it serve as an additional restriction on potential “customers” that can be accessed via a phone. Just something to think about.
- Status
