 |
|
Telecommunications - General
Posted by Cher (Wednesday September 24 2003 @ 06:59PM EDT)
|
|
A few weeks ago, the New York Times magazine ran a story about two researchers who attempted to measure pleasure and pain. I couldn't get a handle on their exact methodology, but from what I was able to ascertain, the two followed subjects for an extended time and measured their mood through their answers to probing questions. (The Times charges for past articles, so I can't link - schade.)
During the course of their research, the subjects had both great fortune and great misfortune, but oddly, it wasn't the large and momentous turns of fortune that affected their moods most --it was the small things. The elderly driver in your way on a rush to work, the mailbox full of junk mail, the phone call during dinner - it was the little things in life that brought about the most reported unhappiness.
Which brings me to one of those little annoying things in life which brings humanity great unhappiness--telemarketers. Late yesterday, the American Teleservices Association won a case against the Federal Trade Commission to stop the progression of a federal Do Not Call list scheduled to go into effect October 1. The Times has the story here. The judge found that Congress had not empowered the FTC to enforce such a list.
I don't have to know who the judge is, who appointed him, or his ideology. I completely believe Congress would pass a bill with no teeth because a. They are a pack of morons or b. Some lobby slipped Senator A a mountain of campaign cash to craft a toothless bill in conference committee, which was then signed.
Either way, the real problem per se isn't a useless Congress or the marketing firms that pay high school drop outs and desperate new grads minimum wage to annoy you. The real problem is the idiots who BUY stuff over the phone from these charlatans.
Telemarketing exists as an industry because someone buys. Enough someones buy life insurance and Viagra over the phone that an entire industry was crafted to annoy the other half of the population that just wants a quiet dinner or an answering machine that ISN'T full of worthless messages every night.
Spam in your mailbox? Same thing. NPR did a story last week on Spam fraud. They actually tracked down a guy that admitted to buying "male enhancement" pills via a Spam message. He didn't give his name (smart move), but admitted that he never got the pills. No shit. This is probably the same jerk who would buy magic beanstalk beans from a quack calling him at 6:30 at night.
Do the rest of humanity a favor, and if you simply can't resist that offer of long term disability insurance from a company you never heard of at 9:15 p.m., just live without a phone. You'll save yourself a lot of money. Besides, the phone obviously isn't your bag. Ditto for Spam.
PS If you live in PA, take advantage of the states's Do Not Call list at http://www.nocallsplease.com/ It works. Remember to register your cell phone too. There is nothing worse than paying for incoming spam calls.
|
|
|
|
By Jeff (Thursday September 25 2003 @ 01:09PM EDT)
|
My wife chose to introduce this story with one of my tirades. I went through a phase where I took it upon myself to humilate telemarkers in an effort to shame them into a new line of work. Then I read that a lot of them were actually prisoners...
Another favorite:
"Wait a second. You're from where? Sears? You're the fscking store! Let me explain our relationship. When I want something, I'll go to you. Nobody wants the fscking store coming to them. That's why you guys are positioned in shopping malls. People go to the mall. Nobody wants the god damn mall coming over for a visit. Do you understand? I don't believe you. Explain our relationship. Hey, I'm not hanging up until you explain it..."
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By doctordoug (Thursday September 25 2003 @ 02:30PM EDT)
|
I had friends who thought it good sport to string the telemarketers on with the hopes of big sales. They felt they where doing society as a whole a service by keep some poor smuck from actually getting fleeced. Me,.. I never had the patience. How bout that a doctor with no patience... Keeps the size of my waiting room down.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
By Jeff (Thursday September 25 2003 @ 03:20PM EDT)
|
Some quick googling indicates there are approximately 110 million households in the United States. Since conservatives don't believe in governmental solutions to free market problems, I conclude that there are 59 million Bush-friendly households. Which means my wife is going to drag me to Canada in December, 2004. (heh, until she finds out how freakin' cold it is up there...)
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Cher (Thursday September 25 2003 @ 02:01PM EDT)
|
This is interesting. The telemarketers plan to continue to fight this on First Amendment grounds:
"Telemarketing industry officials, however, said they would continue to challenge the registry. The Direct Marketing Association, which brought the Oklahoma suit, said that even if the FTC obtained necessary approval from either the court or Congress, the association would continue to fight the registry's constitutionality on the grounds that it violates the right to free speech."
I'm not sure I see the connection here. It's my phone. I pay for it. I'm not sure how the first amendment makes it ok for them to harass me via phone.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Funkman (Friday September 26 2003 @ 06:54AM EDT)
|
And the telemarketers won. This is bad, since the PA law Do not call list breaks the same 1st amendment violation as the national do not call list version. The arguement being, why are some allowed be excluded from the Do Not Call list? With luck, maybe charities, polls and other organizations lose their exemption on the DNC list. But in the end - we are all probably screwed.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
By doctordoug (Friday September 26 2003 @ 07:39AM EDT)
|
My cynical thought on this is -- What an easy way for a few judges to get a massive public spotlight for themselves without taking on anything of real consequence.
From the CNN poll:
Should telemarketing sales calls be protected under the First Amendment?
Yes 7% 2732 votes
No 93% 36861 votes
Total: 39593 votes
This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Funkman (Thursday September 25 2003 @ 08:58PM EDT)
|
As much as I hate telemarketers, the ruling by the judge I didn't mind. I kind of like that it takes an explicit act of congress to authorize something the the FTC wishes todo.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Cher (Friday September 26 2003 @ 09:14AM EDT)
|
I agree that the first ruling seemed pretty fair, and I think there were probably some last minute changes to the original bill via campaign cash or just plain incompetence. However, I'm stuck at the second ruling. If the government just plain censors your calls, I can see that as a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. However, consumers are OPTING in to this program....
The SCOTUS is a bit unclear on the constitutional protection of commercial speech. Last year, they refused to rule on a case involving Nike that would have made this issue a bit clearer. Since this case will now drag out in court, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Before the PA Do Not Call list, we used to get mountains of telemarketing calls - roughly 5 or 6 hangups or junk messages on the machine during the day and numerous more calls at night. We returned from a vacation once to 50!! junk messages or hangups on the machine. It was out of control. Hence the necessity of Operation Telemarketer Shame.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
|
Enlighten me, Marge
|
The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is reason.
-- Thomas Paine
|
|
We Did Our Job!
|
|
|
