On Mar 2, 10:17 am, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
> I find it amazing that charitable organizations don't voluntarily observe
> the No Call List. They know this is a list of people who *don't want to
> be solicited* but they do it anyway. Anyone who's going to the symphony
> knows darned well where to look (internet, newspaper, etc.) to find out
> what's playing, the NSO doesn't need to keep bothering them. Likewise for
> other non-profits; we know darned well what the Red Cross does & where to
> find them if we want to make a donation.
>
> I wonder if a copy of this post to the Editor of the Tennessean would have
> a useful effect?
I've been considering this, but hesitated. I've had a difficult few
weeks and realize that my mind not be in the best condition to judge
the appropriateness.
However, I am now at the point where I feel I could re-work my rant a
bit to fit into a Letters or Nashville Eye format. If I do, may I use
the part above in which you note that non-profits are essentially
shooting themselves in the foot by not voluntarily observing the Do
Not Call List? In being so arrogant as to think that, unlike other
commercial interests (yes, even "non profits" are commercial
interests), they are not annoying me by hounding me at home, the NSO
has gone from relatively low on my radar to way up on my pet peeves
list.
-KD
On Mar 2, 10:17 am, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:36:18 -0800, KD wrote:
>> Today's rant is about the exemption of charities, politicians, and
>> companies one has allegedly "done business with" from the Do Not Call
>> Law. My focus will be on the Nashville Symphony.
>
> ...
>
> First, my condolences...
>
> I find it amazing that charitable organizations don't voluntarily observe
> the No Call List. They know this is a list of people who *don't want to
> be solicited* but they do it anyway. Anyone who's going to the symphony
> knows darned well where to look (internet, newspaper, etc.) to find out
> what's playing, the NSO doesn't need to keep bothering them. Likewise for
> other non-profits; we know darned well what the Red Cross does & where to
> find them if we want to make a donation.
>
> Had a vaguely related problem when I wanted to buy tickets for something
> at TPAC a few years ago. Had to go through Ticketmaster. They demanded
> an email address and said "we will use this address to notify you of other
> shows we think you might enjoy". Not only was it not opt-in, but there
> was no way to opt-out! We *will* steal this address. Luckily I had a
> throw-away address. Unfortunately a similar concept doesn't exist for
> phone numbers - a "throwaway" extra phone number costs $25/month or more...
>
>> The unfortunate timing of this telemarketing call has become a catalyst
>> for me. I'm probably already a 9 on a scale of 10 in avoiding / not
>> tolerating telemarketers. I may even remain a 9, but I will elevate the
>> Nashville Symphony to special status, surpassing my wrath for the Red
>> Cross blood donation telemarketers, which previously were at the top of
>> my contempt list. But that's a story for another time.
>
> Mine's 10. You have every right to speak your mind (even for commercial
> purposes) using transmission media, equipment, and services you've paid
> for. You have no right to use *my* equipment or services *I've* paid for.
> When you start paying my cell phone bill, you can use it to solicit me.
>
>> I hope that jerk remembers for a long time how he intruded on my state
>> of grief with his stupid call. The Nashville Symphony will be getting
>> an earful when I get back in town. They *will* be reported if they ever
>> call me again.
>
> I wonder if a copy of this post to the Editor of the Tennessean would have
> a useful effect?
>
>> I would like to see the Do Not Call Law amended to remove the
>> exemptions. Barring that, I would like to see it amended to mandate
>> that even the exempt organizations be prohibited from calling from an
>> "unknown" number which makes it impossible not only to call them back
>> and bitch them out but to track them / verify the call.
>
> Agreed, that direct marketers (whether commercial or otherwise) should be
> prohibited from lying about their identities. (including by masking their
> caller ID)
>
> A simple technical solution that could be applied without legislative
> action would be for cellular companies to allow you to redirect calls from
> specific numbers (including "unknown") to a separate voice mailbox. This
> box could be programmed to automatically purge messages after a selectable
> interval, say 7 days. Listen to them when, and if, you want.
>
> In my situation, eliminating the exemption for political candidates would
> be even more valuable - they're a lot more trouble than non-profits.
>
> Unfortunately I think most Americans are resigned to this being one of
> those little annoyances of life. Kinda like the guy who lets his dog do
> its thing on your lawn & doesn't bother to clean it up, or the kids who
> run through the neighborhood at 3am smashing mailboxes. Seems minor,
> until you step in dog ***t on your way to an important meeting, or you get
> a $250 ticket for expired tags because the renewal notice blew out of your
> smashed mailbox.
>
> BB's post captures it: most folks seem to think "this *will* happen, it's
> not worth the effort to try to stop it.
