| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Elroy Willis" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2005 11:50:32 PM |
| Object: |
OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
| User: "Pat Kiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 12:25:24 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis said:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Oh yeah, but it's a luxury well worth paying for...especially during election
season.
The only politician that ever called me was someone running for a state
office (who'd been given my name by a friend) to ask for *ideas* not
money.
It is the ONLY special phone service I have. I still have pulse dial
(grandfathered* in in my neighborhood and cheaper, too).
*almost literally, because there are a lot of cranky seniors who didn't
want to be forced to pay more for that new-fangled tone service
--
Pat K. aa#1154 ('someplace.net' is comcast)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 01:42:56 PM |
|
|
(Pat Kiewicz) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis said:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Oh yeah, but it's a luxury well worth paying for...especially during election
season.
I registered with http://www.donotcall.gov in hopes of stopping the
few calls I get even though my number is unlisted. I was hoping that
if that list works well enough, I can get rid of the extra $4.95 a
month I'm paying for an unlisted number.
Since you have to supply a valid email address when registering, I'm
wondering if the people at donotcall.gov are selling the email
addresses just like the phone company sells phone numbers, and I'll be
getting email spams instead of phone spams...
The only politician that ever called me was someone running for a state
office (who'd been given my name by a friend) to ask for *ideas* not
money.
So he didn't actually buy your number from the phone company.
It is the ONLY special phone service I have. I still have pulse dial
(grandfathered* in in my neighborhood and cheaper, too).
Have you actually hooked up a tone dial phone and discovered that it
doesn't work on your line?
*almost literally, because there are a lot of cranky seniors who didn't
want to be forced to pay more for that new-fangled tone service
I'll bet those senior "I've fallen and can't get up" emergency devices
require tone instead of pulse, but I could be wrong...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Kiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
09 Apr 2005 01:37:32 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis said:
kiewicz@someplace.net.net (Pat Kiewicz) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis said:
I registered with http://www.donotcall.gov in hopes of stopping the
few calls I get even though my number is unlisted. I was hoping that
if that list works well enough, I can get rid of the extra $4.95 a
month I'm paying for an unlisted number.
I seem to recall that the political calls aren't restricted by the Do Not Call
law, just commercial interests.
It also doesn't stop any companies which you have a "relationship"
with from calling you. You have to tell each of them to put you on
their do-not-call list. That means, for example, if you hire a carpet
cleaning company they would be allowed to make marketing calls in
the future.
It is the ONLY special phone service I have. I still have pulse dial
(grandfathered* in in my neighborhood and cheaper, too).
Have you actually hooked up a tone dial phone and discovered that it
doesn't work on your line?
Oh, all my phones do pulse /and/ tone, and tone doesn't work for dialling.
(I have to be able to switch to tone to negotiate the phone-answering
menus after I connect.)
*almost literally, because there are a lot of cranky seniors who didn't
want to be forced to pay more for that new-fangled tone service
I'll bet those senior "I've fallen and can't get up" emergency devices
require tone instead of pulse, but I could be wrong...
It may just be selectable, like it is for all my current phones and the
computer modem (which I don't use anymore, but it is configurable
for pulse).
--
Pat K. aa#1154 ('someplace.net' is comcast)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 03:11:33 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear
in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have
to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to
the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
When telemarketers pay phone companies for computerized listings
(they don't use telephone books in their scum-sucking business)
they pay on a per-name basis. Your name is listed, the phone
company makes money. It's not listed, they don't. By forcing
you to pay for the privacy you should get for free, they make up
for the lost revenue.
From March 10:
http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives-2005/weirdnewsvol14ed10.shtml
WEIRD NEWS
by Chuck Shepherd
In Their Own Words
[...]
And, said Elaine Edwards of Mink, Louisiana, one of the last
remaining places in the country to be without telephone service,
until lines were installed in January: "It wasn't 15 minutes
after that phone was in before a telemarketer called me."
Listen to the beloved "2, the ranting gryphon" and his take
on telemarketers:
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-telemarketers.mp3
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/rants.htm
"String their entrails through the trees like xmas decorations."
I like the sound of that.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get
listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
Of course you don't. You're not a *****. ^_^
Bob Dog
-----
Divine retribution is an idol threat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 10:57:42 AM |
|
|
wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear
in the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have
to *pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to
the people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
When telemarketers pay phone companies for computerized listings
(they don't use telephone books in their scum-sucking business)
they pay on a per-name basis. Your name is listed, the phone
company makes money. It's not listed, they don't. By forcing
you to pay for the privacy you should get for free, they make up
for the lost revenue.
Ah, I get it now. Bastards!
Is it that way with cell phone numbers as well?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 03:38:02 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:4hoc51dgshevueg5vbl5rolp44n0k42uvs@4ax.com:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear
in the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have
to *pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to
the people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
When telemarketers pay phone companies for computerized listings
(they don't use telephone books in their scum-sucking business)
they pay on a per-name basis. Your name is listed, the phone
company makes money. It's not listed, they don't. By forcing
you to pay for the privacy you should get for free, they make up
for the lost revenue.
Ah, I get it now. Bastards!
Is it that way with cell phone numbers as well?
No. It is illegal for telemarketers to call cell phones, and it is their
responsibility to know what numbers are cell phone numbers. Or that's the
theory, anyway. Now that all phone numbers are portable, it's more
difficult for them to tell (because there are no longer three digit
prefixes that are exclusively cell phones). But you can still scream
obscenities at them about how they're costing you money to receive their
call, and how you're going to report them, and they'll generally stop
calling. There must be at least some enforcement on the prohibition on
calling cell phones.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 01:21:45 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear
in the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have
to *pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to
the people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
When telemarketers pay phone companies for computerized listings
(they don't use telephone books in their scum-sucking business)
they pay on a per-name basis. Your name is listed, the phone
company makes money. It's not listed, they don't. By forcing
you to pay for the privacy you should get for free, they make up
for the lost revenue.
Ah, I get it now. Bastards!
Is it that way with cell phone numbers as well?
Not that I've seen; I've had a cell phone for more than two years and never
got a telemarketer. The difference, of course, is that land line phone are a
flat monthly charge; cell phones include a "pay as you go" component. If
telemarketers started using cell phones, you can expect a HUGE consumer
backlash.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 03:38:32 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:42568569.8DE3F50@serv.net:
Elroy Willis wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't
appear in the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should
have to *pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or
given to the people who print the phone book, and it takes more
paper and ink to print my name and number there, or provide
directory assistance, but it's just the opposite.
When telemarketers pay phone companies for computerized listings
(they don't use telephone books in their scum-sucking business)
they pay on a per-name basis. Your name is listed, the phone
company makes money. It's not listed, they don't. By forcing
you to pay for the privacy you should get for free, they make up
for the lost revenue.
Ah, I get it now. Bastards!
Is it that way with cell phone numbers as well?
Not that I've seen; I've had a cell phone for more than two years and
never got a telemarketer. The difference, of course, is that land line
phone are a flat monthly charge; cell phones include a "pay as you go"
component. If telemarketers started using cell phones, you can expect
a HUGE consumer backlash.
There's been a huge consumer backlash, years ago. That's why it's illegal
now.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 02:45:57 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to
pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't
appear
in the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should
have
to *pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or
given to
the people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and
ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance,
but
it's just the opposite.
When telemarketers pay phone companies for computerized listings
(they don't use telephone books in their scum-sucking business)
they pay on a per-name basis. Your name is listed, the phone
company makes money. It's not listed, they don't. By forcing
you to pay for the privacy you should get for free, they make up
for the lost revenue.
Ah, I get it now. Bastards!
Is it that way with cell phone numbers as well?
Not that I've seen; I've had a cell phone for more than two years and
never
got a telemarketer. The difference, of course, is that land line
phone are a
flat monthly charge; cell phones include a "pay as you go" component.
If
telemarketers started using cell phones, you can expect a HUGE
consumer
backlash.
It happened in Korea, but surprisingly the government had the
balls to handle it properly:
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200503/kt2005032915162210440.htm
The biggest pain in the ***** regarding junk advertising is how
politicians pretend to be on the comsumers' side when in fact
they are protecting the spammers and telemarketers. The
elected whores create laws to "protect your privacy" *if* you
"opt out". But that means you have to do something to prevent
the assholes from calling you. Only in British Columbia and
a scant few other places is "opt out" illegal.
It should be the other way around: for them to call you, they
should have to get your permission first, an "opt in" scheme.
But then, who would give spammers and junk callers permission
to sell them something at 2:00AM?
I did that once with a local newspaper back in Canada. They
were telemarketing to non-subscribers, calling again even if
you said no. I managed to find the home number of the editor
and called him about it at 3:00AM for most of a week. He
didn't appreciate that, though I can't understand why.
Bob Dog
-----
Divine retribution is an idol threat.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 04:56:01 PM |
|
|
On 7 Apr 2005 20:11:33 -0700, wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear
in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have
to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to
the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
When telemarketers pay phone companies for computerized listings
(they don't use telephone books in their scum-sucking business)
they pay on a per-name basis. Your name is listed, the phone
company makes money. It's not listed, they don't. By forcing
you to pay for the privacy you should get for free, they make up
for the lost revenue.
So how come I still get calls from telemarketers even though my number
is unlisted? <G>
Seriously, though, not only do telemarketers buy lists from the phone
company, they also use special software that generates and dials
random numbers based on area code and exchange info you enter. When
one of the numbers generated turns out to be a real one, the
connection is made and the spiel is delivered.
I never worked in telemarketing, but I do have a copy of that
software. It came with a "computer business package" my ex-wife got
suckered into buying and is ancient stuff from over a decade ago, but
I still have it lying around somewhere.
From March 10:
http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives-2005/weirdnewsvol14ed10.shtml
WEIRD NEWS
by Chuck Shepherd
In Their Own Words
[...]
And, said Elaine Edwards of Mink, Louisiana, one of the last
remaining places in the country to be without telephone service,
until lines were installed in January: "It wasn't 15 minutes
after that phone was in before a telemarketer called me."
Listen to the beloved "2, the ranting gryphon" and his take
on telemarketers:
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-telemarketers.mp3
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/rants.htm
"String their entrails through the trees like xmas decorations."
I like the sound of that.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get
listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
Of course you don't. You're not a *****. ^_^
Bob Dog
-----
Divine retribution is an idol threat.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 06:18:57 AM |
|
|
In article <sahb51diludd62mrvdg09jetp9cecfi9i4@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
I've had an unlisted number in three of the last places that I lived in
three different states and in each case had to pay for the privilege. I
agree. It seems inconsistent that we have to pay for the company not to
do something.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 11:50:39 AM |
|
|
(johac <jhachm@ixpres.com>):
In article <sahb51diludd62mrvdg09jetp9cecfi9i4@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
I've had an unlisted number in three of the last places that I lived in
three different states and in each case had to pay for the privilege. I
agree. It seems inconsistent that we have to pay for the company not to
do something.
It's not inconsistent whatsoever when you realize they just do it
to make money. I imagine the default position for most people
would be to *not* list themselves in the phone book, so that's
why they charge for it.
--
Jeremy Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 03:32:23 PM |
|
|
Jeremy Martin <harhar@pirates-ahoy.com> wrote in
news:rurc515gharal9h1k9roo1o7f05m36pi7g@4ax.com:
(johac <jhachm@ixpres.com>):
In article <sahb51diludd62mrvdg09jetp9cecfi9i4@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
I've had an unlisted number in three of the last places that I lived in
three different states and in each case had to pay for the privilege. I
agree. It seems inconsistent that we have to pay for the company not to
do something.
It's not inconsistent whatsoever when you realize they just do it
to make money. I imagine the default position for most people
would be to *not* list themselves in the phone book, so that's
why they charge for it.
No, it's more a matter of the phone companies selling lists of listed
numbers to telemarketers. They'd sell unlisted numbers, too, for a premium
price, if it were legal.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 01:19:09 PM |
|
|
Jeremy Martin <harhar@pirates-ahoy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
(johac <jhachm@ixpres.com>):
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
I've had an unlisted number in three of the last places that I lived in
hree different states and in each case had to pay for the privilege. I
agree. It seems inconsistent that we have to pay for the company not to
do something.
It's not inconsistent whatsoever when you realize they just do it
to make money. I imagine the default position for most people
would be to *not* list themselves in the phone book, so that's
why they charge for it.
That's what I was wondering about... How many people actually prefer
to be listed instead of not? If it weren't for telemarketers, I guess
I wouldn't really mind being listed, but I think it's unfair I have to
pay almost $5 a month to NOT be listed...
I can remember an old Steve Martin movie called "The Jerk" where his
character was overjoyed that he finally got his name in the phone
book, and he started dancing around, happy as could be.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 01:38:32 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:6q0d51luemjcnq8kssi134uvuedjdruatp@4ax.com...
snip
That's what I was wondering about... How many people actually prefer
to be listed instead of not? If it weren't for telemarketers, I guess
I wouldn't really mind being listed, but I think it's unfair I have to
pay almost $5 a month to NOT be listed...
Dude, get on the government's "Do Not Call" list. That outrageously reduced
the amount of telemarketing calls.
I can remember an old Steve Martin movie called "The Jerk" where his
character was overjoyed that he finally got his name in the phone
book, and he started dancing around, happy as could be.
"The new phone book is here! I'm somebody now!" ;)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 01:36:49 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jeremy Martin <harhar@pirates-ahoy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
(johac <jhachm@ixpres.com>):
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
I've had an unlisted number in three of the last places that I lived in
hree different states and in each case had to pay for the privilege. I
agree. It seems inconsistent that we have to pay for the company not to
do something.
It's not inconsistent whatsoever when you realize they just do it
to make money. I imagine the default position for most people
would be to *not* list themselves in the phone book, so that's
why they charge for it.
That's what I was wondering about... How many people actually prefer
to be listed instead of not? If it weren't for telemarketers, I guess
I wouldn't really mind being listed, but I think it's unfair I have to
pay almost $5 a month to NOT be listed...
/shrug
I'm on the national Do Not Call List. The few times I get spam calls anymore,
I politely tell them that I am on the Do Not Call list and then say that I
will be filing charges against they company they are calling about with both
the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission once
this call is ended. If they are still on the line, I also say that I will be
contacting the company they are calling about (nearly all telemarketing is
outsourced) and informing their legal department of charges filed because of
their telemarketing contractors. Then, I hang up.
I've NOT ONCE had any of those harassers call me a second time :-D
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 01:45:09 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:425688F1.53C3B171@serv.net...
snip
I'm on the national Do Not Call List. The few times I get spam calls
anymore,
I politely tell them that I am on the Do Not Call list and then say that
I
will be filing charges against they company they are calling about with
both
the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission
once
this call is ended. If they are still on the line, I also say that I will
be
contacting the company they are calling about (nearly all telemarketing is
outsourced) and informing their legal department of charges filed because
of
their telemarketing contractors. Then, I hang up.
I've NOT ONCE had any of those harassers call me a second time :-D
Oooh, that's what I should do. Since I have Caller ID, I just don't pick up
those calls. Consequently, they continue to call back. I'll try your
strategy :)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 04:20:33 PM |
|
|
("Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>):
Oooh, that's what I should do. Since I have Caller ID, I just don't pick up
those calls. Consequently, they continue to call back. I'll try your
strategy :)
I don't answer any number that comes up as "Unknown" or
"Private." It especially pisses me off when a number comes
through as 000-000-0000, as if the telemarketer is a ninja trying
to sneak through my phone lines to kill me.
--
Jeremy Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 04:34:51 PM |
|
|
"Jeremy Martin" <harhar@pirates-ahoy.com> wrote in message
news:4pbd51t0ucf9pnqobba4bumfgk3f42cqek@4ax.com...
("Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>):
Oooh, that's what I should do. Since I have Caller ID, I just don't pick
up
those calls. Consequently, they continue to call back. I'll try your
strategy :)
I don't answer any number that comes up as "Unknown" or
"Private." It especially pisses me off when a number comes
through as 000-000-0000, as if the telemarketer is a ninja trying
to sneak through my phone lines to kill me.
LOL, nice description. Yes, I don't pick up the "Unknown" callers either.
I have noticed that there is this one number that is used by several
different telemarketing companies (2 or 3 of them, IIRC). However, you
can't get through to anyone if you call it.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 02:00:48 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jeremy Martin <harhar@pirates-ahoy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
It's not inconsistent whatsoever when you realize they just do it
to make money. I imagine the default position for most people
would be to *not* list themselves in the phone book, so that's
why they charge for it.
That's what I was wondering about... How many people actually prefer
to be listed instead of not? If it weren't for telemarketers, I guess
I wouldn't really mind being listed, but I think it's unfair I have to
pay almost $5 a month to NOT be listed...
/shrug
I'm on the national Do Not Call List. The few times I get spam calls anymore,
I politely tell them that I am on the Do Not Call list and then say that I
will be filing charges against they company they are calling about with both
the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission once
this call is ended. If they are still on the line, I also say that I will be
contacting the company they are calling about (nearly all telemarketing is
outsourced) and informing their legal department of charges filed because of
their telemarketing contractors. Then, I hang up.
I've NOT ONCE had any of those harassers call me a second time :-D
I just posted a message about www.donotcall.gov before I read your
message, and I've decided to quit paying the $4.95 charge, hoping that
the do-not-call list will take care of the spam problem.
I took that $4.95 and used $3.00 of it to upgrade my DSL to double the
speed, from 1.5 mbs to 3.0 mbs. Apparently in my area, they put
"dampers" on the DSL lines to prevent the higher speeds, and when you
upgrade to a higher speed, they just take off the "damper." That's
what the guy at SBC told me when I asked how it works. I asked him if
the "damper" was an actual physical device, but he couldn't tell me.
I think it might just be a 0 or 1 or flag in some database, but I
can't be sure...
I had to load the above page using Microsoft Internet Explorer for
some reason, as Firefox gave me an error and refused to load the page.
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov to
load at all?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 04:21:39 PM |
|
|
(Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net>):
Apparently in my area, they put
"dampers" on the DSL lines to prevent the higher speeds, and when you
upgrade to a higher speed, they just take off the "damper." That's
what the guy at SBC told me when I asked how it works. I asked him if
the "damper" was an actual physical device, but he couldn't tell me.
I think it might just be a 0 or 1 or flag in some database, but I
can't be sure...
I'm not completely familiar with DSL infrastructure, but I'd
imagine that they can switch your speed from a main office
without having to do anything to physical equipment.
--
Jeremy Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 02:37:49 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:8t2d515r0gcgvn1uvnsf5egg1j25jq3qdm@4ax.com:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jeremy Martin <harhar@pirates-ahoy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
It's not inconsistent whatsoever when you realize they just do it
to make money. I imagine the default position for most people
would be to *not* list themselves in the phone book, so that's
why they charge for it.
That's what I was wondering about... How many people actually
prefer to be listed instead of not? If it weren't for
telemarketers, I guess I wouldn't really mind being listed, but I
think it's unfair I have to pay almost $5 a month to NOT be
listed...
/shrug
I'm on the national Do Not Call List. The few times I get spam calls
anymore, I politely tell them that I am on the Do Not Call list and
then say that I will be filing charges against they company they are
calling about with both the Federal Communications Commission and the
Federal Trade Commission once this call is ended. If they are still
on the line, I also say that I will be contacting the company they
are calling about (nearly all telemarketing is outsourced) and
informing their legal department of charges filed because of their
telemarketing contractors. Then, I hang up.
I've NOT ONCE had any of those harassers call me a second time :-D
I just posted a message about www.donotcall.gov before I read your
message, and I've decided to quit paying the $4.95 charge, hoping that
the do-not-call list will take care of the spam problem.
I took that $4.95 and used $3.00 of it to upgrade my DSL to double the
speed, from 1.5 mbs to 3.0 mbs. Apparently in my area, they put
"dampers" on the DSL lines to prevent the higher speeds, and when you
upgrade to a higher speed, they just take off the "damper." That's
what the guy at SBC told me when I asked how it works. I asked him if
the "damper" was an actual physical device, but he couldn't tell me.
I think it might just be a 0 or 1 or flag in some database, but I
can't be sure...
I had to load the above page using Microsoft Internet Explorer for
some reason, as Firefox gave me an error and refused to load the page.
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov to
load at all?
I just went there and it seems to be just fine.
What level of Firefox do you have?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 03:06:38 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I just posted a message about www.donotcall.gov before I read your
message, and I've decided to quit paying the $4.95 charge, hoping that
the do-not-call list will take care of the spam problem.
I took that $4.95 and used $3.00 of it to upgrade my DSL to double the
speed, from 1.5 mbs to 3.0 mbs. Apparently in my area, they put
"dampers" on the DSL lines to prevent the higher speeds, and when you
upgrade to a higher speed, they just take off the "damper." That's
what the guy at SBC told me when I asked how it works. I asked him if
the "damper" was an actual physical device, but he couldn't tell me.
I think it might just be a 0 or 1 or flag in some database, but I
can't be sure...
I had to load the above page using Microsoft Internet Explorer for
some reason, as Firefox gave me an error and refused to load the page.
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov to
load at all?
I just went there and it seems to be just fine.
What level of Firefox do you have?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206
Firefox/0.8
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 04:10:04 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:ud7d519984vma9c5da3aj85esu4kard8j0@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I just posted a message about www.donotcall.gov before I read your
message, and I've decided to quit paying the $4.95 charge, hoping
that the do-not-call list will take care of the spam problem.
I took that $4.95 and used $3.00 of it to upgrade my DSL to double
the speed, from 1.5 mbs to 3.0 mbs. Apparently in my area, they put
"dampers" on the DSL lines to prevent the higher speeds, and when
you upgrade to a higher speed, they just take off the "damper."
That's what the guy at SBC told me when I asked how it works. I
asked him if the "damper" was an actual physical device, but he
couldn't tell me. I think it might just be a 0 or 1 or flag in some
database, but I can't be sure...
I had to load the above page using Microsoft Internet Explorer for
some reason, as Firefox gave me an error and refused to load the
page.
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov
to load at all?
I just went there and it seems to be just fine.
What level of Firefox do you have?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206
Firefox/0.8
Hmm. I've got Firefox 1.0.2; I don't know if that makes the difference
or not...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
09 Apr 2005 03:07:24 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov
to load at all?
I just went there and it seems to be just fine.
What level of Firefox do you have?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206
Firefox/0.8
Hmm. I've got Firefox 1.0.2; I don't know if that makes the difference
or not...
I upgraded to 1.0.2 and still have the same problem. It says "The
document contains no data" when I try to load the page. I must be
missing a plugin or something.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
09 Apr 2005 07:31:46 AM |
|
|
In article <7khe51tke7jao4bqnngh6r0ea5va0hpkm9@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov
to load at all?
I just went there and it seems to be just fine.
What level of Firefox do you have?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206
Firefox/0.8
Hmm. I've got Firefox 1.0.2; I don't know if that makes the difference
or not...
I upgraded to 1.0.2 and still have the same problem. It says "The
document contains no data" when I try to load the page. I must be
missing a plugin or something.
Check your settings. It might be one of those sites that requires
cookies or some such.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
09 Apr 2005 11:26:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 03:07:24 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov
to load at all?
I just went there and it seems to be just fine.
What level of Firefox do you have?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206
Firefox/0.8
Hmm. I've got Firefox 1.0.2; I don't know if that makes the difference
or not...
I upgraded to 1.0.2 and still have the same problem. It says "The
document contains no data" when I try to load the page. I must be
missing a plugin or something.
I got thru, the same as with IE6.
Here's the info from Firefox help:
(couldn't copy/paste)
Firefox 1.0 preview release c. 1998-2004
mozilla/5.0(windows;U;
windows nt 5.1, rv1.7.3
gecko/20041001
firefox/0.10.1
Hope it helps!
(I got XP home SP2)
I'll answer any questions.
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 02:40:32 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
I asked him if
the "damper" was an actual physical device, but he couldn't tell me.
I think it might just be a 0 or 1 or flag in some database, but I
can't be sure...
it'll be a simple router configuration, driven from a database that will
automatically change the config in the router to allow a different
speed. More than 0 or 1 it will most likely have a range of values and
maybe even allow bursting.
I had to load the above page using Microsoft Internet Explorer for
some reason, as Firefox gave me an error and refused to load the page.
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov to
load at all?
I tried it and it worked a treat. It's written in very good HTML
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
08 Apr 2005 03:10:53 PM |
|
|
Martin <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
I asked him if the "damper" was an actual physical device, but he couldn't
tell me. I think it might just be a 0 or 1 or flag in some database, but I
can't be sure...
it'll be a simple router configuration, driven from a database that will
automatically change the config in the router to allow a different
speed. More than 0 or 1 it will most likely have a range of values and
maybe even allow bursting.
That sounds logical. :)
I had to load the above page using Microsoft Internet Explorer for
some reason, as Firefox gave me an error and refused to load the page.
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov to
load at all?
I tried it and it worked a treat. It's written in very good HTML
I guess maybe I need to upgrade my version of Firefox or something.
I have several secure sites that don't seem to work with my current
version.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
09 Apr 2005 07:28:24 AM |
|
|
In article <8t2d515r0gcgvn1uvnsf5egg1j25jq3qdm@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jeremy Martin <harhar@pirates-ahoy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
It's not inconsistent whatsoever when you realize they just do it
to make money. I imagine the default position for most people
would be to *not* list themselves in the phone book, so that's
why they charge for it.
That's what I was wondering about... How many people actually prefer
to be listed instead of not? If it weren't for telemarketers, I guess
I wouldn't really mind being listed, but I think it's unfair I have to
pay almost $5 a month to NOT be listed...
/shrug
I'm on the national Do Not Call List. The few times I get spam calls
anymore,
I politely tell them that I am on the Do Not Call list and then say that I
will be filing charges against they company they are calling about with
both
the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission once
this call is ended. If they are still on the line, I also say that I will
be
contacting the company they are calling about (nearly all telemarketing is
outsourced) and informing their legal department of charges filed because
of
their telemarketing contractors. Then, I hang up.
I've NOT ONCE had any of those harassers call me a second time :-D
I just posted a message about www.donotcall.gov before I read your
message, and I've decided to quit paying the $4.95 charge, hoping that
the do-not-call list will take care of the spam problem.
I took that $4.95 and used $3.00 of it to upgrade my DSL to double the
speed, from 1.5 mbs to 3.0 mbs. Apparently in my area, they put
"dampers" on the DSL lines to prevent the higher speeds, and when you
upgrade to a higher speed, they just take off the "damper." That's
what the guy at SBC told me when I asked how it works. I asked him if
the "damper" was an actual physical device, but he couldn't tell me.
I think it might just be a 0 or 1 or flag in some database, but I
can't be sure...
I had to load the above page using Microsoft Internet Explorer for
some reason, as Firefox gave me an error and refused to load the page.
Can anyone else around here who uses Firefox get www.donotcall.gov to
load at all?
Worked fine for me. I'm using v. 1.0.1 on a Mac with OS X.
I signed up for the DNC list and it works fine for me. I think that
because of it there are also fewer telemarketers around today. I still
pay up for the unlisted number because along with the number, they also
list your address. There are some people who I wouldn't particularly
care to have my address. Several years ago, I wrote a letter to the
newpaper defending evolution and it got published. A week later, some
fundy sent me Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" tract in the mail. The only way
that I think that he could have obtained my address is from the phone
book. Discretion being the better part of valor, next day I called the
phone company and asked for an unlisted number.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
10 Apr 2005 08:21:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:50:32 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Don't bet on it happening. Some years ago I was in an area of the
country and looked up the phone no. of a person I knew in the area.
It turned out to be a gent who had the same name as the person I was
looking up.
Being curious how I got his phone number, he asked and was surprised
when I told him from the local phone book. He indicated he was paying
to have the number unlisted.
Is this the same all around the US?
Yes.
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: OT - Unlisted Phone Numbers |
10 Apr 2005 01:38:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:50:32 GMT, Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Does anyone else around here find it wrong that people have to pay
extra to get an unlisted residential phone number?
I have to pay an extra $4.95 a month so that my number won't appear in
the paper directory or when people call information.
Is this the same all around the US?
Based on the cost of information, it seems that this is exactly
reverse of what should happen. It seems to me that one should have to
*pay* to be listed, because more information is shared or given to the
people who print the phone book, and it takes more paper and ink to
print my name and number there, or provide directory assistance, but
it's just the opposite.
Apparently it costs more in time for an operator to explain that they can't
give out the number than it does to give out the number.
With businesses, though, you do indeed have to pay extra to get listed
in the phone book.
I don't get it...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Barry
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
