For several years individual states passed laws and handed down regulations to control telemarketing. Repeated abuses of these regulations by the telemarketers themselves is likely what led to the Federal Trade Commission instituting a national "Do Not Call" registry in 2003. That regulation was of course, fought by the telemarketers, but if the behavior of this telemarketer is any indication I have to wonder why they fought this regulation if they had no intention of obeying it in the first place. In addition, there are several loopholes to the "Do Not Call" registry, most notably that which exempts politicians and their political campaigns. The loopholes notwithstanding, the "Do Not Call" registry is something that should be replaced with what I call the "OK to Call" registry.
There are three reasons why we should make this change.
First of all, a person shouldn't have to ask to be placed on a "Do Not Call" reigstry in the first place. There can be a lag time of up to 90 days when you ask to get on "Do Not Call" before you're officially there, during which your phone company will gleefully provide your new telephone number to telemarketers that include themselves. During that lag time, the new telephone number holder can expected to be barraged with all sorts of unwanted sales pitches, and nothing can be done about it.
Second, the telemarketers are going to violate the "Do Not Call" list anyway. Sure, those of us who are on it don't get anywhere near the number of junk phone calls that we used to, but if you've clicked on that link I provided earlier you are going to learn that there is no shortage of telemarketers who will flat out disregard the "Do Not Call" list. They can call you from outside the country, they can claim that you had a past business relationship with them (that's another loophole), they can claim to be a non profit agency, or they can claim to be taking a survey. The point is, is that the registry as currently set up falls short of achieving the desired results.
Third, establishing an "OK to Call" registry would keep telemarketers occupied with those who actually want to receive the calls in the first place, assuming of course, that there is such a thing as a large number of telemarketers who are willing to obey this kind of law. Granted that the "OK to Call" registry is going to be a very short list, but with some 300 million Americans or so I'd think that there'd be a hundred thousand or so who really wouldn't mind getting these calls. Of course the telemarketers are going to argue that one hundred thousand is a small number, but my response to that is that if they really think that then they should go to the bank and ask for one hundred thousand pennies and take them all home and count them. I might even be off in my estimate, as that there might be five hundred thousand Americans who are lonely and would like someone, even a telemarketer, to call them up and ask them how they're doing.
Of course, one question is, is how do we pay for setting up an "OK to Call" registry?
First, anyone who decides to become a telemarketer should be forced to buy a license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I'd be tempted to make the license fee something like five hundred million dollars, but if we do that then they'll set up shop in India, so we're going to have to make the license fee a lot lower. I propose five hundred dollars for a company license if they operate from within the United States, and fifty million dollars for each license for every caller in India that they would like to use.
Second, those who wish to be on this list should also pay. I think that anybody who wants to be on this list should pay a one time registration fee of one hundred dollars. If they're lonely and they want people to call them, a one time fee of one hundred dollars would be cheaper than several psychriatric visits to address their loneliness issues. Furthermore, anyone who is stupid enough to want these calls should be fined one hundred dollars in the first place.
Third, there must be no loopholes whatsoever for a telemarketer not wishing to use the "OK to Call" list. None whatsoever.....absolutely, positively. If a telemarketer is caught violating this rule, they should be fined ten thousand dollars, and then forced to watch stupid commercials for thirty days while strapped in a chair if it's their first offense. If it's their second offense, then the fine should be twenty-five thousand dollars and they should get one hundred days in the chair. As for the stupid commercial that they should be forced to watch, I'd like to suggest that one of that loser singing about his credit problems while driving that clunker......make them watch that one over and over during their waking hours. (That might be a violation of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Constitution but I think it's worth a court ruling).
I'm sure that there are some other reasons that I could come up with as to why we should do this, but it's been a long day and I'm starting to get tired. If you can come up with a fourth or a fifth, then please feel free to post a comment.
* * * * * * *
I had a meeting with one of my financial planners today (I use two of them). We're on the same page. For the first time he mentioned precious metals and other commodities as an investment. He was open to gold and silver the last time we talked; now he's volunteering metals and commodities. He said that inflation and devaluation of the dollar is a concern of his. He sees more upside potential in silver as I do.
I've been a fan of the precious metals for several years now. I bought lots of silver back in 2003; I now wish I had bought more of it. I did buy some gold too, and yes I should have bought more that as well. But with multitrillion dollar deficits and a concern that the Chinese will stop buying our debt, I have to wonder if we're in for some hyperinflation of the dollar.
I may start buying gold again. And some silver.
* * * * * * *
Interestingly enough, my employer has issued some guidelines for those of us who are involved in social networking sites or blogging. I can identify who I work for, but if I do so I must abide by their code of conduct, and make it clear that I'm not speaking for the company.
As it is, I'd rather not identify who I work for, but that's not because I want to talk about work and the people I work with/for. It's instead that real people are involved, and what they do in the workplace is not for public consumption. I don't think they would like it if they were to stumble across this blog and then read about themselves. Additionally, when I come home my employer ceases to exist. I have the work life and I have the at home life. I'd rather keep a wall up that separates the two.
* * * * * * *
I will be in Portland, Oregon for a few days next month, visiting longtime friends Ken and Gillian and their family. It's something that I do every year, save for last year when they were down here in Arizona.
If my budget and vacation time permitted it I would try to make it up there once a month or so. Ken and I have been good friends since 1988, and I have known his wife Gillian since 1990. Both have been with me thru the good times as well as the difficult times.
I think Oregon's a neat state and I always look forward to going.
No comments:
Post a Comment