Re: Case Study: Do-Not-Call List

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1067202693.17256_at_yasure...
> alcesteatxmissiondot_at_com.or.net wrote:
>
> >On a private forum, a discussion came up as to the optimal way to store
> >the U.S. National "Do-Not-Call" list in and RDBMS.
> >
> >[ For those out of the US and who
> >don't pay attention to U.S. news, this is a list of 40 million nine-digit
> >telephone numbers. Number are divided into three segments: a three-digit
> >area code that is indicative of their geographic areas (mostly an area
has
> >one area code, but some have two or three overlapping ones) a prefix that
> >indicates their local exchange, although those aren't well-defined in
many
> >cases, and then four addition digits which have no meaning other than a
> >unique identifier. Not all area codes are used and many have special
meaning.
> >Area codes are not geographically distributed, i.e. 5-- area codes are
not
> >all in the midwest. AFAIK, area codes don't cross state boundaries.]
> >
> >This list must be checked against by telemarketers before calling the
> >number in question.
> >
> >I imagine this list would be used in one of three ways:
> >+checked for a specific number prior to a phone call
> >+anti-joined against call list to remove numbers permanently from call
list
> >+anti-joined against call list for the specific block of numbers on a
> > telemarketer's daily list
> >
> >I imagine most telemarketers do numbers near to each other during blocks
> >of calling time, although I don't know the business that well.
> >
> >List are updated quarterly. As far as I know, no numbers are
automatically
> >eliminated from the list, although I'm not sure if that's been
established.
> >
> >So, given such a simple table...what would you all recommend doing with
it?
> >The choices that could make some sense are:
> >
> >+One number column standard heap table with PK on number
> >+Two number column standard heap table with area code and rest of number
> >+One number IOT
> >+Partitioned table by area code (~200 partitions)
> >+Partitioned table by state (List partitioned)
> >
> >My gut reaction was to go with the first form, and possibly put it on a
> >read-only tablespace.
> >
> >What do you think? I'm not supposed to get the list legally because I'm
not
> >a telemarketer...
> >
> >Jer
> >
> >
> The phone calls are almost never made by people ... they are made by
> computerized equipment.
>
> But my first instinct would be IOT partitioned only if required for
> performance which I doubt
> would be an issue. Insert need not be fast. Updates never happen.
> Deletes ... a fascinating issue
> because over a finite period of time every number gets on the list
> because even if someone new
> gets the number ... no one ever calls and says take me off the list.
>
> Perhaps the better solution would just be to outlaw telemarketing and
> let them go find honest work.
>
> --
> Daniel Morgan
> http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
> http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
>

The whole thing is automated. Sometimes you get a call and there isn't anyone on the other end. This is usually because of the predictive dialers. The calling machine makes more calls than there are people to answer those calls. When someone answers the call then the machine hooks the person called up with someone who can talk to them. If no one is available then it seems like no one is on the other end of the line. The telemarketing industry has a term for this and they are allowed to have X % of their answered calls be of this type. The FTC no call list is sold to telemarketers by state (I think, but maybe by area code). Once you put your name on the list it stays there unless you remove it or 5 years passes (whichever comes first) at which point you reenlist. I think the list is something like 80 million numbers. It is currently in the courts and the Telemarketers are fighting it on several grounds. At least one of the judges who allowed their claims had put his number on the do not call list. I have to agree with Daniel on this one about telemarketing.

Jim Received on Sun Oct 26 2003 - 15:26:46 CST