Comments on: Buried in unwanted phone books?

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:58:02 +0000

Oh, please, make them stop!! I put them right into the recycling bucket. And of course I have about 6 because for some reason they think my two family house has half a dozen units….sigh.

What a waste.

By: AJ

AJ — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:25:10 +0000

Here’s a link to where you can opt-out of receiving a paper phone book.

http://www.yellowpagesgoesgreen.org/stop-yellow-pages/

After opting-out, a great online directory to use is:

http://www.WhitePages.com

By: Barry Rafkind

Barry Rafkind — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:54:34 +0000

People around the country are grappling with this issue. Here's a Jan 6 '09 article on the topic Minnesota (USA) Politician Introduces Bill to Make Phone Books Optional. Personally, I think phonebooks should be opt-in. People should be able to sign up for annual phonebooks or request them on an ad-hoc basis. The phone companies could send annual reminder post cards or letters to remind people about the service and offer a customer service phone number that people can use to subscribe. The amount of trash and nerves this would save would be huge!

By: Columbine

Columbine — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:16:32 +0000

I suppose opt-out would be better than nothing, if it worked. But since most buildings in Somerville contain multiple dwellings, opting out would be an exercise in futility. My 3 would just be considered spares for a different resident, much like those damned newsprint circulars that seem to make up half of the mail carrier’s load these days.

However, in terms of financial consequences, the phone book companies could definitely save money by not printing and distributing multiple phone books to every resident. Printing costs, and it can’t be cheap to deliver stacks of heavy books.

By: James Kebinger

James Kebinger — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:33:26 +0000

I just asked my Alderman to look into this. I think any approach should be opt-out rather than opt-in to protect people who really need a phonebook. Obviously without financial consequences, there will be no reason for the publishers of the phone books to care about any lists.

By: Barry Rafkind

Barry Rafkind — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:25:22 +0000

These orders are from yesterday's (Jan 22nd) Board of Aldermen meeting agenda (pdf). I find the Gewirtz/Desmond order confusing. First, aren't the aldermen the legislators, so why would they ask the solicitor to draft legislation? Second, "to curtail mass phone book distribution" is completely vague. The White/Sullivan order is easier to understand. Unfortunately, neither order specifies a time-frame for action. It would make a ton of sense for phonebooks to be optional. I wonder how the aldermen came up with these ideas simultaneously and why in two pairs? Is this some coordinated strategy or just coincidence? Read more opinions about this on the Davis Square Live Journal thread Phone books = do not want Note, this article was cross-posted on Davis Square Live Journal under To take arms against a sea of phone books.