STAFF EDIT: Bothersome business pages
Issue date: 4/9/08 Section: Opinion
Ask almost any college student what phone books are good for and the answers will probably run the gamut from heavy doorstops to fodder for elaborate late-night pranks. Leafing through those ubiquitous heavy yellow books for phone numbers seems downright archaic next to the ease of Internet searches. Seizing on this needless and often unwanted waste of paper, city councilors from Boston and Cambridge have proposed a much-needed answer: Phone book companies should not deliver the books if residents do not want them. Both municipal bodies should pass these proposals.
A sizeable number of area residents still use business phone books to find everything from pizza to contractors. According to a survey conducted by CRM Associates, even 75 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds report using paper phone books at least once last year.
The problem is that a substantial portion of Boston area residents never use the books, as seen in the piles of unused phone books stacked near doorsteps and in garbage dumpsters. Though the books consume enormous amounts of paper, competing companies still deliver them to doorsteps without residents' consent.
In the age of the Internet, it simply makes no sense for residents to get fresh stacks of phone books when they use paperless web browsing to find local businesses anyway. The shift does not cost phone book companies in the long run because they offer the same advertisements on their websites without spending extra on costly printing. Yet the companies still deliver millions of new books each year without asking residents.
Cambridge City Councilor Sam Seidel aims to stop that by allowing his residents to opt out of the wasteful freebies by signing up for a list. The proposal works in much the same way the federal government has used its do-not-call list to prevent telemarketers from bothering citizens who participate in the program. Boston City Councilor Salvatore LaMattina offers the same fresh idea with a slightly different approach, by forbidding the phone book companies from delivering heavy objects without a resident's explicit request.
Though both cities' ideas are good ways to reduce unnecessary waste, LaMattina's proposal takes a better approach than the Cambridge solution. Instead of compiling a lengthy list of names that would probably use municipal funding to maintain and enforce, the Boston proposal would do away with the list altogether. If the idea is to save residents from an inconvenience, why bother them again by making them sign up for the program?
Boston's ban would still allow those residents who ask for paper phone books to use them, but the rest can avoid an unwanted annoyance while doing something to help the environment. If the current Cambridge proposal fails to pass, councilors there should try again using Boston's more practical solution.
A sizeable number of area residents still use business phone books to find everything from pizza to contractors. According to a survey conducted by CRM Associates, even 75 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds report using paper phone books at least once last year.
The problem is that a substantial portion of Boston area residents never use the books, as seen in the piles of unused phone books stacked near doorsteps and in garbage dumpsters. Though the books consume enormous amounts of paper, competing companies still deliver them to doorsteps without residents' consent.
In the age of the Internet, it simply makes no sense for residents to get fresh stacks of phone books when they use paperless web browsing to find local businesses anyway. The shift does not cost phone book companies in the long run because they offer the same advertisements on their websites without spending extra on costly printing. Yet the companies still deliver millions of new books each year without asking residents.
Cambridge City Councilor Sam Seidel aims to stop that by allowing his residents to opt out of the wasteful freebies by signing up for a list. The proposal works in much the same way the federal government has used its do-not-call list to prevent telemarketers from bothering citizens who participate in the program. Boston City Councilor Salvatore LaMattina offers the same fresh idea with a slightly different approach, by forbidding the phone book companies from delivering heavy objects without a resident's explicit request.
Though both cities' ideas are good ways to reduce unnecessary waste, LaMattina's proposal takes a better approach than the Cambridge solution. Instead of compiling a lengthy list of names that would probably use municipal funding to maintain and enforce, the Boston proposal would do away with the list altogether. If the idea is to save residents from an inconvenience, why bother them again by making them sign up for the program?
Boston's ban would still allow those residents who ask for paper phone books to use them, but the rest can avoid an unwanted annoyance while doing something to help the environment. If the current Cambridge proposal fails to pass, councilors there should try again using Boston's more practical solution.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Mitch
posted 4/09/08 @ 1:59 PM EST
Thanks for your opinion piece on the yellow pages, but your opinion is shadowed by a national trend towards calling attention to the "bothersome" yellow page directories. (Continued…)
Mitch
posted 4/09/08 @ 2:04 PM EST
Thanks for your opinion piece on the yellow pages, but your opinion is shadowed by a national trend towards calling attention to the "bothersome" yellow page directories. (Continued…)
kc
posted 4/09/08 @ 7:32 PM EST
www.YellowPagesGoesGreen.org will contact the telephone book publishers to stop the unsolicited delivery of telephone books. www.YellowPagesGoesGreen. (Continued…)
BUGrad
posted 4/10/08 @ 3:50 PM EST
Please be advised that the publishers of yellow pages are protected under 1st Amendment rights to deliver telephone directories. Usually yellow page directories are used by an older demographic than college students. (Continued…)
Post a Comment