Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: While Phone Rings, Charges May Begin [from LA Times] Message-ID: Date: 10 Jul 89 07:08:39 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: ATI Wares Team Lines: 90 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 229, message 1 of 7 In article , lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) writes: > [From the LA Times "Consumer Views" column, by Don G. Campbell, 7/7/89. > Paraphrased except for items in quotes.] > > QUESTION: J. T. observes several one-minute call charges on his/her MCI phone > bill. These were made to answering machines that answer on the fifth ring; > he/she always hung up after the third or fourth ring. > > ANSWER: [Complete and utter nonsense about clicks and machines making > connections before ringing stops and such.] When you place any call, local or long distance, upon connection of the call you hear "ringback tone". This tone is supplied by the central office at the called end and tells you that your call was successful and that the party's phone is ringing (as opposed to not going through or busy). When the called party answers, ringback tone ceases immediately and the connection "supervises", or in older parlance, "reverses". For the majority of carriers that handle supervision, this is when the clock starts. It makes no difference whether a machine answers or a person answers, one thing is certain: ringback tone ending and supervision beginning are a simultaneous event. If the machine answers on the fifth ring, that's when billing begins and not before. > An MCI manager later informs the customer that "when [you] call a > number with an answering machine -- no matter how soon [you] hang up -- [you] > will be charged because the two machines have made a connection; therefore > no reimbursement can be made. The MCI manager also claimed that "all long- > distance companies have the same problem because of this 'connection' over > which they have no control." Garbage! No long distance company can tell whether an answering machine or a person answers the phone, especially before they've answered it! My answering maching has this "cheap realtor" mode and I have *NEVER* been charged for a call when I hung up before the [CLUNK]"Hello....". Sounds like MCI just doesn't want to deal with THEIR problem and particularly doesn't want to refund any money. > AT&T told J. T. that "they charge only when a person, or a machine, actually > answered." But J. T.'s mother has AT&T and has the same problem. Does J. T.'s answering machine answer then continue to deliver its own ringback tone? I doubt it. > " 'I think that a lot of people have this misunderstanding,' said [an AT&T > spokesperson], 'that if they hang up while the phone is still ringing, the > call hasn't gone through. Actually, the recording machine has been triggered > at the instant that click takes place, but in many cases the caller is in the > process of hanging up and doesn't have the phone at his ear, and so he > doesn't hear the click.' " MCI confirms that it operates similarly. I find it hard to believe that AT&T would spew forth this type of rubbish. My dealings with AT&T have been most straightforward and the technical people have been generally informed. > The MCI spokesperson points out that this is *not* the same as lack of call > supervision, which caused "ring-no-answer" billing. Right. It's a nonsense explanation made up by marketing types. > "Just when the telephone answering machine kicks on isn't standardized [...] > among the manufacturers." But when it answers, it answers. And not before. > "There's one possible moral in all this: If your timing is off and you hear > the click, you might just as well stay on the line long enough to announce > yourself." > > "Because you've paid for it anyway." If it really answers, then yes. If not, get your money back. Actually, I had a discussion of this matter with someone at Pac*Bell. Ms. PB said that by all rights, a subscriber should be charged for a call made to an answering machine that answers after many rings when it has no messages for its owner. Reason: information has been passed (that the machine has no messages). I countered with the fact that while the owner now knows that there are no messages, no "communication" has occurred. It's the same as a busy or no-answer: the caller knows that the party is on the phone or isn't home. That's information but not communication. Oh, well. Some cellular companies have solved the whole problem: charge for everything, unsuccessful attempts and all! -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !