Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Message-ID: <5125@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 12 Mar 90 16:32:49 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: University College Dublin Lines: 35 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 6 of 10 In article <4901@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!hpda!morrell@lcs.mit.edu (Michael Morrell) writes: >>Toll saver (answers after 4 rings first call 2 rings all other calls, >>when you call remotely and it doesn't answer after 2 rings you know >>you have no messages and hang up thus saving the toll charge). > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, > for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine, > they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4). > This feature should be illegal. Two quibbles : Why should it be illegal? I think it's perfectly valid to see if you have messages. Why be charged for discovering you have no messages - when you *do* have them and want to access them, *then* the telco makes its money. You could extend the same logic to the practice described by some guys on this list who use exchange callback to allow internal calls. I guess you'd disapprove of that, too. But your other point strikes me as intriguing - you want external callers to be able to hang up if they figure there's a machine on the line? Isn't that the same idea, that the caller gets information from the number of rings to answering ? Why allow one and not the other? Regards, bjh