Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages Message-ID: <12331@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 20 Sep 90 03:20:54 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 156 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 657, Message 1 of 4 Pat- While I agree with you that making use of a Telco recording MAY rightfully get you in trouble with said Telco due to false representation, I find it hard to believe that the tariff(s) which specify degradation of service were intended towards callers leaving "confusing" outgoing messages. For example, what if I had an Outgoing Message (OGM) on my machine that said: "We're sorry, the number you have reached is being checked for trouble. Please try your call again later. Thank you. 508-221." Now this may SOUND like a NETel recording, yet nowhere is NETel mentioned, and NO reference is made to the phone company at all. Simply because something SOUNDS similar doesn't mean it is the same thing, and in this case the entire OGM can be quite "legitimate" (ie, everything said in there is true, as I may be checking the phone for trouble and using the machine for my own purposes to see if I can call in or not, and I don't want anyone else to call.) It may very well sound a LOT like a NETel recording, but as long as I don't mention "NETel" or the "phone company" etc., ie, I don't try to pass my number off as one of theirs, then I doubt they can legally do anything about it. If you insist that they CAN do something about a message like this, then where do we draw the line? Must I put a disclaimer in ANY message which sounds SOMEWHAT similar to the Telco's saying "This is not XXX Bell Co., but my own message!"? That is to say, if I had a carphone set *71 (no answer transfer) to my answering machine, and the OGM said: "The mobile customer you have reached is not in the vehicle. Please call 702-741-7626. Thank you. 415-3E.", can the telco tell me to get rid of that message? If your argument is followed to its conclusion, the answer seems to be "yes, they can." For example, someone calls my car number, hears that I am not in, and then calls 702-741-7626. The caller gets a dial tone (from the ROAM port). The caller hangs up, and dials again. Same thing. After 10 calls, the caller calls Directory Assistance in 702 and asks for me. No listing. The caller then calls the operator, who if she isn't aware that "7626" is a Roam port and/or it doesn't show on her screen (which HAS happened - I've managed to make COLLECT call attempts to Roam ports a few years ago!), will keep trying to get a non-dial tone answer, may talk to her supervisor, and may then put in a trouble report. Clearly, a LOT of time is taken up. And one could argue that I SHOULD have said "Hi, I'm not around now ... if you are calling my mobile #, try calling me at the Reno Roam port, 702-741-7626. Thanks. 415-3E.". Yet what if that one answering machine served a group of mobile phones, and we all wanted the same generic OGM? Then what? Do we have to structure OUR OGM so that it is acceptable to the phone company? How innocuous does a message have to get before no "disclaimer" is necessary? I can think of numerous other OGMs that would cause similar trouble. How about my brother, who sometimes has 30 seconds of a guitar solo on his OGM? Too confusing? Too many people will call operators asking "Why am I getting KZAP-FM on my phone line?". Or how about some of my old college roomates, who were too busy to leave a message and just left the OGM blank, and had an answering machine that picked up so quickly sometimes you wouldn't even hear a ring? What if someone called and claimed "I called 346-9999 and no one answered and nothing happened at all." Should the Telco then call my roomates and say "Look, we don't like your answering machine because it picks up too quickly, and for that matter, we don't like the lack of a message on your machine - put one on there or we will bother you." And while I'm at it, what if my phone line is used as a data line for five days out of a week? Now lots of people try to call me during the week, but they keep getting this busy signal. So one guy who thinks he is particularly clever calls the operator and asks for a "Verification" (which is free in my area.) The op. tests the line, says "It's in use", and hangs up. But the guy is very curious, so he does this every day until he can get through - AND, he goes to payphones each time so that the telco never knows it is really the same person calling. Should the telco be able to tell me: "Hey, this guy keeps calling you, and your line is always busy, and he is bothering our operators,so we don't want you using the phone line so much so that he can get through!"? Of course not! I am using my phone for a legitimate purpose, and although the telco derives no revenue from my usage (let's say it's a local call), it is certainly not my fault that someone keeps calling the operators for a verification every day. Moreover, this is analogous to the answering machine situation: I have a message which creates some confusion, so people call the operators all the time, and this takes up the operators' time. SO WHAT? The Telco is getting revenue from the calls to my machine, and I am in good faith leaving messages which *I* like to leave and which in no way represent myself as an agent of the Telco. I am not trying to hurt the telco, and I am using my phone line in the way which I see fit, which doesn't actively cause trouble for anyone. Although the tariff may indeed have implications for customers who cause harm to the network (such as using line current to charge batteries! :-)), I doubt that it was the intent of those who drafted the tariff to prevent customers from leaving ambiguous or confusing messages. Although an OGM may cause a higher degree of use of telco faclities than would have otherwise been necessary, this is one of the costs of being in the phone business, the same way that not EVERY phone will be answered when it is called, wasting Telco (and possibly LD) facilities on the attempt. The intent of the tariff more probably lies in efforts to reduce the use of non-Bell or non FCC certified equipment which the telco previously feared would damage the network, to reduce the amount of fraud committed by use of Telco facilites, to prevent customers from using their lines to annoy other customers or to make it impossible or more difficult for other customers to use their line(s) (as in a prty line), etc. Rather than put the burden of having an "acceptable" message on the customer, it seems more realistic to expect the Telco to have people well qualified enough to realize that they are getting a machine, and can thus inform the customer. Simply because some customers are too stupid to try to figure it out for themselves, or some operators too lazy to listen to see what happens at the end of the message (or whatever else..these are only examples) doesn't validate the phone company in trying to prevent me from leaving whatever message I choose, as long as I don't pass myself off as being their agent. As noted above, there are so many other examples of instances where the Telco's time is "wasted", that singling out answering machines and allowing the telco to control the content of my OGM defies logic. If they can't tell me to stop using my phone/keeping the line busy, why should they be able to tell me that they don't like my message and I have to remove it? Both circumstances may cause the Telco a lot of trouble, yet simply ecuase it is the EASIEST thing for the telco to do doesn't mean it is the right thing, and pesonally, I don't like the idea of the Telco being able to censor or control the content of my messages when it only tangentally may affect them. Thus, I would say that since the message " The number you have reached XXX-XXXX is not in service." is not specific to the Bells (Bell Canada uses it, as well as other telcos around the world, BT for example...), one could have such a message on their line and not violate any specific tariffs. As long as the Alert Tones and the message were not copies of a Bell recording (ie, you made them up yourself or something) I can't see how Bell could get you on the tariffs issue ... they may be able to on "impersonating the telco", but that's a different story...! :-) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Here is an example of how someone can send an 8000 + byte message to rationalize the use of a misleading OGM for the purpose of doing what they are apparently unable to do in person: Say NO to a telemarketer and replace the reciever graciously. Even if your peculiar traffic patterns as described above were in fact real -- and I doubt *anyone* could have such bizzare requirements as you note in your message -- there would still be no legitimate reason to add the identification code on the end. PAT]