Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Message-ID: <12334@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 90 07:06:30 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Lines: 25
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 3 of 4


PAT said:

> And since most subscribers would reasonably
> associate the tones and message text with telco, telco could claim
> that the person making such an announcement over the phone was
> falsely claiming to represent, or speak for the company.    PAT]

I always thought any random SIT tones were a great idea to thwart
telemarketers. The really good ones are using predictive dialers that
use DSP chips to monitor the call and can switch to an idle agent
(assuming one is free) so fast that MOST of your "Hello" will be
heard.  Who you are, etc. also pops up on the agent's screen at the
same time.  The trunk to agent ratios can be 1.5:1 or higher. They
DON'T want idle agents.

That same DSP chip also listens for things other than human voice, and
SIT tones immediately indicate the called party is NOT going to be
answering, or so they think.

If telco complains, say you will stop using SIT tones when they
provide free telemarketer blocking for your phone. If you are a
regular at DPU hearings, and send a few letters a week to various
legislators about Telecom issues, I doubt telco would find cutting you
off worth while, even though they would like to.