Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!telecom-request From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze Message-ID: Date: 28 May 91 14:41:44 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: I.E.C.C. Lines: 29 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 406, Message 5 of 15 In article is written: > It seems someone has a patent to inject advertising messages > in the silent intervals between audible ringing signals. Worse yet, > the RBOCs seem to be all agog at this marvelous new thought about > getting revenue out of otherwise "dead air time!" I read about this several years ago when it first came out. It turns out that most of the technology is involved in injecting the advertisements at the caller's end, even though the ring is generated at the callee's end. The thought was that for a discount on the monthly service rate, a subscriber would consent to be subjected to ads. It seems to have occured to them that just sticking ads into rings heard by random callers would generate considerable ill will for the advertisers. For that matter, I don't know why companies with DID PBXes don't put their own ads into the ring sound now -- it wouldn't be technically hard. (Attention marketeers: Patent pending, don't try it. :-) I don't know why it's suddenly coming back now, except perhaps that the last of the old Bell System managers who thought of the phone company as a service are retiring, and the new ones have less shame. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl