TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Alternatives to LEC Voicemail

Re: Alternatives to LEC Voicemail

William Warren (william_warren_nonoise@comcast.net)
Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:31:45 -0400

Rich Greenberg wrote:

> In article <telecom24.424.5@telecom-digest.org>,
> <ed.gehringer@gmail.com> wrote:

>> My LEC has hiked their rates again for voicemail, bringing the total
>> to $10.50/mo. + tax. I'm fed up with paying 50% more for this service
>> than I did a few years ago. So I want to investigate alternatives.

> Why not a $10-20 answering machine? Many have remote accessing. The
> only thing it can't do is answer if you are on the phone, but thats
> what call waiting is for.

Why not simply turn it off? Unless you're using it for a business, the
chances are you can simply do without.

If someone _wants_ to talk to you, they'll call back. If they're
offended by the thought of having to do so, well, that's a kind of
signal, isn't it?

Really, I may be a luddite, but I can't help but wonder where and when
we all got the notion that we are entitled to demand that our
relatives and friends keep track of our calendar, or where and when we
agreed to keep track of theirs. Think about it: if talking to you is
important to _me_, why should I be entitled to put _you_ in charge of
making it happen? Isn't it _my_ job to make it happen?

Answering machines, and Voice Mail services, are agressively marketed
and promoted by the phone companies because they're a win-win-win -
not for you, but for your telephone company:

- They_ get to charge for a call that wouldn't have been
answered otherwise

- They_ get to use fewer trunks and smaller exchanges
because there are fewer unsuccessful call attempts

- They_ get to collect money from you for buying machines
or renting services.

What, I wonder, do _you_ get? Another task on _your_ schedule? Another
intrusion into _your_ life? Another obligation that _you_ didn't agree
to accept?

We've all gotten too good at wasting each others' time; at "external-
izing" the responsibility for what used to be common civility.

What's wrong with a busy signal? Since when did people forget that a
busy signal or an unanswered call _is_ a message?

William

P.S. Call waiting isn't the answer: it only works when _you_ are on
the phone, and when an answering machine is on the line, all it does
is interrupt the message being recorded with beep tones that tell you
someone else tried to ring you.

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies)

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally you do not order call-waiting
on a line in a multiple line hunt group; nor on a line equipped with
'forward on busy', as call-waiting requires that a line be -truly busy-
in order to work. In my instance, if the line is in use, calls are
automatically forwarded to my cell phone (which if no answer after a
few rings or otherwise it is busy goes to voicemail. If the line does
not get answered after 3-4 rings, calls go the same route, to cell
phone and then as needed to voicemail. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: David L: "Re: When it Rains, it Pours ...."
Go to Previous message: Dave Garland: "Re: Alternatives to LEC Voicemail"
May be in reply to: ed.gehringer@gmail.com: "Alternatives to LEC Voicemail"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page