I'm sorry if this subject has been discussed already, but before I write a useless letter to OFCOM I would welcome any input members may have. I am sure it is technically feasible for phone companies to give an announcement before recording an answerphone message which gives one the option of NOT leaving a message (and therefore not being charged). As things stand at the moment, it seems virtually impossible to not incur a connection charge. If the person is out, their 'free' answerphone service (ie free to them, but not to me!) will kick in. This is especially irksome with mobile phones - when I call a mobile in almost all cases it is because I want to speak to the person THERE AND THEN - otherwise I would use a landline to call them later! This 'service' will also take your money when making a call from a public call box - again, in a lot of circumstances this call is being made because it is urgent. My daughter recently had no way of contacting me for a lift late at night because the first number she had phoned had resulted in an answering machine kicking in and taking her last coins.
The related bugbear is phone queues not telling you how many callers are ahead of you in the queue. I know this is technically feasible, because I have witnessed its use (though not recently, I must confess - probably companies realise that if people are told they are 45th in a queue they will hang up rather than hold on for ages earning commission for the company).
Great site, by the way. Not good for the health though, to know how much we are being ripped off.

I am quite sure that this is technically feasible to have an option of whether to be connected to an answering service, thereby avoiding the charge and if the telecommuncations industry's primary objective was telecommunications it might be available. Indeed, I think that the sheer prevalence of answering services (that are cynically dressed up as being free) can only be as a result of a money grabbing industry.

O2 now have CallAlert which works in place of an answering service. It sends the receiver a text saying what number called. Of course, it costs the caller, where as the little heard message saying that the user is "temporarily unavailable" (or similar) costs nothing in the same way that the engaged tone must cost nothing.

So you can see that telcos have used their 'innovative' side to create services that are provided to the subscriber for free. The decision about whether to utilise such services is taken by the receiver, but it is the caller who has to pay for them!

This is one of my pet hates too. It's obvious the phone companies only offer these free answering phone services so to make more money by pocketing the minimum charge when it goes straight to the answerphone. At least if the person you are calling isn't there, you have the chance to hang up after seven rings (with BT 1571). What I really hate is when it goes straight to the voicemail if the phone is engaged - particularly a problem if you know people still on dial-up internet.

I will send that letter off to OFCOM - while recognising that the toothless old hag will do nothing - but I really do think there must be a legal principle involved here. Can people just take money off you without there being some sort of consent, or implied consent? Terms & Conditions obviously apply where I am the phone's owner/renter, but surely not to people phoning me, who must have the option as to whether they wish to pay for something which they never asked for in the first place?

I have removed the voicemail option from my mobile. Anyone who wants to leave a message can do so on my home  answeing machine or send a text. I think this whole voicemail thing is yet another ripoff.