I recently noticed that my provider was charging me for attempted land-line calls when the recorded voice indicated engagement.  I tried recalling a few times more.  Each time I was made aware of the engaged line, which immediately resulted in my replacing the handset, I was charged 17p.  No attempt was made to leave a message.  Replicate this situation several million times at a national level then the provider is thieving revenue for a non-service to the tune of millions of pounds.   In the days of BT monopoly there was no charge for engaged lines.  I challenged the provider (Virgin) only to be told that such is normal practice in the industry for mobile calls, as if that was relevant.  Clearly, logical debate on the ethics of this type of theft was a waste of time.  I reported the matter to Otelo (successors to Oftel) with the following, less than helpful reply:



COMPLAINT ABOUT VIRGIN MEDIA
Thank you for your E-Mail received on 21 October 2010.
Our role is to sort out disagreements between customers and the companies who have joined
our service.
As Virgin Media is not one of our members, unfortunately, we cannot help you.
Since 30 September 2003, all service providers must offer their customers a free and
independent service to sort out their complaints if they cannot agree.
You may want to contact the Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme
(CISAS) on 020 7520 3827, to see if Virgin Media is one of their members. Or, you may want to
contact the regulator, Ofcom, on 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040, or at www.ofcom.org.uk who
may be able to give you more advice.
The attached booklet 'Two sides to every story' explains our role in more detail.
If you decide to contact us again about this, please quote the reference at the top of this letter.
Yours sincerely
Elizabeth Diamond
Enquiry  Officer

My reply to Otelo was:


I find your response manifesting ignorance, bureaucracy, and a waste of public funds.  It invites a strong recommendation to Mr Osborne, the Chancellor, to make a substantial contribution to reducing our national debt by closing down a useless public service.

You take 3 weeks to tell me that a national abuse by a large Telecommunication company is not something that you can handle because the perpetrators of a nationwide abuse are not members of a club!  The half-wit that responded is unable to comprehend that thieving money from customers for not providing a service is unacceptable and can continue to be perpetrated by them.  

My response to you is:  I hope that the parasites that make up the Department get fired in the deserved and imminent cuts of the " Civil Service"



Do the experts of SAYNOTO0870 have a view on this with especial reference to the legality of this contrived theft apart from the uselessness of Otelo!?

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 6:29pm:

I recently noticed that my provider was charging me for attempted land-line calls when the recorded voice indicated engagement.  I tried recalling a few times more.  Each time I was made aware of the engaged line, which immediately resulted in my replacing the handset, I was charged 17p.  No attempt was made to leave a message. …

When a number is (technically speaking) "Engaged", then you should not be charged.

However, to get round this, telephone companies offer network based answering services. You said that you didn't attempt to leave a message - what do you mean by that? Are you saying that you could have left a message if you had hung on?

Perhaps we could try one of these numbers ourselves. You can send me a Private message if you wish not to make it public.

Hi Dave,

You rapid response is much appreciated - many thanks.

This abuse in contriving charges by Virgin, without use of a facility, may well be peculiar to that telecommunication company and, if so, it needs to be given publicity because, if guys such as yourself are not apparently aware of the scam then Virgin may well have hit the jackpot.

The situation that I refer to is when I make a call to a party that is engaged talking to a third party.  Virgin then immediately cut in with their voice mail stating that the person is not available and would I like to leave a message.   If, as I do, the handset is immediately  -  i.e. within a second or so  -  replaced with the intention of calling that person at a later time, a charge of 17p has already been incurred.  That situation is to be contrasted with when there is nobody to answer my call and the ringing continues for, say, 20 seconds or so at which time the voice mail also cuts in inviting me to leave a recorded message.  In that situation, if the handset is returned and the line closed, despite not leaving a message, there is still a 17p charge.

Both sets of circumstances reflect a scam based on charging for a service that is not used.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Thanks again.

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 1:40pm:

The situation that I refer to is when I make a call to a party that is engaged talking to a third party.  Virgin then immediately cut in with their voice mail stating that the person is not available and would I like to leave a message.   If, as I do, the handset is immediately  -  i.e. within a second or so  -  replaced with the intention of calling that person at a later time, a charge of 17p has already been incurred.

That's absolutley standard with 1571 'answering machines' and is the reason for my 'DUMP 1571' campaign to get everyone to switch 1571 off and get a proper answering machine for use when they're out.

Heinz, well recognised!   You're bang on.  But isn't it strange that the so-called regulators have done nothing about blocking this scam!   What is the point of their existance if they can't recognize a flagrant misrepresentation that is no less than theft on a national scale.  To your knowledge has the matter ever been addressed by any of the regulators, including the Office of Fair Trading?  

Thanks!

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 1:40pm:

This abuse in contriving charges by Virgin, without use of a facility, may well be peculiar to that telecommunication company and, if so, it needs to be given publicity because, if guys such as yourself are not apparently aware of the scam then Virgin may well have hit the jackpot.

This is standard practice and not one I agree with, which is why I back Heinz's campaign to switch off answerphones on landline and mobile phones, unless there is a specific reason it is required and calls will be returned when messages are left.



Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 1:40pm:

The situation that I refer to is when I make a call to a party that is engaged talking to a third party.  Virgin then immediately cut in with their voice mail stating that the person is not available and would I like to leave a message.   If, as I do, the handset is immediately  -  i.e. within a second or so  -  replaced with the intention of calling that person at a later time, a charge of 17p has already been incurred.  That situation is to be contrasted with when there is nobody to answer my call and the ringing continues for, say, 20 seconds or so at which time the voice mail also cuts in inviting me to leave a recorded message.  In that situation, if the handset is returned and the line closed, despite not leaving a message, there is still a 17p charge. Both sets of circumstances reflect a scam based on charging for a service that is not used.

Thanks, that does clarify the situation. As I say, the call is classed as being Connected (or we might say the call has "Tripped" or has been answered).

In your posting you say that Virgin "cut in with their voice mail stating that the person is not available." This implies you are only referring to when you call someone on Virgin.

The same would happen when you call someone on another network, for example BT or Vodafone, from your Virgin Media phone, the difference being that it will be the BT or Vodafone answering service (assuming that the person you called had it switched on). In that case your call will also have Tripped, and therefore you incur a charge (assuming your call isn't part of inclusive minutes).

This will also be the case choose what network you call from. So let's say you call from a mobile phone to a Virgin Media or BT number which has a network-based answering service switched on, once it answers, you will be billed for the call.


With the greatest of respect, I totally disagree with the way in which you are pursuing this. This is industry-wide and not peculiar to Virgin Media. All telephone companies offer "free" answering services. It's because, whilst they cost the user nothing, they cost the caller.

In a free market, prices are determined by what consumers are prepared to pay, as well as what the competition is charging. Thus, price competition works best when the person making the choice is the one making the payment. Supermarkets wouldn't have an incentive to drop prices if those filling their trolleys weren't the ones paying. In fact, if you could fill your trolley with whatever you wanted, knowing you weren't the one paying, then you would probably select the premium products!

With telecommunications, there are consumers at either end of the chain; the callers and the receivers. Obviously, a consumer can be either, depending on whether he/she is placing or receiving the call.

The choice of a telephone user (call receiver) to use a network-based answering service is done without consideration to the cost incurred by the caller. In many ways this is often similar to the way in which 084 numbers are used; the number users reap the benefit with little or no consideration (or perhaps mis-consideration) of the cost burden they are placing on callers.

---

On another but not unconnected note, it is worth pointing out what's happening with landline to landline call charges in general. The fact that you incurred a minimum charge for such a call is very relevant.

In general, the cost of chargeable landline calls (i.e. ones made at times when they are not included in the subscriber's package) has skyrocketed. Conversely, the cost of inclusive packages has dropped. Thus, it is now more and more worthwhile (from a financial point of view) to move to a landline tariff that includes calls during the times calls are usually made. Or to put it another way, the threshold of volume of calls you need to make in order to break even has come right down. It is so low that the call rate for non-inclusive landline calls is effectively a penalty for using the phone at that time.

You made reference to the BT monopoly and back in the day, the minimum call charge was 5 pence. Over the last few years, telephone companies, including BT, have changed the way in which they charge. In general, it is now a call connection (or call set-up) fee plus a 'per minute' charge, usually billed to the next whole minute. So the minimum charge is now the connection fee plus the cost of one minute!

Now you can see what all those wretched answering services are doing to telco's revenue. The more of these answered, yet abandoned, calls you make, the more it's worth your while to switch to your provider's inclusive tariff.

To Dave:  Thanks, your points are noted.  BT are probably a better value-for-money provider than Virgin on the basis that, unlike the latter, they do not charge for 0870 and 0450 numbers.  If ever Virgin respond to that kind of competition, you may need to change the name of your <saynoto0870> address!

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:50pm:

To Dave:  Thanks, your points are noted.  BT are probably a better value-for-money provider than Virgin on the basis that, unlike the latter, they do not charge for 0870 and 0450 numbers.  If ever Virgin respond to that kind of competition, you may need to change the name of your <saynoto0870> address!

You mean 0845 not 0450 surely?

Correct! My apologies.

If this is same thing I remember from a long time ago, this feature/service where Virgin cut-in was not related to a voicemail service that the person called had setup (either via a network voicemail or normal phone voicemail).

Assuming it is the same thing then a Virgin automated voice kicks in when the called party is engaged and asking if you want to wait.  I assumed it was call waiting service of somekind.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 6:56pm:

If this is same thing I remember from a long time ago, this feature/service where Virgin cut-in was not related to a voicemail service that the person called had setup (either via a network voicemail or normal phone voicemail). Assuming it is the same thing then a Virgin automated voice kicks in when the called party is engaged and asking if you want to wait.  I assumed it was call waiting service of somekind.

BT does Ringback which sounds similar to bbb_uk's description of Virgin Media's service.

The busy tone plays, with a message "The number you called is busy. To use Ringback, press 5. There is normally a charge for this service."

This service is different to what the OP describes. It rings the caller back (with a triple ring) when the recipient's number becomes available.

---

Coming back to the point the OP raised, I definately think that these network-based voicemail services should tell the caller that the recipient is busy (which should be free), and to hold to leave a message (which would be chargeable).

I feel that for this to happen (assuming that it's technically possible), it would require regulatory intervention to force the telcos to do this.

If it did happen, then receivers' telcos (the telcos which operate the services) would no longer be getting the revenue from many of these calls as callers won't leave messages. On the other hand, when the telcos offer call packages, they will no longer incur inter-operator charges for those calls where a message isn't left, which will act to counter any increase.

I'm glad I read this thread as I had no idea about this scam and it would surely be difficult for any caller to know in advance that the person they were calling had 1571 which would cost them.  How does the caller, when hearing a message that the recipient is not available, have any idea whether that is the standard pre-recording on an answerphone or a teleco about to charge them?   We have never recorded our own message on our answerphone for a variety of reasons (including deniability of a mesage received!) but the message sounds exactly the same as my father's who I think uses 1571.   Surely this is yet again a matter that the caller should have the right to know that they are incurring a charge and its level before it kicks in not perhaps a month later when they get a bill?  I'm also glad I have not been tempted to take up 1571 on our phone as I would hate to scam people like this, even unwittingly.

Barbara wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:46pm:

I'm glad I read this thread as I had no idea about this scam and it would surely be difficult for any caller to know in advance that the person they were calling had 1571 which would cost them.  How does the caller, when hearing a message that the recipient is not available, have any idea whether that is the standard pre-recording on an answerphone or a teleco about to charge them?  …

Once the message is heard, it's too late and the call has been answered and is therefore billable. If the person being called is on another call, the answering service usually kicks in straight away without any ringing or with one or two bursts of ringing. In any case, you wouldn't know before it answered that it was the answering service and not the person you were calling, so it's immaterial really.

It's important to point out that calls are only chargeable when they are made at times when calls aren't inclusive. So those on anytime inclusive packages won't pay extra for these calls. Those with evening and weekend inclusive elements will pay during the weekday daytime, but not during the evening and weekends.


Irrespective of whether the call is inclusive or not, the caller's telco incurs charges for connecting the call with the recipient's telco. So it generates revenue for the recipient's telco (the telco which hosts the answering service) as well as costing the caller's telco money which it will recoup from its customers in general.




Barbara wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:46pm:

… We have never recorded our own message on our answerphone for a variety of reasons (including deniability of a mesage received!) but the message sounds exactly the same as my father's who I think uses 1571.   Surely this is yet again a matter that the caller should have the right to know that they are incurring a charge and its level before it kicks in not perhaps a month later when they get a bill?  I'm also glad I have not been tempted to take up 1571 on our phone as I would hate to scam people like this, even unwittingly.

So you use an answering machine device at your home rather than network-based service like BT1571 or BT Call Minder?

If that's the case, then callers will always get the engaged tone (assuming that you don't have call waiting) when you are on a call, and never your answerphone. However, when you don't answer the phone, the answering machine will kick in (after a pre-determined time which will be set on the machine), and thus answer the call. Any calls where the machine kicks in, but where people don't leave a message will be billable to them (and chargeable to them if they don't have an inclusive tariff).

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:50pm:

To Dave:  Thanks, your points are noted.  BT are probably a better value-for-money provider than Virgin on the basis that, unlike the latter, they do not charge for 0870 and 0450 numbers.  If ever Virgin respond to that kind of competition, you may need to change the name of your <saynoto0870> address!

Yes they do,it is included in your line rental,(and dependent on call package), which they increased last year(?) when they decided to include these numbers,(0870 & 0845), within the line rental, you get nothing for nothing, don't pay your line rental and you won't get inclusive,(not free), calls!

Some good points are being raised here, I will add some thoughts of my own.

I am surprised to find contributors being unaware that telephone call metering begins when the call is first answered. It seems that there are some odd assumptions about it beginning at various later points, according to the manner of the locally deployed answering mechanism.

I believe it is important to understand the positions of the two parties to the call.

The caller
If I decide to call someone I must be ready to accept the charge for the call, as I must hope that it will be answered. It may be that the person I want to speak to is out and someone else answers, or they may answer the call but not be able to speak with me at that time. In both cases I pay for a totally wasted call, unless I chose to leave a message. I cannot see any difference between these situations and the automated equivalents.

The recipient
If I decide (as I do) to have the call waiting facility and a network answering service on my line, I must accept that some of those who call me will pay for a call that they cannot complete by speaking with me directly. If engaged on a low priority call, I will respond to the call waiting signal. I always listen to voicemail messages and respond accordingly, generally being ready to call back, at my own expense, if invited to do so. To help me respond to messages I use an advanced answering service feature that notifies me on my mobile when a message is left on my landline, and plays it to me.

If someone chooses not to leave a message, I assume that this is probably for one of three reasons. They may be happy to try me again at some other time in the hope of being able to have a conversation, OR there would be no purpose in completing the call at some other time as the reason for the call may well have passed, OR they will try and contact me in some other way. I believe I have done all I can to offer callers the best possible alternative in the event that I am unable to answer their call directly.

I trust that those I choose to call will be taking a similarly responsible approach to their use of the telephone. If I find that they are not, then I may offer them advice; I would not think of blaming my telephone company.

The telcos
The fault with the Telcos may be in failing to make their customers aware of how the various facilities work and advising them of the need to accept their own responsibility for how they handle incoming calls.

Answering services should never be automatically put in place by default, especially not with a facility to retrieve messages configured with a widely known default password.

A lot of fuss has been made about the activities of journalists who exploit the latter feature of many mobile services. The improper behaviour of the service providers and the foolishness of their customers (e.g. MPs and "celebrities") have received little attention. The activity is even referred to as "hacking", which implies that it is much more devious and harder to prevent than is actually the case.

My conclusions
It would be great if telephone companies were to offer more generous terms, including those which apply in these situations, however I see no evidence of a scam.

Anyone who deploys an answering service, but fails to respond to messages is simply wasting caller's time and money.

I cannot see how it is any business of a caller's telephone service provider to consider when I chose to answer incoming calls and how I deal with them. This is matter between me and those who call me.

---

The only similarity between "Oftel" and "Otelo" is a possible similarity in the component letters of the names. It is perhaps a fault of our education system that the meaning of the word "Ombudsman" is not properly understood. The functions of Otelo are described fairly clearly on its website - http://www.otelo.org.uk/. Use of the "Of-" prefix to the name, to signify a statutory industry regulator, is perhaps also not sufficiently well understood. It is only just short of 7 years since the functions of Of-tel were passed to Of-com.

---

I believe that Virginmedia is to be congratulated, not condemned, for not making all subscribers pay the revenue sharing surcharges that apply to 0845 calls, by including these calls in "unlimited" packages. Many would think that BT's decision to require those who do not call revenue sharing numbers to pay those who benefit by covering these costs in a package fee is the scam. I must declare myself to be firmly at difference with those who promote this "scam" and even encourage others to adopt it.

Virginmedia has no justification whatsoever for continuing to charge premium rates for calls to 0870 numbers, more than 12 months after it ceased to pay on a revenue share to the call recipient. This totally unjustified improper action should be more clearly advised in its pricing information than is the case and Virginmedia should therefore be found to be in breach of the relevant revised General Condition.

Anyone particularly concerned about this latter issue should make a formal complaint to Ofcom. The fact that use of 0870 numbers is diminishing, as intended, does however weaken the need for such a complaint.

It is likely that both of these issues will be covered by the proposals shortly to be presented in a consultation by Ofcom.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 4:54pm:

I am surprised to find contributors being unaware that telephone call metering begins when the call is first answered. It seems that there are some odd assumptions about it beginning at various later points, according to the manner of the locally deployed answering mechanism.

With respect to the OP, I think that what lead him to make this complaint that he had heard a message saying that the person he was calling was "engaged".

The simple use of this word implied to him that the number he had dialled was therefore "engaged" and therefore that he wouldn't be charged.

However, the purpose of the message was actually to indicate that the recipient's line (the copper wires to his or her's property) was engaged (or in use), rather than the number. That's because the call had been answered by the recipient's own telephone company, within its exchange.

Dave wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 5:23pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21st, 2010 at 4:54pm: I am surprised to find contributors being unaware that telephone call metering begins when the call is first answered. It seems that there are some odd assumptions about it beginning at various later points, according to the manner of the locally deployed answering mechanism. With respect to the OP, I think that what lead him to make this complaint that he had heard a message saying that the person he was calling was "engaged". The simple use of this word implied to him that the number he had dialled was therefore "engaged" and therefore that he wouldn't be charged. However, the purpose of the message was actually to indicate that the recipient's line (the copper wires to his or her's property) was engaged (or in use), rather than the number. That's because the call had been answered by the recipient's own telephone company, within its exchange.

This is interesting, as it may throw a new light on the matter.

As I understand it, some originating telcos provide a recorded message inviting use of the "Ring Back" facility in place of the engaged tone. A service fee is charged if the facility is selected, but the original call is unanswered and so no call charge should apply. "Unlimited Ring Back" is available as subscription service and there is an argument to suggest that this option should only be presented to those who subscribe, rather than promoted on a call-by-call basis; this would however deny use of the facility to those who only wished to use it occasionally.

If an answering service (with a non-personalised message, which may refer to the person called being "unavailable") is deployed this would cut in immediately, answering the call, if the line was engaged. It may be difficult to distinguish between the two situations, however there is a clear difference. In the first case the only option would be to have a "ring back", in the second the option would be to leave a message.

As the OP refers to the voice message having "indicated engagement" and to declining an option to leave a message, rather than declining the option to receive a "ring back", this could suggest the latter.

If Virginmedia is charging for calls to engaged lines, if one declines the option to use the "Ring Back" facility, then this is not a "scam" of which we must be aware, but a gross error that must be corrected.

Perhaps the OP could enlighten us. It would also be interesting to know more about the public money that Otelo receives, as this would be a major scandal.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 4:54pm:

Some good points are being raised here, I will add some thoughts of my own. I am surprised to find contributors being unaware that telephone call metering begins when the call is first answered. It seems that there are some odd assumptions about it beginning at various later points, according to the manner of the locally deployed answering mechanism.

May I suggest that you read the clarification of the circumstances relevant to the scam. Your thought do not reflect an awareness of those circumstances.

---

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box closed

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 6:09pm:

Perhaps the OP could enlighten us. It would also be interesting to know more about the public money that Otelo receives, as this would be a major scandal.

Heinz's response accurately anticipated and defined the basis of my complaint on this scam.  As I wrote, he was bang on!  When a facility is offered as free and is exploited to charge 17p for a service not used  -  i.e. no reply, no message and immediate replacement of handset the moment the advice on non-availability of the target number is provided  -  that is theft, however you dress it up!

---

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box closed

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 7:32pm:

Heinz's response accurately anticipated and defined the basis of my complaint on this scam.  As I wrote, he was bang on!  When a facility is offered as free and is exploited to charge 17p for a service not used  -  i.e. no reply, no message and immediate replacement of handset the moment the advice on non-availability of the target number is provided  -  that is theft, however you dress it up!

I opened up the other possibility in response to Dave's comments.

As I understand the circumstances for Virginmedia making disputed charges for calls it is as follows. You call someone, ready to pay for the call if they answer. They answer your call using a answering service. You do not wish to leave a message. You believe that virginmedia should therefore waive the charge for the call because the person called answered it in a way that was of no use to you.

I think that there could be a good argument for waiving the charge in the event of a call lasting less than a certain number of seconds, as it was clearly of no value. Orange did, and may still, have such a feature. I am not sure if we would generally be prepared to pay a little more for other calls so that this feature could be offered.

What would be incredibly difficult would be for originating telcos to know that the reason for the short call was the deployment of an answering service which the caller did not want to use to leave a message. Many people, especially in business, use answering service messages to advise where they are and when they will next be at their desk. I am not sure that it fair for the cost of calls to such messages to be met by the originating telco and thereby reflected somehow in their charges to customers.

I believe that the whole point here is that answering services are wrongly set up by default, without the user being ready to accept the responsibility that goes with having them. I believe that the focus should be on the telcos which do this, the users who cause their callers to be charged for calls that they should not answer, and ensuring that callers are aware that they must pay for a call if it is answered - even by an answering service. A campaign to get charges waived for short calls would perhaps be a worthy cause.

Sorry but you are still addressing an irrelevant situation.  For the avoidance of doubt let me restate the scam which Heinz has clearly anticipated.  

1.  I call X who, as it happens has a different Service Provider.
2.   X is already in a telecon with a third party.
3.   Immediately I finish dialing X's number a voicemail offered free by X's Provider cuts in and tells me that the party (X) is not available and would I like to leave a message after a few seconds following the unwanted voicemail.
4.   Within a second of my hearing the voicemail I replace the handset as I don't wish to leave a message and intend to call back later now knowing X is on the phone.  Each time I attempt to recall X and he continues to be in conversation with a third party, and despite my immediately replacing the handset on hearing the start of the voicemail, I get charged 17p.  (Very lucrative scam at national level with the victims not realising that this is happening!)
5.   Because X subscribes to a free voicemail service he is not aware or particularly worried that I am charged 17p each time I call him on a line that is being used by him with a third party.   As Heinz has already indicated this is because X subscribes to the 1571 Messaging system.
6.   The iniquity of the scam is that I can do nothing about it other than change my package with my provider that effectively increases my charges by paying for free calls during a period when I don't normally use my home phone  i.e., during daytime.


Hopefuly this is clear

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 10:26pm:

4.   Within a second of my hearing the voicemail I replace the handset as I don't wish to leave a message and intend to call back later now knowing X is on the phone.  Each time I attempt to recall X and he continues to be in conversation with a third party, and despite my immediately replacing the handset on hearing the start of the voicemail, I get charged 17p.  (Very lucrative scam at national level with the victims not realising that this is happening!)

The magnitude of the charge incurred is down to you and your provider, whereas the decision to answer all such with this answering service is down to the recipient and his or her provider.

There appears to be convolution of two separate issues:

1. The minimum retail charge for a connected telephone call (set by your provider).

2. The telephone user you are calling chooses to have a network-based answering service switched on (which therefore answers the call when he or she is on the telephone).


The fact that number 2 applies, means that your telephone provider incurs a charge for that connection. The call is therefore classed as being 'connected', whether you like it or not and this is therefore beyond the control of your telephone provider.

Assuming that the person is available and answers the phone, and the call lasts 50 seconds, then the cost will be just the same; the minimum charge of 17 pence (the amount set by your provider).

---

The obvious question is, why don't you leave a message? The person you're calling has activated the call answering service, so will therefore pick-up any messages and act on them.

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 10:26pm:

... Hopefuly this is clear

It was indeed totally clear.

I believe that I laid out a number of possible solutions; I will summarise:

1. All "X"'s could decide to cease use of the answering service. They could determine that the cost to callers of having their calls answered whilst the line is busy outweighs any benefit to callers of having calls answered automatically when X is not available. This is for X to determine.

2. One could campaign in general, or lobby one's own provider, for call charges to be waived on very short calls. Such a change may cause the call setup fee to be raised on all other calls. It would also remove a useful incentive to encourage answering service users to understand their responsibilities. In general, I would not oppose such a change, although I would want to question any possible downside.

3. One could campaign, with my full support, for all providers (mobile in particular) not to configure phones with automated answering services in place by default, certainly not with retrieval options with well known default passwords. The responsibilities carried by anyone who sets up an answering service, or accepts one by default, should be fully understood.

The objective being sought is for the call originating provider to base their charging on how the call is answered. Nobody likes having to pay for a wasted call - think of cases where one waits for ages to speak with a call centre agent who is unable to help. I cannot however see how a call originator could be expected to accept responsibility for the effectiveness of a call, once it has been connected on being answered by the number called.

One complex possibility is for metering to be suspended until a network based answering service has played the greeting message, or perhaps only a specified number of seconds of it. Perhaps this should only occur in the event that the service is triggered as a result of the line being engaged. Notwithstanding the danger of such a provision being abused to provide free information services, I am not sufficiently clear on the technical issues involved to know if this would be possible. The rules about metering have to be very tight and highly reliable equipment has to be used. I would think it unlikely that appropriate provisions could be incorporated to accommodate something so advanced and conditional. I would be happy to defer to someone who understands these matters better.

Perhaps someone could suggest a possible solution to meet the declared objective.

Can someone clarify a point for me please?   We have had call waiting for over 10 years, it never occurred to me that it would cost my callers anything under any circumstances as I pay for this service, I thought it was the equivalent of an engaged tone for the caller at my cost so I could decide whether to answer it or not; similarly, I thought that when I receive a call waiting message when calling someone else that would not cost me anything as they pay the charge for the service.  If the party called is paying for the service AND the caller is being charged that surely would be wrong as it would be a form of double charging?  (I would add that I have 24/7 inclusive calls but I now feel guilty about people calling me, we took the service so that we could get rid of trivial/unwanted calls if a more important call came, in fact it's a very useful excuse to get rid of someone "oh there's a bleep, must be another call"..)

Barbara,

My understanding, have trawled through the above posts and my very limited knowledge of a how the telephone system works is this....

If you do not get the engaged tone you are paying for the call.

SCV and others, do these 14 words sum everything up?

Barbara wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 8:52am:

Can someone clarify a point for me please?   We have had call waiting for over 10 years, it never occurred to me that it would cost my callers anything under any circumstances as I pay for this service, I thought it was the equivalent of an engaged tone for the caller at my cost so I could decide whether to answer it or not; similarly, I thought that when I receive a call waiting message when calling someone else that would not cost me anything as they pay the charge for the service.  If the party called is paying for the service AND the caller is being charged that surely would be wrong as it would be a form of double charging?  (I would add that I have 24/7 inclusive calls but I now feel guilty about people calling me, we took the service so that we could get rid of trivial/unwanted calls if a more important call came, in fact it's a very useful excuse to get rid of someone "oh there's a bleep, must be another call"..)

Call waiting is OK; the caller gets ringing tone, usually interrupted with a message telling them that you are on another call and that you know they are waiting. The message is necessary because if it weren't there, then the caller would hear only ringing and think you were out.

Assuming you don't have BT1571 switched on (or equivalent service if you are with another provider), then it's not going to cost your callers if you don't answer their waiting call (because you're on another call). If you do have call waiting and an answering service switched on, then it will probably keep the caller waiting for the defined period (eg 30 seconds) and then put them through to the answering service.

I think if it were the case that callers waiting in the queue were charged, then call waiting would be a "free" service, as well as the answering services.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 8:18pm:

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 21st, 2010 at 7:32pm: Heinz's response accurately anticipated and defined the basis of my complaint on this scam.  As I wrote, he was bang on!  When a facility is offered as free and is exploited to charge 17p for a service not used  -  i.e. no reply, no message and immediate replacement of handset the moment the advice on non-availability of the target number is provided  -  that is theft, however you dress it up! I opened up the other possibility in response to Dave's comments. As I understand the circumstances for Virginmedia making disputed charges for calls it is as follows. You call someone, ready to pay for the call if they answer. They answer your call using a answering service. You do not wish to leave a message. You believe that virginmedia should therefore waive the charge for the call because the person called answered it in a way that was of no use to you. I think that there could be a good argument for waiving the charge in the event of a call lasting less than a certain number of seconds, as it was clearly of no value. Orange did, and may still, have such a feature. I am not sure if we would generally be prepared to pay a little more for other calls so that this feature could be offered. What would be incredibly difficult would be for originating telcos to know that the reason for the short call was the deployment of an answering service which the caller did not want to use to leave a message. Many people, especially in business, use answering service messages to advise where they are and when they will next be at their desk. I am not sure that it fair for the cost of calls to such messages to be met by the originating telco and thereby reflected somehow in their charges to customers. I believe that the whole point here is that answering services are wrongly set up by default, without the user being ready to accept the responsibility that goes with having them. I believe that the focus should be on the telcos which do this, the users who cause their callers to be charged for calls that they should not answer, and ensuring that callers are aware that they must pay for a call if it is answered - even by an answering service. A campaign to get charges waived for short calls would perhaps be a worthy cause.

Maxadolf wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 10:26pm:

Sorry but you are still addressing an irrelevant situation.  For the avoidance of doubt let me restate the scam which Heinz has clearly anticipated.   1.  I call X who, as it happens has a different Service Provider. 2.   X is already in a telecon with a third party. 3.   Immediately I finish dialing X's number a voicemail offered free by X's Provider cuts in and tells me that the party (X) is not available and would I like to leave a message after a few seconds following the unwanted voicemail. 4.   Within a second of my hearing the voicemail I replace the handset as I don't wish to leave a message and intend to call back later now knowing X is on the phone.  Each time I attempt to recall X and he continues to be in conversation with a third party, and despite my immediately replacing the handset on hearing the start of the voicemail, I get charged 17p.  (Very lucrative scam at national level with the victims not realising that this is happening!) 5.   Because X subscribes to a free voicemail service he is not aware or particularly worried that I am charged 17p each time I call him on a line that is being used by him with a third party.   As Heinz has already indicated this is because X subscribes to the 1571 Messaging system. 6.   The iniquity of the scam is that I can do nothing about it other than change my package with my provider that effectively increases my charges by paying for free calls during a period when I don't normally use my home phone  i.e., during daytime. Hopefuly this is clear

I have to say, I'm totally puzzled by Maxadolf's response here. This was in response to that of SilentCallsVictim, the quote of which I have put immediately above.

My understanding of Maxadolf's complaint to his provider is broadly as SCV described. I do not see how, in any way, his contribution could be described as being "an irrelevant situation".  :-/ :-/ :-/


He even says, a point I totally agree with, is that answering services should not be set up by default. Mobile companies are particularly culpable for this and of course they kick in not only when the user in on another call, but when the handset is out of range of a signal or switched off, a state which does not occur with conventional landlines.

According to the BT web site   http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8451/~/call-waiting


The caller will hear the Call Waiting announcement, and, if you decide not to take the new call, after 21 seconds it will be diverted to the BT Answer 1571 service.


So I would guess after 21 seconds if the person does not take the call the charges will kick in.

sherbert wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 11:16am:

According to the BT web site   http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8451/~/call-waiting The caller will hear the Call Waiting announcement, and, if you decide not to take the new call, after 21 seconds it will be diverted to the BT Answer 1571 service. So I would guess after 21 seconds if the person does not take the call the charges will kick in.

The question to which this is in answer to is "How does Call Waiting work with BT Answer 1571?". If BT Answer 1571 is not switched on, the call will thus not be answered, so this would appear to be irrelevant in Barbara's case.

Yes, but if the 'receiver' of the call ignored the call waiting signal then the caller would be charged after 21 seconds because the 1571 kicked in.

sherbert wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 11:27am:

Yes, but if the 'receiver' of the call ignored the call waiting signal then the caller would be charged after 21 seconds because the 1571 kicked in.

ONLY if the answering service (1571) is switched on. If it isn't, then the call will ring and ring and ring until answered or until the caller hangs up.

The page you've linked to specifically asks "How does Call Waiting work with BT Answer 1571?". If you don't have it switched on, then this question and its answer are irrelevant !

My apologies for introducing the topic of the call waiting service, which was not part of the original point, and for GETTING IT WRONG.

(I have been offline for a while due a Virginmedia network failure, so must also apologise, on behalf of Virginmedia, for not responding to the question to me sooner.)

I have confirmed with BT and am now convinced that whilst the "call waiting" condition is operating the call is not considered to have been connected. Charging begins only when the person called accepts the call, or an answering service kicks in.

Apologies in particular for having alarmed Barbara unnecessarily - her callers are not paying so long as she does not accept their calls and they do not get picked up by an answering service.

I pay for my advanced BT "Callminder" service and those who hear my message are paying for the call. In normal cases we pay to rent a telephone line and callers pay to call us. I do not necessarily think of either as "double charging".

It seems that the "call waiting" service, along with some number change announcements are cases where the metering of the call is not triggered as soon as something happens at the receiving end. Engaged tone is the obvious case, where the call has not been connected. Please accept my apologies for not having been aware of the way that call waiting is treated as an exception.

The BT representative I spoke with was concerned at the possibility that metering started when BT 1571 picked up a call to an engaged number. He spent much time checking on this and came back to confirm that it was true. We agreed that there was perhaps a case to be made for charges to be waived on very short calls, however I have a number of concerns about this idea.

Noting recent comments, it is important to recognise that accepting a "free" service (i.e. an additional service for which you do not pay extra) may cause one to incur responsibilities. That could be another sense in which "nothing is free".

Thank you all, at least I can continue to have the Call Waiting facility with a clear conscience and now know to keep our own answerphone and not to take 1571!

Barbara wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 11:59am:

Thank you all, at least I can continue to have the Call Waiting facility with a clear conscience and now know to keep our own answerphone and not to take 1571!

Barbara - I am sure you understand that callers who wait for your answerphone message, but then hang up immediately on finding that you are unavailable will be paying for the call. The same would be true if you had BT1571, except that if you were engaged on another call, they would have the option to hang up immediately without paying or hang on to leave a message if you did not take their call.

Your decision eliminates the option for callers to leave a message if you are engaged. The fact that you have "call waiting" does avoid the major problem being highlighted in this thread.

It is when "call waiting" is not used and the network answering service answers every call immediately when the line is engaged that callers have no option to avoid paying for an uncompleted call, given that they had no wish to leave a message.

With unanswered calls and calls handled by "call waiting", callers do have the chance to avoid the call being answered automatically, if they wish to avoid paying for the call and do not wish to leave a message. They must however ensure that they hang up before their call is answered.

I must again apologise for having unwittingly introduced confusion about "Call Waiting" into the discussion, by my mistaken assumption.

It may be worth extending the discussion by addressing the fact that most call centres and switchboards answer every call immediately, whether or not anyone, or the particular person being contacted, is available. In many cases calls are answered even when the operation is closed.

As stated previously, it can be frustrating and annoying to make a telephone call that does not deliver total satisfaction. That is perhaps one reason why we are happy to move towards a situation where we pay for a packages of calls, rather than paying for each call individually.

Whether an answering service takes a call is out of the caller's hands.

There are essentially two different times at which an answering service can cut in:
1. Immediately after the number is dialled: that is when the user's (call recipient's) line is in use (assuming that call waiting is not switched on).
2. After a period of ringing, such as 25 or 30 seconds.

Whilst not withstanding that there may be times when the latter happens and the caller doesn't want to leave a message, thereby incurring a wasted call, the former is certainly more likely to result wasted calls.

At least with the latter, the caller, knowing that the service is active, could hang-up before it has an opportunity to answer the call. The OP's description of incurring his provider's minimum charge simply trying to call back when the recipient had finished on the phone, only to be charged highlights why point number 1 is generally a waste of money for callers.

From my understanding, BT Answer 1571 is essentially a "no frills" version of the paid-for BT Call Minder. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that other providers have equivalent "free" and paid-for answering services.

Having studied the Call Minder User Guide (PDF), I'm a little surprised to find that there's no option for preventing callers being passed to the service when you are on a call (number 1). That is, there's no way for them to be given busy tone instead of the Call Minder answering service. The only way round this would be to use it in conjunction with Call Waiting and/or use an answering machine instead. So if you are on a call, the caller will still get ringing tone. Not sure what happens if another call comes in in the meantime though....

---

To come back to the original point of this thread, telephone companies are private companies whose objective is to increase revenue and to generate a profit.

This is an excellent example of them doing that. The fact that the person using the service isn't the one paying for it is potentially all the lucrative. This is because the decision to use the service isn't affected by the concern that one has to pay for it.

Put simply, the telcos offer the service (such as BT Answer 1571) for nothing and the callers pay for it. It's similar to businesses taking up 084x numbers on the basis that they don't cost more to call and they don't cost anything to the user (in fact they pay the user).

The reason for this is because with telecommunications there are customers at either end of the chain. It's not a simple supply chain where customers make decisions on what product to buy based on cost, availability and so on.

The cost of the call is broadly defined by the recipient's choice of service. The decision of which product a caller buys is thus a decision of what number (who) to call.

Whilst a shop may choose to stock certain products and not others, in practice a telephone company selling calls can't prevent calls to certain numbers on the basis that its customers have called those numbers and incurred rip-off charges, like the OP has experienced. It also can't influence how the call is handled.

This conspiracy theory stuff is getting a bit out of hand.

There is no such thing as a free service. BT 1571 is paid for as part of the line rental, not out of the modest termination fees on incoming calls. Is everyone who puts an answering machine or service on their line, without telling every caller how many times the phone will ring before the message comes on, part of some conspiracy to boost telco's profits?

Like any other business, Telco's make money by offering products and services that people chose to buy. To at least some degree, this must be because they want them.

The purpose of an automated answering service is to answer your calls when you are not available to do so in person. This could be because you are out, unwilling to answer because you are busy, or because you are engaged on another call.


BT Call Minder can be switched to answer immediately when you go out (or are busy) and then switched back to allow many rings before cutting in when you expect to be available. I only turn mine down to four rings when I go out, so as to be sure to hear it ring if I forget to reset it on my return. When in the "short ringing period" mode, I would not expect anyone to hang up before the answering service takes the call. This means that all calls will be connected. This would make me a co-conspirator in some eyes!


I use "call waiting" so as to be confident when continuing other conversations whilst possibly expecting an important call. If I am unable to interrupt a conversation to take a waiting call, I am pleased to be able to offer the caller the chance to leave me a message. This avoids me having to muck about using 1471 and then wondering about who it might have been and whether or not it was important, if I do not recognise the number or if none was left.

Having an answering service, also avoids me having to muck about with 1471 when I return from being out. CLI and 1471 are much over-rated; voice telephony is about people speaking with people, if a conversation is not possible, then a simple voice message is the next best thing. There are other alternatives; voice and SMS to a mobile (also SMS to a landline), email and various other text messaging services.

Because I offer the chance to leave a message, I simply do not need to give a moment's thought to missed calls.


As I see it, the choice is simple - if you do not want your calls to be answered automatically when you are not available to answer in person - do not deploy an automatic answering service. This could be because you do not want callers to pay for listening to your greeting if you cannot deliver it in person. You may not want to have the responsibility of checking for messages, or you may think that callers will not want to leave a message. I cannot see the problem.

If you do want calls to be answered automatically, then you may want the option of being able to interrupt a call to make yourself available to a new caller. An added benefit of the "call waiting" feature is that the caller is told that you are on a call and that you know there is a call waiting. This gives them the option to quickly hang up so as not to disturb you further, and to avoid the call being answered by your answering service - they also thereby avoid having to pay for the call.

These services are available (so far as I am aware) from all telcos on both landlines and mobiles. If people understand how they work, I cannot see how anyone could not choose the service that best suits them. It is generally true that the more advanced features are more expensive and the "inclusive" facilities are short of features, but that seems only fair and reasonable.

For myself, I am happy with the service I provide to callers. I assume that if they call me they are ready to pay for the call and will accept my answering service as the best I can offer them when I am not available to answer their call in person. If others feel differently, then there is no reason why they should do the same as I do.

Telcos do quite enough greedy, improper and stupid things for us to get excited about; I really cannot see the major issue here.

---

There are many analogies for the situation where the originating telco cannot be responsible for the benefit achieved from the price paid for a telephone call.

• You cannot blame the minicab firm, if the party they take you to is rubbish.
  
  
• You cannot blame the newsagent, if your lottery numbers do not come up.
  
  
• You cannot blame your broadband provider, if there is nothing interesting to read on the SayNoTo0870.com forum!

Likewise, a Telco who charges you for a call that does not achieve what you wished it to.