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