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.