Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Charges for engaged lines (Read 35,432 times)
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #30 - Nov 22nd, 2010 at 11:30am
 
sherbert wrote on Nov 22nd, 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 !
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #31 - Nov 22nd, 2010 at 11:49am
 
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".
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Barbara
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 598
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #32 - Nov 22nd, 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!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #33 - Nov 22nd, 2010 at 3:35pm
 
Barbara wrote on Nov 22nd, 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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #34 - Nov 22nd, 2010 at 3:36pm
 
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 22nd, 2010 at 3:38pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #35 - Nov 22nd, 2010 at 7:33pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: bbb_uk, Forum Admin, DaveM, CJT-80, Dave)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved. (DE)
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge