coleman@twinsun.com (Mike Coleman) (03/03/90)
Here is a proposal for the "Answering Machine I'd Love to Have":
Motivation
Over half the phone calls I get are "junk". They're from people I
don't want to talk to: sales droids, wrong numbers, "you've just
won...", etc. Unfortunately, in our modern world, a phone is a
necessity, so I can't just have mine disconnected. Like many other
people, I sometimes "rudely" use my answering machine to screen my
calls, but I feel that this is an annoyance put upon me and People I
Wish To Talk To by People I Don't Wish To Talk To.
Solution
My proposed answering machine would work like this:
1) Caller rings.
2) Answering machine picks up. Plays user message: "You have the
Froboz household. Please enter your password now. If you don't have
one and you really need to talk to us, you may stay on the line for 90
seconds, after which you may leave a message with your number and we
will call back as soon as possible."
3) If caller enters a password (i.e., a touch-tone string), answering
machine takes a user-specified action dependent on the password:
a) For good password, goto 5 or 6.
b) For bad password, goto 4, 6, or 7.
4) If caller doesn't enter a password, play elevator music (or
whatever) for 90 seconds (or some user-specified interval). Then,
goto step 6.
5) Ring the users phone in some manner. This might just be the normal
bell, or it might include a preprogrammed announcement corresponding
to the password (e.g., "It's your Mother."). Delay 5 (or some
user-specified interval) seconds here.
6) Take a message. Depending upon the password entered (or not
entered) the message may be "screened" (i.e., played through a
speaker) allowing user to pick up. Hang up when done.
7) Possibly play another message ("Let me tell you how I feel about
obscene callers/telemarketers/child molesters/etc...."). Then hang
up.
This allows people I give passwords to to reach me quickly, and I know
who they are when they call. Recognition is based on who they are (or
at least, what they know) rather than the specific phone number they
are calling from (if your wife is calling from the airport, for
instance).
People who(m) I may want to talk to, but who don't have passwords,
such as the police, or my bank, may get through to me if they really
have the need (or at least if they are willing to wait 90 seconds to
leave a message).
Obscene callers will probably not wait 90 seconds, and if they do
habitually, this gives me a good head start on a trace.
Sales droids are quite unlikely to wait, and I'm willing to put up
with an occasional message skip on playback. I can give out my phone
number to banks, etc., without worrying what torrent of sales calls
that might unleash.
Those F!@#$ing autodialers are completely defeated, I think. Perhaps
I should require the caller to dial 1 at the beginning to indicate
that they are a real person? (Sound familiar?)
As long as the system has reasonably long passwords and doesn't allow
remote playback or programming, it's pretty secure.
The machine belongs to and is operated by me, rather than the phone
company. We all know that centralized authority is the root of all
evil. :-)
I suppose this device would be about as complicated and expensive to
build (and about as easy to use :-( ) as a typical (programmable) VCR.
Still, I'd buy one in a minute.
Any comments? Does something like this already exist? Could I
home-brew one with a PC and some magic card? Is there anything
illegal about this?
[Sidebar: In one of Heinlein's novels, there is a character with a
very interesting "doorbell". Essentially, it's something like "Insert
$20 into the bill changer to talk to me. If I decide your visit is
worthwhile, I'll return your money." In this spirit, would it be
possible (or reasonable) to get a 976 number as a home phone number?
:-) ]
Mike
"The opinions above are strictly my own."
coleman@cs.ucla.edujsol@eddie.mit.edu (Jon Solomon) (03/04/90)
To the person who wishes not to be disturbed, may I recommend the voice-mail system with a beeper. True, you will be beeped every time someone calls, but they can't directly bother you because you have to call everyone back, no matter what. The beeper gives you access to your messages anytime they get left. It's not exactly what you want, but it is available in most areas now for a cheap price. jsol [Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon (jsol) was the founder and former moderator of TELECOM Digest. PT]
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/04/90)
Mike Coleman <coleman@twinsun.com> writes: [Detailed description of screening-type answering machine] > Any comments? Does something like this already exist? Could I > home-brew one with a PC and some magic card? Is there anything > illegal about this? Sure does. It's called a Watson (I'm beginning to feel like a Watson shill, but it really is a useful device). Using one of these in conjunction with either a PBX such as a Panasonic or home Centrex such as Commstar II, you can have any combination of message taking, call screening, code-access, or whatever you desire. The limitations are your imagination. If there's anything illegal about it, I have been breaking the law for years. > [Sidebar: In one of Heinlein's novels, there is a character with a > very interesting "doorbell". Essentially, it's something like "Insert > $20 into the bill changer to talk to me. If I decide your visit is > worthwhile, I'll return your money." In this spirit, would it be > possible (or reasonable) to get a 976 number as a home phone number? I've worked out a way to have a Watson take major credit cards. You could have someone enter his Visa or Mastercard number and collect the twenty dollars that way. Actually, for giving me such a great idea, I might share with you MY scheme :-) I will definately consider putting something on mine as a gag if nothing else. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
gil@limbic.uucp (Gil Kloepfer, Jr.) (03/05/90)
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 141, Message 1 of 7 In article <4689@accuvax.nwu.edu> coleman@twinsun.com (Mike Coleman) writes: >Here is a proposal for the "Answering Machine I'd Love to Have": [...] >Over half the phone calls I get are "junk". [...] >2) Answering machine picks up. Plays user message: "You have the >Froboz household. Please enter your password now. If you don't have >one and you really need to talk to us, you may stay on the line for 90 >seconds, after which you may leave a message with your number and we >will call back as soon as possible." I have a similar problem, which I plan on solving in the near future with an AT&T Voice Power card in a 3B1 computer. I currently use the Voice Power board and computer as my answering machine-- I wrote a software program which effectively simulates a Phone Mate answering machine, with a few extra features. I'm considering updating the software to handle calls using the following scenario: 1. Phone rings 2. Message is played, "You have reached the Widget residence. If you are calling from a touch tone telephone, press the '1' key now." 3. If '1' is pressed now or during step 4, go to step # 7 4. "We do not accept any calls from solicitors or sales people of any kind. If you are one of these individuals, please hang up now. If you are not a solicitor and still wish to contact me, please say 'YES' now." 5. If 'YES' is detected by voice recognition software within 10 seconds, go to step # 10 6. Hang up on caller (no valid response) 7. "We do not accept any calls from solicitors or sales people of any kind. If you are one of these individuals, please hang up now. If you are not a solicitor and still wish to contact me enter your code number or press the '9' key on your phone now" 8. If the '9' key is pressed within 10 seconds, go to step # 10 If a password is entered, handle it as a special case of '9', or with some kind of voice mail. 9. Hang up on caller (no response) 10. If 'at home' flag is set on the computer system, signal a 'ring' in some undetermined way (note- the 3B1 has no means of providing ring voltage, so something will have to be hacked-up to do this) 11. If 'at home' flag is not set, take a standard answering machine message in the usual way. If a solicitor or salesperson does complete the call, you may take down information about the person or yell obscenities at him/her for being stupid or inconsiderate. This is only a preliminary dialogue, by the way .. it seems a bit on the cumbersome side to me, and I'll probably trim it down, but this one gets the general idea across. If I do make the software, I will post the program in unix-pc.general. Those interested in the 'plain 'ole answering machine' program should note that I'm planning to post the source in unix-pc.general in the next week or so. Gil Kloepfer, Jr. ...!ames!limbic!gil | gil%limbic@ames.arc.nasa.gov ICUS Software Systems -- Western Development Center P.O. Box 1 Islip Terrace, NY 11752
dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) (03/06/90)
I just purchased an Panasonic Answering Machine that works similar to what was suggested it is called privacy ring. There is a password (up to 3 numeric didgets) that you program. You then inform your friends, ect. what the password is. When they call and get your outgoing message (OGM) they enter the password and the answering machine will ring for 30 seconds to give you a chance to answer (You now know it is someone that you gave the code to). If you do not answer in 30 seconds it will then give the OGM again they can then leave a message or enter to password again and continue to ring the answering machine. It also has many other great features. Includes speaker phone and conventional phone, speed-dial of 24 numbers, date and time stamp each message, digital stored OGM, memo message, automatic transfer (calls another number or beeper with your messages), compact in size, full voice menu beeper-less control with separate password. Toll saver (answers after 4 rings first call 2 rings all other calls, when you call remotely and it doesn't answer after 2 rings you know you have no messages and hang up thus saving the toll charge). Memo phone number (as you are receiving a phone number from information or other party you may key it in with out you or the other party hearing the tones and then dial the number with single key stoke after you hang up). Re-dial last number dialed, flash hook button, combination tone and pulse dialing. Wall mountable. Callers can skip OGM by pressing * and start recording their message for you. As you monitor incoming calls you don't hear your OGM just their message to you. Auto answer (you can tell it to automatically activate speaker phone when phone ring. You can also remotely turn on speaker phone (great if your family never answers the phone but you want your own calls to be answered, they have no choice). Voice activated (VOX). Remote turn-on/turn-off. And I am still discovering features! If you want more features then what this machine offers now you are dreaming! I do not have the model number with me but will provide it if anyone is interested. Cost? (not cheap I paid $179.97) Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma PC Software Systems | Phone: (813)365-1162 2121 Cornell Street | Sarasota, FL 34237 |
b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) (03/13/90)
In article <4901@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!hpda!morrell@lcs.mit.edu (Michael Morrell) writes: >>Toll saver (answers after 4 rings first call 2 rings all other calls, >>when you call remotely and it doesn't answer after 2 rings you know >>you have no messages and hang up thus saving the toll charge). > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, > for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine, > they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4). > This feature should be illegal. Two quibbles : Why should it be illegal? I think it's perfectly valid to see if you have messages. Why be charged for discovering you have no messages - when you *do* have them and want to access them, *then* the telco makes its money. You could extend the same logic to the practice described by some guys on this list who use exchange callback to allow internal calls. I guess you'd disapprove of that, too. But your other point strikes me as intriguing - you want external callers to be able to hang up if they figure there's a machine on the line? Isn't that the same idea, that the caller gets information from the number of rings to answering ? Why allow one and not the other? Regards, bjh
Torsten Lif <euatdt@euas17c10.ericsson.se> (03/13/90)
In article <5041@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Joel M. Snyder" <jms@mis.arizona.edu> writes: >In several recent articles, the moderator called for charging people >for ring-no-answer, and one reader responded by suggesting that taken >to an extreme this would mean charging you for picking up the phone. >In fact, this is already true in the voice world, depending on how you >want to divide up the basic service charge your telco charges. In the >voice world, it's unlikely to be taken to such extremes, but in the >data world. I may not be the only person to point this out, but nevertheless here goes: In Denmark you are indeed charged for "picking up the phone". The counter (on which your charges are based) first "clicks" when you lift the receiver (or more strictly: when you get the dialling tone). Danish pay-phones have no return slot. Whatever money you put in stays there. The argument for all this is that the costly part for the CO is in the *setting up* of the call; *not* in maintaining it. Even the fact that the callee does not answer his phone contains information to the caller. Needless to say, repeating auto-diallers are not a big sell on the Danish market :-) Torsten Lif ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788
hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) (03/13/90)
> Do you feel that if someone you call isn't home that you should be > charged anyway for the call? You got something for nothing in the > knowledge that your party wasn't home, or at least wouldn't answer the > phone for one reason or another. What about if it's busy. Again, free > information. > You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work > yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number. > As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision. > After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a > charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't > answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number > and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22! > Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the > facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call > attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would > sure put war dialers out of business! > No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my > messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages. How about the following scenario. You decide to go see a friend who lives some distance away. You get in your car, drive to a toll road, get on, and pay when you get off. You get to your friend's house, ring the bell, and there is no answer. You get back in your car, drive back over the toll road, and ask for the tolls back, since your friend wasn't home, and you did not get to talk to him. The toll collector looks at you, and says: "Are you kidding? You used my road!." Then you go to the gas station, and ask for a fillup, with the same rationale. The answer is probably not fit for usenet. Etc. etc. While I am certainly not advocating being charged for call attempts, there definitely is a good rationale for them. Actually, I believe that in Denmark there is such a charge. Some things are free, which could reasonably have charges. When buying something in a store, they will usually let you return it for any reason. Some businesses will charge a restocking fee. Also remember that one COCOT operator recently got caught placing calls first over AT&T to see if the card number was good, hanging up, and then placing the call over their own lines. The court deemed this illegal. There was also some serious discussion in CCITT whether there should be charges for call attempts in ISDN, which the US strongly opposed. Herman Silbiger
Rich Zellich <zellich@stl-07sima.army.mil> (03/14/90)
Remember also though, that the "toll saver" feature is there for another purpose as well. Allowing more rings on the first pickup gives you, the owner, time to get to the phone to pick it up before the machine grabs the incoming call. After the machine gets the first one, however, it makes the assumption that you aren't home and answers more quickly on subsequent calls so the caller doesn't have to wait listening to rings any longer than necessary - theoretically keeping some people from hanging up too soon. The above, of course, so you can leave the machine on all the time and not have to worry about remembering to turn it on every time you leave.
tneff%bfmny0@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) (03/16/90)
In article <5155@accuvax.nwu.edu> Torsten Lif <euatdt@euas17c10.ericsson.se> writes: >Even the fact that the callee does not answer his phone contains >information to the caller. Hey, the fact that a payphone is not in use (and thus available to the caller) conveys information. I think we should charge 'em for looking. :-) (Actually, this is a classic case of monopoly despotism. In a free market, the issue would be decided by consumer choice. If company A charges for every off-hook, then company B can try to knock their socks off in the marketplace by charging only for completed calls. I suspect that in the US, at least, it'd be a winning strategy.)
Dave Levenson <dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net> (03/18/90)
In article <5201@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tneff%bfmny0@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) writes: > (Actually, this is a classic case of monopoly despotism. In a free > market, the issue would be decided by consumer choice. If company A > charges for every off-hook, then company B can try to knock their > socks off in the marketplace by charging only for completed calls. I > suspect that in the US, at least, it'd be a winning strategy.) In the New York City area, there are two cellular telephone service providers. When the first system (known to cellular telephone users as service B) went on the air a few years ago, they charged for every call attempt, whether or not anyone answered. The competition (service A) which became active almost a year later charged only for completed calls. Apparently, Tom Neff is correct. Today, both companies charge only for completed calls. Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave