Conference 7.286::digital

    Re .0:
    
    > ...................This is just to say to anyone and everyone
    >that I will not conduct business with any other DIGITAL employee
    >who uses an answering machine. If you are so damn overworked go
    >get help, ask for additional help whatever.  But it's a discourtesy
    >to make others put up with your perceived sense of overwork or
    >importance.  
    
    Noble sentiment, but impractical.  Do you mean that if there's someone
    whose input is _really critical_ to a project you're on you'll refuse
    to work with him or her _strictly on principle_ if the dapartment
    sometimes relies on answering machines?
    
    With the network, VAXmail, DECmail/ALL-IN-1_mail, and the like,
    is it _essential_ to be tied on the telephone?
    
    I suppose one could use answering machines constructively.  My own
    way of working.  Telephone.  If no answer, try once more.  Then
    use electronic mail.  If _urgent_ try the VAX phone facility.
    
    I'd hate to be the one to screw up a project just because I _refused_
    to "talk" to an answering machine.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

  I think the noter in .0 is simply guilty of using the wrong 
  metaphor when thinking of the answering machine.  It's not a 
  gadget thrown on the line because a person is too <anything> 
  to answer the phone.  It's a voice store-and-forward device.
  Just like VAXmail, or Notes.

  Refusing to talk to an answering machine is analagous to
  refusing to use any VAX communication facility except PHONE.
  Try this quote on and see if it strikes you as an absurdity:
  "If you're not at your terminal when I want to type to you,
  then the heck with you."

                                   Atlant

    Since the "professional" in .0 is looking for a platform to voice his
    views, I humbly suggest he try SOAPBOX. 

Stay away from the DTN conference with local phone related things.  The right
one is DELNI::PBX.

/john

Re .0:

Why do you think that the individual you attempted to call has any power to
decide whether his phone automatically forwards to an answering machine or a
secretary?

Every phone in my department of 100 people supposedly forwards to an answering
machine if it isn't answered within 3 rings.  (Managers *might* be an
exception). We can't change the number without calling Telecom.  I probably
couldn't even get away with having my call forwarding changed to a secretary's
number - they'd be too distracted by callers.

Anyone who calls when I'm not in can hear the rhythm of the ring signal change
after the third ring as the call is forwarded to the answering machine. They can
hang up without having to listen to the machine at all.  I do it all the time.
Did you observe a change in ring rhythm during your 5 abortive phone calls?

I don't think you should go to SOAPBOX.  I think you should read the DELNI::PBX
conference (q.v.), where you can learn more about office telephones.

Re .8:

Sorry about that.  I guess .0 doesn't care much about trunk lines.  I hadn't
read either conference in ages.
				/AHM/THX

    
    I hear we're developing computerized voice mail messaging.  Perhaps
    this is the answer.  I perceive that the current problem throughout
    Digital is insufficient numbers of clerks and secretaries to answer
    all the phones, and if one is to get messages at all, then the only
    solution seems to be either a centralized phone messaging center,
    staffed by people, or some sort of machine, be it a simple answering
    machine or computerized voice mail, which seems to offer many more
    advantages over the former.
    

    Since I work full-time at a customer site, perhaps this note doesn't
    apply to me, but the department I work in (Computer Services) doesn't
    have a secretary.  Quite frankly, anyone who thinks that my job
    is to stay at my desk so that I can answer phones deserves to talk
    to a machine!  My job dictates that I go all over the plant, which
    means that I don't see my desk for days at a time sometimes.  I
    feel that it would be bad for people to just hear the phone ring
    with no answer.  
    
    .0, I know that you don't want this note to be from people who 
    justify having a machine, but I just couldn't let that sit!
    
    
    
  

    Hey, .0 love your forward thinking.  In January 1988 we [Corporate
    Telecommunications Engineering] will have a Messaging Unit installed
    on  our  phone  system  that  will get you an answering machine-like
    message  if  you call ANYONE who isn't there [ie: the secretary will
    no longer answer phones]. 

	If you  are  not going to do business with DEC employees who use
    answering  machines,  I assume you are going to cross EASYnet groups
    off your list?

                I happen to be one of those users of answering machines.
        
                I started it when I moved to a new job which had a boss
        that felt the only phones important enough for the secretary to
        answer were the two or three "bosses" phones. The engineers
        could answer there own phones (how, when we weren't there?). I
        got tired of not getting in contact with people that I needed to
        in order to get my job done, so I purchased (with my money!) a
        machine. It improved my getting in contact by a tremendous
        amount. I now knew who had called while I was not in my office
        (most of the time). This meant that I either got a critical
        piece of info quicker, or I could try reaching the caller, thus
        doubling the odds of getting together. (This was back when
        VaxMail wasn't a usable because of people not being on it.)
                
                Today, the secretary does answer the phone; but I still
        have the machine on my line. Why? Because the secretary isn't
        always at her desk (She has job functions which take her away
        too.) I answer the problem of "but I need to talk to a real
        person" by giving out the secretaries number in my message.
                
                The owner of the machine does have to get one disipline
        down pat, though. They MUST return calls! Otherwise, the callers
        will stop placing messages on the machine because the "he never
        calls back, so why bother" syndrome will take over. Once this
        happens, you can forget the machine, all it is doing is
        consuming electricity for no purpose. There are certain people
        who I call that I won't leave a message on their machine
        (usually a departmental one) because I know that it is useless. 
                
                I also use VaxMail a lot, but sometimes it isn't the
        right forum.
                
                /s/     Bob

    When is this going to be for us peons?
    

    I work in an office with direct customer contact, so the question
    of answering machines is never raised.  What my secretary does for
    me is answer inquiries in my place especially:
    
    (1) How to reach me by electronic mail (if a Digital employee).
    (2) When I will be in a position to return a phone call.
    (3) My secretary can make a judgement and decide to reach me directly
    by finding me wherever I might be, since I always leave word where
    I'll be.
    
    If the problem is that people never return phone calls, that's one
    problem.
    
    If the problem is that people aren't getting messages that's another
    problem.
    
    If the problem is that certain cost centers aren't providing the
    equipment and staff to facilite quality communications, that's another
    problem. 

    Interesting discussion! As one of the people who are looking into
    voice messaging, I'm fascinated to find yet another potential problem
    area.
    
    You see, the point of answering machines and other
    voice-store-and-forward techniques is to avoid telephone tag - but
    of course if you are *returning* a message, as .0 indicated, and
    all you get is the answering machine, it becomes a new form of tag.
    
    "<beep> Hi, Fred, I'm returning your call; I'll be in until 4."
    
    "<beep> Um, Ruth, I couldn't call before 4; please return my call
    when you get back."

    "<beep> Fred? Oh, Fred..."

    Now, if one of these people would actually state their business
    (assuming it's state-able over the phone, or within the time limit
    on the recorder), then the other could answer, and the tag would
    be over - but the answering machine can't dictate that.
    
    Given that some people (like me) infinitely prefer written
    communication to spoken, while others prefer phone conversations (with
    real people or with gadgets), and still others refuse to speak to
    machines of any kind, it would be difficult to have an efficient system
    that caters to everybody's style. I guess the goal is to make whatever
    system there is, as usable as possible, and then try to educate
    the users...

    -b

    As a long-term answering machine owner (I think I'm on my fourth
    unit), I agree totally with .16.  Unless the caller is willing to
    leave a substantive message, the machine only provides automated
    telephone tag.  

    I agree that if the machine owner doesn't return calls, the machine
    becomes useless.  On the other hand, it is frustrating to  call
    someone back (sometimes repeatedly) only to have them ask a
    one-sentence question, which then requires me to go away find the
    answer and call them AGAIN.  After someone has done this a few times,
    I'm a good deal less compulsive about returning his/her calls.
    
    -dave

  If any of you have access to the output of the MIT Media 
  Lab, you might want to take a look at the "Phoneslave" 
  videotape.  Basically, they took a computer, a DECtalk,
  some digitized speech, and a word-recognizer/digitizer
  and created a highly automated, very friendly system.

  (I don't want to call it an answering machine, nor a voice 
  mail system, nor a speech-driven E-mail system, because it's
  a synergistic fusion of all of those things.)

  Basically, the system greets you in its cheery, digitized 
  speech, e.g.: "Barry's telephone -- who's calling please?"
  Since the machine asked a direct question, it's much more 
  likely to elicit a reply than an answering machine and its
  "Uhh, speak when you hear the beep" stuff.

  If the recognizer recognizes you, it goes into a fairly 
  free-form mode, driven either by your voice or by touch-
  tone commands.  It can play back digitized messages, read
  your E-mail to you, and so on.

  If the recognizer doesn't recognize you, the cheery voice 
  prompts you for a series of short bits of information such 
  as "Where can Barry reach you?" and "When should he call you 
  back?" and the like, followed by a more general "If you'd 
  like to leave a short message, you can do so now..."

  The developer also did a session for the Hudson Technical 
  Seminar Series, so we may have a videotape of that!

                                   Atlant

        re .15
        
        ANd then there are those, who don[t even return electronic
        mail messages. Not pointing any fingers, Pat, but...
        
        q
        

  When I got my first VAX account in 1983, I took to VAXmail like a duck to
water. That solved a lot of phone problems for me but created a new problem:
what to do about people who don't respond to VAXmail messages. It appears that
some people have the same kind of aversion to electronic mail that .0 has to
answering machines. This is unfortunate because electronic mail can save a lot
of time spent chasing down people either in person or on the phone. However,
it doesn't eliminate the need for calls to be forwarded to a secretary after 3
rings because the outside world is not on Enet and it would not be safe to give
them access because of security considerations.
  Messages put on an answering machine are not secure from inside eavesdropping;
people often play them back at a volume that can be heard 30 feet away.
  

    Re: .20
    
    > ... because the outside world is not on Enet ...
    
    Much of the outside world can exchange mail with anyone on Easynet.
    See the conference at BEING::GATEWAYS for discussions of the various
    mail gateways.

    Say gang, we internal people are not the only ones who suffer from
    the "....I hate answering machines...." syndrome.  The Credit and
    Collection department in the Rocky Mountain District office has
    answering machines on their phones.  I have had more than one customer
    dress me down because Credit and Collection calls them about some
    overdue account etc... and when the customer tries in good faith
    to get back to the C&C people THEY GET AN ANSWERING MACHINE !!!
    
    I can see both sides of the answering machine argument for DEC to
    DEC people but where customers are concerned I they are totally
    inappropriate in our business.
    
    Jerry Beeler
    Lubbock, Texas
    

Answering machines are a cop-out!  I admit, there are times when absolutely
nobody can cover a phone call, but at the very least, an unanswered phone should
forward to a human.  If that is unanswered, possibly forward to a second human.
Then and only then should an answering machine be used.

Is hasn't happed very often, but I've been in situations where I had to talk to
someone and couldn't wait at the phone for a return call and got stuck with a
damn machine!

-mark

    I'm in a very small (6 people) software development and support
    group.  We don't have enough work to hire a full time secretary,
    the other group in the building can't spare any time from their
    secretary, so no sub hire from us.  This building has no switchboard
    operator.  So we have no choice but to get an answering machine.
    DEC is not about to let us hire a person full time to only answer
    the phone.

    RE: .0  "Freebasing Phone Phreak"
    
    You called five times and five time you got an answering machine?
    
    What did that tell you?  It tells me (after the 1st time) that there's
    nobody there right now and if you leave a message [maybe] they'll
    get back to you.  It doesn't mean they're too self-important to
    be interrupted.  It means they were at least courteous enough to
    provide you with an opportunity to tell them who called.
    
    We've had an answering machine at home for several years for business
    reasons.  Some people are reluctant to talk to machines, but, generally
    speaking, most professionals are quite capable of stating the nature
    of their business and leaving a number for a return call.
    
    I myself would not be here today if it were not for an answering
    machine.  When the call came to interview for this job, I was out
    of the country, camping in Newfoundland.  By using a touchtone phone
    I was able to call home periodically and read messages off of our
    machine.  When DEC called, I cut the trip short and headed home.
    

    
    Our facility just started testing something called VOICEMAIL (by
    VOICEMAIL, Inc. I think). We have no physical answering machine
    boxes on our desks, but it acts like one. I can call from any touch
    tone phone and check my mail messages. We have been encouraged to
    use this for personal use, i.e. you want someone to call you but
    you can't be reached, they can leave a message in your Voicemail
    box. It's features are like VAXMAIL, including saving upto 50 messages,
    it gives your sotre and forward to other users, system-wide messages,
    directories of you mail messages, etc.
    
    I'm in Software Services. Most of the people around here are at
    customer sites or on the road. If they don't call when the secretaries
    are there, they probably won't get their messages. Most of the
    secretaries don't send you electronic mail of your phone calls.
    Most of the people usually don't log in from home on a regular basis,
    many don't have terminals at  home. Most of the secretaries have
    enough paper work as it is without having to answer phones. My own
    situation is, they didn't  have enough space in the building, so
    I'm 10 miles away from the rest of our group. The secretary here
    sometimes forgets to give me my paycheck. She is under no obligation
    to answer my phone.
    
    Since VOICEMAIL has been put in, the secretaries here look more
    sane. The people who call me are pleased that I get their messages
    without them being given the line "Is she part of this group?"
    and I can reply in less than a day. As far as I'm concerned, VOICEMAIL
    on the phone is as VAXMAIL is to a VAX.
    
    Now all I have to do is make sure people don't try to pick up my
    phone when I'm not here.
                                           

    I am working in a support environment. (Area Field Support). 
    We do not use any answering machine in this facility, but rather
    make sure that there is always a human answering any phone. It
    aint easy and is not always perfect. But we (and our customers who
    are DEC Field Support prefer it that way).
    The rationale: Phone is for urgent and/or immediate interactive
    dialogue. Electronic mail is perfect for the rest. When someone
    has to make an urgent decision/action plan you just cannot rely
    on eventually beeing called back later (when ?)
    Of course technology (as mentioned by .18) is changing things.
    But if technology tends to worsen human contact ( already
    downgraded by the phone to pure voice) instead of improving
    it, then it's of no benefit. However if well used it can
    improve the use of the phone a lot. Based on technology already
    available, let me illustrate this with the following example:
    
    Assuming your phone is ISDN (= Integrated Data/Phone digital Network)
    Assuming your terminal is hooked to a Computer with a PBX connection
    and DECTALK.
    
    You are busy on your phone. Another call arrives.
    Your screen shows you who is calling. (Gathered from ISDN tracing
    back calling number and computer phone directory)
    You will be prompted for a choice of stored voice messages to
    answer from. Depending on the caller the messages may range from:
    " Dear Mr. X, I am sorry to busy on the phone could you please...."
    to:
    " Get the hell off my phone I have better things to do than..."
    This is just a starting point for any scenario that you might
    imagine, once voice and data are really integrated and in
    widespread use in particular if you add voice to data conversion
    and artificial intelligence!
    At the end however one should never forget that this could all
    help in routing effectively human brain to human brain communication,
    but never replace it.
    Fred
    

    Of course answering machines have their place.  But they're also
    abused.  I can think of 2 groups in this company whose phones are
    ALWAYS answered by an answering machine.  Both are 30+ people and
    in buildings with other groups they are associated with.  It's not
    like there's nobody there to answer.  They do it for two reasons
    time management (they aren't interrupted by phones) and cost savings
    (they don't hire secretaries).  It sure doesn't save me any time.
    I'm normally polite to answering machines, but I regularly hang
    up on these.  If I have to get a message through, I use VAX mail
    and wait.  But waiting sure doesn't improve my mood when I need
    an answer quickly.

    In these replies, I notice a few of you refer to VOICEMAIL. In case
    you aren't aware there is an interface from ALL-IN-1 to VOICEMAIL
    available as an ALL-IN-1 optional product.
    
    This allows notifications of incoming messages to be sent to your
    ALL-IN-1 account AND, when you read the message, you can initiate
    the replay of the message to your phone, so saving checking for
    messages, etc.