Slashdot Mirror


Why the Fax Machine Refuses To Die

snydeq writes "Deep End's Paul Venezia waxes befuddled on the ongoing existence of the fax machine. 'Consider what a fax machine actually is: a little device with a sheet feeder, a terrible scanning element, and an ancient modem. Most faxes run at 14,400bps. That's just over 1KB per second — and people are still using faxes to send 52 poorly scanned pages of some contract to one another. Over analog phone lines. Sometimes while paying long-distance charges! The mind boggles,' Venezia writes. 'If something as appallingly stupid as the fax machine can live on, it makes you wonder how we make progress at all. Old habits die hard. It just goes to show you: Bad technology generally isn't the problem; it's the people who persist in using that technology rather than embracing far superior alternatives.'"

27 of 835 comments (clear)

  1. It's convenience and security. by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sheet-fed scanners are ridiculously expensive, plus you have to save the file, attach it to an email, then, hopefully, the file isn't too large for the sender or recipient's mailserver. With the fax machine, one just drops the stack in, verify the fax successfully transmitted, task complete.

    Also, many people feel that snooping of phone lines is much less likely to occur than snooping of email, when is sent in the clear.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    1. Re:It's convenience and security. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sheet feed scanners, not a single sheet scanner.

      http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=634&name=Scanner-Document-Scanners

      $189-$1000

      http://www.newegg.com/store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=351&Tpk=fax%20machine

      $49-$800

      So your 300% more Sheet Feed Scanner still requires you to deal with the inherent limits to email attachment size, if the document requires a signature, you still have to print it. Fax machines work better with legal and business documents than email attachments.

      That said, your cheap all-in-one scanner/printer/copiers are all garbage, in 11 years of supporting them, I've never seen one last a calendar year before failing.

    2. Re:It's convenience and security. by CalSolt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. Email is NOT secure. You don't know how many servers your email passes through or what they do with it, and you can't guarantee the receiver is protecting the information. Encrypted email is far harder to implement in your network of contacts than a fax machine. Even then, if public key vendors can be hacked/spoofed/compromised, then how can you say encrypted email on a private small business server won't be? Doctors pretty much are obligated to use fax or they will almost certainly end up violating HIPAA.

      The IT industry has not been able to provide a superior or even equal solution to fax yet.

    3. Re:It's convenience and security. by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given a choice of clipping on to an office phone line from outside or intercepting their internet connection, I'll take the phone line. It's simple, quick, and the necessary connection is outside (or worst case, in a phone closet in a hallway, the latch can probably be jimmied in 5 seconds or less). If you wear a jumpsuit, hardhat, and a butt set nobody will even look at you.

      Compare that to entering a NOC and rooting the router without a valid keycard.

    4. Re:It's convenience and security. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

      A jpg pasted into a document and emailed isn't legally binding in the United States.

      My work requires real signatures.

    5. Re:It's convenience and security. by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most FAX machine inboxes nowadays go to email, in my experience. The vast majority of FAX systems today larger than a single office are paperless systems built into leased copiers or multi-function devices which do the raw data transfer and call handling but otherwise input from a printer on a computer OS (or the built-in scanner) and output to the local email server.

      Quite honestly, the reason the FAX refuses to die is because people, once they adopt a method, tend not to change. It's the inertia of least effort, aka laziness, aka efficiency of thought. Granted, there are good reasons for this approach. Most people have bad experiences with moving to new systems. How many times have you spoken with someone who blames a new system for slowing productivity, missing features, or for making the effort of using those features far more complex? People therefore tend to distrust new technology, again because in their experience -- and this is correct -- new technology fails and established technology works. The reason for that truth is quite simple: only good technology sticks around to become established; bad technology is abandoned.

      Why should someone abandon what works for what doesn't? Or, more accurately, abandon that which fails in a way I have already learned to handle in exchange for something which fails in a way I don't understand -- and maybe can't even tell if it has failed? If I'm going to invest extra effort in something which is not more reliable and does not

      So, what does email offer that FAX does not? Is it more reliable? No, not really. Email has inherently unreliable delivery, particularly with spam and malware filters which silently delete suspect emails. Additionally, email is already a primary contact for business, so FAX availability actually offers some communication redundancy. Is email more secure? Absolutely not. Email is unencrypted during transmission unless the message itself is encrypted. Does email guarantee sender identity better than FAX? Quite the opposite. It's often illegal to obfuscate or alter your sending FAX number due to junk FAX laws, while spoofing email is trivial.

      Finally, since FAX is established in the business world, it has become something you will often need not because you yourself haven't adopted a better technology, but because your business peers and customers haven't adopted a better technology. Even where it's not wanted, it's a mandatory legacy system to deal with people who MUST use FAX for whatever reason.

      So, if everybody has it and email actually isn't better, why change?

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    6. Re:It's convenience and security. by tumnasgt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But how do you prove that the signature on a fax wasn't just a jpeg pasted in the document before sending?

    7. Re:It's convenience and security. by ajo_arctus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fax was stupid tech 15 - 20 years ago. Transmitting bits instead of data? Are you nuts?

      I'm intrigued... What is the difference between bits and data? You do realize it's all the same, right? Fax machines are just as digital as a workstation, they just interface over an analogue telephone network.

      I'd love to have the chance to show a doctor or lawyer what I could do for them with smart tech

      Trouble is, even though those doctors and lawyers are the people who would need to purchase your new improved system, they don't actually care. Look at how they work -- they employ staff (temps in the legal profession, regular admin staff in medical) to do all of that for them. Those temps tend to come and go, so whatever solution you give them needs to involve minimal training -- fax machines are great, because everyone knows how they work. Whatever solution you come up with also has to work with zero training/cost for the recipient. Fax machines are great because it ticks this box too. It also needs to be relatively secure and reliable. Fax is reliable because if you get a send confirmation you can be pretty sure that they got it.

      The simplest workable solution is usually the best, and fax machines currently fall in to that category. Email almost meets the criteria, but the extra steps and uncertainties make it less suited, so far as these people are concerned.

      I know you're busy and it looks expensive, but you need to try harder for me to prove to you that it's not.

      So speak to people in those professions and prepare a pitch. If you really can do stuff to improve their lives, they'll listen.

      FWIW, I'm a software developer, and I've created software to do exactly what you are talking about -- I've built document management software and pitched it to legal people. I'm not a great sales person/networker (I'm working on it), so my evidence doesn't count for much, but I've found that people do not want to change a system that mostly works for them, despite the advantages. You need to show that you can save them serious time and money (but let's be honest, sending fax isn't time consuming), or bring them a whole new world of business that was previously unavailable (like e-commerce), but that doesn't apply here.

    8. Re:It's convenience and security. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What counts as binding for a contract is defined by common law as well as statute. It used to be that only a wax seal was valid for contracts. For a contract to be binding, both parties must have agreed to it. A signature does not make the contact binding, it presents evidence that both parties agreed. It's still possible that the signature was forged.

      My (US) publisher accepts a scan of my signature on a PDF. Weirdly, they don't accept a strong cryptographic signature (which is actually hard to forge). I recently did some work for an organisation that wouldn't accept the PDF, but would if I printed off a copy and posted it to them. It seems crazy that printing it on my printer makes it legally binding, but printing it on theirs doesn't, and a court would agree.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. It's for signatures by grimsnaggle · · Score: 4, Informative

    People seem to think that because a fax machine scans physical documents that it represents an authentic signature on a document. Solid reasoning? Not a chance, but when has that stopped anyone from reaching stupid conclusions?

    1. Re:It's for signatures by xs650 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's nothing, some people think a fax machine sends the paper through the phone line when we all know it only sends the ink through the phone line.

    2. Re:It's for signatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Judges think that. Not because they want to, but because it has been accepted by the courts. It takes years to get a new technology accepted for the purpose, it's expensive, complicated, and very difficult. New technology can still be used even if it hasn't got blanket acceptance, you will just need to pay hundreds of dollars (possibly several thousand) to have an expert testify to how the technology works.

      Since the fax machine does the job for legal purposes, even if it sucks somewhat, it doesn't suck enough to warrant the effort of getting a court to accept the new technology. That and the new technology (even though faxes have these problems, they can be ignored--remember, they are accepted already) easily has security holes unless you get pretty specialized (as far as lawyers are concerned). That means it isn't one size fits all. That means it's dead before it gets off the ground.

      Do you know how difficult it was (and may still be) just to get a court to accept a digital picture? Because they can be "faked" (not that "regular" photos can't be, especially since the printing process can often be digital anyways). Even REALLY low standard courts like traffic court, I've seen them reject digital photo evidence. Getting a court like that to accept, say, a GPG key? Not a chance.

      Hell, this even works to the government's detriment. For YEARS in Ontario you could fight a LIDAR (laser radar) speeding ticket because the technology wasn't accepted by the courts (it is now) and that meant the prosecution would need to hire, at several hundred, possibly thousand, dollars an expert from the company to prove the LIDAR gun was better than a chair at measuring speed. All that for a $150 speeding ticket? Not likely. Red light tickets got thrown out for years because they didn't meet evidence standards. Why? The date and time of the offence was not integrated into the photo itself, instead it was provided separately (possibly below the picture or on the back of it, or actually separately) and an officer would sign off that it is true. Not enough to pass court standards.

      So, hell no, fax machines, as crap as they are, they are plenty enough at this point. Find me a computer technology that is still 100% backwards compatible for 30 years that provides even the slightest amount of usefulness like a fax and we might be talking.

    3. Re:It's for signatures by scottbomb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your "stupid conclusion" seems to hold up just fine for the legal beagles in just about every company I've ever worked for. My current (and all previous) employer still uses fax machines for this very reason (although they have progressed to copy machines for sending and e-fax for receiving). My company processes hundreds, if not a few thousand, of them every week.

      Check with any pharmacy or doctor. They all still use fax too. For the same reasons.

      The first post on this thread (an actual first post that means something... I guess the kids are asleep) has a good point as well. When dealing with that much data, the cost per kB is a lot less over an old-fashioned phone line at 14k than a 5-10 GB image that's a PITA to create, send, and receive.

    4. Re:It's for signatures by delinear · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I sign my name so little these days that whenever I am called on to do so, it always looks like I'm trying to forge my signature (the guilty look as I try to remember how it goes, then the result is usually something that's close but never that close to the original). The sooner we come up (or should I say implement widely, since there are already solutions out there) with a reliable electronic method of signing documents instead of relying on what was always a dodgy premise (that nobody would be able to write something down the exact same way I wrote it down), the better!

  3. It's a scanner people can use by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing about a fax is, that anyone can use it properly in its default configuration.

    Scanning for most people is fraught with troubles, from too large files they cannot email, to losing files saved who knows where, to simple connection problems between scanner and computer. Meanwhile the fax still just works, unless you are lucky enough to work at a place that has rigged up a well-run scanning infrastructure for you.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It's a scanner people can use by Alan+Evans · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is exactly right. Try teaching a 55+ yr old accountant or bookkeeper when he/she should use black&white vs color, 150 vs 300 vs 600 dpi and the difference between JPEG, TIFF and PDF. Then teach them how to enter their email address on the network scanner printer using only the number keys then how to forward that email without sending it to 500 other people accidentally and without blowing up email quotas. - OR - you can teach them to put the original in the feeder, punch in a phone number, press send.

      The truth is even many fax machines have different photo/text settings, contrast settings, quality settings but no one other than us IT types ever considers those.

    2. Re:It's a scanner people can use by smellotron · · Score: 3, Funny

      I look forward to his future articles on the evils of pencils, the alphabet, and whiskey.

      Dear Sir,

      I noticed that the bottle in your cabinet was over a decade old (!), so I took the liberty of discarding it in the refuse and replacing it with a fresh bottle. I didn't want you to get food poisoning. I trust you will appreciate this attentiveness.

      Rgrds,
      smellotron

    3. Re:It's a scanner people can use by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't be so sure. Even when the other person insists they must send the document as a fax, don't be surprised if it takes 4 or 5 rounds as they send you a cover sheet with no fax, 5 blank pages (must be set too light), 5 black pages (oops, set it too dark), 5 blank pages again (wrong side up in the fax all along), half of the document (ops, jammed), and several other imaginative fails. Finally, they send you one where the pages went in crooked but since you can guess at the missing bits you just tell them it came through fine so you can be done with it.

  4. Bullshit by BenBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fax machine. Plug it in. It just works. Something computers still just dream of.

  5. Simplicity wins. by redemtionboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I actually work for a certain fortune 500 company that produces laser printers, and while we are phasing a lot of our fax focus out, there just isn't the faith in email that there is in fax. With a fax, you have a physical copy ending up in an office that you know someone has received. There's no spam filter to worry about and you know that that fax is going to get to the right person a lot more than than email if you don't have that person's direct email. For something you have a physical copy of, fax is just a lot simpler. Until there are more printers out there that have email addresses built into them, we're going to be a ways off from replacing fax.

  6. Send/recieve well over 100 per day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pharmacist here. They are still in heavy use between us and the md offices, for a few reasons. E-Rx ins't always 2-way, so a refill request often has to be faxed. Many times we need to contact the MD office and they can't take a call. A fax gives them all the info, in a simple readable format to take care of later. Sometimes a hospital needs a patient profile for the last 6 months and it would take 30mins to explain it all over the phone, so it gets faxed.

    Emailing HIPPA documents in not an option and I wouldn't use it even it was.

  7. Pointless gripe by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's a great article on why the fax machine refuses to die. Oh wait, there's no explanation. It's just some guy complaining. When I read an article which is just some douchbag complaining, ten times out of ten it was linked by slashdot. Maybe "Why won't the fax machine die!" can be the opposite of "Get off my lawn!"

  8. Want a big reason? by cplusplus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All fax machines are required to implement delivery confirmation and time stamps, and log a certain number of incoming and outgoing faxes. There is a rigid standard behind the faxing specs, and fax records can be (and have been) used in a court of law. It's hard to find another *cheap* and *widely adopted* digital sending standard that has the same legal robustness, with a proven track record. That alone is why fax technology will be slow to die.

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    1. Re:Want a big reason? by pstorry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As others have said, they offer this as an option, but nothing more.

      The clock can be set incorrectly, the sending number set incorrectly, and all sorts. (These we call a TSI - Transmitted Subscriber Identification.)

      I'm managing a fax system that handles around 100,000 faxes a week (I work for a large financial insitution). If the sender's number in the TSI was even remotely useable, we'd be able to route faxes on it - but is just isn't. Something like 50% of all faxes we receive - often from large household financial names that should know better - have a junk TSI.
      That's 50% of volume, by the way. When we break it down to senders, it's well over 75% incorrect.

      So whilst in theory we could route faxes via TSI, in practice we route faxes via the inbound number that the sender dialled. Nothing else is reliable or usable for routing faxes to their destination mailbox/application/printer.

  9. A FAX has a legal advantage by drnb · · Score: 5, Informative

    A FAX has a legal advantage. A third party, the phone company, can verify the sender, receiver and date/time. There is also a bunch of case law regarding when a FAX can be or must be accepted as a valid legal document.

  10. Fax " The original PUSH technology" by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You don't appreciate technology until you understand the function it serves and problem solved. Fax orginated as battlefield deployment solution to get maps and text into the right hands.

    Today, nothing has changed. It is the weapon of choice to enlist support, disseminate and communicate on the battlefields. Only the location has changed. And the win-win with FAX is its ability to run unattended, bombproof reliability and that receipt verification is the gold standard guarantee of undeniable success in the chain of communication.

    Speed has nothing to do with the fact that its importance is Fax's ability to deliver guaranteed. The physical paper output assuredly enforces every fax must be ' handled' at the receiving end irregardless how much timeshift it pushes itself onto the receiver.

    That is one critical factor no amount of email, voicemail nor text message can compete against.

  11. Re:They all work as fax machines too by JosKarith · · Score: 3, Informative

    OTOH maybe we should be looking at avoiding having even more dead tree clogging up storage units because someone's welded to 20 year old technology.
    One department here uses a fax machine as a scanner. They fax a server that then converts the fax to an email and sends it to them. Despite the fact that we now have network scanning capabilities that are far higher resolution and don't involve the charge of a phone call they insist on using this system because they're used to it. Another department transfers documents by printing them, then faxing them to another department that then scans them back in. To keep them them both on the same network server. I've explained till I'm blue in the face that they can just set up a shared area to transfer documents but they keep this system ... because they're used to it.
    Never underestimate human inertia. If something works, people will keep using it despite how awkward it might be. Bitching and whining all the time about its problems of course. But you try to change something and suddenly you may as well have driven over their puppy for all the reaction you get...

    --
    'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'