Slashdot Mirror


So Long Voicemail, Give My Regards To the Fax Machine

itwbennett writes: Yes, it was just a matter of time before voicemail, the old office relic, the technology The Guardian's Chitra Ramaswamy called "as pointless as a pigeon with a pager," finally followed the fax machine into obscurity. Last week JPMorgan Chase announced it was turning off voicemail service for tens of thousands of workers (a move that CocaCola made last December). And if Bloomberg's Ramy Inocencio has the numbers right, the cost savings are significant: JPMorgan, for example, will save $3.2 million by cutting voicemail for about 136,000. As great as this sounds, David Lazarus, writing in the LA Times, warns that customer service will suffer.

395 comments

  1. I stopped using it 5 years ago by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I turned off voicemail at my company 5 years ago, saving thousands per year, which i was able to move to the employee incentive program.

    Nobody misses it at all.

    1. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 2

      So wonderful as it is financially for your employees, I'm assuming that they all enjoy a third person interrupting them in the middle of their calls (I'm assuming that they have call-waiting) and forcing them to give them another time slot?

    2. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Roadmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you prioritize an unknown caller over someone with whom you're already having a conversation? Just as interrupting a conversation is rude, call waiting should be banned (just as voicemail!) and emergency calls routed $SOMEWHERE that guarantees a live immediate response (or perhaps keep the sole instance of voicemail in organizations).

    3. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      interrupting them in the middle of their calls (I'm assuming that they have call-waiting)

      I do not think call waiting works the way you think it works.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our place has voicemail, but I have explicitly not configured it. I'm only patchily near my desk, so leaving me a voicemail is a really bad way of trying to communicate. Just send email.

    5. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because prospective clients are harder and more expensive to attain than retaining current clients. Obviously, you're not in sales.

    6. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think call waiting works the way you think it works.

      Well, the way I think it works is that, if Alice is talking to Bob, and Charlie calls Alice, Alice will hear a *beepbeep...beepbeep...beepbeep...* indicating that someone else is on the line, until Alice switches over to Charlie.

      Or is that something else?

    7. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except customers who are wishing they could get tech support. Instead of leaving voicemail, they now wait on hold for an hour or two.

    8. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      On my cell phone the only time I get voicemails is from callers that aren't in my contacts list. They get automatically dumped to voicemail and I'll listen to it at my convenience.

      Android is wonderful in that respect - prior call blockers required you to whitelist individual entries. Now they blacklist everything but your contacts. Really nice.

    9. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Not just that, Charlie will hear a ringtone and then a beep, and may realize that Alice is talking to someone. If Alice doesn't have call-waiting, but does have voice mail, the call will go straight to voicemail, and Charlie can leave the message. Until now, so that Alice can be paid some $50 extra a month in return for losing that capability.

    10. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily you, but a lot of people either ignore emails, or sometimes, it heads straight to their spam folder. I do get a lot of people where the mailbox is either not configured, or is full. In some cases, I understand that they are trying to avoid soliciting calls, but I do hope that an important call doesn't come for them where missing them could have disastrous consequences. Actually, scratch that, - I hope they do!

    11. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 1

      ...listening to that company's inane choice of music

    12. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because prospective clients are harder and more expensive to attain than retaining current clients. Obviously, you're not in sales.

      If I call to buy some product or service from you, and get voicemail... I don't leave a message, I just move on to your competitors.

      Obviously, you're not in sales either. ;)

    13. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't use voicemail. If I don't answer, send email.

      I don't answer my phone in public, rooms with other people, or at home when I don't feel like I'm being paid to conversate.

    14. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The customer could be calling back to initiate the nth part of the conversation, if the product is sufficiently expensive and complicated.

    15. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      But your call is very important to us! (crappy lo-fi music continues)

    16. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GP seemed to be implying that the recipient of the call - who was w/o voicemail - was in sales, talking to one customer Charlie while the other customer Chris called (maybe returned a call). With voicemail, Chris just quickly tells him what he was calling about, and maybe when to get back to him.

      If Chris gets a dead end - no voice mail, he'd indeed do what you mentioned - move on to the competitors.

      Not everybody is an asshole - most people realize that when they call a person, that recipient may already be on another call, or in a meeting, or actually busy w/ something else, like lunch. Just having the ability to let him know that he called, about what and when to return the call is the minimum etiquette that can be expected. Or can't it?

    17. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you worked for Blockbuster?

    18. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 1

      How about just simply and politely telling the caller that you're not in the market for his product/service, and then tell him that you are in the middle of something important and need to go? Or lie to him, and tell him that you are already a customer and already using it, and don't want to be called about it again? Dinnertime calls ended years ago when Governement passed the Do-not-call list act making it illegal to call people on the official list. Sales calls being discussed here are those that occur during work hours.

    19. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Not in any modern business phone system. Line 2 lights up, the caller id appears and the phone rings. There is no beep beep beep in-line on the call. Beep beep beep happens with residential and obsolete phone systems.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    20. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I'd take crappy Lo-Fi music over the MIDI crap my company plays. That was torture even when it was a "cool feature" (30 years ago).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I really liked the voicemail to text feature on my last phone. It allowed me to quickly scan and delete voice mails.

      Voice is too slow. But voice to text was like emails.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    22. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word is converse, not conversate

    23. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Dinnertime calls ended years ago when Governement passed the Do-not-call list act making it illegal to call people on the official list.

      I don't know what planet you live on, but I've been on the Do-not-call list since inception. Yes, the calls tailed off for a time, but as of late, my phone is ringing off the hook, including dinner time. Repeat callers get reported to the gov site.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    24. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like my Cisco IP phone that beeps (no, it doesn't ring). Yes, line 2 lights up and the caller ID is displayed.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    25. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does work as a manager... saves money.

      However, as a customer, if I have to call someone at a company, and either get the

      ring...ring...ring..ring... "sorry, messages full"

      treatment, I'm going to take my business somewhere else, if I can.

      CS is already pretty shitty as it is, people crowing about getting rid of voicemail, so customers have to hope E-mail or a web form is actually answered, especially when there is an emergency, just means that people will walk off.

      A good microcosm of this is Apple. One reason why Apple has people actually pay the price premium for their offerings (which are not state of the art... usually the onboard video is 2-5 years behind the average HP or Dell), it is because you can call Apple, or go to an Apple store and get heard. The PC makers who offshored all CS, or just put people on hold for an hour and hang up on them are now hurting for business [1].

      So, if a firm decides to turn off voice mail, I, as a customer, will turn off from them and go with a competitor who actually can get me a decent response.

      [1]: Ironically, they know better in the enterprise sector. Business service from HP or Dell is quite good.

    26. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. I hate the phone and conversations on the phone. It's a mashup of converse and hate.

    27. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by mlts · · Score: 1

      The problem is that doesn't work sometimes. In fact, one vendor actually told me that he will keep contacting people until they buy something or block him because "all publicity is good publicity" and it gets his name and company in people's minds. In fact, he considers it his duty to keep on people until they block him. He compared himself to the GE burglar alarm sellers that might get 10,000 hang-ups, but out of that, he gets 100 buyers paying his living.

      Thank $DEITY for hidden/blocked caller ID bans, and YouMail's caller ID ditching, so certain numbers can't even leave voice mails.

    28. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by mlts · · Score: 1

      I use YouMail for exactly this reason. Someone calls, leaves a voicemail, it gets transcribed, and I see a text transcript of what they wrote. If I don't want to hear from them, I block them on the phone, and have Youmail ditch them, so they can't even leave a voice message.

    29. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Spazmania · · Score: 2

      If your receiver beeps, interrupting the caller, then somebody did a lousy job setting up your Cisco phone system. They don't normally do that.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    30. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Calls like these are exceptions, but voicemails in general are for people who in fact do often/occasionally call you. If they are salespeople, you can either tell them that you're not in the market for their product, or if they are assholes like the one you described, you can tell them that due to their disruption, you'll seek out and buy their competitor's product or service.

      But if they are customers and they have no way of getting through to you, $DEITY help you.

    31. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's your approach to buying things, I hope you're not in charge of purchasing anything expensive.

    32. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the telemarketers moved their operations to India, which doesn't care if you're on the do not call list or not. What recourse do you have against them?

    33. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      And if I call and no one answer, not even an answering machine, guess what I do!

      Obviously, you never were a customer.

    34. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by pla · · Score: 1

      If that's your approach to buying things, I hope you're not in charge of purchasing anything expensive.

      For the sort of things I do have a say in buying, SLAs matter a hell of a lot more than the pricetag on the box.

      For half a million in maintenance per year (and yes, I realize that counts as relatively low), I don't care if you need to hire a minimum wage lackey solely to pick his nose and take my calls, just make damned sure someone picks up that phone.

    35. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Can you explain the difference between "voicemail" and the service that records people's calls when you don't answer the call? Because I consider those two the same thing, and I cannot not possibly imagining turning off voicemail as being productive.

    36. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by mlts · · Score: 1

      The second best of all worlds is the voicemail system at one place I was at. The VMs were handled just like E-mail messages with phone-number@voicemail.blah.com for the address. This way, they could be filtered. As an attachment, the message was included as a MP3 file and played.

      This way, people like I mentioned who believe in clobbering people's VMs in hopes of a sale get the kibosh put on them, while calls from real customers and contacts get through easily.

      Best of all worlds is if the messages were transcribed and the .MP3 file included, of course.

    37. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I don't ignore email, I just don't read it immediately.

      I don't have a phone anymore at work, but I do have voicemail which is odd. They took away the old phone and gave some people new phones but not me. I just haven't bothered heading over to IT to bitch about getting a headset and then dealing with the hassle of figuring out how to use it. The advantage is that I don't get calls, they were all from recruiters anyway. The downside is that now coworkers think they can call me up on my personal phone at any time. Bastards. But I don't answer, I let it go to voicemail.

      But if I had the phone, then voicemail would be a mandatory feature to have. How else do they contact me if I'm not at the desk? Keep calling every 3 minutes? Figure out my email address and hope that I eventually check it? Use my personal phone/email (which I'm not checking instantly either)?

      I have noticed a trend on my answering machine at home is that no one bothers to leave a message. If there's no answer they just give up. The whole point of the answering machine is that I don't have to rush downstairs straight out of the shower to miss picking it up by a couple of seconds. Even on the mobile phone, I don't want to have to fumble for that thing in the middle of the night and try to figure out how to answer it when my eyes don't focus.

      Imagine if email worked the same way as phones without voicemail: if you're not staring at your email inbox when the email shows up then it gets dropped...

    38. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one misses it except the people trying to call you who get ignored, lost in a switchboard and haven't been given an email address that doesn't start "info@" or "support@".

    39. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you move on to a competitor because someone didn't pick up the phone and it went to voicemail, then you probably don't buy anything of significance anyway.

    40. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself.

      My time is precious - both to me, and to the company I work for. Every minute I spend playing phone tag is another minute I'm not spending on the specialty work I'm trained and experienced in. The companies I work with appreciate this reality and man their phones. The companies I constantly have to chase don't get repeat business.

      A company that thinks it's too important to answer their phones is definitely too busy to make a sale. I'll just go with someone who is a bit less important.

    41. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      How about just simply and politely telling the caller that you're not in the market for his product/service,

      How about they treat my phone like my front porch and fuck off before I set the dogs on them? There's a reason there's a gate and it's not just to keep the stock in. If I wanted to hear from every one and any one I'd still get a life instead. Just because there are jobs for cold callers doesn't make it a "right" to shove your shit in my face - if I want to buy something I'll go shopping, and if your product was worth buying you wouldn't need to push it like an aluminium cladding shill. Unsolicited sales calls are like spam or junk mail. No wonder people believe the NSA has a right to stick their nose in other people's lives. A dollar isn't that important.

      Next you'll be trying to defend "opt-out" spam. (sigh) Perhaps you believe a choice between getting kicked in the nuts or kicked in the head is some sort of freedom?

    42. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But Voicemail is precisely what enables you to avoid phone tag. If you leave a message and nobody responds within a reasonable amount of time, that's when you can fairly say that the company doesn't care about your business. But expecting someone to always be there at your beck & call is a case of projection on your part - you seem to think of yourself as important as the company who you accuse of being.

    43. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indian here. I once worked in such a call-center. We were an extension of a US parent company, whose processes we executed.

      Every night, our employees would call some hundreds of customers in the US. Many told us that they were on a DNC list. After a while, our parent company in the US told us to respect those requests, otherwise they would be in trouble. Even though I had colleagues who claimed that they ignored DNC lists, we did finally get the message that making such calls to such people risked putting the parent in trouble, so we stopped.

      Regardless of whether your telemarketers are working from India or US, the projects they are doing are for US companies, if the customers are in the US. If those companies risk lawsuits, as would clearly be the case here, they fold. And since the DNC law was passed unanimously by Congress and signed the very next day by President Bush 43, it is seen by companies as having bipartisan support, so that's one thing that they don't mess with. If one recalls, this law was passed within 3 days after the Supreme Court ruled current DNC lists as not having the force of the law behind them. Congress, in a rare act of bipartisanship, acted unanimously to create such a law and the president signed it, and suddenly, all arguments were shot.

    44. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I too had this in a previous company I worked - the VMs were converted into .wav files and forwarded to my email. So any VMs from telemarketers could get instantly deleted, while the important ones stayed, and were often moved to folders of the respective activity.

    45. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I hope he is. All price lists should be public, so sales guys don't screw you out. You should only be negotiating the discount.

    46. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I don't know century you are living but I haven't had a land-line in years. Everyone I know has mobile phones and caller ID, any unknown numbers just don't get answered - problem solved

    47. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Dinnertime calls ended years ago when Governement passed the Do-not-call list act making it illegal to call people on the official list

      We have something similar in the UK, but I still get quite a lot of unwanted sales/marketing calls on my seldom used home landline. They just use call centres based outside the UK, which at least makes it easy to spot them with caller ID.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't know century you are living but I haven't had a land-line in years. Everyone I know has mobile phones and caller ID, any unknown numbers just don't get answered - problem solved

      Where I live you need a land line for broadband.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    49. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the one spending the money.

      If your company doesn't want my money, then I'll head to another company that does.

      Not rocket science. Unless you're an entitled company that thinks they're just automatically owed my business.

    50. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you're not in sales.

      Right! And if you're not in sales then the last fucking thing you want during a conversation, is a distraction.

    51. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Chase is doing, is old school receptionist taking a message (and recording it). Recipient gets the message emailed to them along with the recording. Polite receptionist tells caller the persons status, ex: they are on the phone, they are out of the office, can I forward your call, can they call you back at this number right away...

    52. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's become more common to drop the land line, but you're not even in the majority yet. And no, that doesn't solve the problem for everyone. I'm not tethered to my cell phone, and can't even carry it in certain places I work. Unlike most millennials, most folks over 40 don't hold their cell phones will showering, driving or fucking, So, having a land line and answering system keeps me from missing things. When I'm home, my phone announces who's calling. If I don't recognize the name, I let the answering system respond. Now get the fuck off my lawn.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    53. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      So, having a land line and answering system keeps me from missing things. When I'm home, my phone announces who's calling. If I don't recognize the name, I let the answering system respond.

      A mobile phone does all this too, with the added benefit of much less cold callers.
      Problem. Solution.

    54. Re: I stopped using it 5 years ago by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      If I am calling for a specific individual, I accept the fact that the person won't always be available. But if I call customer service in general, there should always be somebody there to talk to me now or after a wait of no more than a couple of minutes. I don't EVER want to have to leave my number for somebody to call back.. I'm the customer so it's your job to be available when I want you to serve me, it's not my job to be available for you.

      Yes, I know about your web site. You don't have to remind me of it incessantly in your hold message. Unless you are my ISP and I am calling to report a service outage, I already tried it. The only reason I'm calling you is because I need to do something that your web site can't handle, or because I already tried it and you didn't help me within a reasonable amount of time.

      Finally, I know that some of you won't let me cancel your services on your web site, and instead insist that I talk to a human so they can try to talk me out of canceling. Don't do that. If you make the experience of canceling pleasant, I will come back if my needs or finances change again and I once again want your services. If you make the exit experience unpleasant I will NEVER return, and I will tell all my friends to avoid you.

    55. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by OffTheWallSoccer · · Score: 1

      So, having a land line and answering system keeps me from missing things. When I'm home, my phone announces who's calling. If I don't recognize the name, I let the answering system respond.

      A mobile phone does all this too, with the added benefit of much less cold callers.
      Problem. Solution.

      My landline phone (5 cordless handsets) "speaks" the Caller ID info, so no matter which room I'm in, I can figure out who is calling without having to touch or even look at a phone. Even if my mobile phone had such a feature, I wouldn't enable it since that would be weird any time I am away from home. And even if I went to the trouble of enabling it while at home, then I have to tether myself to the mobile phone. F that, as dcw3 implied.

    56. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by OffTheWallSoccer · · Score: 1

      Well said, man. Agree 100%.

    57. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by OffTheWallSoccer · · Score: 1

      I have noticed a trend on my answering machine at home is that no one bothers to leave a message. If there's no answer they just give up. The whole point of the answering machine is that I don't have to rush downstairs straight out of the shower to miss picking it up by a couple of seconds.

      If I don't feel like answering the land line (or I'm simply not home), the caller can leave a message. If they don't leave a message, then it clearly wasn't an important call. Almost no telemarketing drones will bother to leave a message, which is great. I do appreciate when the pharmacy or a friend of the family leaves a message, since those are people whose messages are worth having voice mail for.

    58. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      My landline phone (5 cordless handsets) "speaks" the Caller ID info, so no matter which room I'm in, I can figure out who is calling without having to touch or even look at a phone.

      Great. Now imagine the exact same feature but it works all over the world, not just 5 rooms in your house.

      Even if my mobile phone had such a feature, I wouldn't enable it since that would be weird any time I am away from home.

      How? A phone call is a phone call. Why do caller identification requirements change just because you leave 5 designated rooms in your house?

      And even if I went to the trouble of enabling it while at home, then I have to tether myself to the mobile phone. F that, as dcw3 implied.

      Dude, it's still just a phone whether using a copper line or cellular wireless. So instead you'll happily tether yourself to 1920's fixed line technology instead? Even if you bought a mobile and left it at home it would give all the same features plus more (for less cost - at least where I live).

    59. Re:I stopped using it 5 years ago by OffTheWallSoccer · · Score: 1

      My landline phone (5 cordless handsets) "speaks" the Caller ID info, so no matter which room I'm in, I can figure out who is calling without having to touch or even look at a phone.

      Great. Now imagine the exact same feature but it works all over the world, not just 5 rooms in your house.

      Even if my mobile phone had such a feature, I wouldn't enable it since that would be weird any time I am away from home.

      How? A phone call is a phone call. Why do caller identification requirements change just because you leave 5 designated rooms in your house?

      Caller ID features most definitely are different for me in my home vs. away from home. In my home - phone is permitted to announce the caller's name. Away from home, I prefer discretion and will let my Pebble watch show me the caller. And that's fine because away from home I will happily be tethered to the phone + smart watch.

      At home I don't carry my mobile phone with me. But since I have those cordless handsets distributed around the house, I can hear the Caller ID from anywhere without being tethered to the mobile phone.

      In other words, different solutions for different problems. Your mileage may vary.

      The piece of technology that I am waiting for, which is here but not yet polished, is for me to dock my mobile phone at home and have the cordless handsets take calls from it. My current system claims this feature, but it sucks.

  2. Coming next ... Office desk telephones by OricAtmos48K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would cancel office phones alltogether. All those proprieatry systems costing thousands of dollars

  3. Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fax machines are still widely used. They are hardly obscure.

    1. Re:Umm, what? by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, one could use a combination of e-faxes & printers. But I agree w/ you - I can only see faxes becoming irrelevant once the Legal profession embraces electronic signatures.

    2. Re:Umm, what? by Mariner28 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US mortgage industry single-handedly is keeping facsimile alive and well. Anyone who's bought a house lately can attest that they have no clue about PII in unencrypted e-mails, and think nothing of asking you to print out, sign and initial a 60 page document, then fax it back to them. And then they have the gall to complain when you reduce their 8.5 x 14 legal size documents to 8.5 x 11 because your $99 inkjet printer/scanner can't handle legal size.

      With throwback companies like that, you'd never know that the mortgage industry is the major backer behind DocuSign. Another reason why banks should issue you a digital certificate when you open an account. If the US Government can implement PKI for their own use, surely the more nimble private marketplace can do the same... /s

      --
      "A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
    3. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada too, though (and I said this below as well) the real estate side of it is going modern. Recently bought a place and all the offer/counteroffer/disclosure/various other stuff was done online. Literally accepted their counter(x3) offer via my phone while at work (during lunch).

    4. Re:Umm, what? by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      The morgage company I went through in San Antonio used docusign for all but the final closing papers. And those I had to go in person and sign with my realator and morgage agent.

    5. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The banks for the last two loans I applied for handled all the application paperwork via email. They even had a secure site that I could use to upload the scanned PDF files. Some banks are improving.

    6. Re:Umm, what? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Fax machines are "widely used" only in lines of business where they are legally required, like banking, law and real estate. Customers and workers hate them and with they could chuck the technology, but until a digital signature standard is legally accepted, we are stuck with them.

    7. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fax machines are "widely used" only in lines of business where they are legally required, like banking, law and real estate.

      Because we all know banking, law and real estate are just niche businesses. It's not like those are each multi-billion dollar industries or anything.

    8. Re:Umm, what? by Nukenbar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      An interesting side note to this. A buddy of mine in venture capital use a fax machines all of the time to send documents back and forth because email and any "store communications" they are required to keep copies of for regulators and other review. Since the fax machines don't "store" information, at least not long term enough to count, they are not required to keep copies of info sent or received over fax.

    9. Re:Umm, what? by quetwo · · Score: 2

      Between two hospitals and a medical school, we have > 300 fax machines on site. I'm pretty sure the mortgage industry has some help from their friendly doctors :)

    10. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they were niche, they would not survive using fax machines because no one would be willing to do business with them.

      Unfortunately, they have a bunch of money, so the modern world has to put up with their nonsense.

    11. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fax machines in our office are all networked "document centers" or whatever they're calling copy machines these days. They scan and print, scan and email, scan and fax, or do the reverse. I assumed that management kept copies of all the digital files for some reason. Or does your buddy use the old-school fax machines that don't really scan? Just curious.

    12. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The institution I work for still uses fax. The reason being the information being passed is VERY time sensitive. We've used email and the
      docs being passed thru email servers sometimes isn't instant like a lot of people think. Call it archaic all you want but it only takes a minute.

    13. Re:Umm, what? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Fax machines are still widely used.

      Not by me.

      I had to sign something the other day. Even that was digital.

    14. Re:Umm, what? by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      "And then they have the gall to complain when you reduce their 8.5 x 14 legal size documents to 8.5 x 11 because your $99 inkjet printer/scanner can't handle legal size."

      That pisses me off with some of the clients I've had from the US. The european clients? A4 paper size. Taiwan? A4 paper size. Japan? A4 paper size. About half the US clients? US Legal paper size... And it's the same thing with document dating, both on paper and on digital files: Europe, Taiwan, Japan etc etc, YYYYmmddhhnn. Most of my US clients? mmddyy... Gah, I just want to shoot the fuckers.....

    15. Re:Umm, what? by ageoffri · · Score: 1

      The legal profession has embraced electronic signatures. At my work we use DocuSign for the majority of contracts with our vendors.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    16. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Health Care is another big sector that often insists on using fax for many communications.

    17. Re:Umm, what? by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

      I just sold my old house and bought a new one and didn't have to fax a single thing. It was all done electronically. Emails were sent via an encrypted email service and documents were signed via DocuSign. It's been like that for everyone I know who has bought/sold a house recently as well.

    18. Re:Umm, what? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      A fax has legal protections no other electronic communications has. It needs to change, but won't. There is a reason why faxes are still used.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    19. Re:Umm, what? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I worked at a company pre-tech bubble and pre-mortgage bubble. We were working on electronic vendor management, but a related project at another vendor was working on doing fully digital signing. It was mostly a disaster because the client (Freddie) simply wanted everything to work like it used to, including all the paper bullshit.

      In the end they scrapped that part of the project, and scrapped all the "money saving" parts of our project. Freddie and the banks simply did not care about saving money, since it was all being passed on to the buyer anyhow. Hell, they didn't even care if the appraisals said the property were worth what the loan was for. Early 2000's were the wild west of the mortgage industry. I got out before the crash, but I was not surprised it happened.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    20. Re:Umm, what? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      "Upload scanned PDF"

      I would say this is more of a step to the side than a step forward. Though when I cosigned a student loan for my brother they were fine with me uploading a cell phone snap of my paystub as proof. I have neither a scanner nor a printer, and have no plans for either.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    21. Re:Umm, what? by chispito · · Score: 1

      The US mortgage industry single-handedly is keeping facsimile alive and well.

      Plenty of help from healthcare and related industries.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    22. Re:Umm, what? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      This raises a good point. I've had interactions with folks who need me to fax something to them - and I no longer have anything that can fax. The point - there are no Easy replacements for fax.

      Sure - I can email a scanned document to somebody. But it isn't easy. A fax - I pop the pages in, tap out a phone number - and bing zzziip-zzziiip it goes. My HP Printer/Scanner required A) my PC to be on, B) put the document up on the screen as a PDF to be saved C) required me to follow whatever email steps my system needed. It isn't all in one package.

      If only we all had "phone numbers" instead of email addresses. I could call you, or "fax" you, all negotiated by the device.

      But it doesn't exist yet. Voice Mail has a plan B. Texting or Emailing. And for those of us leaving email behind - "Social" media corp websites for collaboration and communication.

      Fax is more than voicemail. It was a technology package.

    23. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word (other than the two words to say "one word" [the first time] and this seventeen word explanation): Kinkos

    24. Re:Umm, what? by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      The US mortgage industry single-handedly is keeping facsimile alive and well.

      I wouldn't say single-handedly... the healthcare industry is certainly helping. I work for a health insurance company (about 350 employees) and we receive between 500 and 1000 faxes every day.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    25. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if electronic signatures are adopted, delivery of email is still on a best effort basis. There is no guarantee of delivery.

    26. Re:Umm, what? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      A fax has legal protections no other electronic communications has. It needs to change, but won't. There is a reason why faxes are still used.

      It looks like a fax seldom has much more legal protection than other electronic communications. See for example: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/f...

      A scanned seignature would generally still stand up as binding. It looks like an "e-signature" is actually MORE binding than a faxed one:

      "Fax signatures are probably the primary way contracts are signed today, and broadly speaking, basic contract law recognizes a large variety of signature types where a mark or sign is made with an intent to subscribe to the terms of an agreement. Thus the question posed is the right one—not are fax signatures and pdf signature pages valid to indicate assent to the term of a contract—they generally are—but are they enforceable. More specifically, the question is whether they satisfy the Statute of Frauds, which provides that in order to be enforceable, certain types of agreements must be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged.

      Over the years, courts have concluded that telegrams, telexes, telecopies, facsimiles, and e-mails are writings satisfying the Statute of Frauds. But to eliminate any uncertainty, a majority of states have gone further and explicitly adopted legislation allowing the introduction of fax signatures into evidence for disputes involving routine business transactions. However, not all have taken this extra step. The federal government and the UETA have actually gone further in the case of electronic signatures, deeming most electronic signatures meeting their provisions equivalent to written signatures."

    27. Re:Umm, what? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yep, they're still used today: http://www.bbc.com/future/stor... ... Even in Japan as of a couple years ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02... ...

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    28. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Immigration, the USCIS allows you to electronically fill up a PDF document, and the data fields are presumably fed into their servers, while you can still save the resultant PDF document. The signatures still have to be done physically, though.

    29. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they use a copier to fax, then it likely stores the faxes on a huge hard drive.

    30. Re:Umm, what? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      LMOL because digital signatures are secure *eye roll* - you should be well aware that nothing digital is secure.

      That's true. I read recently about a new attack method against ink on paper documents though. It's called "forgery".

    31. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzt. http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/tr-dojo/police-medical-records-found-on-used-copy-machines

      Most offices use these large MFP devices for faxes, which do indeed 'store and forward', in some cases indefinitely.

    32. Re:Umm, what? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The US mortgage industry single-handedly is keeping facsimile alive and well. Anyone who's bought a house lately can attest that they have no clue about PII in unencrypted e-mails, and think nothing of asking you to print out, sign and initial a 60 page document, then fax it back to them. And then they have the gall to complain when you reduce their 8.5 x 14 legal size documents to 8.5 x 11 because your $99 inkjet printer/scanner can't handle legal size.

      With throwback companies like that, you'd never know that the mortgage industry is the major backer behind DocuSign. Another reason why banks should issue you a digital certificate when you open an account. If the US Government can implement PKI for their own use, surely the more nimble private marketplace can do the same... /s

      That is 100% accurate. It is the first time in my life I used a "kinko's" type photo/fax/copy shop. The volumes of scanning, printing, signing, and faxing were so absurd that I needed enterprise fast office equipment to make it bearable.

    33. Re:Umm, what? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      LMOL because digital signatures are secure *eye roll* - you should be well aware that nothing digital is secure.

      Nothing is 100% secure. Some things are more secure than others.

      Pen and ink signatures can be copied by a fraudster with sufficient skill at least to a level where a casual person would not notice. In many cases only the last page of a document is signed so earlier pages could easilly be substituted by a fraudster. I'm sure I also heard of attacks where a page was erased after being signed though I can't seem to find any references right now. There is also the issue of finding a good reference to compare the signature against.

      Photocopies, faxes, scans etc of pen and ink signatures are worse. With a real peice of paper it's pretty hard to cut out the signature and paste it onto a different bit of paper without getting noticed. With copying involved it's much easier. A fraudster can get a clean copy of the signature (may involve a little bit of work taking a bad copy and cleaning it up but no particular skill involved), and paste it into a clean document. Since the document and signature are both clean there will be no visible "seam" to indicate the pasting. If grot is considered desirable to hide the digital origins of the document it can be added after the signature is pasted in by printing and rescanning.

      I've seen at least one case where someone "signed" a document by pasting their signature into a word document and sending said word document to me. Doing the same thing with pdfs is even more common.

      Cryptographic signatures have issues of their own such as verifying that the private key actually belongs to the right person, the risk of the private key being stolen, the risk of poorly generated or inadequate length keys being factored and so-on but compared to scaned/faxed/photocopied copies of paper signatures I would say they are far more secure.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  4. The most significant loss by Dreth · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...will be when they realize not everyone tht spelz lyk dis is a teenager.

    On the upside, they could use that as a way to lay off people too lazy to spell "what", "are", "you" and other amazingly difficult words.

    "Dear Mr. Smith,

    GTFO, lol.

    kthxbai,

    Management" ... I'm stuck on 2007, aren't I?

    --
    All glory to Arstotzka!
    1. Re:The most significant loss by unixisc · · Score: 2

      What's worse is ppl splng lk tht on normal typing platforms, like Word on a laptop, which has a keyboard and autocorrect, and which could automatically fix such spellings for them: they'd just have to enter it in the autocorrect list ONCE. Of course, tyr 2 lz 2 do tht, so Microsoft will probably do it for them in Word 2016, if it ain't there already

    2. Re:The most significant loss by pyster · · Score: 0, Troll

      Pilkunnussija are worthless fuckers who don't actually understand language. They are like the teacher who disrupts the class for someone quietly chewing gum. Language bias disrupts actual communication. Pointing out, or ripping on, language constructs that are not to your liking doesn't make you intelligent; it makes you a disruptive asshole. If you cannot get over the use or R U 31337 you need to know you are the problem, and not the writer. The intelligent people, or at least honest people, who want to engage in actual communication have more adaptive protocols and are more concerned with the content than the wrapper.

      TLDR: Grammar Nazi's please fuck off.

    3. Re:The most significant loss by jittles · · Score: 1

      ...will be when they realize not everyone tht spelz lyk dis is a teenager.

      On the upside, they could use that as a way to lay off people too lazy to spell "what", "are", "you" and other amazingly difficult words.

      "Dear Mr. Smith,

      GTFO, lol.

      kthxbai,

      Management" ... I'm stuck on 2007, aren't I?

      Oh I know a project manager who types exactly like that. He's in his 50's and I believe he does it to try and look like he is young and hip. To me he looks like he is trying to be a teenage girl. It drives me insane. Use complete words and proper spellings please.

    4. Re:The most significant loss by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      As someone who used to have to pay for messaging fees, I've found that shorthand was very useful in keeping the cost down as what would usually take 4 text messages under normal grammar and spelling rules could be easily cut down to 1 or 2. It was also a pain in the ass to type out full words on a phone's keypad (8 44 2 8 0 777 33 1 555 555 999 0 7777 88 222 555 33 3). Now that unlimited text messaging plans and full qwerty keyboards are nearly ubiquitous, I don't bother with shorthand anymore as it even grated on my nerves when I did it out of necessity. Now it just shows lack of care and laziness to continue.

    5. Re:The most significant loss by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it already exists, but an "electronic shorthand to English" translator would be great.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:The most significant loss by Dreth · · Score: 1

      As someone who used to have to pay for messaging fees, I've found that shorthand was very useful in keeping the cost down as what would usually take 4 text messages under normal grammar and spelling rules could be easily cut down to 1 or 2. It was also a pain in the ass to type out full words on a phone's keypad (8 44 2 8 0 777 33 1 555 555 999 0 7777 88 222 555 33 3). Now that unlimited text messaging plans and full qwerty keyboards are nearly ubiquitous, I don't bother with shorthand anymore as it even grated on my nerves when I did it out of necessity. Now it just shows lack of care and laziness to continue.

      I guess my emphasis on the examples was mainly on shorthand but we can't ignore the staggering amount on people, adults, that spell incorrectly at least 6 out of 10 words. No statistics or anything on my part, just experience within the professional and personal spectrum.

      --
      All glory to Arstotzka!
    7. Re:The most significant loss by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Language bias disrupts actual communication.

      So we just make shit up and demand everyone understand it.

      Pointing out, or ripping on, language constructs that are not to your liking doesn't make you intelligent; it makes you a disruptive asshole.

      Oh. Wow. Go back and re-read that until you understand the unintended consequence of your statment.

      If you cannot get over the use or R U 31337 you need to know you are the problem, and not the writer. The intelligent people, or at least honest people, who want to engage in actual communication have more adaptive protocols and are more concerned with the content than the wrapper.

      The use of various odd symbols or semi cryptic groups of letters such as AFAIAC as a communication language is not necessarily that difficult. But it has a few strikes going against it.

      First, It doesn't enhance communication, it impedes it. A large part of the alternate spellings universe is based on trendiness, where one tries to place themselves with using a "new" version of the word they want to type. Fast evolving, yes, but never can make it into the lexicon, because that would be the ultimate disgrace for the trendsetters. The goal is to be different, not to conform to any standard.

      Second, it is jarringly imprecise. Anything other than top level communications doesn't work. I had a new employees who tried to refuse to take telephone calls, saying he only responded to text - and he was so 1337. So after taking a log time and many texts to try to communicate, I eventually told him he had a choice. Pick up the telephone when I called him, or I would walk across the building and we would talk in person, with the understanding that I wasn't going to be happy at all about having to give him special treatment. He weighed th eoptions, and like any good millenial, he didn't like interfacing with people too much, so he took the phone calls from me.

      Third - it ain't rocket science Spunky! I can easily understand or figure out what they are saying, even as words are mutated to keep up with trends. And as need be, I can write just like them - although I might be a mutation or two behind. But the converse is not necessarily true, and communication is very limited.

      Know your audience, and communicate with them in the form they understand. And I'm gleefully thinking about some 1337 versions of mathematical formulae. Now there would be some precise communications.

      TLDR: Grammar Nazi's please fuck off.

      Says the guy who's demanding that everyone must accept the alternative universe of communications via rapidly mutating misspellings based upon the real words.

      Tell me "Trend Nazi", after enough mutations, what will you do when the spelling returns to the original version? (4 b?@ What did I just write? I and translate, but you really should know and accept what I wrote, because it communicates, right?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:The most significant loss by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Great response. But what is 1337?

    9. Re:The most significant loss by pyster · · Score: 1

      http://linguisticpulse.com/201...

      We live in a world of spelling and grammar checkers. They should be employed for formal documents. Out side of that people who complain about spelling, grammar, and so on when the average person mentally auto corrects readily comes from a sad place. A place that has put too much emphasis on trite line items of no value.

      When people use 1337 $peak or prince like short hand, it is a style choice. We've seen countless blurbs on the internet that has debunked the 'children do not know how to spell' bs. Literacy rates are the highest they have ever been. When one chooses to be a bigot based on language styles one has chosen to allow a line item of no importance disrupt communication. Time and time again we see people who were readily understood by the masses have their conversations dismissed for a typo, a grammatical error, or a style choice. Similar to how asshats misuse godwin. Pilkunnussija serve no purpose other than to derail legitimate conversation. They are nothing more than trolls with who have invested far too much emotional investment in a particular protocol. They often mock people with other dialects; and 31337 $pea/ is most definitely an actual dialect with its own rules.

      Intelligent people, heh, your average fucken joe, can #1 readily adapt to the protocol changes they will encounter, #2 are not attached to any language 'rules' because they know that language is continuously evolve, and #3 never judge people based on the protocol and only the content or ideas expressed.

      Pilkunnussija are basically assholes and trolls, and they are this way because their desire to have everything match the rules they were taught causes them a great deal of emotional discomfort. They often hurt inside when you miss a comma that needed fucking.

      Unless its a technical document that needs to be very precise please just cram the comma fucking in ones cock holster.

    10. Re: The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Language evolves, yes; but it is in the standardization of language that groups are enabled to communicate. "Formal" forms exist to enable communication between cliques allowing functioning societies to exist in larger form than a single large family unit with a few sub-groups (hunting party, domestic, agricultural, etc.) or a small tribe. At best, fractured argot leads to a breakdown in communication between urban tribes.
      As an object case, take the confusion that results from different tribes within modern Western society using the same phonetic word with vastly different meaning, for example "viral" as used by programmers and medics. Imagine the chaos caused abillionfold; instead of momentary confusion, complete incomprehension. This is why the average English speaker can neither understand, nor express themselves to the typical German speaker, dispite them both speaking, what was the same language, a scant few millennia ago; this is why every large, lasting distinct culture with a functioning infostructure had a standardized language, even if, the tongue spoken outside of a formal setting was allowed to mutate.
      Look up "Romance Languages" and "Lingua Franca" and learn a little bit about European Medieval history, you'll learn a few things.
      To summarize:
      You have a good point. On a very small scale, your view, based on personal observations, is not wrong....but it is you who has a lot to learn about language and how it works.
      If you want to talk to people, you have to have a common language.

    11. Re:The most significant loss by pyster · · Score: 0

      lemme also add http://www.arrantpedantry.com/... ... Comma fuckers generally do not understand linguistics and how language works. They only understand the rules they were taught and adhere to them like bad religions. They refuse to accept words as words, grammatic styles that dont adhere to their world view, or alternative spellings. In general they are bad people :)

    12. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll see your artificial outrage and raise you a Jeff K.

      If you think that kind of crap is actually communication, you need to FOADIAF.

    13. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re:The most significant loss by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      I am perhaps a jackass. I can obtain manners. You on the other hand are stupid. For that, there is no cure.

      sux 2 b u d00d

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:The most significant loss by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Great response. But what is 1337?

      Leetspeak. It's an offbeat way to spell words. 1 sorta looks like an L, 3, kinda ike an E as long as you don't mind it being backwards, and 7 kinda like a T.

      And that's why I used it. The demand for mispelling Nazi I was replying to, seems to think that we have to accept such silliness and even declare it as excellent examples of good communication. And of course, not all that many people will understand it. You inadvertantly - but I appreciate it - proved him completely wrong.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:The most significant loss by pyster · · Score: 0

      You sire are projecting. Dost art a maroon.

    17. Re:The most significant loss by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Great response. But what is 1337?

      You are obviously not among the elite cognoscenti, conversant with "leet speak" . . . from about 20 years ago . . . Personally I think if people can't be bothered to write at least phonetically, I can't be bothered to decode them, and I ask for translation. Since I have experience working with multi-native-language teams, I am much more accepting of grammatical and spelling errors in English - as long as they sort of make sense in the writer's own language - but I have often needed to double-check exactly what someone meant, after one apparently-minor grammatical item turned out to be a real misunderstanding (and resulting error). (And BTW I stand in awe of people who can do serious technical work in multiple languages, because my non-English abilities are conversational at best.)

    18. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wouldn't be great. Honestly, I think that's being wilfully stupid out of sheer stubborn lazyness. It's also optimising by automation for something you shouldn't optimise for.

      It isn't exactly difficult to learn to type faster and more accurate than you could possibly write on paper. It only takes a small commitment to discipline and proofreading your own work. In fact, I never use automated input correctors^Wdestructors. I will use (online and paper) dictionaries, thesauri, even automated translation services to find the proper word in the language I'm writing in, should it get stuck in my head in the wrong language. But I proofread the text myself, both because it's good practice and because not doing so would be disrespectful to my readers.

      "But! The technology!" you say. Sure, but why not make the computer write everything? Should we work hard enough at it, eventually it'll be able to do the outline too, even come up with concepts, do a thorough market analysis of what written words will be popular next week, and before you know it, we just won't need any pesky humans to write. Then we might as well go full circle and come up with computers to read and appreciate the writing for us. We won't even have to bother reading the condensed version, the computer will be able to write properly appreciative critiques for us, too.

      As much as I am a technologist, there's a philosophical reason I write by myself. The transporting, laying out, printing, all that, sure, the computer can do. But the language to express my ideas in is my domain, I'll deal with that. I'm the human in charge and I'm doing it for humans to read.

      I will even write SMS texts in full sentences, without even the use of T9, on a numeric keypad too, yes. It takes longer, but where others need half a dozen messages or more, I need only one. I do this for a reason.

    19. Re:The most significant loss by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I agree w/ you and disagree w/ him - don't know why you think it was inadvertent.

    20. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spoke to a programmer in India once who seemed like he learned to speak English by watching Clueless over and over again. It was painful listening to "umm uhhh like.... you know?" in a thick Hindi accent.

    21. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the letters "LEET" written using numbers, which is an abbreviation for "elite".
      I had to look up what "AFAIAC" meant, myself.

    22. Re:The most significant loss by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      ...or I would walk across the building and we would talk in person, with the understanding that...

      Every time I do so, your performance evaluation goes down because you're being an uncooperative asshole. And, every time that happens the odds that I'll decide it's not worth the bother and fire you instead go up.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    23. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's referring to leetspeak, which uses numbers to represent the letters they resemble, and includes some purposeful misspellings in an effort to appear mildly retarded. So "1337 h4x0rz" would be something like "elite hackers".
       

    24. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, it is jarringly imprecise. Anything other than top level communications doesn't work. I had a new employees who tried to refuse to take telephone calls, saying he only responded to text - and he was so 1337. So after taking a log time and many texts to try to communicate, I eventually told him he had a choice. Pick up the telephone when I called him, or I would walk across the building and we would talk in person, with the understanding that I wasn't going to be happy at all about having to give him special treatment. He weighed th eoptions, and like any good millenial, he didn't like interfacing with people too much, so he took the phone calls from me.

      Wow, how does it feel to make it all of the way to middle management? This is your life, Ol Olsoc.

    25. Re:The most significant loss by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      ...or I would walk across the building and we would talk in person, with the understanding that... Every time I do so, your performance evaluation goes down because you're being an uncooperative asshole. And, every time that happens the odds that I'll decide it's not worth the bother and fire you instead go up.

      I think you might have snuck ahead and read the end of that story. Because that's exactly how it turned out. Too many millenials mistakenly believe that the only way to interact with others is via Facebook.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    26. Re:The most significant loss by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Wow, how does it feel to make it all of the way to middle management? This is your life, Ol Olsoc.

      Beats the shit out of of being the guy fired because he couldn't interact properly with other people.

      Granted, he got a lot more time off than I did. His pay wasn't so good though.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    27. Re:The most significant loss by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree w/ you except for 1 thing. Nowadays, while typing, my fingers tend to sometimes transpose characters of a wrod (like this one here), so having a spell-check autocorrect it is definitely welcome. It's not out of ignorance of the right spelling, but more an attempt to save time in getting back to words whose correct spellings I know, but mis-typed by accident.

      Until I had a smart phone, I simply didn't use SMS due to the difficulty of numeric keypads as letters. Once smartphones came out w/ QWERTY layouts, that changed - I converted quickly to SMS, w/o embracing their language.

    28. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you wouldn't say the same about Cockney. You're just choosing the dialects you like.

    29. Re:The most significant loss by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Since I had to go and look it up "Pilkunnussija " is a Finnish word for grammar nazis (literally comma fuckers).

      Someone slipping an unintelligible foreign word into an English post is far, far more irritating than any pedant correcting your apostrophes. It is impossible to work out what they're talking about

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    30. Re:The most significant loss by pyster · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the internet, where many people are exposed to new words from across the globe and add them to their vocabulary. I have never blamed others, or found it annoying, when I have had to look up a word. When arguing with Pilkunnussija I cannot say I am the slightest bit concerned as to what annoys them.

    31. Re: The most significant loss by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I was randomly headed around the country in whatever direction seemed interesting when I found myself trying to find alligators in Louisiana. This meant meandering from swamp to swamp and communicating with the locals. I managed that. I decided that the causeway looked interesting and headed to NO where I stopped for gas. I asked the cashier what was going on at the nearby store. The nearby store was occupied by a bunch of people and a very large number of police officers who seemed to be collecting people like Pokemon (yes, I have grown children). The cashier, a rather large woman, said to me, "I don't be tripping, yo." (I am attempting to give that punctuation - it may not be correct.)

      My internal lexicon did not parse it. I still do not understand it. Any of my ebonics-familiar friends are unable to give an interpretation that actually has any context with the question asked. I simply do not, did not, understand and have been puzzled ever since. My conclusion is that this lady was Buddha reincarnated and that it is a koan for which I have no understanding. I have literally tried to mediate on it and concluded that the rational answer is that I was being told to fuck off in a more polite manner. Polite is, of course, ethical and thus situational. That is, still, just a guess - I have no idea what was being communicated. However...

      Immediately after a more puzzling situation occurred and is off-topic unless we wish to loosely define communication and include this. I do feel it must be shared, however. I feel that it was a form of communication and it was clearly defined communication. As we left the convenience store we were boxed in by a large number of police cars. They all had flashing lights. A third lane was added and immediately filled by police officers - we were boxed in on all sides. One of the officers (or more than one, I only noted one) flashed his siren for a single loop. The officers in front slowed down, the officers on the left slowed down, the officers on the right moved forward. The only rational thing to do was to move right. I did so. The officers sped away. They had dropped us off, escorted us, to the nearest entrance back to the closed highway (the one with the causeway - Rt 10 maybe?) which was nice but I can not help but to wonder what would have changed if I had pulled back in behind them to go to a hotel. Then again, the plates were from a long ways away and it was a 740il so maybe they just figured we would not be at a hotel in that area.

      Perhaps someone regional can assist? I do not feel that my lack of comprehension is my fault - it was like an alien world and I have spent time in many urban areas and am fluent in ebonics, usually.

      Either way, that was communication as well and it was clear. The reasons behind it may be fuzzy but the message was quite clear. Eh... We found a nice hotel in the French Quarter, drank ourselves silly, enjoyed the music, loved the food, and then went to check out the trashed sections of the city during daylight hours. Shreveport stinks by the way.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    32. Re:The most significant loss by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I have often wondered if I am in the wrong when I use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation when I send text messages. I may be a bit OCD too, I tend to make longer messages reach the 160 character limit on the dot but that is more amusing to me than it is an obsession - I will certainly send shorter messages when required.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    33. Re:The most significant loss by KGIII · · Score: 1

      When I correct someone's grammar, spelling, or punctuation it is not because I feel better about it. I do it because I legitimately care enough to take the time to correct it and hope that they see it as a valuable contribution. I do not do it often and I tend to do it based on how the person is likely to receive it. I am also very polite and explain my motivations. Oddly, as far as I know, nobody has ever been unhappy about it nor have I been called a Grammar Nazi because of it. Well, no... The person I was replying to has not made any complaints. Others have chimed in and told me how that other person should feel. I do not value their contributions much but I remain polite and open minded enough to actually read their responses.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    34. Re:The most significant loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great response. But what is 1337?

      31337 with an extra apostrophe.

    35. Re:The most significant loss by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of the earlier days of online gaming. New people logging into the Everquest, that were not part of the beta group that learned faster ways to communicate (sometimes based on language changes that happened over earlier communication channels like IRC), were really confused.

      afk = away from keyboard
      brb = be right back
      etc....

      Sometimes I still use those gaming abbreviations in the work place. It depends on who the person is, and what I know about their background. If I don't know anything about them, regardless of age, I always use proper English (minus typos:)).

  5. customer service? you're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    There's no customer service anyways, in reality most corporations just cheat and or steal from the consumer.

  6. Makes sense by Paul+Carver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Makes perfect sense to me. I talk to people on the phone all the time, but it seems rude to just call someone without first sending an instant message or text to ask if they're free. My usual response when someone IMs me asking if I'm free is to give them an estimate (usually 5-15 minutes) of how long I need to complete what I'm working on so that I'm free to talk. A phone ringing unexpectedly is an annoying interruption and listening to a voice mail is a nuisance.

    1. Re:Makes sense by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's this amazing etiquette change going on in America today, the idea that you need to contact someone first before you can have a real-time interaction with them. You can't just show up at someone's door, you have to call first. You can't just call, you need to text first. Someday soon, it'll be rude to text without first checking someone's Weibo status or some damn thing. Our great-grandparents would be baffled.

    2. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with this completely.

      My friend used to hate receiving phone calls because everytime his phone rang, it was someone bothering him. I used to love when my cellphone rang because it meant someone was looking to pay me money. It was a funny meme among the two of us for two years. I think with the advent of text, instant messaging, and portable email most people use phone calls to deliver undesirable information which is why people don't like phone calls.

    3. Re:Makes sense by N1AK · · Score: 2
      Not everyone has IM, not everyone who has IM is always at a PC, not everyone who has IM and is at a PC wants IM notifications popping up on their screen distracting them.

      Removing voicemail, rather than addressing its misuse seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There seem to be multiple situations in which voicemail provides value, especially when people are regularly away from a desk. I use Hullomail on my personal phone and it makes voicemail something I'm happy to use. If someone phones me, they can leave a voicemail and I can play it immediately at the touch of a button.

      My usual response when someone IMs me asking if I'm free is to give them an estimate (usually 5-15 minutes) of how long I need to complete what I'm working on so that I'm free to talk. A phone ringing unexpectedly is an annoying interruption and listening to a voice mail is a nuisance.

      My usual response to an IM when I'm busy is not to see it (notifications will be turned off). If I don't want my phone to ring I put it on silent, or a restricted ring group, checking voicemail when I'm then free isn't exactly a great hardship.

    4. Re:Makes sense by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I think I just hate the phone in general. I would much rather type everything.

      So, I hate it when my phone rings. It's one of my coworkers interrupting me. But, my boss will send me an email and ask me to call her when I'm free. And then I'm wondering, "why can't you just call me? You're the damn boss!"

      I think I just hate the phone.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Makes sense by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Some workplaces ban IM completely, so pinging people ahead of time isn't even possible. Not to mention, I REALLY hate getting hit with an IM, because people expect an instant response to an IM. I don't always even have time to respond back. I could be in a meeting or away from my desk. Sometimes it will be an hour or two later before I can respond back "Yes, I'm available."

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Makes sense by sootman · · Score: 1

      > I think I just hate the phone in general. I would much rather type everything.

      Oh hell that is SO EFFING SLOW. If I text someone more than 3 or 4 times in a row it's because one of us is unable to speak. I watch people have 10- to 15-minute-long texting sessions with one person that could be settled with 2 or 3 minutes of actually talking. It's painful to watch.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    7. Re:Makes sense by dissy · · Score: 1

      For me it isn't a matter of people must text before calling / leaving a voice mail, it is simply that how long and convenient to me it is to retrieve your message and process it in my idle cycles, the faster you will get a useful response.

      I can glance at a text message and begin processing it in a small number of seconds, so when ever I next have 5 seconds free or need to glance at my phone lock screen for other info (aka what time is it), I'll also check your text.

      But if you leave me a voice mail, that is a good 60-120 seconds of time investment, on top of the non-zero chance I may need to reproduce some data left which will take much longer to repeat/memorize or write down on something to re-type where I need it compared to copy/paste of a text message.

      If I'm busy, I may not have or want to spend that much time right that moment, so I won't even listen to the message until later when I do. That may be later that day, after work, or even the next morning.

      Now if that delay is acceptable, or the message isn't all that important in the first place, that may be fine.
      But when people bitch and moan I didn't get their voice mail message within 5 seconds (when the message itself is longer than that) - it is completely their own fault for not making things easier on me to reply quicker.
      If they keep bitching and moaning, eventually I stop bothering to listen at all when I see it is a message from them. Why bother after all? No matter how fast or slow I reply I'll get bitched at the same, so might as well make things as easy on me as possible.

      It isn't about me "punishing" someone for using voice mail, it's about you needing to do what is required to get the things you want to help yourself.

    8. Re:Makes sense by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our great-grandparents would be baffled.

      Actually, our great-grandparents often tended to be meticulous about sending (and acknowledging) invitations.

    9. Re:Makes sense by MrTester · · Score: 2

      I hate the phone because its synchronous. Everytime it rings its someone saying "HEY... YOU! Stop whatever you are doing and answer the phone because I want to talk to you right now."

      Texting is asynchronous. When my phone buzzes with a text its saying "Hey. When you have time there is a message here." much better.

      Voicemail... Well, if voicemail worked like texting I wouldnt mind it. But no. Instead of just glancing at my phone to see the latest text on the screen I have to unlock my phone, press the voicemail button, wait for it to pick up, enter a pin number, listen to any messages that are about to be deleted (including the phone telling me when it was left and what number left it) and THEN I get to listen to my wife say "oh, never mind I found it myself".
      Sure, I could pay verizon for a monthly service that gets me a better interface to my voicemail, but why the hell would I do that?
      So yeah, I hate voicemail too.

    10. Re:Makes sense by pla · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has IM

      Everyone (relevant to this discussion) has email, though.

    11. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a recruiter and I hate cold calling people - especially to find out whether they are in the market. For this, I prefer emailing them first and then calling them, so that that way, I at least have a reference on what I am calling about. But if it's a pre-arranged call, I enjoy it. But I am fine with leaving voice mails, since that way, I get to leave him with an idea about what I am calling about. Hopefully he calls me back, and we can have the routine conversation.

      And if he's not interested in the job, just say so - either on email or on phone, preferably giving a reason. That way, I'll know if and when to call him again.

    12. Re:Makes sense by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Our great-grandparents would be baffled.

      Oh really? My grandparents would say "sorry to drop by uninvited". Seriously. And they sure as hell wouldn't call at meal times - even on the phone (there was no internets when they were alive). I have no idea what my great-grandparents would have thought. No pre-teen pregnancies in my family that I know of.

    13. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would annoy me.

      If I don't have time to talk to you right now, I'm just not going to answer the phone. If you text before you call, you've not only made me look at the phone, it seems like you're demanding a reply.

      And just because you call someone and get their voicemail, it doesn't mean you HAVE to leave a message. They can already see you called. Leaving a message that says I tried to call you" is just redundant.

    14. Re:Makes sense by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I was thinking email, not texting.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    15. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also extremely annoying.

      Akin to prefacing a question to someone with another question: " May I ask you a question ? " :|

      Just ask the $%!~!@$^~ question already. . . . .

    16. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some larger corporations have in house IM systems, though they are no less annoying.

      I can set the status on my IM client to show I'm busy, but that doesn't stop folks from sending me messages. It became so bad I eventually had to write a script that instantly kills any IM window that pops up unless it's from a select list of people that I would allow to bother me while I'm busy.

    17. Re:Makes sense by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But that's why you just let the call ring through to voicemail. Then it's a fancy instant message with voice. Voicemail isn't bad if you have transcription like Google Voice.

      An IM is no less an interruption than a voice call.

    18. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there are businesses banning e-mail because millennials believe it is quaint, slow and outdated. They only deal with things that are instant.

    19. Re:Makes sense by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Voicemail... Well, if voicemail worked like texting I wouldnt mind it. But no. Instead of just glancing at my phone to see the latest text on the screen I have to unlock my phone, press the voicemail button, wait for it to pick up, enter a pin number, listen to any messages that are about to be deleted (including the phone telling me when it was left and what number left it) and THEN I get to listen to my wife say "oh, never mind I found it myself".

      Yeah, you need Google Voice (or something like it). The transcription of the voicemail shows up in Hangouts as if it were sent as a text. And the transcription doesn't have to be that accurate to make actually listening to the message obsolete.

    20. Re:Makes sense by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I think Google Voice's method of voicemail is going to have to become a lot more common soon. When I get a voicemail, it shows up as a transcription in Hangouts as if it were a text message. Yes, there's a play button but I don't really need it.

      It's not the fault of the person leaving the message that you don't have a good workflow for voicemail.

    21. Re:Makes sense by darkgumby · · Score: 1

      Google Voice will transcribe voicemail and send it via email and text. Transcription is not perfect but usually good enough so I know I can ignore or delay the response or if I need to call back soon or immediately. Yes, Google is evil and will spy on your voicemail.

    22. Re:Makes sense by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      My rather large company has THREE in house systems. Office Communicator, Jabber/XMPP and IRC.

      Different teams have different preferences, Communicator is the most widely used in the company, which is precisely why I don't use it. It's better to have some control over who can even contact me.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    23. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      my great grandparents didn't have phones. If they wanted to visit someone they'd send a letter first to arrange a visit. What's your point? Humans have been trying to create a rational workflow in their job and life since time began. In person interaction derails that. Always has.

    24. Re:Makes sense by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Oh really? My grandparents would say "sorry to drop by uninvited". Seriously. And they sure as hell wouldn't call at meal times - even on the phone (there was no internets when they were alive). I have no idea what my great-grandparents would have thought. No pre-teen pregnancies in my family that I know of.

      Well, I know a co-op student, where I work, who has 2, still living, great grand parents. They are over 100. Her parents, grand parents and great grand parents were in their early to mid 20s when they had children.

      They grew up in a time when there were 2 "snail mail" deliveries per day, so they could send/receive invitations for same evening - or the next day, if a reply was needed (they didn't have phones as those were a luxury back then). While unanounce/univited visits's to friend's homes was infrequent, meeting friends and other people in parks was routine. Visting people's offices unannounced/univited was also routine. The vast majority of their interaction with other people was "real time" and not pre-arranged. Even now, they talk alot on the telephone with friends and family. Also, they use email (with fullsized, high contrast keyboards) and voicemail. With the voice control feature, they can make calls from their smart phones, but that's their only cellphone use. They only send/receive text messages via an email/sms gateway.

      Even though they use text/email messages, they still prefer non-pre-arranged, "real time" intereaction with other people. They neither like nor dislike this new etiquit. And they are not baffled by it.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    25. Re:Makes sense by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      No pre-teen pregnancies in my family that I know of.

      My mother was 30 when she had me (I'm not the eldest) and her mother was 28 (when she had my mother). Now her mother was 19 (when she had my grandmother, married at 18), but an average of over 25 years old for birth and my great-grandmother was alive when I was 19 (briefly, she passed that year). My eldest is 11 and my grandmother is still alive (I was 28 when she was born, increasing the average to almost 29).

      TL;DR Lots of people know their great-grand parents without pre-teen pregnancies.

      Oh, and yeah, my grandparents / great grandparents (only one of mine passed before I knew them) would never drop by unannounced. Heh, my father's father wouldn't even let the phone ring more than 3 times, thinking if you couldn't answer it that fast you were busy & he didn't want to intrude.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    26. Re:Makes sense by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but that's not how the phone worked before text messages, and it's still not how non-cellphones work now. (And yes, there are still lots of them, and lots of them still don't even have caller ID.) The call is the message. The receiver can suggest contact later, or in the old days hope that covering staff would pick up and take a message, which was replaced by letting the message go to voice mail . . . OH WAIT, that's the whole point, that people are discontinuing an important fallback/retry component of the communication protocol. The only benefit I can see is saving money, because it's certainly not helping make the contact easier.

    27. Re:Makes sense by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      My parents, as kids, came from the generation that just showed up at someone's door, partly because not everyone had telephones yet, even in the city. We wouldn't have shown up without calling to check people were home. But needing to text before a call . . . Perhaps part of the problem is that cellphones are portable - if you call someone's house, either they are home or not, and if they're not home they're not bothered by the call, but if you call a cell, you get someone wherever they are and whatever they're in the middle of. But the text is equally interrupting.

    28. Re:Makes sense by boskone · · Score: 1

      Please don't call me without IM'ing me first.

      We use skype at work, and that's what most do. They see you're available (not in a meeting) and then IM and "time to talk?" and you can then respond with options from there (sure, and hit the dial button) or else say you're on deadline, ask if it can wait, etc.

      overall, i'd like it if nobody called me, ever.

      i like to communicate, but hate talking ont he phone

    29. Re:Makes sense by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Disagree. When my phone buzzes with a text from certain people, they expect that since their phone told them it was delivered, I will STOP EVERYTHING and answer the text because they want to know something right now. They don't treat it as a short email, which is what you describe. And BTW sometimes synchronous works better and faster and enables shorter communication . . . except for those other people who seem to think that "Goodbye" means "let's change to the next subject".

    30. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On that last part, I really miss the statuses that old IM systems used to support. Don't get me wrong, I know that Google Hangouts and Facebook chat (the IM services I currently use regularly... although both mostly through their XMPP gateways) both report statuses, but "available" no longer means the person marked themselves as available, it means the service decided to assign an "available" status to them. Going along with that is the death of away/available messages to allow users to specify a bit more nuance. Text, of course, has no status mechanism at all. Part of it is that status is a less useful concept for texting as there are often hours between replies, but it's a lot harder to know when it's appropriate to send a message that probably comes with a notification sound or when people are actually available for real-time-ish text chat.

    31. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your great grandparents didn't have the ability to call people from their car and get an answer even if the person wasn't at home.

    32. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But texting is something you can do on your own time. When I'm on some task that requires all my short term memory, i can send that text 5 minutes later when I'm ready to take a break. A phone call throws me off anything I am doing, even when I don't answer it. Then it takes half an hour to get back into the flow. Video chat is the worst. Now I even have to worry about how I look and if the background scenery is safe for public viewing. Just because someone is bored and wants me to share that boredom and exchange pleasantries. Mostly old people. I like old people but this obsession with synchronous communication makes me hate them.

    33. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this amazing etiquette change going on in America today, the idea that you need to contact someone first before you can have a real-time interaction with them. You can't just show up at someone's door, you have to call first. You can't just call, you need to text first. Someday soon, it'll be rude to text without first checking someone's Weibo status or some damn thing. Our great-grandparents would be baffled.

      Actually, I'm baffled already!

    34. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate the phone because its synchronous. Everytime it rings its someone saying "HEY... YOU! Stop whatever you are doing and answer the phone because I want to talk to you right now.".

      This.

      It's funny how you can follow a mode of behavior & not even think about it.

      Partly because I work in a geo-distributed team we tend to sit in various irc channels & carry on conversations there. (Benefit over texting is that you can pull third parties into the convo & the history is already there for them to see.) Anyways, if I end up needing to have a voice conversation with a collegue, I always request them to ping me at a suitable time for them - and then we choose the voice mechanism (phone, skype, etc).

      Much more civilized, methinks.

    35. Re:Makes sense by westlake · · Score: 1

      Our great-grandparents would be baffled.

      You are over-looking class distinctions which your great-grandparents could not. Not there haven't always been people you would never be able to speak to without very careful preparation.

      Emily Post's etiquette books went far beyond those of her predecessors. They read like short-story collections with recurring characters, the Toploftys, the Eminents, the Richan Vulgars, the Gildings and the Kindharts.

      Emily Post

    36. Re:Makes sense by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      No pre-teen pregnancies in my family that I know of.

      My mother was 30 when she had me (I'm not the eldest) and her mother was 28 (when she had my mother). Now her mother was 19 (when she had my grandmother, married at 18), but an average of over 25 years old for birth and my great-grandmother was alive when I was 19 (briefly, she passed that year). My eldest is 11 and my grandmother is still alive (I was 28 when she was born, increasing the average to almost 29). TL;DR Lots of people know their great-grand parents without pre-teen pregnancies. Oh, and yeah, my grandparents / great grandparents (only one of mine passed before I knew them) would never drop by unannounced. Heh, my father's father wouldn't even let the phone ring more than 3 times, thinking if you couldn't answer it that fast you were busy & he didn't want to intrude.

      No pre-teen pregnancies in my family that I know of.

      My mother was 30 when she had me (I'm not the eldest) and her mother was 28 (when she had my mother). Now her mother was 19 (when she had my grandmother, married at 18), but an average of over 25 years old for birth and my great-grandmother was alive when I was 19 (briefly, she passed that year). My eldest is 11 and my grandmother is still alive (I was 28 when she was born, increasing the average to almost 29). TL;DR Lots of people know their great-grand parents without pre-teen pregnancies. Oh, and yeah, my grandparents / great grandparents (only one of mine passed before I knew them) would never drop by unannounced. Heh, my father's father wouldn't even let the phone ring more than 3 times, thinking if you couldn't answer it that fast you were busy & he didn't want to intrude.

      Longevity isn't one of my family traits - most died in their 60's or 70's, and we all had big families with more than a year between pregnancies (I was in kindergarten when my last great-grandparent died). My mother struggles with email and doesn't "get" word-wrap (but she does "get" Linux). She still won't answer phone calls after 8pm ('cause it must be bad news) and still uses a special table and chair for the telephone. She won't use an answering machine - or take calls if the Caller ID is blocked. She also thinks voicemail is rude (her words) - likewise people "dropping by" unannounced ("how can I be hospitable if they don't give me a chance to prepare"?).

      My oldest grandchild is only 8 and Mum is in her early 80's, already "losing the plot", has had several falls that put her in hospital. I doubt my grandkids will remember her except by what we tell them.

      No way Mum will have anything to do with Fffacebook ("rude, shameless gossip", "sad people with empty lives making themselves prisons of the opinions of strangers", "the worthless that talk about others, the shallow talk about themselves, and, those that talk of ideas") - likewise most of my offspring. Clearly there are different standards of manners and degrees of importance, likewise the need for recognition. Allegedly my grandmother was fond of saying "Success is determined by how little need you have for recognition or credit".

    37. Re:Makes sense by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      They grew up in a time when there were 2 "snail mail" deliveries per day, so they could send/receive invitations for same evening - or the next day, if a reply was needed

      Wow! Two deliveries a day. Not in Australia mate.

      My family was always part of various social groups - church, sport, neighbourhood dinner parties etc. So there was always lots of venues were it would be prearranged to meet. Greeting others while shopping, walking the neighbourhood, or driving around, or using public transport also provided ways of prearranging visits. I live in a rural area so I still wave at every passing vehicle and we all meet at various community barbeques or dinners. And then there's the LUG and Makers group. Friends are people whose funerals and weddings I'll attend - everyone else is a stranger, colleague, or acquaintance. But I'd never walk up to a neighbours house without a good reason - someone arriving by car without advance warning is usually a sign of unwanted visitors. Things are no doubt different for some - seems they need to seek out company and will tell you their life story if you are unlucky enough to share a lift with them. My father used to say "the friends you get are determined by the friends you reject". I agree with him and are cautious about who I let get close to my family and I - especially cautious about whose opinion I make myself a prisoner of.

    38. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree your specific scenario is stupid texting/instant messaging in general isnt stupid. My usual rule of thumb is if we send three messages (each) back to back within a reasonable time frame I'm just going to call you becuase this is now a synchronous conversation and we need to move to an optimum medium.

      Really the only time this ever is invoked is at work and we have lync for both messaging and voice/video so it's convenient at any time to say "are you available for audio" and put on your headset

    39. Re:Makes sense by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am retired. The only time my phone rings it is bad news or one of my leeches (children - I love 'em) wanting money. I'd think they would have plenty of money. The older they get the more money they seem to want. They have trusts, they have jobs... I don't want to... Wait, what was the subject again?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    40. Re:Makes sense by KGIII · · Score: 1

      IRC? I could see how that would be handy. I can also see it being a waste of time. I do like the idea though. I have only seen it with online groups interacting - never have I seen it in-house.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  7. If only i could get my cellphone to follow suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i would LOVE to have no voicemail on my cellphone & have it just ring until i answer or hit the red button.

    I have yet to find a cellphone service where thats possible.

  8. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Great, so everybody would now have to BYOD?

  9. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except for sales people and conference rooms

  10. Fax machines are "obscure"? by Scutter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obviously, submitter doesn't work in healthcare or legal fields. As much as I'd like to see that antiquated technology finally die, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    1. Re:Fax machines are "obscure"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fax machines are still used in the real estate and related fields.

    2. Re:Fax machines are "obscure"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A fax of a legal document is an official legal document. That is why they have not died. It is only relatively recently that electronic copies are accepted and then I think it is case by case. (Speaking of the ATF from my experiences)

    3. Re:Fax machines are "obscure"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or in finance or academia. Hell, any company that actually archives documents usually has a fax machine.

    4. Re:Fax machines are "obscure"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A print-to-fax of a legal document is an official legal document, too. As a recipient, you can't tell where the original came from, only that your copy popped out of a fax machine. So if any electronic copies need to be "made legal", it's a very simple thing to do. Just print-to-fax, and suddenly, it's all legal!

      It's not "case-by-case" if nobody knows the source, and fax senders are an inherently insecure source. Anyone could "launder" legality of an electronic document through a fax machine quite easily. They might as well just open up those barn doors, the horses are already out anyway.

    5. Re:Fax machines are "obscure"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. My company gets literally thousands of faxes a day from our customers and suppliers. We don't do anything fancy with them like OCR them on receipt and put PDFs on a file server or anything like that, though I wish to hell we did.

    6. Re:Fax machines are "obscure"? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Sounds logical - however, your logic is pointless because you are dealing with lawyers, not engineers.

      As someone who has recently purchased and moved to a new home, as well as shifted banks and investment firms at the same time, I can tell you, good old fax machine and pen-and-ink signature is not going anywhere for a long time. At least not until there is some way that people can digitally sign documents that is accepted by everyone.

      Personally I think that this is a space that national postal services should be looking to as a revenue source. Who better to provide authenticated digital certificates to the public, and to run digital document signing services, than them.

    7. Re:Fax machines are "obscure"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur, healthcare remains addicted to fax, with the providers seemingly unable move beyond it. Patient privacy may be catalyst to change, a patient record in a fax machine tray fails the secure litmus test.

    8. Re:Fax machines are "obscure"? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Which is silly, considering that a printed document can look exactly like a faxed document. More than once, I've sent a PDF with a PNG signature overlaid and just said "Please print this and pretend it was a fax."

  11. The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by pyster · · Score: 0

    The death of fax machines has been grossly exaggerated. They are every-fucken-where. VOIP and the t38... so many places to break... and yet lawyers, real estate folks, medical establishments, and companies too afraid to tell their clients 'no dont fax it, scan it and email it' proliferate the landscape. I suspect voice mail to be die sooner than fax machines. Or that voice to text becomes a standard, and not paid for, service. I hate them so much I logged in for the first time in a very long time to post this...

    1. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently bought a house and was pleasantly surprised to find most of the paperwork is done online now. I literally accepted the counter-counter-counter-offer via my cellphone during lunch. The system they used is called dotloop and it's actually fairly terrible, but it got the job done and at least this is progress.

      The mortgage stuff though, that was definitely old school. And the lawyer stuff, wow.

    2. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by damnbunni · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason they don't tell you to scan and email it is that email is not considered a secure or verifiable method of communication.

      The difference between fax's point-to-point nature and email's going over the public internet aside...

      It's a lot easier to mistype an email address than misdial a fax machine (and actually get another fax machine). I get confidential real estate info in my email all the time. Usually headed with 'I know this said fax, but I'm emailing it instead!'

      Yeah, and it's not for me. There's a real estate agent who has the same username at a different domain. So I wind up with all these legal forms from morons who not only decided to email what it says 'fax' on it - they emailed it to the wrong address.

      I've never gotten a mis-sent fax to my personal fax machine. At the office once in a while, but even then it's for someone else in the company.

    3. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      The reason they don't tell you to scan and email it is that email is not considered a secure or verifiable method of communication.

      Neither is a fax.

      Most faxes these days are actually emails going from one email server to another, with sometimes multiple complicated digital-to-analog and back again conversions. It is perverse.

      Even IF you had the nearly impossible analog fax to fax, there is no way to prove in a court that the documents are valid. They can be easily manipulated before sending.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    4. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Your hate is righteous. Keep the faith.

      There is NOTHING beneficial about a fax over a scanned and emailed document.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    5. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Email can be digitally signed to prove you are who you say you are (assuming both parties know how to use the tech). You can also encrypt the email to make sure only the person it was intended for can read it (again assumes both parties know how it works).

      Fax, not so much.

      However you are correct that it is much easier to send an e-mail to the wrong person than it is to fax it to the wrong number (dialing a wrong number and landing on a fax machine is highly unlikely). However with encryption you can make sure nobody can read your email other than the person it was intended for.

      IMHO the main reason why fax machines still exist are:
      #1 It would cost too much for business to change their process, inform the client/partners of the new process, and to change all relevant documentation to reflect the new process/contact method.
      #2 There area lot of people out there who are completely clueless on how to use email properly, especially older professionals (like 55 year old doctor, 60 year old lawyer, etc.). Most might be able to send a simple email containing text, but the moment they have to convert a paper document to electronic form they are completely stumped.

    6. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>There is NOTHING beneficial about a fax over a scanned and emailed document.
      Except Transmission Security, Physical Security and Guaranteed Delivery.

      That isn't anything... That's EVERYTHING

    7. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      I worked at an office that handled medical insurance claims, and we had fax machines. We would routinely exchange information with customers via fax. We upgraded to a fax server from our physical fax machines, and at the same time, to a voip solution. The fax trail went something like this:

      Paper (analog) to PDF (digital) via a scanner sent to user's workstation. PDF (digital) to fax server which places a FAX phone call using an analog audio modem signal (PSK). VOIP inherently converts the analog signal to Digital, until it reaches the POTS, where it is converted back to analog. Analog signal reaches the destination fax machine, where it is printed digitally.

      With so many D/A and A/D conversions, we regularly had failed fax attempts due to line noise, quantization noise, etc.... It's amazing even a single fax ever got through. Many times, the customers just gave up.

    8. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by pyster · · Score: 0

      As a hater of pilkunnussija I love your sig.

    9. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I logged in for the first time in a very long time to post this...

      Hopefully it will be a long time again, I read your other 4 posts today ...

    10. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't much difference between sending a fax and sending an e-mail. The primarily difference would be one is a phone number and one is an e-mail address. Except, a fax is a lot simpler in terms of it's just a piece of paper, right? Where an e-mail can be attachments, text, etc. Am I wrong?

    11. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone gave me the wrong number and the resulting number was their fax machine (this happened a bit too often but does not happen now) I would wait for the noises to stop and reply with hums, dings, beeps, and whistles. I do not know if I said anything in machine language but I always hoped it was somehow rendered as a dirty picture in ASCII.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:The Death Of Fax Machines Has Been Grossly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at an office that handled medical insurance claims, and we had fax machines. We would routinely exchange information with customers via fax. We upgraded to a fax server from our physical fax machines, and at the same time, to a voip solution. The fax trail went something like this:

      Paper (analog) to PDF (digital) via a scanner sent to user's workstation.
      PDF (digital) to fax server which places a FAX phone call using an analog audio modem signal (PSK).
      VOIP inherently converts the analog signal to Digital, until it reaches the POTS, where it is converted back to analog.
      Analog signal reaches the destination fax machine, where it is printed digitally.

      With so many D/A and A/D conversions, we regularly had failed fax attempts due to line noise, quantization noise, etc.... It's amazing even a single fax ever got through. Many times, the customers just gave up.

      Isn't it funny that there is a digital fax standard that never saw mass adoption because of these tinkered solutions?

  12. From a current employee: good riddance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not removing VM from customer-facing employees, only back-end staff. We are only too happy to see it go, the only messages I get are cold sales calls!

  13. Voice mails are very much needed by unixisc · · Score: 4, Informative

    How do you know whether a phone number that you are calling is actually a cellphone which can accept IMs? When I call someone, I usually ask them if it's a good time to talk before getting into the conversation. If they are in a meeting, I'd prefer it if they ignored the call and sent me to their voice mail, where I could have more time to tell them exactly what you would say in the IM. Your solution would only make sense the day land lines are extinct, or that every phone has IM capability - cellular or cordless.

    1. Re:Voice mails are very much needed by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Also, maybe the only time I have to talk is on that hour long drive from location A to B. I can't text you as that would be unsafe, but I can call you. Without VM I can't leave a message so how long do I let it ring and how long do I wait before calling again? If I left a VM I'd wait for you to call me back.

    2. Re:Voice mails are very much needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be waiting a long time. I don't answer the phone unless the call has been pre-arranged and is in my calendar.

    3. Re:Voice mails are very much needed by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      I'd feel for your wife, but you clearly will never have one.

    4. Re:Voice mails are very much needed by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I'm the same way, only in reverse. I only respond to text messages and emails if they are pre-arranged and in my calendar.

    5. Re:Voice mails are very much needed by unixisc · · Score: 1

      And how does one pre-arrange the call? Calls would be out of the question, since you won't take them. IMs - how does the person know that your number is a cell, and what if his isn't? You don't have Voice Mail - since listening to it is a nuisance. Never mind that some people may be more comfortable talking than having to type, and not everyone has a smart phone, so some may struggle to put together an IM. So you'd like things made convenient for you, even if it ends up inconveniencing others? Got it!

    6. Re:Voice mails are very much needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP is showing their age. They just assume (like most people under 30) that every phone is a cell phone which has SMS capability.

    7. Re:Voice mails are very much needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be waiting a long time. I don't answer the phone unless the call has been pre-arranged and is in my calendar.

      Let me guess: you are a millennial hipster still in college and your parents are paying all your bills, right? Remember this when you are in the unemployment line wondering why it is you just can't get a job: employers really hate having to deal with people who have rather odd and rigid idiosyncrasies. It's just easier to hire someone else who is much more flexible.

    8. Re:Voice mails are very much needed by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      I check the "missing persons" listings in the local free newspaper for the secret code that I share with those to whom I'll speak. If Eve and Elmer are looking for Chester then I enter the date of the post plus one week into my phone's calendar to remind me that a call will be coming the next day. Otherwise, good luck Charlie. It never ceases to amaze me to see people answering a ringing phone with "Hello". They must be insane.

  14. $3.2 million... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is about 2 seconds of manipulating the stock market or adding some hidden cost for customers for JPMorgan.

  15. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use FreeSWITCH (http://www.freeswitch.org) or Asterisk (http://www.asterisk.org)

    Problem solved.

  16. Fax Machines gone? by fallen1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are tens of thousands of fax machines and fax systems still in use today because, despite all of our technological advances, the fax machine is still the most secure way of delivering medical and legal documents between locations in a compact time frame.

    E-mail? Right out unless you're configured for encryption and getting all the companies you deal with to agree on, utilize, and understand how the encrypt/decrypt works is ... beyond Herculean in scope. In the medical field alone that would require suppliers, doctor's offices, HME/DME companies, hospitals, hospices, quick care/walk-in style facilities, pharmacies, and so on to all have a system that worked easily that everyone agreed on. Of course, that doesn't begin to take into account the MILLIONS of patients that just might want to communicate with you via e-mail.

    The legal field is just as bad - judges, courts, lawyers, public defenders, police departments, fire departments, etc, and clients of course.

    So, yeah, technology that has supposedly died usually is alive and well and the people who think it has died just work somewhere they don't have to deal with it.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

    1. Re:Fax Machines gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always like the "secure" argument. A fax is real secure when it can be picked up by just anyone walking by.
      No more secure than someone leaving their computer unlocked with email up.

    2. Re:Fax Machines gone? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      You are pretty much the poster child for "retarded ass-whit".

    3. Re:Fax Machines gone? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Healthcare providers could easily use secure websites for communication, and many of them already do. But doctor IT skills match their legendary investment skills.

    4. Re:Fax Machines gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fax machine is still the most secure way

      the people who think it has died just work somewhere they don't have to deal with it

      Or the people who think it has died have enough knowledge of basic computing concepts to know that it isn't secure, and assume that it's common knowledge by now.

      Print-to-fax destroys any illusions that fax copies are any more secure than emailed ones. Given that both are subject to wiretapping and other MITM attacks, it's only possible to secure the endpoints. And since print-to-fax destroys the "trust" that there's an actual hard-copy of that document at the sending source, there can't be an assumption of trust for anyone, anywhere, ever across a fax line.

      At least with email you can encrypt a ZIP file and send it, then call the recipient to give them the password. That's a lot more secure than a fax because a payload delivered to an incorrect recipient is still encrypted.

    5. Re:Fax Machines gone? by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      There are tens of thousands of fax machines and fax systems still in use today because, despite all of our technological advances, the fax machine is still the most secure way of delivering medical and legal documents between locations, where one or both locations can't figure out anything more complicated than stick the papers in it and dial a phone number, in a compact time frame.

      TFTFY
      Internally, our company uses several different mechanisms for securely transferring sensitive documents, all of which are superior to fax in speed and reliability, but we interact with hundreds of other businesses that refuse to abandon this mid-last-century technology for the same job.

    6. Re:Fax Machines gone? by iamacat · · Score: 2

      Let's see. To intercept a fax or voicemail from the machine in my office, you need to be physically present there or next to outside phone lines every time. Hardware to do persistent remote wiretaps is expensive and not widely available. Chances of getting caught or leaving evidence of tampering are high and you only get my future communications, not the ones I already read and shredded.

      With unlocked computer I get years of your e-mail so far and your IMAP password that I can use to spy on you from now on. Plus an opportunity to install a keylogger and any other malware of my choice. Even if every single e-mail is encrypted, I instantly get valuable metadata of whom you have been corresponding with and when.

      A fax machine is way safer from casual adversaries, including local police departments that can not justify spending huge resources on your case. A computer can be potentially safer than a fax machine against NSA, but only if you are very skilled and careful and never make a single mistake.

    7. Re:Fax Machines gone? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Internally, our company uses several different mechanisms for securely transferring sensitive documents, all of which are superior to fax in speed and reliability, but we interact with hundreds of other businesses that refuse to abandon this mid-last-century technology for the same job.

      Lost in all this bitching and complaining and casting aspersions on those who still use faxes is the answer to one simple question - why should they switch?

      Even though they're "last centuries technology", they're simple and straightforward. The UI standardized and well and widely understood. They're free of malware and viruses and the risk of the endless upgrade treadmill breaking them. They're cheap and widely available, and even if someone takes a sledgehammer to one - you can run out to the store and have a new one online (with minimally trained personnel) within an hour or two. (They're the ultimate in plug-n-play.) Every fax machine is, out of the box, 100% compatible with every other fax machine out there - none of the complications of your "multiple systems".

      From the point of view of the end user, they have many virtues that more recent (read "l33t") solutions lack, and few vices - and they just bloody work.

    8. Re:Fax Machines gone? by zlives · · Score: 1

      time for new SMTP protocol with default/forced encryption... i don't know why that is not a thing already or why people deploy without TLS

  17. What is voicemail anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, apparently voicemail is dying before I even figure out what it is. I got a feeling it was something intended to replace answering machines, but I never found out how it was different.

    1. Re:What is voicemail anyway? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Answering machines are something you needed to buy w/ your landline phone - or sometimes, your phone came w/ it. Voicemail is the system your carrier has that lets people who call you store messages that you could then pick up and respond to.

    2. Re:What is voicemail anyway? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Answering machines are devices that implement a voicemail service. Some voicemail systems are 100% software-based.

    3. Re:What is voicemail anyway? by Ilarih · · Score: 1

      Thanks, it was nice to know. My english is not so perfect and I was a bit wondering what that was. And actually I still looked from Wikipedia for more info.

  18. Cell phones by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great job at drawing retarded conclusions guys.

    Turning off desktop phone voicemail BECAUSE EVERYONE USES A CELL PHONE and has their office number forwarded to that anyway does not mean people aren't using voicemail.

    But hey, don't take the extra three seconds to ask why they were not using it or anything.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Cell phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone forwards their work number to their personal mobile phone? I'd say that is a ludicrous assertion. Certainly some small percent of people do that. I cannot think of even one of my colleagues who does though. It definitely is not a standard practice and - in some states in the US - if a company even recommended it they would then be on the hook for the employee's mobile bill. I don't even believe our Cisco system is setup to allow forwarding. (50,000 employee multi-national company). I don't publish my mobile number in the corporate directory anymore. Years ago I did, but then dilholes from overseas would call me on it in the middle of the night for something that should have gone to the level 1 help desk.

      Now, back to voicemail and my personal experience - I would love it if they shut that down. We finally have a system that puts an attachment with the voicemail recording into your email inbox so that you can more easily take the calls out of order - but I have most people trained to not leave a message and get me either via Lync IM or via email. Voice is for conference calls. Screw voicemail. I usually don't play it for about 2 days - part of the training program to get people to use other options for contact...

    2. Re:Cell phones by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Yeah because voice mail is so hard to use *eye roll*

    3. Re:Cell phones by unixisc · · Score: 1

      He did give a good reason - they want to use the Voice infrastructure for conference calls, so prefer not to use it for things that could be done as easily via Lync IM or email.

    4. Re:Cell phones by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Everyone forwards their work number to their personal mobile phone? I'd say that is a ludicrous assertion.

      I work at a phone company. No one has a desk phone, we all have desk phone numbers, we just forward them to our cells. We provide specific features to our customers for having virtual office numbers that work with their cell phones in a nice way.

      You also seem to fail to recognizes that a great many companies subsidize cell phones, and all the ones without office phones either provide a cell phone or subsidize the employees. Most just subsidizes the employee phones so that can get what they want.

      I don't even believe our Cisco system is setup to allow forwarding.

      So your company either does something that legally/procedurally prevents them from being allowed to do so, or your company is just ignorant of the world around them. Not sure which, but if your system doesn't allow forwarding you are NOT the norm. I'm guessing you're required to be at your desk during the entire work period, in which case there isn't any need to forward it somewhere, IS THERE?

      Years ago I did, but then dilholes from overseas would call me on it in the middle of the night for something that should have gone to the level 1 help desk.

      So you work for a stupid company who allows that sort of shit to happen, stop telling me about how other companies behave, you don't know how they behave, clearly.

      We finally have a system that puts an attachment with the voicemail recording into your email inbox so that you can more easily take the calls out of order

      Congratulations, you just caught up to what was available in 2001 for free.

      I usually don't play it for about 2 days - part of the training program to get people to use other options for contact...

      Oh so you're just one of those irresponsible assholes who thinks he's special, sorry I wasted my time responding.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Cell phones by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      He didn't provide a good reason. Sure, sometimes IMs make sense, but not for any serious discussion. If you think you can have a serious discussion over IM you have some serious social issues and I'm fairly certain you do it poorly.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  19. huh? by executioner · · Score: 1
    Fax machines are dead.... voice mail is dead.......

    hmmm a lot of people didn't get the memo. sounds kinda like the PC is dead....

    hasn't happened yet and not for a very long time, unfortunately as I would love the 20 year old fax server i currently support to die and go away.

    --
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:huh? by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      Fax machines are dead.... voice mail is dead.......

      hmmm a lot of people didn't get the memo.

      Yea, it was sent out via Fax. Didn't you get it?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:huh? by zlives · · Score: 1

      memo is dead.
      but not fax/ vm

  20. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can use VoIP.

  21. Faxes and Voicemail aren't going anywhere... by briankwest · · Score: 0

    As for people saying that its all proprietary then by I recommend you try FreeSWITCH (www.freeswitch.org) /b

  22. Voicemail considered harmful by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Recorded speech is slow, impossible to organize, and nearly unsearchable. If you're providing information to me verbally, you're wasting both my time and yours: just send me a copy of the data source you're reading from. If you're providing creative ideas, you should write those suckers down in an email or other document so they don't get forgotten or mis-attributed. If you're not calling to provide either information or creative ideas, you're not saying anything useful and I don't want to listen to your businessbabble.

    1. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that most of the time when I leave a voicemail message, the information I am leaving is enough to give the person on the other end a starting point on the reason I called them and an idea about how urgent it is for them to get back to me. Generally, I am calling in the first place because the topic of conversation is one that requires a lot of back and forth that takes entirely too long to resolve when done in typed messages. If the reason for the call is urgent I will usually follow up with an email, IM, and text message (the last two depending on their availability with the person I am trying to reach).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, real-time voice is great for back-and-forth. But you can't do that by voicemail. All you can do is send a "we need to talk about X" ping. You say you're doing that with a followup email and text, which means the voicemail is redundant: all it's doing is forcing me to listen to you stutter for several minutes, verbally repeating a message I got with a quick glance at my phone an hour ago.

    3. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't even the recorded speech, but the tiresome spiel you have to wait through before you can leave the message. Yes, I've heard that I can "...press 1 for more options" a million times before, so why do I have to sit through it every time. I wonder if anyone has ever tallied up the nationwide man-hours people have wasted listening to that standard intro.

    4. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You missed the part where I only do the follow up email and text if it is urgent. The reason I do that if it is urgent is because some people get one or the other of those even when away from their phone.

      However, if it is not urgent, I don't waste my time typing the message. I can leave a voicemail in much less time than I can send a typed message and even if I couldn't, I am already connected on the phone so taking the time to open an email or text message to the person is time I would rather not spend.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell phone companies do this to increase the number of minutes you use on your cell phone plan.

    6. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's faster for you to send a voicemail than an email. On the other hand, you don't dispute my point that voicemail is slower and more of a pain in the ass for the recipient.

      So yes, voicemail is ideal for people who think that their time is more valuable than the people they're reaching out to contact. Which is to say, voicemail is the tool of choice for selfish jerks. Not that you intend to be one, but that's how it comes across to me.

    7. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like the selfish jerk. You're far too important to take 5 seconds to listen to a message. Everyone needs to conform to your anti-social ideals or f-off.

    8. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I did not actually address your point about voicemail. Personally, I do not find voicemail to be a greater pain in the ass than typed messages. As a matter of fact, my experience is that people who leave bad voicemail messages are even worse when it comes to typed communication. I have found that when people call me and do not leave a voicemail, they also do not communicate the reason for their call by any other means.

      The result being that small problems I could have resolved easily become big problems which require a great amount of effort to fix. I am pretty confident that this would not change if they did not have the option of leaving me a voicemail.

      The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of things I call someone about that are just not important enough to me to type a message about. With significant frequency they are of greater importance to the other person.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Voicemail considered harmful by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded down? It's certainly not flamebait - those who are bitching about how long it takes to access voicemail are certainly not considering the convenience of those who do use the voicemail.

  23. Re: If only i could get my cellphone to follow sui by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh? it's easy to turn off voicemail in the UK, just call your provider and ask

  24. Voicemail trasnscription by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    I'm loving voicemail now, I get the voicemail automatically transcribed and texted to me. I never have to call voicemail, and reading a text is super quick compared to listening to voicemail. Even google voicemail does this.

    1. Re:Voicemail trasnscription by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except when the majority of people you get a voicemail from has a sufficiently thick accent that transcription leaves an indecipherable jumble of words.

      "My car hill devil cream pewter shakes dawn under noticable with. Read line on palestine." is an actual transcription of a single sentence of a voicemail I received from a client. Allow me to relay what the customer actually said in the recording:

      "My goddamn computer shut down without notice and there's a red light on the power brick." (This turned out to be from a short that developed in the client's $3 powered USB hub that he got off ebay, for those interested.)

      My voicemail gets full of these types of transcriptions daily, and I frankly find them useless. Sometime's they'll be closer to where there's enough context that makes it through to decipher the message. Unfortunately, more often than not, the transcriptions are worse than the example I used. I've used both Sprint's offering for Visual Voicemail (on promo only...it wasn't worth paying for), and Google hangouts VV. Neither are worth having.

    2. Re:Voicemail trasnscription by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But just seeing cream pewter is enough to know it's a computer issue. So it's not like it doesn't provide any context.

    3. Re:Voicemail trasnscription by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Everything I deal with is a computer issue of some kind, so thanks for that. I tend to like to have a bit more context so when I call the client back I can get right down to troubleshooting the specific issue without wasting the client's time for the client to describe the issue in more or less the exact same way he described in the voicemail.

    4. Re:Voicemail trasnscription by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I do have a client with a German accent, but I think I've gotten very good at deciphering rhyme-alikes. That's probably one of the easier accents, but I've even started to learn rhyme-alike phrases.

  25. One thing I hate by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's nothing more that I hate than coming into my cube & seeing the red light on my phone, which means I have a voice mail message. You have to call, enter your pin, and go through a menu to select listen to new messages, and then type/write down their number. I'd rather have people send me an e-mail instead. One good thing about Comcast phone service when we had it at home was it would convert it to text and send it to you via e-mail. I'd rather have that than deal with a voice mail message.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:One thing I hate by N1AK · · Score: 2

      I like voicemail but I'll happily admit the standard process for accessing it is shit. I use Hullomail that effectively provides an inbox for voicemail. I can play, delete, forward messages as I wish immediately. I genuinely think half or more of the voicemail hate comes from the arduous process of accessing it, rather than its existence.

    2. Re:One thing I hate by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      So what people are basically saying is, they don't want to do their job. Gotcha!

    3. Re:One thing I hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's nothing more that I hate than coming into my cube & seeing the red light on my phone, which means I have a voice mail message. You have to call, enter your pin, and go through a menu to select listen to new messages, and then type/write down their number.

      After replaying the message a few times because the jackass rambled off their number only once and too quickly to be written down.

    4. Re:One thing I hate by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

      You nailed it.

    5. Re:One thing I hate by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      There's nothing more that I hate than coming into my cube

      Don't you love it when message two makes message one redundant. Some people think voicemail is like the button at the pedestrian crossing (I know - pushing it multiple times does nothing, but they don't know that). But hey - some people think sending a photo of something you typed to someone so they print it out as a photo, then type it back in again is efficient. Or secure. Just because forty other harry-highpants said so, or a judge who thinks someone who can use a mouse is a skilled "hacker", or a (spit) lawyer - who charges you $50 to process that fax - and truly believes that the fax if more verifiable than a digital signature (no - a fax doesn't prove the content, only the transmission, and depending on the protocol, the receipt).

    6. Re:One thing I hate by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      So what people are basically saying is, they don't want to do their job. Gotcha!

      Only if their job is to answer phone calls. That is some people's jobs - and some of them are too stupid or vacuous to conceive of other jobs where most of the work involves not being on the phone. I'd explain more but it'd take longer than you've got between calls. Oh wait - you've got another IM. (lucky you don't have a job that requires extended periods of concentration - like more than 5 minutes or you'd get nothing done) If your job depends on voicemail most of the time I'd suggest most of your callers are kept waiting and not getting the level of service they should - perhaps you should look into fixing that? If it was my business the analysts aren't doing there job if there are many callers - and there's a major problem if the callers can't get through straight away, the vast majority comes through the ticket system and most calls are to the client - not the other way around. If they don't answer it's still a "respond", and "restore" is begun before trying to call them again.

      I can conceive of lots of instances where voicemail is useful - but in my case I celebrate it's death, alongside television, radio, and instant messaging. They are all time thieves to me.

    7. Re:One thing I hate by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That's an implementation problem, not a problem with the concept.

    8. Re:One thing I hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even understand the point of voicemail at this point.
      You call me, I don't pick up. I see your number. I call you back.
      No need for me checking some BS message of you breathing into your phone.

    9. Re:One thing I hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I get a voice mail at work Outlook sends me an email with a player in it. Hit Play, listen to message, and call or email back. What a wondrous modern age we live in...

    10. Re:One thing I hate by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you are more annoyed with the software used to listen to voice mail, not the voice mail itself. Our voice system is fully voip, and it has a software client. So I can 'click to listen' just like with email I can 'click to read'.

  26. Ridiculous by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea that voicemail is dead is asinine.

    I only have your phone number, and you don't answer (yes, I'm over 25, I actually call people on the phone), now what?

    Dumb fucking emo hipsters, the rest of the world doesn't live on Instagram.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that voicemail is dead is asinine.

      I only have your phone number, and you don't answer (yes, I'm over 25, I actually call people on the phone), now what?

      Dumb fucking emo hipsters, the rest of the world doesn't live on Instagram.

      Caller ID? Who needs a message telling me to call someone who called me when you can see they called and call them back if needed.

    2. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you don't answer, now what?

      really? some as if you pass by a friends house, ring the bell and he doesn't open ... TRY AGAIN LATER

    3. Re:Ridiculous by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The one that really makes me laugh is the people who say they never answer the phone because they focus on priorities all the time. Great, but I do answer my phone except to people who consistently ignore my calls. Now, every time you need to get hold of me urgently you're shit out of luck. You can mail or message me, and you'll likely be waiting a while for a response because I don't monitor those in real time.

    4. Re:Ridiculous by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Even though I know it's petty, I do the same.

      Funny how those people are quick to escalate every fucking thing to the higher ups, though...

    5. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until the person calls you back and asks what you needed?

    6. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now what, seriously? here its polite to call twice and then send message. but thats hard I see...

      coutry where NOBODY expect to hear voicemail, if it does goes to voicemail, we just hang up

    7. Re:Ridiculous by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      And how are you going to "send them a message" when all you have is their phone number?

      You know that normal phones don't handle texts, right? So what then, write them a letter?

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re:Ridiculous by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Phone tag! You're it!

    9. Re:Ridiculous by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't address his issue. Andy is in a meeting when he gets a call from a customer Barbie, who he cannot answer at the moment. His schedule is pretty packed, so he may not look at the phone for the next few hours. Barbie only has his phone number and NOTHING ELSE - and doesn't even know if it's a cellphone. Let's assume here that it ain't - it's his desk phone, and he won't be at his desk until 4pm. What is Barbie to do?

      With Voice Mail, she just leaves him a message telling him what she called about, and maybe even giving him some time slots that he can call her back - after all, Barbie too probably has work other than getting her message to Andy.

      But now, the company has decided to discontinue Voice Mail for whatever reason. What does Barbie do next? Remember, she has no other way of contacting him, and she too has a packed day. Maybe she can call Caitlyn and redirect her business her way, assuming that Caitlyn too hasn't done away w/ voice mail?

    10. Re:Ridiculous by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      The idea that voicemail is dead is asinine.

      I only have your phone number, and you don't answer (yes, I'm over 25, I actually call people on the phone), now what?

      Dumb fucking emo hipsters, the rest of the world doesn't live on Instagram.

      TFTFY
      ...and, no shit. Put down the iPhone, you little dorks and recognize that the world still communicates verbally, sometimes using a feature that your magic text box has actually had from the start. It's efficacy at communicating useful information larger than something like "lol" is unparalleled when compared to the other shitty input devices on mobile devices.

    11. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you call and don't leave a voice mail, I assume it was not important (or you called someone else that could help) and don't call you back just because I see your number on caller id.

    12. Re:Ridiculous by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Also (well) over 25. Everyone that I communicate with just texts or emails. I can't even remember the last time I got a voicemail.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    13. Re:Ridiculous by unixisc · · Score: 1

      That's funny, given how everybody has been talking about how phones have replaced laptops as the primary transport mechanism for texts or email.

    14. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barbie should look up Andy's email or cell number in the company directory. Or get it from the receptionist. Or get it as the primary mode of contact in the first place because who gives out just their desk phone anymore?

    15. Re:Ridiculous by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      You must not have ever received a call from someone inside a company. As usually, their CallerID shows up as the main office or company number, but you have no idea what person out of 10,000 people that work there called you. Maybe if you've only dealt with a single person at this company, then great, you can take a guess that it was them, but often times, with business calls, you may deal with more than a single point of contact at the same company.

      Caller ID is ok if the number belongs to a single person, but not so much when it's a corporate main number that shows up masking who it actually was.

      Or, if it's someone you've never been contacted by before, they just show up as a strange number with no number attached. Then you have decide if it's a telemarketer, or a legit person that you need to call back.

      When you do call them back, you sound like an embicil, "yes this so-and-so, and I received a call on my phone from 'I-don't-know-who' and am trying to call them back about 'I-don't-know-what', was this person you or someone else who also is behind this number? Oh it was you, well who are you anyway?". OR worse yet, you call back and get a company directory or operator, and have no idea who may have called you or who to ask for.

  27. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You'd hear the sound of my laughter but I am on VoIP so it isn't coming through. VoIP can work well. It often doesn't. I am on calls with other companies - some of the software giants - who use VoIP for their calls. They often have to hang up and run down the hall to find a real phone because they break up so badly you can't understand them. Now my desk phone is VoIP internally on our network with a separate VLAN and all. But it goes to POTS externally and internally uses a Cisco (expensive) system. That works well. But the computer based ones just suck too often to use them for any business where professional phone calls need to be made. Eventually this may be viable. Today it is laughable - if you can even hear the laugh.

  28. Voicemail is a fossil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disabled the voicemail on my personal cell phone a few months ago... never going back.

    My recorded greeting used to be "PLEASE DONT LEAVE ME A VOICEMAIL MESSAGE... I WONT LISTEN TO IT!!" Inevitably, I'd still get voicemail messages of people hanging up right after the beep.

    Finally I thought to myself "hm... why not try my phone company?" Called them up and asked them to disable it... done.

    The only issue now is the confusion it causes people... "I called, but it rang and rang and never went to voicemail... is your phone working alright?"

    Still tens times easier than dealing with the "oh look, a voicemail... okay let me call-in, let me enter my password, sort through old messages I haven't deleted.. blah blah blah".

    1. Re:Voicemail is a fossil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your main issue with voicemail is that you're too lazy to hit 5 buttons on your phone and then sit still while listening to voice mails, and hit 2 other corresponding buttons on your phone to delete/save them?

      If it's too hard to listen to voicemail, I would hate to see you get through a normal day's work.

  29. It's the interface, not the technology. by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Voicemail isn't really a problem. The problem is the traditional dial in interface for voicemail sucks sour frog ass. It's time consuming, irritating, badly designed and frankly from a bygone era. Dialing in to listen to a voicemail message is technology that we no longer need. Getting messages via voice is useful but the format and interface need to update to modern technology.

    I've been using a pair of systems (Google voice and one at work) which transcribe the voicemail, send it to you in an email with a recording and you can manage the calls though your computer or cell phone. I pretty much never actually listen to the voicemail because what I really care about is who called and roughly the topic of their call. Occasionally I listen to the actual message because the transcriptions usually read like a Mad-Lib but I can usually figure out the gist of the message.

    Fax machines on the other hand are just pointless. They need to go away. My company doesn't have one anymore and we don't miss it a bit.

    1. Re:It's the interface, not the technology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been using a pair of systems (Google voice and one at work) which transcribe the voicemail, send it to you in an email with a recording and you can manage the calls though your computer or cell phone. I pretty much never actually listen to the voicemail because what I really care about is who called and roughly the topic of their call. Occasionally I listen to the actual message because the transcriptions usually read like a Mad-Lib but I can usually figure out the gist of the message.

      This. The main point is that someone needs to request/give me information by phone. Software that transcribes the message and delivers it in a medium I can quickly and easily infer intent is what I want. My phone has a voicemail to text interface, which means most of the time I never listen to the voicemail, just read the text.

    2. Re:It's the interface, not the technology. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The problem is the traditional dial in interface for voicemail sucks sour frog ass.

      Pardon my ignorance, but who does that anymore? The Cisco phones I've seen have a menu (small one, but its there) that you can see caller id, time and length of each message and select it directly.

      I'm an iPhone user, so I have visual voice mail and wouldn't even consider using anything that didn't.

      Doesn't Android do something like visual voicemail as well?

      And of course, as you said, there is Google Voice if you really do have a shitty phone/phone service, GV will take care of your shitty phone service and provider.

      I just really don't understand anyone that doesn't have something like visual voice mail.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:It's the interface, not the technology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voicemail isn't really a problem. [...] I've been using a pair of systems (Google voice and one at work) which transcribe the voicemail

      Listen to yourself. It's no problem that one person is reading their message into a microphone, and the other reading it off the screen? Why doesn't the first person type the message? Is this a learning-disability thing where one person is so intensely verbal and the other so visual that they can't communicate without a crappy computer intermediary? Or is it broken?

      because the transcriptions usually read like a Mad-Lib but I can usually figure out the gist of the message.

      Right. You can usually get the gist, so it isn't really a problem.

      Fax machines on the other hand are just pointless. They need to go away. My company doesn't have one anymore and we don't miss it a bit.

      Modern fax machines look like copiers and send PDFs to email addresses. Are you sure you don't have one? Are you sure there's no point to what they do? Is there also no point to photographs? They're pretty similar. Maybe you're saying paper-based bureaucracies, or form-based bureaucracies in general, need to go away?

    4. Re:It's the interface, not the technology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I received a google voice transcription log yesterday, went like this:

      One to refuse this pre call press. To if you'd like to permanently block your number from receiving calls from this facility, press 6 yo.

    5. Re:It's the interface, not the technology. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In one of my previous companies - this was in 2006 - voicemail was automatically forwarded to my email as an avi file, which I could then listen to using my headphones plugged into my laptop. No dialing my passwords or any of that.

    6. Re:It's the interface, not the technology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On all of the cell phone plans I've had, there was an extra charge if I wanted visual voice mail. Which I never paid because no one ever leaves voicemails.

    7. Re:It's the interface, not the technology. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Our work has a voice mail client, so I 'click to listen' to voice mails just like I 'click to read' email. The interface does make a big difference.

      However, things I miss, that are easy to do with written text:
      1. Rewind
      2. Pause
      3. Jump forward/backward to specific locations

      That is easy to do when reading, but not easy to do with our voice mail client.

  30. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    Everyone does already, even at low-paying jobs where the employees don't have individual numbers.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  31. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know where to start. VoIP works fine on reasonably modern networks with QoS applied(so does video which is obviously more resource intensive). Also Cisco is computer based. The callmanager software now runs as a VM and the softphone application has existed for quite some time.

  32. I declare living things dead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now look how important I am ! the rest of you can now debate.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

  33. It's industry populism in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's been a few overrated loudmouth columnists (hello paul venezia) who've seen fit to proclaim fax dead, because, oh I dunno, email is so much better?

    Fax isn't dead. Being able to send faxes is very useful, because it's quick, cheap, comes with a delivery report, and will stand up in court. Oh, and people send faxes like letters, not like illiterate scrawlings on top of piles of letterbarf that you'll inevitably find in email conversations. That's a plus for readability too.

    Personally I've never used voicemail, just like I never use answering machines; I won't leave messages and I won't allow you to leave them. I never saw the point. But I have set up fax/modems just so I could send faxes to, say, government agencies, or even to not have to waste time in customer support queues. It's definitely worth it to make sure you can at least send faxes. Bit of a secret tip really: Such messages do stand out and require a better reply than the usual "customer service" lies served over telephone after a goodly long queue wait.

    1. Re:It's industry populism in action by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Quick? Cheap? Legally required, yes, and that's the one and only reason why fax persists. Your customers hate you because when you send them a fax they have to go hunt up an office service company that will receive it for them for $1.50 a page. They take the document home, sign it, and then miss a second day of work to bring it back to the office service company to send back to you.

      And after all that, what you have is not printed pages but pictures of printed pages. To integrating that into your office document files, you are pretty much relegated to printing it out and filing paper.

    2. Re:It's industry populism in action by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      Don't these theoretical people own printers? Just about every cheapo multifunction printer I've seen in the last decade can fax.

      And before you say 'no one has a land line any more, lol' while it's true there are plenty of people without one, more homes have a landline than don't.

      And even in the example you give, why on earth wouldn't they just sign it and fax it back immediately, rather than waiting a day and making another trip to the store?

    3. Re:It's industry populism in action by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 1

      Don't these theoretical people own printers?

      Maybe. I don't. I don't print much at all these days. Most of the time, I'm working from my home office and a printer or phone isn't worth the desk space to me.

      And before you say 'no one has a land line any more, lol' while it's true there are plenty of people without one, more homes have a landline than don't.

      That "land line" will often be VoIP, because they got the service in a bundle rather than buying cable a la carte.

      And even in the example you give, why on earth wouldn't they just sign it and fax it back immediately, rather than waiting a day and making another trip to the store?

      You read before you sign, don't you? I certainly read my mortgage application and that took more than a few minutes. Luckily, everything but the final documents were signed with e-sig and those were printed by the title company.

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    4. Re:It's industry populism in action by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Customers who use efax can probably find a way around this: they can print the document, sign and scan, and then efax it back to him. He gets a printout from his fax machine and knows no better about how it was sent.

    5. Re:It's industry populism in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have some people REQUEST faxes despite offering email & snail mail as options. And some of the people who send us "faxes" are obviously using some kind of efax services. Fax machines in their various forms may not be the easiest thing to get along with but there is still a significant reason for their existence, especially for business to business communications.

    6. Re:It's industry populism in action by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, in this rural area many people still cling to the old landline and yes, multifunction printers more than about three years old often had a fax function. Which nobody uses, because it was a trouble-plagued sonovabitch to set up for that one fax a year from the investment company. Homes don't have dedicated fax lines, so you had to contend with faxes coming in on a voice line.

      And the fax function is on the old printer. When it dies, it will be replaced by a new all-in-one, which now no longer has a fax function.

    7. Re:It's industry populism in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Email can be (and routinely is, just check your spam box) faked, and lacks the legal protection both letters and faxes enjoy. It's interesting to see how this came to be and though it's less visible in the USoA, you can see traces there, too. So that makes faxes indeed quick and cheap, since the proper comparison for that is with snail-mail.

      The rest of your argument is basically you and your customers failing to organise themselves. Well, anything that isn't organised for is going to be annoying and costly, so again that's not something you should blame some technology for. It's your assumptions that break your workflow. The tech works fine when properly fed and cared for, same with just about every other technology. In fact, the gold standard in the local government appears to be signing documents by adding pictures of signatures through convoluted third party additions to document management systems. Nothing to stop you from doing the same thing: Take picture of document, add picure of signature, fax back. No need to pay through the nose for the privilege of not owning a printer or actual fax machine.

      Which reminds me, I should see if this here fritzbox can't be made to properly send and receive faxes over a 3G stick. It already supports faxing over POTS and VoIP, 3G sticks, printers, and with some fiddling, scanners.

    8. Re:It's industry populism in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fax survives because of the fallacy of "wet signatures". In other words, that somehow the biometric of a person manually signing a document can be used to authenticate it. The second issue is identity and that is why one is required to show government identification to the notary. Virginia has pass a law that allows for appearance and personal identification verification to be done by video. And therefore e-signature is allowed in these instances. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/realestate/the-e-notary-public-is-slow-to-catch-on.html

      E-signature is slowly coming but won't be fully adopted until the government (whichever one where one is located) implements them. The UETA law makes it legal in the USA... it is implementation.

  34. Making appointments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to make an appointment for a doctor's visit recently and they did not have a voicemail and it was annoying. While I eventually got a receptionist on the 3rd try, the doctor didn't have VM and she insisted I try calling again later. In total, 5 frustrating calls in a day.

    If they claim some HIPAA excuse, then making an appointment via email is even worse, because I know their IT security isn't up to par. Plus, they don't publicize email addresses or even have an online form to create an appointment.

  35. Re: If only i could get my cellphone to follow sui by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried that... their recommendation was to change my voicemail greeting to something along the lines of "i dont use voicemail, dont bother leaving a message"

    Which i had already done.

  36. It's not rude if everyone understands the protocol by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Why would you prioritize an unknown caller over someone with whom you're already having a conversation?

    Who says they are unknown? I have caller ID at work. If I'm talking with a co-worker and a customer calls the customer should take priority in most cases. I've done this hundreds of times and it is the proper behavior. It's not rude, it's prudent. Our collective jobs depend on being responsive to our customers and we don't let our egos interfere with that fact.

    Just as interrupting a conversation is rude, call waiting should be banned (just as voicemail!) and emergency calls routed $SOMEWHERE that guarantees a live immediate response (or perhaps keep the sole instance of voicemail in organizations).

    It's only rude if there isn't a clearly understood reason for interrupting the call. My company employs just a handful of people and if a customer calls we need to have someone answer the phone. There is almost nothing I could be doing that would justify me ignoring a call from one of our customers during working hours. Anything I have to say to my coworker can probably wait a few minutes and we all understand that.

  37. Turning off voicemail is dumb by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Turning off voicemail is dumb. How are you supposed to get ahold of somebody who isn't available at that instant? About half the people who call my company looking for a rent house don't answer the phone when you attempt to call them or their voicemail hasn't been set up, or it is full. What am I supposed to do, keep calling them until they answer? No thank you, I will just call somebody else who actually answers their phone or has voicemail and rent the house to them instead.
    How do people get jobs if they don't have voicemail and don't answer their phones? My guess is they don't. The HR people aren't going to keep calling them. They will just go on to the next candidate.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Turning off voicemail is dumb by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 0

      Turning off voicemail is dumb.

      Turning it on is dumb - real estate agents leave messages. Eeew.

      If you had a real job you'd know how we get jobs. It's called email. And no - we don't reply because we don't want to. Voicemail isn't for call screening - we've got caller ID for that, or email. Seriously. Surely real estate agents use email (not that I've rented - but I bet shift workers just love you ringing them, or people with jobs). If I was renting I'd want all my dealings with a real estate agent in writing. Do you block your caller-id when you ring?

    2. Re:Turning off voicemail is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this wonderful new invention called E-mail, maybe you've heard of it?

    3. Re:Turning off voicemail is dumb by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      There's this wonderful new invention called E-mail, maybe you've heard of it?

      Of course I have heard of it, but people who call looking for a rent house don't leave their e-mail, they leave their phone number.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Turning off voicemail is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you don't want the typical real estate agent having your e-mail address. They're typically the most technically incompetent people out there and tend to get malware that steals their contact lists constantly.

    5. Re:Turning off voicemail is dumb by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      About half the people who call my company looking for a rent house don't answer the phone when you attempt to call them or their voicemail hasn't been set up, or it is full. What am I supposed to do, keep calling them until they answer?

      You take the hint and send them a text, my friend. That's why their voicemail box is full or uninitialized. They don't do voicemail.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    6. Re:Turning off voicemail is dumb by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      You take the hint and send them a text, my friend. That's why their voicemail box is full or uninitialized. They don't do voicemail.

      I wouldn't be so rude as to send them a text without knowing whether their phone has text capabilities or whether they have to pay for texts individually. If they want texts, they can set up their voicemail to ask for you to send them a text. I have heard some voicemail messages request that you send texts.
      Of course, sending a text is not something I am aware that you can do from an office phone or landline. I'm sure there are ways, but they are not obvious and may not be free or cheap.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:Turning off voicemail is dumb by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Turning off voicemail is dumb. How are you supposed to get ahold of somebody who isn't available at that instant?

      In this case, they are talking about turning off voicemail for people who do not expect calls from the outside world. Thus, for internal customers, i.e. other employees of the same company, you email, instant message, or other internal options which have been set up by the company previously and cost less than a voicemail system.

  38. The problem with voicemail by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

    Is that no one checks their voicemail. The problem with email, is that no one responds to their email. The problem with cell phones is that no one answers their cell phones. [/end bitter i hate to work dispatch rant]

  39. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative
    As someone who does VoIP for a living: Software VoIP clients work as well as the underlying network allows -- same as with hardware phones like the Cisco Callmanager. Normally the hardware phones are in a special VLAN, often using layer-2-priorizing (class 3 and class 5) to the next switch, and they sending their packes with DiffServ information (e.g. the signalling with AF31, and the payload packets with EF), thus they get threated in priorized queues through the network. Desktop computers on the other hand are mostly in VLANs that either ignore the DiffServ information, or even actively strip them off, and often the software VoIP client isn't installed in a way to even add DiffServ information.

    You can totally fuck off the VoIP phones by misconfiguring the switches and routers in your network, no problem, and then their voices sounds as shitty as the software client. And you can install the software client correctly, and threat the VoIP packets accordingly also in the Desktop LAN, and suddenly the voice quality will be as good as with the hardware phones.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  40. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if it is your own. Could you still be fired over looking at stuff that is NSFW, sending text, or thousands of other reasons you can be fired for miss using company devices? And what about if someone brings in some kind of virus, malware, or trojan? How does the company handle that? Is the company now responsible for protecting each BYOD or is it up to the end user? Some company have a policy BYOD you must install x software that now give the company full control of your device and limits things you can do on your device. So now it is no longer my device but a device I just brought for the company and pay the bill.

  41. Re:It's not rude if everyone understands the proto by Roadmaster · · Score: 1

    Who says they are unknown? I have caller ID at work. If I'm talking with a co-worker and a customer calls the customer should take priority in most cases. I've done this hundreds of times and it is the proper behavior. It's not rude, it's prudent. Our collective jobs depend on being responsive to our customers and we don't let our egos interfere with that fact.

    What will you do if you're on the phone with a customer and another customer calls? Will your caller ID tell you if it is indeed a customer or maybe an unrelated (e.g. "wrong number") caller? How about the possibility of it being a new customer? (not sure if your org has a separate department to handle new signups).

    It's only rude if there isn't a clearly understood reason for interrupting the call. My company employs just a handful of people and if a customer calls we need to have someone answer the phone. There is almost nothing I could be doing that would justify me ignoring a call from one of our customers during working hours. Anything I have to say to my coworker can probably wait a few minutes and we all understand that.

    This is quite understandable. I was envisioning the above-mentioned scenario of two potentially-equal-priority callers in which case call waiting is a nuisance (that's what busy signals are for). Your "preemptable caller" scenario is a good use case for call waiting + caller id, but it will not always be the case.

  42. Brand new IP phones by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Just got a brand new Polycom IP phone system at work. It's fantastic. Web page setup and administration. Crystal-clear voice quality. All-digital hookup to the switch so voice quality is outstanding. Plus, in-network calls are handled by the VPN, so calls to any of our offices in the world are free, and dialing out to any phone number that's local to any office is a local call.

    Unless you're usually out of the office, I'm not sure why you'd want to sign up for insane monthly fees and bi-yearly upgrade costs for mobiles.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Brand new IP phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you!

      Now report back on the afternoon that the drunk driver takes out your broadband box... Or when teh russian hackers break your firewall. Or when your local ISP's backbone decides all traffic needs to route through Greenland because of a borked update.

      Oh, you won't be able to! Where if you employed differing modes between your voice and internet service one going down wouldn't affect the other.

      Or, it's all shiny until something breaks.

  43. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    The problem comes when you talk about implementing it. Old fashioned phone switches--that was specialized hardware and the client would generally get what the implementer recommended. VOIP *should* use proper hardware as well--but all too often the client says, "It runs on computers? Great! We have a PC down the hall we're not using. We can put it on that."

  44. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by ckatko · · Score: 1

    If you're on company time, you can be fired for anything you do. If it's your phone, outside of company time you can do whatever you want. If it's their phone, it's their rules for their phone all the time.

    It's pretty simple, really.

    However, one thing I will NOT DO, is ever attach my own phone to an exchange server and allow it to have permission to control literally everything on my phone, from disabling wifi, access to the camera, to forcing a operating system reset. When I first got my phone and that prompt popped up I thought, "You've got to be kidding me. This is real?"

  45. Re:It's not rude if everyone understands the proto by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But that's why Voice Mail is useful in the first place - third caller then knows that you are unavailable, and leaves a message. You get to him at the next possible opportunity

  46. Voicemail is pointless by nhat11 · · Score: 1

    When I get dozen of requests a day, to sort through and wait to hear the VM its not practical so I ask most of my users to email me instead and its easier to keep track and organize all the requests

    1. Re:Voicemail is pointless by zlives · · Score: 1

      a UM integration would do both for you.

  47. Sounds good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No pun intended. I find that customers are always willing to spend their money later if I don't want to take it now. Seriously, if it were anyone but Chase, I'd be surprised. Being a Chase customer, I know that even with voice mail their customer service sucks.

  48. Re: It's not rude if everyone understands the prot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Secretaries: they're not just for fucking anymore. The novel trend is to have your secretary answer the phone for you. She triages the calls and can buzz the call through to you, put the call on hold, or take a message. If you don't have a secretary, you're missing out.

  49. ...at your own peril. by Controlio · · Score: 1

    It all depends on your company and how they communicate, but I just cancelled a policy with a AAA agent last month because his office was 0/3 in returning voicemails. I had my policy redone with another office, where I get much better customer service.

    That being said, I deal exclusively with a troublesome student loans company by phone and voicemail - because by law I can record those conversations. Inflection, sarcasm, level of actual interest, country of origin of your telephone representative - all of those things are lost in email. Think of your personal conversations too. Sobriety, amount of distractions, even some subtle location information. All gone with texts and email.

    Thanks, but no thanks. I'll keep my voicemail.

  50. Interruptions are not necessarily rude by sjbe · · Score: 1

    What will you do if you're on the phone with a customer and another customer calls?

    That's why we have voicemail and a rollover chain. If I cannot answer one of my coworkers does. I'm not the only person who works here but we always try to make sure our customers can reach someone live.

    The point is that interrupting a call is not in principle rude. There can be very good reasons to interrupt a conversation. There also can be good reasons to ignore a potential interruption. If I see a telemarketer call I'm probably going to ignore that call if I'm talking with someone important.

  51. not for everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my field of work (technology for farmers), most of our client don't even know how to use an e-mail! many of them don't even have access to a fax machine, we have to go in person to present the quote for the systems we want to sell them.

    If they can't even leave a message in our voicemail, how in the world are they going to communicate with us?

  52. Yay! by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    I had to check the calendar, but no - it's not the first of April. M$ has flagged Ask as malware, and some journalist has noticed that voicemail is a waste of time. Yay! [OAP happy dance]

    Two minutes to get through advertising and stupid menus to hear a distorted message from someone who's probably given up/trying to get through while you are trying to retrieve your voicemail, or woken up to the new thing called eeee-mail.

    Am I the only one whose voicemail message says "My phone is either off or out of range - please email me or ring back later."? And yet people still leave messages like "brrrt, crrrtchk, tried to call, gggrch, later".

    And WTF is the "press hash after the message" - it just confuses corned beef eaters and potheads (who really don't need more confusion), and it's bullshit - you don't need to press hash - it does nothing.

    Mutter, mutter, I hate SMS too. Just send me an email - it's cheaper, it has vowels, I might even reply. Who knows?

  53. $3.2 mil in savings? For voicemail? by mishehu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to question those numbers. Perhaps if you're in the stone age paying for a voicemail per-seat license per year or something like that, sure. But you're still doing it wrong. Voicemail is pretty damn cheap to run and doesn't cost much in storage space either (look at those AMR sound files that some cellphone providers save their voicemails in that your Android phone then downloads).

  54. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by unixisc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I myself got 2 lines from Verizon. One I use exclusively for work related stuff. Other I use exclusively for family related stuff, such as FaceTime and WhatsApp. None of my family members know the first number, and none of my colleagues or clients or customers know the second. So any employer w/ a BYOD policy could take the first phone and do anything w/ it, and I'd be able to accommodate that.

    I have always taken a dim view of people who use work equipment for personal stuff. Yesterday, I left my company, and I just cleanly handed over my laptop, w/o needing to change anything, since I did nothing personal there. Similarly, in a past job, I used my company provided cellphone ONLY for work related purposes. Never did any personal banking, for instance, on that phone.

    From an ethical standpoint, if a company provides you w/ any equipment - be it a laptop, cellphone, printer, or whatever, they have the right to write the rules of its use however they like. One would also be stupid to use that for personal stuff just b'cos one is too cheap to buy a laptop/tablet/phone of their own. However, if the company has a BYOD policy, they don't have that right - you can use that phone for anything, and the day you leave, you take it w/ you, instead of handing it over. Which is why BYOD just makes no sense to me - not to mention the administrative nightmare in managing different company policies.

  55. VOIP quality by unixisc · · Score: 2

    VOIP is even worse when you have calls b/w VOIP and cellphones. There's only one case I can remember where VOIP made more sense. I lived in a place a stone's throw away from the local DHS office. As a result, cellular reception in the area was really poor, as a result of government suppressing such signals. In this case, I used the Vonage app on my cellphone to dial anywhere, so that I could get a good reception.

  56. The certs are already fielded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The chip in my DOD ID card is the same as the one in my credit card. One holds a PKI encryption cert, the other probably does too. If the banks would unass themselves, they could own the market for PKI, given that they're already issuing chip&pin credit cards to almost everyone in the country.

  57. Re:$3.2 mil in savings? For voicemail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It comes out to about $25 per person, of which I assume includes the license cost, storage spage, support personnel in charge of it, which is nothing too crazy.

    However what I find more puzzling is a company that has 94.20 BILLION $ of revenue is removing a useful tool to save 3.2 million dollars?

    Why? Did the CIO/CTO want to pad his numbers to get his bonus or something?

  58. Re: If only i could get my cellphone to follow sui by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voicemail is implemented through conditional call forwarding to your voicemail number. You should be able to clear the numbers for "forward when busy", "forward when unanswered" or "forward when unreached". This can be done via the menu in the phone app (on Android) or by "calling" the USSD code "##004#" (without the quotes). If this doesn't work for one or more of these conditional call forwardings (on Vodafone Germany, for example), then ask your mobile phone provider to clear them for you (Vodafone Germany does if you insist). If they don't do it, find a better provider.

    Note: You will still be able to check voicemail and it can still be called directly, so if you don't want that, you have to have it disabled separately.

  59. Thank god by Thraxy · · Score: 1

    I've only ever used voice mail when incredibly drunk. I actually think phones should have a needle to perform blood tests, so that once your blood alcohol levels are too high, you can only call taxi services and pizza places.

  60. A bit late for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as I no longer work for JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. Voicemail did serve one useful purpose. It allowed you to communicate some information to another person without leaving an email trace behind.

    1. Re:A bit late for me by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Not if the voicemail was converted into an avi file and then forwarded via email.

  61. Businesses should have voicemail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At some level anyway.

    A local liquor store near me actually delivers - sometimes - when they feel like it.

    They hardly ever answer their phones though and it says to not leave a voicemail because they can't check the voicemail. Oh really? So you call 10 times and finally someone answers and tells you they cannot deliver.

    I've stopped buying stuff there even if I'm driving right past it. Fuck their attitude.

    It's also the only store I've even seen with an Apple POS system. WTF? I bet they paid a lot for that.

  62. Significant savings? Huh?? by dskoll · · Score: 1

    Significant savings from eliminating voicemail? Huh? Admittedly, I didn't watch the video but I can't see where these savings come from. We use an asterisk phone system and reasonably modern hard drives can store years worth of voicemail for thousands of users.

    I love voicemail. Lets me decide whether or not a call is important enough for me to interrupt my workflow without annoying the caller too much.

  63. Then how do I leave a message? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Then how do I leave a message? Answering machine?

    1. Re:Then how do I leave a message? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      "Hi, you've reached Bob, in accounting." "And this is his next-door-cube-neighbor, Rick!" "We're in a meeting right now, so" "please" "leave" "a" "message!" *BEEEP*

    2. Re:Then how do I leave a message? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      It's what I do at home. And because I have a crappy electrical utility I can then always claim that the power probably blinked, giving me plausible deniability. The mailman loves me too, I rarely trim the hedge that engulfs the mailbox and try to check it at least monthly.

  64. Some still require ink sigs by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    The legal profession has embraced electronic signatures. At my work we use DocuSign for the majority of contracts with our vendors.

    Not all participants in the legal profession have embraced e-sigs. For example, my wife and I needed to get a power-of-attorney (POA) so that I could a home purchase deal while she was out of the country. That was just a week ago. And the POA was required to be signed, in blue ink, before taking it to the court house.

    Even in real estate, there are participants who, for one reason or another, still demand sigs. For the same property we are trying to close, the seller (a trust) required us to use ink signatures, which we found it very unusual since we have been doing e-sigs for ages.

    For as long as someone demands an ink signature for something someone else wants, and there are now laws demanding e-signatures to be accepted when offered, we are going to have ink sigs. And that is going to be the case for a long, long time to come.

    1. Re:Some still require ink sigs by j-beda · · Score: 1

      The legal profession has embraced electronic signatures. At my work we use DocuSign for the majority of contracts with our vendors.

      Not all participants in the legal profession have embraced e-sigs. For example, my wife and I needed to get a power-of-attorney (POA) so that I could a home purchase deal while she was out of the country. That was just a week ago. And the POA was required to be signed, in blue ink, before taking it to the court house.

      Even in real estate, there are participants who, for one reason or another, still demand sigs. For the same property we are trying to close, the seller (a trust) required us to use ink signatures, which we found it very unusual since we have been doing e-sigs for ages.

      For as long as someone demands an ink signature for something someone else wants, and there are now laws demanding e-signatures to be accepted when offered, we are going to have ink sigs. And that is going to be the case for a long, long time to come.

      I don't think that a fax of an ink signature has any more "magic legal sauce" than a printed scan of the same ink signature - neither of them is the orignal signature. The fact that some people treat the fax diferent than the printed scan is purely one of mindset.

      Often I have been in situations where someone wanted a fax of the document (so they could start work) but needed the orignial mailed or couriered to them "for legal purposes". In cases like that, the scan/email type of thing would be functionally identical.

    2. Re:Some still require ink sigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went through a divorce last year and my wife's lawyer (I was in another country, so couldn't be physically present) had me send scanned copies of the signed agreement emailed to him. I asked him about electronic signatures, since that's what my ex used in signing her rental agreement, and he told me that the legal profession is still way behind the times.

  65. Weird by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    I remember back when I was a kid, and having the phone ringing into forever was normal. And then it wasn't... and now, I guess it will be? I get the savings incentive, but why not just replace the inbox with a voice-to-text converter and have it send the user an email?

    1. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That costs more money than just putting a phone on every desk. There are a lot of irritating patents around building a PBX that can do that. Which has seemed to limit competition in this area and kept prices high.

  66. Great idea by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    I encourage all of our competitors to do the same.

    I know it is difficult for some to understand they exist at the pleasure of their customers. Have no F*#$**$# business dictating to customers how we are to be contacted. The majority use email yet some prefer phone and voice messaging.

    Regardless even VMs end up as emails in everyone's email inboxes. Unless your PBX was invented in a land before time there is little to be whining about.

  67. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by peragrin · · Score: 1

    This is what surprises me. Why don't we have multiple profiles for a given phone so you can pop in a new SIM card and have your company load and manage their stuff seperateely from your personal stuff?

    That way businesses can remote wipe employee phones when the employee leaves.

    It is just a software why hasn't some one done it yet?

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  68. Re: It's not rude if everyone understands the prot by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, because they cost so much less than voicemail.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  69. I stopped using it 4 years ago by OrangeTide · · Score: 0

    I didn't turn mine off, I just quit checking it. I put a little PostIt note over the light on my desk phone. It's been that way for 4 years. If you can't write me an email or text me, then I don't really need to know.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:I stopped using it 4 years ago by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      Me too. Work Phone: the red light lets me know the line is working. One day they reset my voicemail and the red light was off, and something felt wrong all day. Fortunately someone left a new voicemail towards the end the day and the reassuring glow that my phone works was back.

      Android phone: the little icon of a cassette tape might be burned in to the top left of the screen for all I know; it has been lit for over a year.

  70. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you still be fired over looking at stuff that is NSFW

    If this were the 90's and I brought a Penthouse magazine into work and started reading it at my desk during my break. I imagine I would still be breaking some company policy, even though I wasn't using company equipment to turn the pages.

  71. Resistance to change and ignorance by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Pardon my ignorance, but who does that anymore?

    You would be amazed. Hell I do our company payroll and you would be astonished at the number of companies that literally CALL in their hours (very tedious and error prone) rather than using a simple web interface. Lots of people REALLY do not like to change.

    The Cisco phones I've seen have a menu (small one, but its there) that you can see caller id, time and length of each message and select it directly.

    Better but you still have to listen to the whole message. Doesn't help you when you are working remotely either. The system I use works whether I'm in the office or not.

    I just really don't understand anyone that doesn't have something like visual voice mail.

    Lots of people don't even know there are alternatives out there. Google voice is NOT known to the majority of people out there. Even people that do know about it often are resistant to change.

  72. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I've been using VoIP and SIP phones for the last decade. I didn't even know there were still other options? I thought all the office buildings were wired for Ethernet and that everyone used their desk phone's ethernet jack as an extra port to connect their laptop.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  73. So What Would You Do by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    I was just on the phone with a subordinate, and saw that I had another call from someone who I'd been waiting two days to reach regarding a very large contract. Based upon some folks comments, I should not have interrupted my ongoing call because that's supposedly rude...seriously? I could have let them to to voicemail (in most cases I would have, and I'm very happy we're not losing VM because I'm on the phone most of the day). Instead, I politely asked my sub to hold for a moment while I took the call. I then asked the other party if I could call them back in two minutes (since they had been so difficult to reach) when I expected to complete my ongoing discussion.

    I see the removal of VM as a penny-wise pound foolish proposition. The loss of a single customer could easily be worth more than the amount saved.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  74. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our "phones" at this office are all VoIP phones. They don't seem all that different than the ones we replaced (though they are black and silver instead of that yellowish color).

  75. Stupid by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Of course, there are folks who appear to be *terrified* of actually talking to another person over a telephone, and ignore their voicemail all the time.

    So,turn off voicemail... and then set up your phonemenu system so that there's almost no way to get to an actual person.... It took me a while for just that reason when I was putting in a tech support call from work to HP.

    Anything other than have enough staff to respond to your customers.

                      mark

  76. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If VoIP doesn't work for you, then your ISP is shit. I use it every day without without a single problem.

  77. PKI is not your saviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as you actually dig into it (like with this, from a well-known name in the industry), you'll find out that PKI is... flawed, deeply flawed and on just about every level. The worst isn't even the messy technology (openssl, anyone?), but the hierarchical design. That works very well in rigidly hierarchical organisations, like the military, but that doesn't scale to your entire life. For one because this sort of thing doesn't deal graciously with crossing organisational boundaries, but people don't have but one owner other than themselves. Supposedly, anyway. It's one of the things that we're apparently dead set to find out the hard way.

  78. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From an ethical standpoint, if a company provides you w/ any equipment - be it a laptop, cellphone, printer, or whatever, they have the right to write the rules of its use however they like. One would also be stupid to use that for personal stuff just b'cos one is too cheap to buy a laptop/tablet/phone of their own

    It's not a question of cheap, it's a question of reasonableness.

    For example, a company provides laptops to employees who travel for business. You go on a 5-day business trip. Do you want to bring a 2nd laptop with you for personal stuff? Or does the company have a policy allowing to use the company laptop for personal, non-illegal stuff when it doesn't interfere with your work?

  79. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you still be fired over looking at stuff that is NSFW

    If this were the 90's and I brought a Penthouse magazine into work and started reading it at my desk during my break. I imagine I would still be breaking some company policy, even though I wasn't using company equipment to turn the pages.

    Ah, but you are using company "equipment" to turn the pages. These days companies more or less believe they own you if you work for them. It's called the Human Resources department for a reason, you know.

  80. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    My company of 80 employees has already done this, nobody has a phone on their desk except for the customer service reps.

  81. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you can install the software client correctly, and threat the VoIP packets accordingly also in the Desktop LAN, and suddenly the voice quality will be as good as with the hardware phones.

    Yes and no. For the underlying network transport, you are correct.

    But with voip hardware you have a dedicated hardware device doing the work.

    With a softphone you are dependent on the underlying computer, and lots of programs are badly designed & don't multitask well. If the underlying computer has other programs & processes sucking up CPU, memory & I/O, the softphone voice quality can suffer.

  82. Re: If only i could get my cellphone to follow sui by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What carrier? I have a TMO MVNO now, have had an ATT MVNO, Sprint & VZW in the past, always been able to disable VM (I have a GV number I give people I want to be able to leave a VM - and only them).

  83. Good riddance by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    I remember going into one place a few years ago and if I wanted to use their phone system I had to sign up for a training course. A training course...to use a fucking phone. I told them no thanks...catch me on my cell.

    If someone wants to get in touch with me then send me a text...or hit me up on Skype. If I'm available I'll answer right then and there. If I don't answer right away it means I'm busy and I'll get back to you when I can. Simple. Calling me out of the blue imposes your schedule on me.

    Part of the problem is the anonymous robocalls. If I don't recognize the number I'm not picking up. If you don't leave a message then I know you are a pest and I'll block your number.

    Next up, email. Biggest time waster in corporate America.

  84. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    I believe that Blackberry has something similar to this. It allows you to separate business from personal data. So if the phone is lost or stolen the company could wipe the business half without touching the personal half. I haven't used it personally but it sounds like a good idea in theory.

  85. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by mikael · · Score: 1

    It might depend on country. Offices I've worked in still have Centrex telephone systems, but mostly now they are used for participating on committee/group discussions when you can't make it to the conference rooms with the Polycom microphones. The only time anyone ever used voicemail was for receiving calls from people on the other side of the planet and on a different timezone.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  86. Voicemail for screening calls by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    It seems most phone calls I get are from robotelemarketers. Sometimes the person will leave message of "hello, hello, anyone there?" as if they didn't listen to the intro "please leave a message after the tone." If you don't want to leave a message, you should have understood nobody is home (with exception of do I want to pick up the phone for someone important like a friend calling for realtime conversation).

    What gets me is people who leave longwinded messages, talking at slow-slow rate. Then at end of their "War and Peace novel" message, they leave their phone number at warp speed.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  87. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by bjwest · · Score: 1

    This is what surprises me. Why don't we have multiple profiles for a given phone so you can pop in a new SIM card and have your company load and manage their stuff seperateely from your personal stuff?

    For the same reason we don't have multi-SIM phones in the U.S. The carriers won't sell as many phones, and that's what it's all about. Why do you think they calls us consumers now instead of customers?

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  88. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by bjwest · · Score: 1

    From an ethical standpoint, if a company provides you w/ any equipment - be it a laptop, cellphone, printer, or whatever, they have the right to write the rules of its use however they like. One would also be stupid to use that for personal stuff just b'cos one is too cheap to buy a laptop/tablet/phone of their own.

    The U.S. worker feels it's their god given right to use company equipment for personal use during working hours, regardless of the hazard to the companies data and network.

    I used to work IT for a small county courthouse. I was wiping the same crap off the workstations of the same people and giving the same lectures almost weekly. The County Judge wouldn't let me lock them down for fear of a lawsuit. Theses were machines with access to personal and county records. Kinda scary, now that I think of it.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  89. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't answer my desk phone if I were in a meeting, or having a conversation with someone. So I would get a lot of voice mail, it took a lot of passive-aggressive behavior to get people to stop leaving me voicemail.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  90. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol, only if you want them too :)

    My 30 year-old phone system was $150. No voice mail tho it does handle more lines/phone than we'll ever use and a lifetime supply of spare parts. The phone rings, we answer it, no computer needed.

    Only downside is no one else left on earth seems to know how to program it. Binary thru the blinking line lights on extension 17!

  91. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by unixisc · · Score: 1

    If on the personal stuff, it's just to check emails, some online banking & personal internet browsing, one's own phone or tablet would do just as well. So if I'm on such a trip, I'd take my work laptop, my work phone and my personal phone w/ me. With the personal phone, handle any family calls, do WhatsApp or FaceTime and maybe browse some favorite websites - including porn. W/ the work laptop, just do the work I was supposed to be doing, and w/ the work phone, just use it to talk to or text colleagues or the client/customer I am visiting.

  92. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by unixisc · · Score: 1

    So people can't leave you voicemail, and they can't get you if you're already busy. You expect them to type up something in 15 minutes instead of spitting it out in 5. Hope you have just as much trouble getting hold of anybody you need to talk to for anything!!! It's amazing how self important some people can be.

  93. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never travelled on business, huh?

    Lemme tell you, being able to Skype the family on the work laptop is a huge deal when you're stuck in Australia for a week.

  94. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by unixisc · · Score: 1

    For something like that, I'd just take my personal phone w/ me as well and FaceTime them. Same deal!

  95. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

    Use TouchDown to connect to corporate exchange. It makes a nice little "zone" the corporate server can erase if they so choose, and your personal stuff is invisible to it. Also the PIN requirements will only apply to the things within the app itself, not your entire phone. Pretty handy!

  96. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

    That works out. If they can't be bothered to arrange their thoughts into an email, I won't be bothered with decoding their disorganized verbal ramblings from a message.

    If they want something from me, they will put it in the format I prefer. Similarly, there are people who prefer voicemail or forms over emails, and I will happily oblige by making my request in whatever format they prefer.

  97. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how self important some people can be.

    First, Let me resolve your insult. I'm a SW architect for a large project, I have about 3 dozen people who contact me on a regular basis, ranging from engineer to project manager to director. I'm not self-important, I just play a very central role right now.

    The problem I have with phone calls is that it takes people 10 minutes to ask a cogent question by voice, and they waste 10 minutes of my time in the process. I would rather they spent 20 minutes writing an email and I spend 5 minutes reading and replying to it. With an email, I can forward it or add other people or archive it. If it requires a two way conversation, I schedule a meeting, perhaps including one or two other people who can observe and learn so I don't have to repeat myself needlessly.

    If I let everyone interrupt me at any time with questions, I would really not get any work done. Because it usually takes me several minutes after an interruption to refocus on my original task.

    If I need someone, I don't go over to their cube (since it could be in Finland or Shanghai, plus it's annoying), and I don't try to leave a voicemail (for the obvious reason I don't answer mine).

    If the building is in fire, or a customer is waiting for them in the lobby, I call their cellphone, then email them, then text them, then repeat.

    If I only had some minor questions, I send an email and then set the problem aside until they can sync up with me. I have so many other things I can be doing, so even if I hit a roadblock I can still make forward progress on something else.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  98. Voicemail analogy by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    You know the prank where you leave a burning bag of dog poop on someone's doorstep, then ring the doorbell and run away? Voicemail is like stapling your message to that bag and acting like it's an acceptable way to communicate.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  99. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is voicemail so expensive... a voice message literally only takes a couple KB, even if you don't use it, it should cost so much money... Or what, they were using some thirdparty service that charged extra for voicemail when a simple server with a 60GB SSD would've been plenty to serve all those users, instead of their own internal VOIP service?

    1. Re:Wait... by nessman · · Score: 1

      The hardware is cheap (most of the time it's just a regular ol' server), the software is practically free. The bulk of those costs are for the per-user licensing - because if you don't have licensing - the system won't work beyond a post-install grace period. Also you need maintenance through a local vendor/reseller - someone who'll show up at 2:00 am when the system shits the bed... along with manufacturer support (i.e., PASS for Nortel/Avaya CallPilot or SmartNET for Cisco Unity) - for which without you cannot get software patches, service packs, upgrades, and support if the local vendor can't figure out the problem.

  100. VM has been dying, you just noticed? by weweedmaniii · · Score: 1

    I haven't had VM since I was hired by my employer 5 years ago. All the teams I'm on have group numbers that are manned 24/7. I do have a personal number, but the only people who get that are businesses that ask for a "work number" the ringer for that line has always been turned off and no vm so they get ring after ring without an answer. I don't even know if anyone has ever called it. Any calls that I might care about will come to our group line, usually from clients that have no access to our system and need us to assist them; or more commonly "Hey customer service gave me this number, can you guys do X?"; and my favorite "I forgot my badge, can someone let me in?"

    --
    "If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
  101. Re: Coming next ... Office desk telephones by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

    Don't buy brand name phone on a contract. I bought a generic Chinese android phone from Aldi (German supermarket chain) it cost about $150, has two sim sockets, microsd socket and is MINE to do whatever I want with. Change plan, change carriers, use two carriers at the same time, go overseas and use my local number AND my international number... If a carrier is giving you a phone for "free" why would you expect anything other than to be royally fucked by that carrier?

  102. Re:Coming next ... Office desk telephones by zlives · · Score: 1

    "They often have to hang up and run down the hall to find a real phone"

    as some one who manages cisco VOIP and has deployed and used Jabber and Skype for business (Lync) softphones... "They" are doing it wrong.

  103. Re: It's not rude if everyone understands the prot by KGIII · · Score: 1

    They do much more than voicemail. I kept avoiding one for the longest time. Eventually I caved and got my own personal secretary and it was great. Of course I had sex with her and ended up divorced so, still, she was great and it was worth it.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  104. VM and faxes by nessman · · Score: 1

    I just migrated a small rural county from a legacy Nortel PBX to a Cisco UM system and I was surprised at how many analog ports they required for faxing. Quite a few (we ended up installing something like 3 VG224's and 7 VG204's)... and they are used quite a bit - so the fax isn't dead yet. And I've yet to run into a customer that has said "nah - we don't need no stinking voice mail system!".

    I'm starting to see corporate instant messaging and "presence" more and more commonplace. Easier to send a quick IM, or see if they're "green" (as in available) to shoot them a quick call... rather than call, wait 4 rings, listen to their stupid outgoing message if I can't get past it with #, and leave a message that won't get returned. Internally, we use Microsoft Lync - which in spite of it being a Microsoft product - works really well. Voice mails go to e-mail - so I can read the (not always perfect) speech to text transcription. But for the most part - we use IM and e-mail.

  105. Re:$3.2 mil in savings? For voicemail? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

    For a large company the server's alone could cost 200-300 thousand for a cluster of boxes and dedicated storage plus backup solution, assume a 5 year life cycle, and that is 1.5 million per 5 years.

    Licensing some enterprise software can be really expensive also. If it requires an oracle database on the back-end, then you are looking at 50K per processor per year. Say you want highly available stuff. Then double that Oracle cost, and add Data Guard for another 10K per processor. Then license the voice software itself, backup software and agents, etc.. it adds up fast when you are building big systems. http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list-070617.pdf