| Author |
Skipping answer machine msgs
|
|
| C. Señor 2006-03-28, 5:48 pm |
| O2 and Orange have the brilliant idea of allowing a caller to press #
during the answer machine msg to go straight to the beep so you can record
a msg. But Virgin, T-Mobile and Vodafone AFAIK don't allow you to do this
and instead ask you for a PIN number. Why can't they all follow the same
standard?
| |
| deadmail@burnt.org.uk 2006-03-28, 11:48 pm |
| C. Señor <halfanorange@gmail.com> wrote in message
<pan.2006.03.28.21.36.02.139922@gmail.com>:
>O2 and Orange have the brilliant idea of allowing a caller to press #
>during the answer machine msg to go straight to the beep so you can record
>a msg. But Virgin, T-Mobile and Vodafone AFAIK don't allow you to do this
>and instead ask you for a PIN number. Why can't they all follow the same
>standard?
Probably because the Orange implementation is not a standard but is a
proprietary implementation and potentially something that's been
patented?
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-03-28, 11:48 pm |
| Thus spaketh deadmail@burnt.org.uk:
> C. Señor <halfanorange@gmail.com> wrote in message
> <pan.2006.03.28.21.36.02.139922@gmail.com>:
>
>
> Probably because the Orange implementation is not a standard but is a
> proprietary implementation and potentially something that's been
> patented?
That's the way they have always done it.
| |
| C. Señor 2006-03-28, 11:48 pm |
| deadmail@burnt.org.uk wrote:
> C. Señor <halfanorange@gmail.com> wrote in message
> <pan.2006.03.28.21.36.02.139922@gmail.com>:
>
>
> Probably because the Orange implementation is not a standard but is a
> proprietary implementation and potentially something that's been
> patented?
BT and O2 support pressing # to skip the msg though as well as some answer
machines.
| |
| deadmail@burnt.org.uk 2006-03-28, 11:48 pm |
| C. Señor <halfanorange@gmail.com> wrote in message
<pan.2006.03.28.22.27.24.147128@gmail.com>:
>deadmail@burnt.org.uk wrote:
>
>
>BT and O2 support pressing # to skip the msg though as well as some answer
>machines.
Well, it may be 'standard practise' but I suppose I'm being anal about
the use of 'standard'; i.e. it's not something from ETSI/ITU/3GPP etc.
|
|
|
|