When these pathetic TV quiz questions are transmitted, a voiceover
advises the end time for any replies.  And the warning:

"After this time, calls will not be counted, but may be charged"

What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.

IMV, the current practice seems to be verging on being illegal.

DJ

In message , at 11:40:09 on 
Mon, 6 Oct 2008, David J <david@btelecom.invalid> remarked:
>When these pathetic TV quiz questions are transmitted, a voiceover
>advises the end time for any replies.  And the warning:
>
>"After this time, calls will not be counted, but may be charged"
>
>What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?

Probably because the number is (eventually or maybe even sooner) re-used 
for a different competition. So the charge will apply even though you 
are calling for an expired competition.

>That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.
>
>IMV, the current practice seems to be verging on being illegal.

There are two risks, one that you write down the details and don't phone 
till "too late", the other that the show gets rebroadcast after the 
deadline, and I think they are getting better at that. For example, I'm 
pretty sure that repeats of "Deal or No Deal" have the phone-in 
competitions blurred out (or otherwise discouraged).
-- 
Roland Perry

In article ,
	David J <david@btelecom.invalid> wrote:
> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.

There can be technical challenges to doing this.  

Even if they have bene overcome on the relevant platform, there are
also 'cockup' possibilities if the person in the production office
forgets to tell the telco to turn off the lines at the right time.
Warning the viewer is simply a belt and braces approach.

-- 
Shenanigans!  Shenanigans!    Best of 3!
	-- Flash

On 6 Oct, 11:40, David J <da...@btelecom.invalid> wrote:
> When these pathetic TV quiz questions are transmitted, a voiceover
> advises the end time for any replies.  And the warning:
>
> "After this time, calls will not be counted, but may be charged"
>
> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.

There's nothing wrong with it, and it's what should be done.  It's
even possible to play the caller a message to tell them that the
competition's been closed and they've not been charged for the
call, and that should be done as well - it can be done using the
same mechanism as the "the number you have called is not in
service" or "calls from outside the United States are not free of
charge" messages which one hears routinely.

And the "may" in "may be charged" is a weasel-word.  If the
call's answered, it'll be charged.  If not, it won't be.

--Dave

In message 
, at 
23:25:05 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, David Knell  
remarked:
>> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
>> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.
>
>There's nothing wrong with it, and it's what should be done.  It's
>even possible to play the caller a message to tell them that the
>competition's been closed and they've not been charged for the
>call,

That'll only work if the number is magically taken out of the billing 
systems.

>and that should be done as well - it can be done using the
>same mechanism as the "the number you have called is not in
>service" or "calls from outside the United States are not free of
>charge" messages which one hears routinely.

Only if you are prepared to put the number into quarantine for a long 
time - as well as the magic non-billing trick. And next week you'll need 
a different number for people to call.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 7 Oct, 13:15, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 23:25:05 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, David Knell 
> remarked:
>
> >> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
> >> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.
>
> >There's nothing wrong with it, and it's what should be done.  It's
> >even possible to play the caller a message to tell them that the
> >competition's been closed and they've not been charged for the
> >call,
>
> That'll only work if the number is magically taken out of the billing
> systems.
>
> >and that should be done as well - it can be done using the
> >same mechanism as the "the number you have called is not in
> >service" or "calls from outside the United States are not free of
> >charge" messages which one hears routinely.

Why do anything that complicated, or give a message at all? Just turn
off the autoanswer machine. But someone's bound to forget, and
automated procedures sometimes fail -- my ISP sometimes fails to
switch my broadband connection to unmetered after midnight. Also,
there has been talk about charging for ringing time on unanswered
calls. Do any providers do that? Hence the weasel words.

> Only if you are prepared to put the number into quarantine for a long
> time - as well as the magic non-billing trick. And next week you'll need
> a different number for people to call.

Why do you need another number? No one will be hanging on that long!
And regular callers will want to program the show's number into their
autodiallers.

Chris

In message 
, at 
13:05:06 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, chrisj.doran@proemail.co.uk remarked:

>> >and that should be done as well - it can be done using the
>> >same mechanism as the "the number you have called is not in
>> >service" or "calls from outside the United States are not free of
>> >charge" messages which one hears routinely.
>
>Why do anything that complicated, or give a message at all? Just turn
>off the autoanswer machine.

Then the punter will be charged the fee to listen to a turned-off 
machine.

Phone billing works when you are connected to the called number, to 
remove the billing you need to remove the number.

>Also, there has been talk about charging for ringing time on unanswered 
>calls. Do any providers do that?

If the "ringing" is provided by the called party, *after* the network 
has connected the call, then of course the network charges for it.

>> Only if you are prepared to put the number into quarantine for a long 
>>time And next week you'll need  a different number for people to call.
>
>Why do you need another number?

Because people calling the competition line as a result of seeing a 
repeat of the programme will be calling the "wrong competition", the one 
they thought they were calling having expired.
-- 
Roland Perry

chrisj.doran@proemail.co.uk wrote:
> On 7 Oct, 13:15, Roland Perry  wrote:
>> In message
>> , at
>> 23:25:05 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, David Knell 
>> remarked:
>>
>>>> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
>>>> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.
>>> There's nothing wrong with it, and it's what should be done.  It's
>>> even possible to play the caller a message to tell them that the
>>> competition's been closed and they've not been charged for the
>>> call,
>> That'll only work if the number is magically taken out of the billing
>> systems.
>>
>>> and that should be done as well - it can be done using the
>>> same mechanism as the "the number you have called is not in
>>> service" or "calls from outside the United States are not free of
>>> charge" messages which one hears routinely.
> 
> Why do anything that complicated, or give a message at all? Just turn
> off the autoanswer machine. But someone's bound to forget, and
> automated procedures sometimes fail -- my ISP sometimes fails to
> switch my broadband connection to unmetered after midnight. Also,
> there has been talk about charging for ringing time on unanswered
> calls. Do any providers do that? Hence the weasel words.
> 
>> Only if you are prepared to put the number into quarantine for a long
>> time - as well as the magic non-billing trick. And next week you'll need
>> a different number for people to call.
> 
> Why do you need another number? No one will be hanging on that long!
> And regular callers will want to program the show's number into their
> autodiallers.
> 
> Chris
> 

Why can't they just take the phone off the hook like I do?

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:g8T5qfsse26IFAdt@perry.co.uk...
> In message 
> , at 
> 13:05:06 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, chrisj.doran@proemail.co.uk remarked:
>
>>> >and that should be done as well - it can be done using the
>>> >same mechanism as the "the number you have called is not in
>>> >service" or "calls from outside the United States are not free of
>>> >charge" messages which one hears routinely.
>>
>>Why do anything that complicated, or give a message at all? Just turn
>>off the autoanswer machine.
>
> Then the punter will be charged the fee to listen to a turned-off machine.
>
> Phone billing works when you are connected to the called number, to remove 
> the billing you need to remove the number.
>
Nonsense.
You aren't charged when a call isn't answered.  If they unplugged their 
reciever all the call would do is to time out.

In message <gcgt8t$3lh$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
01:05:05 on Wed, 8 Oct 2008, mert1639  
remarked:
>>>Why do anything that complicated, or give a message at all? Just turn
>>>off the autoanswer machine.
>>
>> Then the punter will be charged the fee to listen to a turned-off machine.
>>
>> Phone billing works when you are connected to the called number, to remove
>> the billing you need to remove the number.
>>
>Nonsense.
>You aren't charged when a call isn't answered.

I agree, but the situation isn't quite as simple as that.

>If they unplugged their reciever all the call would do is to time out.

The "receiver" will be racks of equipment connected by fibre capable of 
handling thousands of calls, so you can't literally "unplug" it, and 
there will be technical reasons why the telco delivering the inbound 
calls won't be very keen on you powering it down or returning a 
permanent "busy".
-- 
Roland Perry

On 8 Oct, 08:35, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message <gcgt8t$3l...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at
> >Nonsense.
> >You aren't charged when a call isn't answered.
>
> I agree, but the situation isn't quite as simple as that.
>
> >If they unplugged their reciever all the call would do is to time out.
>
> The "receiver" will be racks of equipment connected by fibre capable of
> handling thousands of calls, so you can't literally "unplug" it, and
> there will be technical reasons why the telco delivering the inbound
> calls won't be very keen on you powering it down or returning a
> permanent "busy".

There's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be done, and I speak
as
someone who's (a) designed IVR systems and (b) run a (small) telco.
Any
IVR ought to be able to answer calls within specified time limits and
return
a busy otherwise; any competent IVR ought to be able to play an
arbitrary
message as (uncharged) ringtone.

"Technical" reasons are generally no such thing, and, in any case,
should
not be acceptable as an excuse: if one provider's not capable of
providing
a service which protects the user's interests - and, by doing so, the
TV
company's - then I'm sure (a) that another one will be and (b) that,
faced
with the prospect of losing a large account, the original one will
find a way..

--Dave

David Knell wrote:
> On 6 Oct, 11:40, David J <da...@btelecom.invalid> wrote:
>> When these pathetic TV quiz questions are transmitted, a voiceover
>> advises the end time for any replies.  And the warning:
>>
>> "After this time, calls will not be counted, but may be charged"
>>
>> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
>> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.
> 

How long should they block the line for?

At some point, even if originally blocked, the number will be re-used at 
which point the caller will be charged, even if they are ringing for the 
old competition.

> There's nothing wrong with it, and it's what should be done.  It's
> even possible to play the caller a message to tell them that the
> competition's been closed and they've not been charged for the
> call, and that should be done as well - it can be done using the
> same mechanism as the "the number you have called is not in
> service" or "calls from outside the United States are not free of
> charge" messages which one hears routinely.
> 

The ability to do things like that depends on how the destination is 
connected to the telephone system.

If they can't play a message without answering the call (causing the 
user to be charged) will the user understand why they aren't getting 
their called answered?

Things are different again for text based competitions.

In message 
, at 
19:05:05 on Wed, 8 Oct 2008, David Knell  
remarked:
>any competent IVR ought to be able to play an arbitrary message as 
>(uncharged) ringtone.

Isn't ringtone distributed in the network signalling, rather than an 
audio stream? In any event why would the originating telcos be keen to 
deliver those arbitrary messages over their network free of charge?
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon,  6 Oct 2008 23:25:05 퍝, David Knell put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>On 6 Oct, 11:40, David J <da...@btelecom.invalid> wrote:
>> When these pathetic TV quiz questions are transmitted, a voiceover
>> advises the end time for any replies.  And the warning:
>>
>> "After this time, calls will not be counted, but may be charged"
>>
>> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
>> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.
>
>There's nothing wrong with it, and it's what should be done.  It's
>even possible to play the caller a message to tell them that the
>competition's been closed and they've not been charged for the
>call,

Not without answering the call, in which case the caller will be
charged.

> and that should be done as well - it can be done using the
>same mechanism as the "the number you have called is not in
>service" or "calls from outside the United States are not free of
>charge" messages which one hears routinely.

Those messages are generated by the telco, not the end-user.

>And the "may" in "may be charged" is a weasel-word.  If the
>call's answered, it'll be charged.  If not, it won't be.

If the caller gets through to a recorded message played by the
end-user, then the call has been answered and they will be charged.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

"Stuart Clark"  wrote in message 
news:76qvr5-3go.ln1@stuart.Jahingo.com...
> David Knell wrote:
>> On 6 Oct, 11:40, David J <da...@btelecom.invalid> wrote:
>>> When these pathetic TV quiz questions are transmitted, a voiceover
>>> advises the end time for any replies.  And the warning:
>>>
>>> "After this time, calls will not be counted, but may be charged"
>>>
>>> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
>>> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.
>>
>
> How long should they block the line for?
>
After that competition finishes until before they want to re-use the number. 
Why would people be calling for a competion after it has ceased to be 
advertised?

"mert1639"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>>> What's wrong with the TV stations automatically blocking the lines?
>>>> That way the calls will not be counted, and will not be charged.

>> How long should they block the line for?

> After that competition finishes until before they want to re-use the
> number. Why would people be calling for a competion after it has ceased
> to be advertised?

They're watching it off the video?

In message <gclq6p$r8n$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
21:45:17 on Thu, 9 Oct 2008, mert1639  
remarked:
>> How long should they block the line for?
>>
>After that competition finishes until before they want to re-use the number.
>Why would people be calling for a competion after it has ceased to be
>advertised?

Because they are (a) slow to call or (b) watching a repeat of the 
programme.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:1HIMUhFGUn7IFAEs@perry.co.uk...
> In message <gclq6p$r8n$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
> 21:45:17 on Thu, 9 Oct 2008, mert1639  remarked:
>>> How long should they block the line for?
>>>
>>After that competition finishes until before they want to re-use the 
>>number.
>>Why would people be calling for a competion after it has ceased to be
>>advertised?
>
> Because they are (a) slow to call or (b) watching a repeat of the 
> programme.
It would be easy to edit out the number in a repeat.

In message <gcltgf$sec$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
22:40:07 on Thu, 9 Oct 2008, mert1639  
remarked:
>>>Why would people be calling for a competion after it has ceased to be
>>>advertised?
>>
>> Because they are (a) slow to call or (b) watching a repeat of the
>> programme.
>It would be easy to edit out the number in a repeat.

And sometimes they do (I commented on that a few days ago).

Watching a recording of the programme is another reason.
-- 
Roland Perry