Delayed Voicemail?

Yesterday (Sunday), I received a voicemail from a business associate. The
problem is that the message was left on the previous Wednesday. If it wasn't
important, time sensitive medical information, I wouldn't be concerned. Was
this a glitch in the system? Did anyone else have this problem?

---

› See More: Delayed Voicemail?

Ric Kaysen wrote:
> Yesterday (Sunday), I received a voicemail from a business associate. The
> problem is that the message was left on the previous Wednesday. If it wasn't
> important, time sensitive medical information, I wouldn't be concerned. Was
> this a glitch in the system? Did anyone else have this problem?
>
>

Yes, there are times when MWI is delayed for some period of time due to
system glithes. Excrement occurs. System glitches aside, are business
associates depositing critical medical information to your VM without
requiring you to ring back with confirmation that you received it in a
critical timely manner? If so, you've got more pressing issues with
business associates than with voice mail glitches.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ric Kaysen wrote:
>> Yesterday (Sunday), I received a voicemail from a business associate. The
>> problem is that the message was left on the previous Wednesday. If it
>> wasn't important, time sensitive medical information, I wouldn't be
>> concerned. Was this a glitch in the system? Did anyone else have this
>> problem?
>
> Yes, there are times when MWI is delayed for some period of time due to
> system glithes. Excrement occurs. System glitches aside, are business
> associates depositing critical medical information to your VM without
> requiring you to ring back with confirmation that you received it in a
> critical timely manner? If so, you've got more pressing issues with
> business associates than with voice mail glitches.


The information was, in fact, conveyed by other means. The fact that such
precautions are normally taken doesn't make me any less annoyed that a voice
mail took four days to get through Cingulars system.

Ric Kaysen wrote:
> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Ric Kaysen wrote:
>>
>>>Yesterday (Sunday), I received a voicemail from a business associate. The
>>>problem is that the message was left on the previous Wednesday. If it
>>>wasn't important, time sensitive medical information, I wouldn't be
>>>concerned. Was this a glitch in the system? Did anyone else have this
>>>problem?
>>
>>Yes, there are times when MWI is delayed for some period of time due to
>>system glithes. Excrement occurs. System glitches aside, are business
>>associates depositing critical medical information to your VM without
>>requiring you to ring back with confirmation that you received it in a
>>critical timely manner? If so, you've got more pressing issues with
>>business associates than with voice mail glitches.
>
>
>
> The information was, in fact, conveyed by other means. The fact that such
> precautions are normally taken doesn't make me any less annoyed that a voice
> mail took four days to get through Cingulars system.
>
>

The voice mail message didn't take four days to "get through" the
system. What you experienced was a four day delay for your handset to
receive the MWI (Message Waiting Indicator) - it's the signal that
causes your handset to activate/deactivate whatever icon that it uses to
indicate a MWI condition exists, and this condition is managed by the
voice mail system. Obviously, a glitch caused the MWI delay.

Again, if mission critical information is expected to be conveyed by any
communication system beyond face-to-face voice, it is absolutely
critical that a real-time confirmation of conveyance be required by all
parties involved, or as close to real-time as is possible. Anything
less is unacceptable. Technology is great, it fills the gap we create
when we move around, but it's not good enough to substitute for our
shortcoming of not following the rules of message confirmation.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ric Kaysen wrote:
>> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Ric Kaysen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yesterday (Sunday), I received a voicemail from a business associate.
>>>>The problem is that the message was left on the previous Wednesday. If
>>>>it wasn't important, time sensitive medical information, I wouldn't be
>>>>concerned. Was this a glitch in the system? Did anyone else have this
>>>>problem?
>>>
>>>Yes, there are times when MWI is delayed for some period of time due to
>>>system glithes. Excrement occurs. System glitches aside, are business
>>>associates depositing critical medical information to your VM without
>>>requiring you to ring back with confirmation that you received it in a
>>>critical timely manner? If so, you've got more pressing issues with
>>>business associates than with voice mail glitches.
>>
>>
>>
>> The information was, in fact, conveyed by other means. The fact that such
>> precautions are normally taken doesn't make me any less annoyed that a
>> voice mail took four days to get through Cingulars system.
>
> The voice mail message didn't take four days to "get through" the system.
> What you experienced was a four day delay for your handset to receive the
> MWI (Message Waiting Indicator) - it's the signal that causes your handset
> to activate/deactivate whatever icon that it uses to indicate a MWI
> condition exists, and this condition is managed by the voice mail system.
> Obviously, a glitch caused the MWI delay.
>
> Again, if mission critical information is expected to be conveyed by any
> communication system beyond face-to-face voice, it is absolutely critical
> that a real-time confirmation of conveyance be required by all parties
> involved, or as close to real-time as is possible. Anything less is
> unacceptable. Technology is great, it fills the gap we create when we
> move around, but it's not good enough to substitute for our shortcoming of
> not following the rules of message confirmation.
>
> --


Are you saying that if he had checked his voice mail earlier (before
receiveing the message Wait Indicator) that the message would have been
there?

In article <[email protected]>, 72242.3606
@compuserve.com says...
>
> >
> > The voice mail message didn't take four days to "get through" the system.
> > What you experienced was a four day delay for your handset to receive the
> > MWI (Message Waiting Indicator) - it's the signal that causes your handset
> > to activate/deactivate whatever icon that it uses to indicate a MWI
> > condition exists, and this condition is managed by the voice mail system.
> > Obviously, a glitch caused the MWI delay.
>
> Are you saying that if he had checked his voice mail earlier (before
> receiveing the message Wait Indicator) that the message would have been
> there?
>
Of course that's what he's saying. Those voice mail systems are pretty
simple really--having worked with several Octel VM systems for years I
can't think of any method that the actual voice mail could have been
delayed from being put in the box. Short of a major drive crash of
course. You can check the box one SECOND after the caller hangs up and
the message will be there. On the other hand there have been lots of
reports here about the VM *Indicator* signal not being sent until later
(or not at all) or getting left on.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:44:59 GMT, "Rick" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Ric Kaysen wrote:
>>> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>Ric Kaysen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yesterday (Sunday), I received a voicemail from a business associate.
>>>>>The problem is that the message was left on the previous Wednesday. If
>>>>>it wasn't important, time sensitive medical information, I wouldn't be
>>>>>concerned. Was this a glitch in the system? Did anyone else have this
>>>>>problem?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, there are times when MWI is delayed for some period of time due to
>>>>system glithes. Excrement occurs. System glitches aside, are business
>>>>associates depositing critical medical information to your VM without
>>>>requiring you to ring back with confirmation that you received it in a
>>>>critical timely manner? If so, you've got more pressing issues with
>>>>business associates than with voice mail glitches.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The information was, in fact, conveyed by other means. The fact that such
>>> precautions are normally taken doesn't make me any less annoyed that a
>>> voice mail took four days to get through Cingulars system.
>>
>> The voice mail message didn't take four days to "get through" the system.
>> What you experienced was a four day delay for your handset to receive the
>> MWI (Message Waiting Indicator) - it's the signal that causes your handset
>> to activate/deactivate whatever icon that it uses to indicate a MWI
>> condition exists, and this condition is managed by the voice mail system.
>> Obviously, a glitch caused the MWI delay.
>>
>> Again, if mission critical information is expected to be conveyed by any
>> communication system beyond face-to-face voice, it is absolutely critical
>> that a real-time confirmation of conveyance be required by all parties
>> involved, or as close to real-time as is possible. Anything less is
>> unacceptable. Technology is great, it fills the gap we create when we
>> move around, but it's not good enough to substitute for our shortcoming of
>> not following the rules of message confirmation.
>>
>> --
>
>
>Are you saying that if he had checked his voice mail earlier (before
>receiveing the message Wait Indicator) that the message would have been
>there?
>

I would bet you $10 that's the case. Where would the message be for
four days if not on the VM server?

That MWI delay is one of the reasons I got rid of Nextel. If you are
out of range for long enough, it may take a day to get your messages
when you get a signal again.

Rick wrote:
> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Ric Kaysen wrote:
>>
>>>"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ric Kaysen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yesterday (Sunday), I received a voicemail from a business associate.
>>>>>The problem is that the message was left on the previous Wednesday. If
>>>>>it wasn't important, time sensitive medical information, I wouldn't be
>>>>>concerned. Was this a glitch in the system? Did anyone else have this
>>>>>problem?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, there are times when MWI is delayed for some period of time due to
>>>>system glithes. Excrement occurs. System glitches aside, are business
>>>>associates depositing critical medical information to your VM without
>>>>requiring you to ring back with confirmation that you received it in a
>>>>critical timely manner? If so, you've got more pressing issues with
>>>>business associates than with voice mail glitches.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The information was, in fact, conveyed by other means. The fact that such
>>>precautions are normally taken doesn't make me any less annoyed that a
>>>voice mail took four days to get through Cingulars system.
>>
>>The voice mail message didn't take four days to "get through" the system.
>>What you experienced was a four day delay for your handset to receive the
>>MWI (Message Waiting Indicator) - it's the signal that causes your handset
>>to activate/deactivate whatever icon that it uses to indicate a MWI
>>condition exists, and this condition is managed by the voice mail system.
>>Obviously, a glitch caused the MWI delay.
>>
>>Again, if mission critical information is expected to be conveyed by any
>>communication system beyond face-to-face voice, it is absolutely critical
>>that a real-time confirmation of conveyance be required by all parties
>>involved, or as close to real-time as is possible. Anything less is
>>unacceptable. Technology is great, it fills the gap we create when we
>>move around, but it's not good enough to substitute for our shortcoming of
>>not following the rules of message confirmation.
>>
>>--
>
>
>
> Are you saying that if he had checked his voice mail earlier (before
> receiveing the message Wait Indicator) that the message would have been
> there?
>
>

Yup. When a caller is prompted to leave a message, that announcement is
coming from the VM system itself, and when a message is deposited for
the recipient, it's deposited directly into the VM system.
Subsequently, the VM system is supposed to send a signal to the
recipients handset to inform them a new message is available.
Regardless of whether the "new message" (MWI) signal was received by the
reciopient, the message can still be retrieved at any time after it was
deposited.

Virtually all carrier class (NEBS 3 compliant) VM systems (Cingular uses
Octel and Anypath by Lucent) have multiple disk drives for a message
store. Single drive failure has no impact on subscriber service -
that's what makes them carrier class - carrier class communication
systems are fully duplicated internally, are externally connected with
multiple fault-tolerant interfaces, and are designed and operated to
tolerate single component failure without adverse impact to subscribers.
And no, you probably don't want to see the price tag.

http://www.lucent.com/solutions/anypath.html?3

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rick wrote:
> > "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Ric Kaysen wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ric Kaysen wrote:
>Yes, there are times when MWI is delayed for some period of time due
to
> >>>>system glithes. .
> >>
> >>The voice mail message didn't take four days to "get through" the
system.
> >>What you experienced was a four day delay for your handset to
receive the
> >>MWI (Message Waiting Indicator)
> >>Obviously, a glitch caused the MWI delay.
> >>
>>>Technology is great, it fills the gap we create when we
> >>move around, but it's not good enough to substitute for our
shortcoming of
> >>not following the rules of message confirmation.
>>>
> Regardless of whether the "new message" (MWI) signal was received by
the
> reciopient, the message can still be retrieved at any time after it
was
> deposited.
>

Hi to all,

There seem to be a couple of additional glitches going on at the
moment but they may be affecting only a small number of users.

We use a GAIT phone and have noticed that if we are on the TDMA side
of the Orange network we may not receive the VMI until we are back in
GSM coverage.

We have also noticed substantial delays in receiving VMI if the
message was left in a Blue network area eg NYC. Often the VMI pops up
when we cross back into Orange territory in CT or MA. I think the
record was a 5 day delay in VMI

Needless to say we are manually checking voice mail several times a
day !

Obviously if this is predominantly a network 'meshing' issue it will
be solved fairly quickly.

Even so it's more a human engineering issue than a telco engineering
issue and I agree with you that the rules of message confirmation are
fundamental.

Richard

RICHARD GORDON wrote:
> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>>"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ric Kaysen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ric Kaysen wrote:
>>
>>Yes, there are times when MWI is delayed for some period of time due
>
> to
>
>>>>>>system glithes. .
>>>>
>>>>The voice mail message didn't take four days to "get through" the
>
> system.
>
>>>>What you experienced was a four day delay for your handset to
>
> receive the
>
>>>>MWI (Message Waiting Indicator)
>>>>Obviously, a glitch caused the MWI delay.
>>>>
>>>>Technology is great, it fills the gap we create when we
>>>>move around, but it's not good enough to substitute for our
>
> shortcoming of
>
>>>>not following the rules of message confirmation.
>>>>
>>
>>Regardless of whether the "new message" (MWI) signal was received by
>
> the
>
>>reciopient, the message can still be retrieved at any time after it
>
> was
>
>>deposited.
>>
>
>
> Hi to all,
>
> There seem to be a couple of additional glitches going on at the
> moment but they may be affecting only a small number of users.
>
> We use a GAIT phone and have noticed that if we are on the TDMA side
> of the Orange network we may not receive the VMI until we are back in
> GSM coverage.
>
> We have also noticed substantial delays in receiving VMI if the
> message was left in a Blue network area eg NYC. Often the VMI pops up
> when we cross back into Orange territory in CT or MA. I think the
> record was a 5 day delay in VMI
>
> Needless to say we are manually checking voice mail several times a
> day !
>
> Obviously if this is predominantly a network 'meshing' issue it will
> be solved fairly quickly.
>
> Even so it's more a human engineering issue than a telco engineering
> issue and I agree with you that the rules of message confirmation are
> fundamental.
>
> Richard

Network 'meshing' seems like a good way to put it, Richard. According
to my orange buds, the 'meshing' of the orange and blue is ongoing, but
eventually sorts itself out once the dust settles.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

I have seen instances with voice mail delay where not only was the MWI delayed but the voice mail itself was not available for retrieval fro up to 72 hours from deposit.