Why the Fax Machine Refuses To Die 835
snydeq writes "Deep End's Paul Venezia waxes befuddled on the ongoing existence of the fax machine. 'Consider what a fax machine actually is: a little device with a sheet feeder, a terrible scanning element, and an ancient modem. Most faxes run at 14,400bps. That's just over 1KB per second — and people are still using faxes to send 52 poorly scanned pages of some contract to one another. Over analog phone lines. Sometimes while paying long-distance charges! The mind boggles,' Venezia writes. 'If something as appallingly stupid as the fax machine can live on, it makes you wonder how we make progress at all. Old habits die hard. It just goes to show you: Bad technology generally isn't the problem; it's the people who persist in using that technology rather than embracing far superior alternatives.'"
It's convenience and security. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheet-fed scanners are ridiculously expensive, plus you have to save the file, attach it to an email, then, hopefully, the file isn't too large for the sender or recipient's mailserver. With the fax machine, one just drops the stack in, verify the fax successfully transmitted, task complete.
Also, many people feel that snooping of phone lines is much less likely to occur than snooping of email, when is sent in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see where you get that sheet-fed scanners are expensive. There are dozens of all-in-one scanners / printers / copiers for under $100.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sheet feed scanners, not a single sheet scanner.
http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=634&name=Scanner-Document-Scanners [newegg.com]
$189-$1000
http://www.newegg.com/store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=351&Tpk=fax%20machine [newegg.com]
$49-$800
So your 300% more Sheet Feed Scanner still requires you to deal with the inherent limits to email attachment size, if the document requires a signature, you still have to print it. Fax machines work better with legal and business documents than email attachments.
That s
Re: (Score:2)
Funny
Nearly all of the small businesses I know and deal with have an all in one machine, Printer, scanner (sheet fed), copier and Fax.
To send a fax, they load the document, dial the number, wait, and get a printed report, telling them that the document was received, which they staple to the document and file for legal proof (if required).
To email a document they load the document, back to their desk(in some cases on another floor of the building), activate scanning, scan into a file, go back to scanner, rem
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider that 25% of all homes don't have a land-line, so faxing stuff to or from them is out, even if their all-in-one has fax capabilities.
Faxes are dying. The government and the banks accept PDFs for lots of things nowadays, and creating and emailing a pdf is a lot easier.
By email:
1. Type up document
2. Paste image of your signature (previously scanned in) into document if it requires a signature
3. Select "email as PDF from the File menu"
(Note that you can also set a password on the document
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A jpg pasted into a document and emailed isn't legally binding in the United States.
My work requires real signatures.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's convenience and security. (Score:4, Interesting)
What counts as binding for a contract is defined by common law as well as statute. It used to be that only a wax seal was valid for contracts. For a contract to be binding, both parties must have agreed to it. A signature does not make the contact binding, it presents evidence that both parties agreed. It's still possible that the signature was forged.
My (US) publisher accepts a scan of my signature on a PDF. Weirdly, they don't accept a strong cryptographic signature (which is actually hard to forge). I recently did some work for an organisation that wouldn't accept the PDF, but would if I printed off a copy and posted it to them. It seems crazy that printing it on my printer makes it legally binding, but printing it on theirs doesn't, and a court would agree.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots do, but only recently have SOHO class scanners included this. Our scanner at my last job bound to AD and sent your scans directly to your desk, it was incredibly easy to use. It even had a real keyboard. Load up the document in the hopper, tap the "scan to email" button and select the address (or address, and you could also manually type in outside addresses if you needed) you wanted to send to. It scanned quickly and at a high resolution too. It was in every way superior to a fax machine (though i
Re: (Score:3)
Right and entering a 20-40 character email address on a number pad is fun. For address book, that would be some 100 seperate contacts for me alone, none of which are sync'd but would be enetered seperately.
None of the current models are easy and reliable as fax machines. And that is scary as fax machines suck IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
They are notorious for something breaking on them under heavy use. For home use they're okay as they only occasionally get called into service but for any serious work you need a professional solution and that will cost a lot more than $100. I don't doubt your word about the 4 year life cycle yours has enjoyed but that is the exception not the rule.
Re: (Score:3)
You can find the Lexmark S405 for around $100 and it includes a sheet-fed scanner/fax/copier.
http://www1.lexmark.com/US/en/catalog/product.jsp?prodId=5284 [lexmark.com]
They all work as fax machines too (Score:3)
Yes, there are dozens of all-in-one scanner/printer/copiers for cheap, and pretty much all of them also work as fax machines, because once you've got the expensive mechanical parts and a computer smart enough to send data to your PC, adding fax capabilities costs you $1-2 for a keypad and $1-2 for a modem chip.
And they'll be compatible with all the other fax machines you might want to talk to, not get into arguments about which Microsoft Word versions are currently emulated on Macs, and while they're not bl
Re:They all work as fax machines too (Score:4, Informative)
One department here uses a fax machine as a scanner. They fax a server that then converts the fax to an email and sends it to them. Despite the fact that we now have network scanning capabilities that are far higher resolution and don't involve the charge of a phone call they insist on using this system because they're used to it. Another department transfers documents by printing them, then faxing them to another department that then scans them back in. To keep them them both on the same network server. I've explained till I'm blue in the face that they can just set up a shared area to transfer documents but they keep this system
Never underestimate human inertia. If something works, people will keep using it despite how awkward it might be. Bitching and whining all the time about its problems of course. But you try to change something and suddenly you may as well have driven over their puppy for all the reaction you get...
Re:It's convenience and security. (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. Email is NOT secure. You don't know how many servers your email passes through or what they do with it, and you can't guarantee the receiver is protecting the information. Encrypted email is far harder to implement in your network of contacts than a fax machine. Even then, if public key vendors can be hacked/spoofed/compromised, then how can you say encrypted email on a private small business server won't be? Doctors pretty much are obligated to use fax or they will almost certainly end up violating HIPAA.
The IT industry has not been able to provide a superior or even equal solution to fax yet.
Re: (Score:3)
The old fax machine in the corner where everyone's faxes go and anyone can look through them isn't terribly secure either.
If someone is willing to go through enough trouble to intercept a company's email, they'll happily do the same for their fax line.
As for how many servers it passes through, there are two possabilities. Either your company and the recipient's company are concerned about that and make sure it goes from your email server to theirs (possibly encrypted) or not. If not, the fax will be no safe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The old fax machine in the corner where everyone's faxes go and anyone can look through them isn't terribly secure either.
Everyone who works in a medical office is required to be educated about and sign a HIPAA compliance form. Every employee is liable.
If someone is willing to go through enough trouble to intercept a company's email, they'll happily do the same for their fax line.
Phone lines are more difficult to break into than a protocol that is passed over the public internet. At least for now.
Re:It's convenience and security. (Score:4, Informative)
Given a choice of clipping on to an office phone line from outside or intercepting their internet connection, I'll take the phone line. It's simple, quick, and the necessary connection is outside (or worst case, in a phone closet in a hallway, the latch can probably be jimmied in 5 seconds or less). If you wear a jumpsuit, hardhat, and a butt set nobody will even look at you.
Compare that to entering a NOC and rooting the router without a valid keycard.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that one you have to physically break into, the other you can break into over the internet through Tor or a botnet or a virus.
Re:It's convenience and security. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most FAX machine inboxes nowadays go to email, in my experience. The vast majority of FAX systems today larger than a single office are paperless systems built into leased copiers or multi-function devices which do the raw data transfer and call handling but otherwise input from a printer on a computer OS (or the built-in scanner) and output to the local email server.
Quite honestly, the reason the FAX refuses to die is because people, once they adopt a method, tend not to change. It's the inertia of least effort, aka laziness, aka efficiency of thought. Granted, there are good reasons for this approach. Most people have bad experiences with moving to new systems. How many times have you spoken with someone who blames a new system for slowing productivity, missing features, or for making the effort of using those features far more complex? People therefore tend to distrust new technology, again because in their experience -- and this is correct -- new technology fails and established technology works. The reason for that truth is quite simple: only good technology sticks around to become established; bad technology is abandoned.
Why should someone abandon what works for what doesn't? Or, more accurately, abandon that which fails in a way I have already learned to handle in exchange for something which fails in a way I don't understand -- and maybe can't even tell if it has failed? If I'm going to invest extra effort in something which is not more reliable and does not
So, what does email offer that FAX does not? Is it more reliable? No, not really. Email has inherently unreliable delivery, particularly with spam and malware filters which silently delete suspect emails. Additionally, email is already a primary contact for business, so FAX availability actually offers some communication redundancy. Is email more secure? Absolutely not. Email is unencrypted during transmission unless the message itself is encrypted. Does email guarantee sender identity better than FAX? Quite the opposite. It's often illegal to obfuscate or alter your sending FAX number due to junk FAX laws, while spoofing email is trivial.
Finally, since FAX is established in the business world, it has become something you will often need not because you yourself haven't adopted a better technology, but because your business peers and customers haven't adopted a better technology. Even where it's not wanted, it's a mandatory legacy system to deal with people who MUST use FAX for whatever reason.
So, if everybody has it and email actually isn't better, why change?
Re: (Score:3)
output to the local email server.
The key word being "local". The transmission is point-to-point over phone lines, not across a shared server at an ISP where you have no control whatsoever over access, or sometimes more importantly, archiving.
Quite honestly, the reason the FAX refuses to die is because people, once they adopt a method, tend not to change.
That's part of it, certainly. There are people that are convinced they must have a signed hard-copy of a contract faxed them, despite the fact during the first ***Clinton*** administration laws were put in place to make sure electronic contracts were treated as legitimate.
Then you have the medical indu
Re: (Score:3)
So the fax line is hard because it requires physical access or hacking and email is easy because all it requires is physical access or hacking?
Re: (Score:3)
Hardware access to fax, all you need to do is intercept the analogue wires in the last mile. You can either splice a single cable, or even use a clamp on inductor. The cable is either underground, overground, or at a termination point in a cabinet or on a pole, and attach a small recording box the size of a cigarette lighter. I've even seen wire tappers that use induction, not just to tap, but also to draw power for GSM circuitry that calls home when the line is in use.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's really trivial to listen to a fax and print it, since there is absolute
Re: (Score:3)
public key vendors
You do not need to go to a vendor to obtain a public key. What certificate vendors sell are signatures that certify your public key belongs to who it says it does. If you're prepared to trust an unencrypted fax over a public telephone line, you're probably prepared to trust that the public key someone puts up on their website is authentic.
If you really need the security though, it's much more secure to contact someone you know and trust at the target organization, and establish the fingerprint of their publ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fax was stupid tech 15 - 20 years ago. Transmitting bits instead of data? Are you nuts?
I'm intrigued... What is the difference between bits and data? You do realize it's all the same, right? Fax machines are just as digital as a workstation, they just interface over an analogue telephone network.
I'd love to have the chance to show a doctor or lawyer what I could do for them with smart tech
Trouble is, even though those doctors and lawyers are the people who would need to purchase your new improved system, they don't actually care. Look at how they work -- they employ staff (temps in the legal profession, regular admin staff in medical) to do all of that for them. Those temps tend to com
Re: (Score:2)
Also, many people feel that snooping of phone lines is much less likely to occur than snooping of email, when is sent in the clear.
But when you figure that a significant number of people are using e-mail to fax services, its false security. They might as well address their issues directly and secure their e-mail process.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, many people feel that snooping of phone lines is much less likely to occur than snooping of email, when is sent in the clear.
How they can believe that is beyond me - at least in the U.S. The legal arguments made by successive attorneys general since 9/11/2001 make it pretty obvious the NSA, at least, is likely snooping pretty much every phone call made here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A two way fax is harder, but not impossible to spoof. Fax machines often include caller ID, the fax machine ID etc. If my pharmasist and doctor use fax to verify my refill, it would be extreemly difficult for me to spoof my doctor's reply by fax to the pharmasist. I don't know exactly the content of the exchange, or the confirmation information between machines.
No mail spam filter will eat the fax for lunch because it used a couple of restricted words. Connection is real time two way connections unlike
Re: (Score:3)
'A slow sort of country!' said the (Red) Queen. 'Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!' Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
If fax works -- and it does, why "upgrade" to something that really doesn't work any better? And may actually be harder to use? Change just because some geeks find fax technology to be antiquated? The point of a hammer is to insert nails, not to showcase t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are missing the real problem.
Why are we keeping documents in printed form at all?
When was the last time you created a document outside of a computer?
30 years ago:
- People typed up a document in their typewritter
- Used a copier machine to duplicate as necessary
- Faxed it
Now:
- People type up a document in their computer, then print it
- Use a copier machine to duplicate as necessary
- Fax it
When it should be:
- People type up a document in their computer, share digitally as required.
There is no need to ever
It's for signatures (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's for signatures (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's for signatures (Score:5, Interesting)
Judges think that. Not because they want to, but because it has been accepted by the courts. It takes years to get a new technology accepted for the purpose, it's expensive, complicated, and very difficult. New technology can still be used even if it hasn't got blanket acceptance, you will just need to pay hundreds of dollars (possibly several thousand) to have an expert testify to how the technology works.
Since the fax machine does the job for legal purposes, even if it sucks somewhat, it doesn't suck enough to warrant the effort of getting a court to accept the new technology. That and the new technology (even though faxes have these problems, they can be ignored--remember, they are accepted already) easily has security holes unless you get pretty specialized (as far as lawyers are concerned). That means it isn't one size fits all. That means it's dead before it gets off the ground.
Do you know how difficult it was (and may still be) just to get a court to accept a digital picture? Because they can be "faked" (not that "regular" photos can't be, especially since the printing process can often be digital anyways). Even REALLY low standard courts like traffic court, I've seen them reject digital photo evidence. Getting a court like that to accept, say, a GPG key? Not a chance.
Hell, this even works to the government's detriment. For YEARS in Ontario you could fight a LIDAR (laser radar) speeding ticket because the technology wasn't accepted by the courts (it is now) and that meant the prosecution would need to hire, at several hundred, possibly thousand, dollars an expert from the company to prove the LIDAR gun was better than a chair at measuring speed. All that for a $150 speeding ticket? Not likely. Red light tickets got thrown out for years because they didn't meet evidence standards. Why? The date and time of the offence was not integrated into the photo itself, instead it was provided separately (possibly below the picture or on the back of it, or actually separately) and an officer would sign off that it is true. Not enough to pass court standards.
So, hell no, fax machines, as crap as they are, they are plenty enough at this point. Find me a computer technology that is still 100% backwards compatible for 30 years that provides even the slightest amount of usefulness like a fax and we might be talking.
Re: (Score:3)
On occasion, I've had to sign various reasonably important (at least to me) legal documents. When there has been time pressure, my lawyers have always accepted a faxed copy, but *only* when the hardcopy is to follow by mail.
Re:It's for signatures (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse the issue with facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Serial ports may not be fast but they are very useful for low bandwidth tasks. One I use all the time is for console.
Re:It's for signatures (Score:5, Informative)
Your "stupid conclusion" seems to hold up just fine for the legal beagles in just about every company I've ever worked for. My current (and all previous) employer still uses fax machines for this very reason (although they have progressed to copy machines for sending and e-fax for receiving). My company processes hundreds, if not a few thousand, of them every week.
Check with any pharmacy or doctor. They all still use fax too. For the same reasons.
The first post on this thread (an actual first post that means something... I guess the kids are asleep) has a good point as well. When dealing with that much data, the cost per kB is a lot less over an old-fashioned phone line at 14k than a 5-10 GB image that's a PITA to create, send, and receive.
Re: (Score:3)
This is my experience too. I think there actually is legal precedent that specifically says a fax transmitted signature/document is equivalent. Until there's precedent saying the same thing for scanned&emailed documents, it's not going to change.
A previous employer had me fax my time-sheets to them. The timesheet was supplied as a PDF form, the office "fax machine" was a network printer/scanner, which emailed toe document as an attached PDF to a server, which had a modem and would fax it out. The system
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make it less silly, it just makes it silly and legally entrenched.
If we go back to basics, signatures themselves aren't actually worth much. You have a squiggle that you say was my signature agreeing to some contract, I say I never agreed and I didn't put that squiggle there. You say but that's your squiggle. I say it's a copy. Even an "expert" can't be 100% sure and the cost of such an analysis exceeds the value of most contracts by an order of magnitude or more.
In particular on a fax, it woul
Re: (Score:3)
In most jurisdictions a signed faxed document is considered legal. That's why fax is so commonly used in contractual/legal agreements
Re: (Score:2)
Better article (Score:2, Insightful)
...From a more reputable news outlet which doesn't split their articles up into two page
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-fax-machines-still-pretty-impressive-if-you,21256/
I'm sure the 2-day difference in the article dates is completely coincidental. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh good gosh. I post before finishing the sentence, forget to log in, and fail to add some <a> tags around the link [theonion.com]. Well, let's make up for that here. :)
Re: (Score:2)
More people need to call websites on this. This stupid multi-page article thing is idiotic. This is the Internet, WE CAN SCROLL!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you suggest scrolling, always specify *vertical*. 'Cause you just know there's some asshole calling himself a "web developer" who's just itching to find a way to make articles scroll entirely horizontally because it's new and/or edgy. :)
Obligatory Dilbert (Score:2)
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-12-10/ [dilbert.com]
Real Estate (Score:2)
Sounds like (I didn't read TFM, natch) like Paul just went through the hell that is known as a Real Estate Transaction.
(having just suffered through a similar endeavor, in which 14 trees were felled and 33 tonerbeasts were slaughtered so that the real estate agents could continue to do things the way they've done them for 30 years...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... so that the real estate agents could continue to do things the way they've done them for 30 years ...
lawyers too
It's a scanner people can use (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about a fax is, that anyone can use it properly in its default configuration.
Scanning for most people is fraught with troubles, from too large files they cannot email, to losing files saved who knows where, to simple connection problems between scanner and computer. Meanwhile the fax still just works, unless you are lucky enough to work at a place that has rigged up a well-run scanning infrastructure for you.
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up
This is exactly why people in offices use faxes. Most office workers can barely use e-mail, and can't install printers, much less scanners. Think about all the sales people you've ever talked to in restaurants, schools, supply warehouses, etc. These are the people that use fax everyday because 90% of the time it just works.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't seem to realize the irony of his complaint against drivers, however, because he's too bus
Re:It's a scanner people can use (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Sir,
I noticed that the bottle in your cabinet was over a decade old (!), so I took the liberty of discarding it in the refuse and replacing it with a fresh bottle. I didn't want you to get food poisoning. I trust you will appreciate this attentiveness.
Rgrds,
smellotron
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a scanner people can use (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be so sure. Even when the other person insists they must send the document as a fax, don't be surprised if it takes 4 or 5 rounds as they send you a cover sheet with no fax, 5 blank pages (must be set too light), 5 black pages (oops, set it too dark), 5 blank pages again (wrong side up in the fax all along), half of the document (ops, jammed), and several other imaginative fails. Finally, they send you one where the pages went in crooked but since you can guess at the missing bits you just tell them it came through fine so you can be done with it.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A fax machine is a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
All it does for me is getting junk faxes. At least spam email doesn't waste my toner/paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any Real Businesses
Re: (Score:2)
Plug it into where? Who still pays for an ancient landline phone plan?
How else do you get DSL? On your cell phone?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought DSL was Damn Small Linux!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought DSL was Damn Small Linux!
Also download speed limiter.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they now sell it as uVerse, except that they no longer provide you with Internet over it, but just a private network with a NAT cone.
Simplicity wins. (Score:5, Informative)
I actually work for a certain fortune 500 company that produces laser printers, and while we are phasing a lot of our fax focus out, there just isn't the faith in email that there is in fax. With a fax, you have a physical copy ending up in an office that you know someone has received. There's no spam filter to worry about and you know that that fax is going to get to the right person a lot more than than email if you don't have that person's direct email. For something you have a physical copy of, fax is just a lot simpler. Until there are more printers out there that have email addresses built into them, we're going to be a ways off from replacing fax.
Re: (Score:2)
Not e-mail addresses built into printers--fax machines built into printers.
Faxes get sent to a phone number. Nothing can ever replace the phone number. Thus, nothing will replace a fax machine, except for a better fax machine. It's like replacing voice calls with text messages or even e-mails. It's not going to happen.
FYI, the current all-in-ones don't actually have a fax machine built into the printer. Instead, most have a fax machine tacked alongside a printer. When I can say, send the printer a job and h
Slower Work, Less Risk (Score:2)
Send/recieve well over 100 per day (Score:5, Informative)
Pharmacist here. They are still in heavy use between us and the md offices, for a few reasons. E-Rx ins't always 2-way, so a refill request often has to be faxed. Many times we need to contact the MD office and they can't take a call. A fax gives them all the info, in a simple readable format to take care of later. Sometimes a hospital needs a patient profile for the last 6 months and it would take 30mins to explain it all over the phone, so it gets faxed.
Emailing HIPPA documents in not an option and I wouldn't use it even it was.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
MD chiming in. Faxes are reliable and verifiable. You get a confirmation that it connected and set. There are no spam filters, no worry about hacked email, no passwords. As long as your put in the correct number, it always lands at exactly the correct place.
Computers can only dream of such simplicity.
Re: (Score:2)
MD chiming in. Faxes are reliable and verifiable. You get a confirmation that it connected and set. There are no spam filters, no worry about hacked email, no passwords. As long as your put in the correct number, it always lands at exactly the correct place. Computers can only dream of such simplicity.
You're kidding, right? I can only assume you've never had to deal with a large byzantine corporate fax infrastructure. Putting in the right number had no "just" or "as long as" about it, when they have more than a dozen fax numbers and faxes to the wrong fax (even though most of them are in the same room) are ignored/shredded it gets really annoying.
Compared to this "simplicity" sending an email is dead simple.
Not to mention the "fun" of companies that receive faxes not to a physical fax machine that prints
Re: (Score:3)
I run an open telephony server server and all the faxes are processed in software until they hit the paper. They are stored and available for viewing as PDFs from a simple webpage, too. The modem is a software modem running on the Intel serve. The modem "talks" over an ISDN PRI channel. Usually when talking to corporate fax systems that are similarly set up, the connection is 100% digital end-to-end and there's only a bunch of software modem stuff going on at both ends. -- still digital, though. The connect
Re: (Score:3)
Only one button more complex than a telephone, near-instant delivery, confirmation, and delivered (typically) as a paper document ready to be used at the receiving end. It also accommodates the desire of either the sender or receiver to send/receive the document as either a paper or electronic document.
What's the shortfall again? Oh yeah, it doesn't make use of the complex computer (AKA virus host) everyone is so fond of...
I have no problem accepting faxes from strangers, email attachments from strangers no
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, genius: You've got a $100 budget for all the hardware and software in the office and anything connected to the computers must be HIPAA compliant.
Go!
Re: (Score:2)
Emailing HIPPA documents in not an option
Indeed, there seems to be this irrational idea in many regulatory environments that sending stuff unencrypted over the phone system is fine yet sending it unencrypted over the internet is not.
Pointless gripe (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Want a big reason? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Want a big reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have said, they offer this as an option, but nothing more.
The clock can be set incorrectly, the sending number set incorrectly, and all sorts. (These we call a TSI - Transmitted Subscriber Identification.)
I'm managing a fax system that handles around 100,000 faxes a week (I work for a large financial insitution). If the sender's number in the TSI was even remotely useable, we'd be able to route faxes on it - but is just isn't. Something like 50% of all faxes we receive - often from large household financial names that should know better - have a junk TSI.
That's 50% of volume, by the way. When we break it down to senders, it's well over 75% incorrect.
So whilst in theory we could route faxes via TSI, in practice we route faxes via the inbound number that the sender dialled. Nothing else is reliable or usable for routing faxes to their destination mailbox/application/printer.
Hassle factor (Score:2)
1. Sheet Fed Good Quality Scanner .....
2. Simple interface to enter an email address
3. Price competitively compared to fix machines
4. PROFIT!
I hate single use machines, but some times the simplicity of one alone justifies it's existence. Keep it simple and cost competitive and you'd have a winner.
Re: (Score:2)
A FAX has a legal advantage (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it's all about that 3rd-party verification.
Imagine that you execute a contract with another party, who later decides to back out and says they never signed it.
If you executed that contract via email from your server to the other party's server, no one else has a record of it. They can claim you forged the email.
If you executed that contract via snail mail, again no one has a record of it. At best you have a certified mail receipt or fedex bill to prove that a document was sent.
When you execute via fax,
What does a 'business' POTS line cost? (Score:2)
It ain't cheap for what you get.
Fax " The original PUSH technology" (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't appreciate technology until you understand the function it serves and problem solved. Fax orginated as battlefield deployment solution to get maps and text into the right hands.
Today, nothing has changed. It is the weapon of choice to enlist support, disseminate and communicate on the battlefields. Only the location has changed. And the win-win with FAX is its ability to run unattended, bombproof reliability and that receipt verification is the gold standard guarantee of undeniable success in the chain of communication.
Speed has nothing to do with the fact that its importance is Fax's ability to deliver guaranteed. The physical paper output assuredly enforces every fax must be ' handled' at the receiving end irregardless how much timeshift it pushes itself onto the receiver.
That is one critical factor no amount of email, voicemail nor text message can compete against.
Re: (Score:3)
Most print/scan/copy machines can do this, but... (Score:2)
While I can certainly see the point he's making, most businesses have had large copier/printer/scanners that can send pdfs to a CIFS share on the network, e-mail pdfs via SMTP, and send faxes for years and years. These copiers typically come with the upgrade after rentals, and there are lesser $50-$100 inkjet home versions for smaller offices as well. A lot of companies do what the author posted and don't have fax machines.
But the main issues aren't signatures or other things mentioned at all: they're human
Try getting every lawyer and solicitor to change? (Score:2)
For legal purposes, fax (or secure snail mail) is required. The sender and receiver and date and time of transfer can be verified and can't easily be tampered with and there's one copy at
Outdated? (Score:2)
Who gives a fucking hoot if it's outdatet or not?
Nostalgia has it's charm especially if it works and some geeks get worked up about it!
E-mail vs. fax, TV vs. radio (Score:2)
Likewise, e-mail doesn't replace fax. Sure, it's more capable in some ways. But fax delivery is automatically confirmed, e-mail delivery is just best-effort, no guarantees. E-mail isn't secure by any standards
Fax outdated? (Score:3)
The fax machine concept itself isn't outdated, it's just the technology in use in them that's outdated. All they need for an update is a higher quality scanner built in and to be updated to communicate over the Internet. The big problem with that is, of course, NAT (Network Address Translation). Thanks to the scarcity of IPV4 addresses, nearly every device "on the Internet" is not really on the Internet as it isn't directly addressable and has a non-routable IP address. So, to use something like a fax machine over the Internet, either everyone who wants to use one has to do some complicated (for the average person who just wants to plug it in and have it work) DMZ setup in their router/gateway, or all the fax machines need to communicate through servers using some sort of protocol like email. Maybe when we move to IPV6, as long as the ISPs don't screw it up and every device can get an IP address, fax devices could communicate directly and essentially be plug and play. There would need to be some method to ensure that the device is consistently given the same IP address however. Plus, IPV6 addresses are a little too long and complicated to hand out as easily as phone numbers... Plus, fax spamming would become an even more severe problem. It may turn out that some sort of intermediate server that provides permanent, easily human-readable, addresses along with some sort of authentication/real-life identification system might be best.
Email is safer (Score:3)
Installation costs (Score:3)
So you wanna start send documents.
1) FAX machine : Tell the phone person to please provision a POTS analog phone line to a jack right there, and tell me the external number. Fax machines are cheap and can be bought on the office expense account (the one used to buy paperclips). For bonus points tell the receptionist your new departmental fax number. Unbox fax, plug in, you're running. You know if it works or not because every far end tells your near end in some manner that is "OK" or not. Support is, if it breaks, buy another. It just works.
2) Scan and email : Fill out request form for IT dept for the hardware. They need to follow the capital expense forms and procedures to buy your $100 flatbed scanner, along with possible competitive bidding, assuming they even have the capital budget remaining for the year. Your bosses bosses boss may need to get permission from his boss to transfer $100 of his capital budget to IT, assuming he has the budget. Its quite trivial to spend thousands in labor on meetings and arguments about spending $100. It may or may not arrive in 3 months and may or may not meet your needs, but you're stuck with the hardware. Fill out a request form for IT to get the scanner software installed on your locked down PCs. Argue endlessly about who will support the system, and how much it will be supported. Eventually you get it working, and every time you send an email with a scan, you have to call or wait for an email response to prove their anti-virus didn't eat it. Its a nightmare.
At home I would never use a fax. But I understand why they're the path of least resistance at businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
For certain things it makes sense, maybe one day we will have true HD virtual presence where you can see a persons body language, and get a sense of their mood, but until then I for one like the idea of a face to face meeting before entering into a major business relationship, one where lots of money, or even the future of the company is at stake.
Re: (Score:3)
People who are talking about the ridiculousness of fax has never had to deal with an email not arriving in its proper destination with rational cause.
People who talk about the ridiculous of nails obviously never tried to hammer in a screw--it's really hard to do and they pull out too easily after you manage it.
FTP predates even TCP, and precedes modern fax (group 3) by 9 years; HTTPS has been around 15+ years. Both of them are reliable unless the network is down between sender and recipient, in which ca
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have anything to contribute to this. I still use single blade disposable razors instead of laser hair removal.
Heck, with one of these [slashdot.org] it should be so easy a caveman could do it.