Call Direction

PeterT

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:32 +0000, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>> <davey9988@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0da3f2f0-07f9-4cb8-91f2-76ecf2ff7f36@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
>
>> : : Basic problem is that the calls are coming in all over
>> : : the place and would like to set-up a menu so initially
>> : : all callers are asked to press 1 for wholesale, 2 for
>> : : accounts etc and then the call is forwarded as
>> : : appropriate.
>>
>> Why not set the system so that all calls come in to one or two reception
>> phones and (shock, horror..!) employ a *human being* to answer the phone
>> and forward calls to the appropriate extension..?
>
>Because it's a waste of money. The OPs customers would be far better served
>by people doing useful work rather than answering the phone and
>transferring people.

Some people would consider this to be "useful work"
>
>> Gives your business a far more personal touch and stops people moaning
>
>Are customers who pick peanuts out of poo about spending a few seconds on
>the phone, customers worth having?

If they deliver money to your company, then possibly yes
--
Cheers

Peter

Gordon Henderson

In article <0da3f2f0-07f9-4cb8-91f2-76ecf2ff7f36@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
davey9988@googlemail.com <davey9988@googlemail.com> wrote:
>I've been trying to do some research but have very, very little
>knowledge of office phone systems so was wondering if someone could
>offer some advice:
>
>We've got a basic analogue office phone system (LG) - probably very
>standard where each desk has 3 digit extension, you dial 9 for outside
>line etc. You can transfer call, put them on hold etc.
>
>Basic problem is that the calls are coming in all over the place and
>would like to set-up a menu so initially all callers are asked to
>press 1 for wholesale, 2 for accounts etc and then the call is
>forwarded as appropriate.
>
>Our phone system doesn't have this functionality. So I was wondering
>if there's a piece of hardware that could do the trick, or whether I
>could get the call to go into Asterix on a linux box.
>
>I think I could set up the analogue call go into Asterix but I'm
>wondering whether the call forwarding bit would be possible.

From reading your later posts, it seems you have 10 analogue lines
coming in.

The x100p cards only have a single port, so you'd need 10 of these -
which isn't fesable at all.

There are multi-line cards for asterisk, (up to 24 ports IIRC) so one of
these might be a solution, but then you have other issues (mostly echo,
but there are hardware considerations too).

So with such a card, you could plumb your 10 incoming lines into it,
then connect 10 outgoing lines from it to the existing LG box, then have
the asterisk box answer the calls, do the auto-attendant thing, then
ring the appropriate lines to the LG. (Or if they have <= 12 phones on
the inside and they are standard analogue phones, connect them directly
to the asterisk box and turn off the LG ;-)

Or replace the old phones with new digital SIP phones and throw the LG
into the box (or eBay!)

Although this might be outside your budget and I don't know how many
internal extensions you have.

Gordon

alexd

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1290232.1S26EZL6C2@ale.cx
> : : Ivor Jones wrote:

> : : : Why not set the system so that all calls come in to
> : : : one or two reception phones and (shock, horror..!)
> : : : employ a *human being* to answer the phone and
> : : : forward calls to the appropriate extension..?
> : :
> : : Because it's a waste of money. The OPs customers would
> : : be far better served by people doing useful work rather
> : : than answering the phone and transferring people.
>
> I think many receptionists would take exception at that statement.

I fail to see the relevance of that point to this discussion.

> : : : Gives your business a far more personal touch and
> : : : stops people moaning
> : :
> : : Are customers who pick peanuts out of poo about
> : : spending a few seconds on the phone, customers worth
> : : having?
>
> Well it all depends on how long "a few seconds" actually is. My personal
> record is somewhere in the region of 20 minutes, but I know those who have
> been kept on hold far longer. And it also depends on how much that
> customer would have spent if you'd actually bothered to answer the phone
> and speak to them rather than p*****g them off with a queuing system.

Who said anything about a queueing system? The OP wants an auto-attendant.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
10:28:25 up 19 days, 23:07, 2 users, load average: 0.27, 0.27, 0.16
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

Owain

Gordon Henderson wrote:
> So with such a card, you could plumb your 10 incoming lines into it,
> then connect 10 outgoing lines from it to the existing LG box, then have
> the asterisk box answer the calls, do the auto-attendant thing, then
> ring the appropriate lines to the LG.

Much easier to do the call transfer on the LG; have all calls ring onto
analogue extensions from the LG, Asterisk do the auto-attendant thing
and transfer the call using the LG's call transfer mechanism. As I said,
this does require both Asterisk and the LG to have a
recall-extension-hangup call transfer ability.

The number of ports on the Asterisk system is therefore only the number
of *concurrent* calls that have to be handled, and calls can be queued
unanswered on the LG until presented to the Asterisk.

Owain

Ivor Jones

"alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5101776.gurXlWOqe5@ale.cx...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1290232.1S26EZL6C2@ale.cx
>> : : Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>> : : : Why not set the system so that all calls come in to
>> : : : one or two reception phones and (shock, horror..!)
>> : : : employ a *human being* to answer the phone and
>> : : : forward calls to the appropriate extension..?
>> : :
>> : : Because it's a waste of money. The OPs customers would
>> : : be far better served by people doing useful work rather
>> : : than answering the phone and transferring people.
>>
>> I think many receptionists would take exception at that statement.
>
> I fail to see the relevance of that point to this discussion.

Receptionists answer telephones. What part of that didn't you
understand..?

>> : : : Gives your business a far more personal touch and
>> : : : stops people moaning
>> : :
>> : : Are customers who pick peanuts out of poo about
>> : : spending a few seconds on the phone, customers worth
>> : : having?
>>
>> Well it all depends on how long "a few seconds" actually is. My
>> personal
>> record is somewhere in the region of 20 minutes, but I know those who
>> have
>> been kept on hold far longer. And it also depends on how much that
>> customer would have spent if you'd actually bothered to answer the
>> phone
>> and speak to them rather than p*****g them off with a queuing system.
>
> Who said anything about a queueing system? The OP wants an
> auto-attendant.

If it answers and therefore charges the caller before they are put through
to a live person they amount to the same thing.

Ivor

alexd

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5101776.gurXlWOqe5@ale.cx...
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>>> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1290232.1S26EZL6C2@ale.cx
>>> : : Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>>> : : : Why not set the system so that all calls come in to
>>> : : : one or two reception phones and (shock, horror..!)
>>> : : : employ a *human being* to answer the phone and
>>> : : : forward calls to the appropriate extension..?
>>> : :
>>> : : Because it's a waste of money. The OPs customers would
>>> : : be far better served by people doing useful work rather
>>> : : than answering the phone and transferring people.
>>>
>>> I think many receptionists would take exception at that statement.
>>
>> I fail to see the relevance of that point to this discussion.
>
> What part of that didn't you understand..?

The part where you implied that the opinion of receptionists is important.

>>> speak to them rather than p*****g them off with a queuing system.

>> Who said anything about a queueing system? The OP wants an
>> auto-attendant.

> If it answers and therefore charges the caller before they are put through
> to a live person they amount to the same thing.

Your inability to distinguish been IVR and ACD is your problem, not anyone
elses, although as we're labouring under the Ivor Jones Magical Mystery
Dictionary, any attempt to explain anything you don't want to hear is a
waste of time, bandwidth, mental effort &c.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
21:31:30 up 20 days, 10:10, 2 users, load average: 0.66, 0.66, 0.56
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

Ivor Jones

"alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6814233.hVajCjSNU8@ale.cx...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5101776.gurXlWOqe5@ale.cx...
>>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1290232.1S26EZL6C2@ale.cx
>>>> : : Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> : : : Why not set the system so that all calls come in to
>>>> : : : one or two reception phones and (shock, horror..!)
>>>> : : : employ a *human being* to answer the phone and
>>>> : : : forward calls to the appropriate extension..?
>>>> : :
>>>> : : Because it's a waste of money. The OPs customers would
>>>> : : be far better served by people doing useful work rather
>>>> : : than answering the phone and transferring people.
>>>>
>>>> I think many receptionists would take exception at that statement.
>>>
>>> I fail to see the relevance of that point to this discussion.
>>
>> What part of that didn't you understand..?
>
> The part where you implied that the opinion of receptionists is
> important.

Surely any worthwhile business listens to the opinions of its employees..?
If it doesn't, it surely won't stay in business long.

>>>> speak to them rather than p*****g them off with a queuing system.
>
>>> Who said anything about a queueing system? The OP wants an
>>> auto-attendant.
>
>> If it answers and therefore charges the caller before they are put
>> through
>> to a live person they amount to the same thing.
>
> Your inability to distinguish been IVR and ACD is your problem, not
> anyone
> elses, although as we're labouring under the Ivor Jones Magical Mystery
> Dictionary, any attempt to explain anything you don't want to hear is a
> waste of time, bandwidth, mental effort &c.

I repeat - if it answers and therefore charges the caller before they are
put through to a live person they amount to the same thing. Are you saying
the system you are talking about does not do this..?

Ivor

alexd

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6814233.hVajCjSNU8@ale.cx...
>> Ivor Jones wrote:

>>> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5101776.gurXlWOqe5@ale.cx...
>>>> Ivor Jones wrote:

>>>>> speak to them rather than p*****g them off with a queuing system.

>>>> Who said anything about a queueing system? The OP wants an
>>>> auto-attendant.

>>> If it answers and therefore charges the caller before they are put
>>> through
>>> to a live person they amount to the same thing.

>> Your inability to distinguish been IVR and ACD is your problem, not
>> anyone
>> elses, although as we're labouring under the Ivor Jones Magical Mystery
>> Dictionary, any attempt to explain anything you don't want to hear is a
>> waste of time, bandwidth, mental effort &c.

> I repeat - if it answers and therefore charges the caller before they are
> put through to a live person they amount to the same thing.

You're right. You repeat, like a broken record, and you fail to show any
sign of comprehension.

> Are you saying the system you are talking about does not do this..?

You can easily answer that question for yourself by re-reading the thread.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
01:20:51 up 20 days, 13:59, 2 users, load average: 0.46, 0.43, 0.36
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

JW

Owain wrote:
> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>> So with such a card, you could plumb your 10 incoming lines into it,
>> then connect 10 outgoing lines from it to the existing LG box, then have
>> the asterisk box answer the calls, do the auto-attendant thing, then
>> ring the appropriate lines to the LG.
>
> Much easier to do the call transfer on the LG; have all calls ring onto
> analogue extensions from the LG, Asterisk do the auto-attendant thing
> and transfer the call using the LG's call transfer mechanism. As I said,
> this does require both Asterisk and the LG to have a
> recall-extension-hangup call transfer ability.
>
> The number of ports on the Asterisk system is therefore only the number
> of *concurrent* calls that have to be handled, and calls can be queued
> unanswered on the LG until presented to the Asterisk.
>
> Owain
>

....assuming the LG system has analogue extension, which may
not be the case.

The LDK series has options for integrated voice mail with
AA, as well as a dedicated AA card. If it's a GSX, then
options are very limited.

Ivor Jones

"alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21780733.LfLFt9IL4o@ale.cx...
> Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

>> I repeat - if it answers and therefore charges the caller before they
>> are
>> put through to a live person they amount to the same thing.
>
> You're right. You repeat, like a broken record, and you fail to show any
> sign of comprehension.

So make me comprehend. Answer the question as asked.

>> Are you saying the system you are talking about does not do this..?
>
> You can easily answer that question for yourself by re-reading the
> thread.

But I'm asking you to answer it.

BTW I notice you did not comment about my remark that a business would do
well to listen to its employees, even lowly receptionists.

Ivor