Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: motcid!ashbya@uunet.uu.net (Adam J. Ashby)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Data vs Voice
Message-ID: <12745@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 90 13:27:23 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL
Lines: 26
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 690, Message 8 of 10


In <12630@accuvax.nwu.edu> JDurand@cup.portal.com writes:

>In Message-ID: <12542@accuvax.nwu.edu> adiron!tro@uunet.uu.net (Tom
>Olin) writes:

>>What happens if all those callers simultaneously break into song or in
>>some other way push their duty cycles up to 100%?  

>It just occurred to me that all of us people sitting on hold all day
>should have the lowest duty cycle except for the constant
>music-on-hold that raises our duty cycle up to that of the dreaded
>modems.  Does that mean there should be higher rates for companies
>that put people on hold for a large percentage of their calls?  8-)
>Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., jdurand@cup.portal.com, 408 356-3886

Not necessarily, BUT there should be a HUGE, financially crippling
charge for those companies that employ the usual muzak-on-hold, even
if they don't keep people on hold that often or for that long.  10
seconds of the usual dross is enough to make me hang up.


Adam Ashby			| Most, if not all of the above
(+1)(708) 632 3876 - work time	|  came from my mind...and not
(+1)(708) 934 1431 - play time	|   even I have control over 
 ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya		|      that. - madA 1990