From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 30-Jun-14 16:39, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > On Monday, June 30, 2014 1:05:00 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >> A certain PC software vendor is pushing that model, and my CPOE   
   >> went along with it for a while, but users pushed back far harder   
   >> than expected; we went back to promoting Ethernet-connected phones   
   >> (we do still have one USB-connected model that we don't advertise)   
   >> and sales are booming again--much to the dismay of said PC software   
   >> vendor. Attendants are an exception to pretty much every rule in   
   >> the phone industry, but they are a special case that represents   
   >> (based on my analysis of our sales volume) less than 1% of the   
   >> total market. You have master that to win the other 99%, though;   
   >> one unhappy attendant can tank an entire PBX sale.   
   >   
   > Interesting.  The attendant function has been so automated that I   
   > wouldn't think it would be an issue today.   
      
   There is a lot of automation, particularly in high-volume call centers,   
   but most places still have an attendant or two hiding somewhere, often   
   doubling as a receptionist or secretary.  The automated stuff has   
   reduced the workload so that there aren't dedicated phone operators   
   anymore, but it hasn't completely eliminated the functions.   
      
   > I remember years ago, circa 1985, that they came out with a combined   
   > telephone and mainframe (green-on-glass) terminal, intended for a   
   > call center (inward or outward) worker.  You could type in a phone   
   > number on the keyboard and it would dial it for you.  I think it was   
   > intended to take a caller-ID number and use it to pull up a record   
   > for the caller to save time.   
      
   The modern stuff is pretty amazing--when it works correctly.   
      
   > When I call large businesses today, I must enter or give them my   
   > account information*. Indeed, sometimes I have to enter twice--once   
   > to the computer that answers the call, and again to the human who   
   > comes in later.  You'd think the computer would pass it onto the   
   > human.   
      
   The human probably has all your details on the screen but policy   
   requires them to verify the information for various reasons.   
      
   > *Doesn't 800 service always transmit the ANI as opposed to the   
   > not-always-accurate caller-id?   
      
   Maybe on some types of circuits, and almost certainly on the bill (if   
   you get an itemized bill at all), but not always.   
      
   Standard CNIS/DNIS is pretty good these days, though.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)