[asterisk-users] How to have callers not being billed when in waiting queue ? [SOLVED]

Wed Mar 29 09:07:04 CDT 2017

In most instances the company being called is not charging the caller for 
their phone serves. That is the callers service provider, and once the 
answer is issued the call is up.  

 This only makes senses if the company being called is providing services 
and charging a per min rate for that service. They would not charge the 
customer for the hold time waiting for a rep to come on the line. 

 This could all be done by creating billing records from cel logs. These 
can log events such as channel start and answer by an extension, transfers 
and hangups.  

 As Samy Go stated a good way to reduce charges to the caller would be to 
offer call back options. So when a rep is available the system would call 
the original caller back. 

 Telecom networks around the world are just not designed to offer delayed 
billing. Legislating that requirement would require world wide overhauls of 
the networks as well as treaties. 

 In some areas you also have to pay ring time. That is a novel idea to 
actually pay for a resource you are using when you use it. That is a little 
too capitalistic for some. 

Bryant

----------------------------------------
 From: "SamyGo" <govoiper at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:52 AM
To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion" 
<asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] How to have callers not being billed when in 
waiting queue ? [SOLVED]   
 Hi,   Just trying to figure out how is this solved ? by involving multiple 
telcos in the loop and asking them to not charge based on 200 OK/Answer!?
 As far as I know people have designed Queue/CallCenter platforms who upon 
entering a number in queue just state them their number in queue and approx 
time before they'll be contacted and drop the call. This all can be done 
within Progress.

 As soon as their turn comes the CallCenter platform automatically triggers 
the call to them and get them connected with an agent. This is the way I 
can understand as nobody waiting in the queue but people in the 
waiting-list. Since Queue has to "answer" the call first before doing 
anything once the signal to Answer is triggered technically that marks the 
start of billing for everyone.

 Regards,
 Sammy

   On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Olivier <oza.4h07 at gmail.com> wrote:     
 Thank you very much, Max, for this valuable and informative answer.

Offline billing must be quite complex to set up as several telco may be 
involved (or origination,transit or termination).
Moving to normal landline fare seems much simpler !

Thanks again    2017-03-28 21:41 GMT+02:00 Max Grobecker 
<max.grobecker at ml.grobecker.info>:  Hi,

in Germany, this kind of regulation is in effect for phone numbers which 
cost more than a normal landline call.
The regulation states, that the waiting time must not be charged to the 
customer.

Most companies implemented this by simply switching their telephone numbers 
to those, which are charged per call
(so there's no difference in price between waiting for someone to pick up 
or being connected to someone) ;-)
Or they decided to use a normal landline phone number for which this 
regulation does not apply.

The second method was to not answer the call before really connected to a 
person on the queue and using Early Media as you mentioned.
But: The maximum length of this Early Media stream is in most telephone 
networks limited to somewhat around 90 to 180 seconds,
then the call gets disconnected by the network.

I'm not very familiar with regulations and numbering plans in France, but 
maybe there's also something called "offline billing".
Using this, your call is not billed by the caller's telephone company until 
you send them the amount of time that should be billed for a specific 
call.

Your best choice will be, that - if you ever get those regulations - you 
should rely on what your telephone number provider tells you to do ;-)

Greetings
 Max    

Am 28.03.2017 um 15:24 schrieb Olivier:
> Hello,
>
> In France, years ago, there was some discussions about a new regulation 
forcing some providers to not charge anything to callers while those are 
waiting for a call center agent to become available.
> Once caller and agent are on call with each other, nominal charging 
applies.
>
> No matter if those discussions ever did or didn't change current 
regulation, I wonder which dialplan statements could technically comply 
this dual billing requirement ?
>
>
> same = n,Progress()
> same = n,Queue(whatever,...,macro-option, ...)
>
> To me, coupling Progress app with Queue's  macro or gosub option like 
above, would let a sysadmin answer a queued call.
> Doing so, time spent before connection with queue agent should not be 
billed to anyone (caller nor callee), while time spent after connection is 
billed normaly.
>
> 1. Should this work ? Am I missing something ?
>
> 2. Is there an alternative way to implement this ?
>
> 3. Comments ? Suggestions ?
>
> Regards
>
>

--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: 
https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
      https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users  

--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: 
https://community.asterisk.org/

New to Asterisk? Start here:
      https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20170329/2d051860/attachment.html>