Would you recommend Vonage ?

Would you recommend Vonage ?
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 comp.dcom.modems.cable  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Would you recommend Vonage ? kimshapiro100 08-23-2006
Posted by Warren on February 23, 2007, 6:01 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Bill M. wrote:
> f/fgeorge wrote:
>>John Gray wrote:
>>
>>>But then, private sector call centers keep people on hold until a live
>>>person is available to talk to them. In a life threatening emergency,
>>>the
>>>person in need could easily be dead after being on hold for even a
>>>short
>>>time.
>>Exactly why Warren's plan will not work. <snip>
>
> I worked in a military Command Center for 16 years, the military's
> equivalent of a 911 call center. This was back in the late 80's thru
> the 90's so we didn't have fancy software, but we manually organized
> things just as Warren suggested and it worked very well. We staffed
> for the likely scenario, not for the 'what if' scenario. Before being
> certified to man the phones, we were trained to prioritize the
> incoming calls so as to handle the most urgent things first and to
> multitask heavily. Nearly everything was checklist-driven to ensure
> that the right people were engaged to address the situation and that
> the right steps were taken, in the right order, to put a situation to
> bed quickly and correctly. Every incident was logged and reviewed
> after the fact to see if we could have done better or to update the
> checklists, etc.
>
> Sometimes we were busy as hell, but no one died while being on hold.
>
>>Ludicrous, just ludicrous!
>
> I don't think so, but mine is just one opinion.


You are absolutely correct, Bill.

Workforce management software creates responsible, efficient and effective
scheduling based on desired parameters, but the concept behind the way the
software works is based in responsible management techniques.

Excusing irresponsible scheduling techniques may have been easier to
stomach in the days before reliable workforce management software was
available for a reasonable cost. It takes some effort to do it manually.
But then again, if funds are not limitless, doing it to some extent is
necessary. Good workforce management software would have helped smooth-out
some of the typical peaks and slack-times that you experienced.

But imagine what it would have been like without responsible scheduling
techniques. And imagine how silly it would have been to sit around doing
nothing most of the time because someone decided to always staff for the
worst imaginable "what it" situation. And imagine how the money spent to
staff that way could have been put to much better uses to ensure safety.

The police department isn't staffed to handle the worst "what if"
situation. Hospital emergency rooms aren't always staffed for the worst
"what if" situation. Nothing is staffed that way. With limited funds
available, you staff for the expected conditions, and those conditions
change based on things like time of day, day of week, month of the year,
and other time-based factors.

Yes, it's probably easy to scare people to staff certain factions
inefficiently. A recent "King of the Hill" episode where animal control
was able to strong-arm unnecessary funds from the taxpayers by leveraging
a worst-case scenario comes to mind. But even tax dollars are limited, and
if we're staffing the 911 center inefficiently, that's taking money away
from the police and fire departments to pay for people to sit around as if
a worst-case scenario is always just around the corner.

News flash: You can call people in to work double-shifts (or even
triple-shifts) when that worst-case scenario happens. You don't have to
hire two or three times as many people as you normally need just to have
them always sitting around ready to go, but mostly doing nothing. Using
good workforce management techniques doesn't preclude you from making
intraday adjustments as necessary.

Expecting that staff will be deployed based on need, and not just
spread-out evenly is not some far-out concept. It's what should be
expected of any manager responsible for scheduling any staff. That we're
talking about a 911 call center only means that we expect a higher service
level. It doesn't mean that efficient and effective management concepts
can be ignored. If anything, our safety is enhanced when good workforce
management techniques are used in staffing decisions.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.

Maintain your landscape with Black & Decker:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker





Pure Networks
Posted by Warren on February 23, 2007, 5:37 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
f/fgeorge wrote:
>>But then, private sector call centers keep people on hold until a live
>>person is available to talk to them. In a life threatening emergency,
>>the
>>person in need could easily be dead after being on hold for even a short
>>time.
> Exactly why Warren's plan will not work. Tell me exactly how you plan
> for the Tornado that pops up today at 3 pm? How about the Hurricane?

Oh, please don't try to tell me that any 911 call center is always staffed
as if a hurricane is coming. If that's true, then every hour of every day
when there's not a hurricane would be slack-time, and there would be no
problem with people calling 911 for non-emergency issues.

That's just too wacko to even consider.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.

Maintain your landscape with Black & Decker:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker





Posted by f/fgeorge on February 24, 2007, 11:55 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
wrote:

>f/fgeorge wrote:
>>>But then, private sector call centers keep people on hold until a live
>>>person is available to talk to them. In a life threatening emergency,
>>>the
>>>person in need could easily be dead after being on hold for even a short
>>>time.
>> Exactly why Warren's plan will not work. Tell me exactly how you plan
>> for the Tornado that pops up today at 3 pm? How about the Hurricane?
>
>Oh, please don't try to tell me that any 911 call center is always staffed
>as if a hurricane is coming. If that's true, then every hour of every day
>when there's not a hurricane would be slack-time, and there would be no
>problem with people calling 911 for non-emergency issues.
>
>That's just too wacko to even consider.
EXACTLY why I said a few messages ago that you and I will never agree
on this! You believe one thing, I believe, and have dealt with,
another.

Posted by guest on February 22, 2007, 8:51 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> wrote:
>
>>f/fgeorge wrote:
>>> Don't know where you are from but how can you plan for a Hurricane or
>>> Tornado or shooting with 5 victims that will needs 5 dispatchers not
>>> counting the ones that are handling the normal call load? ALL call
>>> centers I have ever been to have been staffed exactly the same every
>>> shift day in day out. Some days you have slack time, some days you
>>> could use 30 more people.
>>
>>Workforce management software can do an incredible job of right-staffing a
>>large call center. Combine it with good intraday management, and money
>>doesn't have to be wasted by staffing the way you describe. It's 2007, not
>>1985. And with the public demanding better use of tax dollars, a call
>>center that doesn't use workforce management software to reduce staffing
>>costs is just another item on the list of ways that government can make
>>better use of the money they already have.
>>
>>If all the call centers you've been in staff that way, I suggest you need
>>to get out, and see more call centers. And the call centers you were in
>>need new managers.
>>
>>Either way, it is irresponsible to suggest to anyone that they call 911
>>just to test it. Even if it is a poorly managed call center that uses an
>>outmoded staffing model that leads to excessively idle operators, you
>>should not call 911 unless you have a real emergency.
>
> Warren I see we are just going to have to disagree here. I worked in a
> City that had over 100,000 people. I have been to areas that have over
> 400 square miles, I have been to Cities that have well over a million
> people, they ALL operated exactly the same way. Not a one had a plan
> that put fewer dispatchers on duty during any percieved "slack time".
> There were ALWAYS plans though to be able to "call back" more
> dispatchers, if the problems overwhelmed the standard on duty shift.
> And not a one had any problems with someone calling and saying "I am
> testing my 911, can you tell me what it says on your screen?" Now not
> all of those calls were handled immediately, sometimes the caller was
> put on hold and then the dispatcher handled an emergency and then got
> back to the person on the phone. I NEVER saw one dispatcher get angry
> or mad at that type of call. I have seen PLENTY of dispatchers get mad
> and angry and people that call and call and call over things that
> should not be 911 calls. NO dispatcher ever let the Public know that
> they were mad or angry though.
> I have PERSONALLY made over a dozen of these types of call, and was
> always helped in a very professional manner. I have found some
> addresses that had problems, that were fixed by the phone company, and
> most that were okay.
> As I said you mileage may vary, but that is what I saw!
>
How about the public? If a real medical emergency happens & the person
cannot get thru because of some "line testing calls to 911" and then
the person either dies because the 911 was busy, the 911 operators wouldn't
care since they wouldn't know what happened.

The 911 line tester also wouldn't care since the person's death is not
their concern nor would the 911-line-tester acknowledge they created
problems.

Posted by $Bill on February 22, 2007, 9:35 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
guest wrote:
>
> How about the public? If a real medical emergency happens & the person
> cannot get thru because of some "line testing calls to 911" and then
> the person either dies because the 911 was busy, the 911 operators wouldn't
> care since they wouldn't know what happened.

I would think the operators would know if calls are pending or not
(really dumb if not so) and speed up/hang up any calls that felt
were non-emergency calls. But there is a point to be made for not
wanting test calls - esp. in peak hours - I'm just not sure the
volume would be that troublesome. You would have to know how much
time operators are spending actually taking calls vs waiting for
them to come in.

Similar ThreadsPosted
recommend Ethernet DOCSIS 2.0 modem? September 28, 2005, 12:58 am

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map