Re: Are ISDN calls on hold cheaper than active calls?

[Robert Wade Brown <rwb@robert.com>]

  2/3/96 11:54pm ct
  
       I would think that there would be zero charge (nothing over and above
  the feature cost itself).
  
  Best,
  Robert
  ==========================
  
  At 21:41 2/3/96 -0800, Daniel R. Kegel wrote:
  >>         Currently I believe the "hold" is managed at the terminating LEC
  >> central office.  In other words, if you have 8 calls "coming in" and only
  >> have 2 B channels to handle them, once answered, they are "held" in the
  >> serving CO while one uses one's EKTS set to switch between them.  If that's
  >> the case, the argument can be made that the "held" calls are in fact
  >> "completed" except for the "last mile"; and since they are taking up space,
  >> per se, over the network, particularly if we are talking toll here, then
  >> they are chargeable.  However, if they are "held" at the *originating*
  >> central office (I don't' think ISDN and SS7 are yet doing this), then
  >> certainly one could make a good argument that only an SS7 charge would be
  >> applicable.
  >Ah, but what if the originating and serving CO are the same, i.e.
  >a local call?  Then it sounds like a good case could be made for
  >making the per-minute cost of an on-hold local call $0.00/minute.
  >Can anyone see any problem with this argument?
  >- Dan
  >
  >> =============================
  >> At 15:21 2/3/96 -0500, Daniel R. Kegel wrote:
  >> >Hi,
  >> >Does the incremental cost of providing an ISDN call drop when the
  >> >call is put 'on hold'?  I would expect that calls placed on hold
  >> >would consume no trunk capacity.  Is this the case?
  >> >
  >> >This is an interesting question because ISDN tariffs are under debate
  >> >right now in the US, and the ability to save money by putting calls on 
  >> >hold may make the usage charge increases requested by the telcos more 
  >> >bearable.  I don't know if any tariff provides for lower (e.g. zero)
  >> >per-minute charges for ISDN calls on hold, and the question is, should they?
  >> >
  >> >If this feature were available, I bet it would be added to PPP stacks faster
  >> >than you can say "It's So Darned Neandrethalesque" :-)
  >> >as it would let people stay logged in to their internet provider
  >> >all day without incurring horrendous charges during idle periods.
  >> >- Dan
  >> >dank@alumni.caltech.edu
  >> >
  >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  >>                        "Save your money"..... Jack Paar
  >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  >> Robert Wade Brown... Independent Telecommunications Consultant
  >> Post Office Box 49049   Austin, TX 78765-9049   rwb@robert.com
  >> Telephones: 512/349- Ofc: 7070 Fax: 7171  Res: 7272  Fax: 7373
  >> 800/275-8787, Fax 800/349-7020
  >> 
  >> 
  >
  >
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         "Save your money"..... Jack Paar
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Robert Wade Brown... Independent Telecommunications Consultant
  Post Office Box 49049   Austin, TX 78765-9049   rwb@robert.com
  Telephones: 512/349- Ofc: 7070 Fax: 7171  Res: 7272  Fax: 7373
  800/275-8787, Fax 800/349-7020