April 2011 - VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

SMS enabled DIDs
by clec＠cygnustel.com May 2, 2011

May 2, 2011

We are a CLEC and have SS7 trunks. From my limited understanding, SMS rides over ISUP, so in theory we would simply have an entry in an SMS DB that says all our SMS messages should be sent to a particular point code correct? Do I have this at all right, and if so, how do I enter this SMS DB point code information? Thanks! -Eric

7 9

trouble terminating to 203-546?
by David_Hiers＠adp.com April 29, 2011

April 29, 2011

Is anyone having trouble getting calls into the 203-546 exchange? David Hiers CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP ADP Dealer Services 2525 SW 1st Ave. Suite 300W Portland, OR 97201 o: 503-205-4467 f: 503-402-3277 This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.

2 1

Airespring SIP issues
by ndattilo＠rgts.com April 29, 2011

April 29, 2011

Anyone having an issue receiving SIP DID's from Airespring? We are getting fast busies and upon calling them they started getting flooded with calls

1 0

efax port out
by carlos＠televolve.com April 26, 2011

April 26, 2011

I haven't paid close attention, but I think they are now with the integration of Gizmo5. Before that they were just a forwarding service, no? -- Sent from my iPad On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort at gmail.com> wrote: Is google voice NOT an interconnected VoIP carrier? I certainly use it to make and receive PSTN calls. They also have a procedure to port in, just no mention as to how one would port out, but the porting rules in both directions should apply as Google voice seems to me to meet it definition of an interconnected VoIP carrier. Eric Fort Fort Consulting On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com>wrote: > They are an ITSP, and the FCC ruling trumps the contract. What I'm saying > is that there is nothing clear on these non-carrier services, so the > contract still has weight. It's clear that Efax and the others are not > ITSPs. Last I heard you couldn't port from Google Voice, and they are big > enough to make this an issue. > > > > Paul Timmins wrote: > >> VoicePulse had similar language in their contracts, and it didn't do a >> thing for them. >> >> On 04/26/2011 11:45 AM, Carlos Alvarez wrote: >> >>> Here's an additional complication I forgot to mention: These services >>> all seem to include "you can't port" into their TOS. At least Efax and >>> Answer Phoenix, the two I researched, do. So not only is our position >>> with the FCC tenuous at best, the customer effectively signed a >>> contract acknowledging that they don't own the numbers. >>> >>> >>> Justin B Newman wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Eric Hiller<clec at cygnustel.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So what should the next step be, go back to XO and say all of this >>>>> to them >>>>> and see if they budge? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Good luck. The last time I tried this, XO (and the provider) asserted: >>>> >>>> - Information Service >>>> - Person asserting end-user status not customer of record >>>> >>>> The FCC indicated that to pursue the complaint a fee would be required >>>> - and it wasn't worth it to anyone involved. >>>> >>>> -jbn >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> VoiceOps mailing list >>>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Carlos Alvarez > TelEvolve > 602-889-3003 > > > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >

2 1

efax port out
by clec＠cygnustel.com April 26, 2011

April 26, 2011

We have been trying to port out an efax number for one of customers but efax says they do not have to comply as they are not a phone company. XO is the underlying carrier, but they will not accept a Port Out form from our end user, which is not XO's end user. Any experience with this, ideas, or suggestions? Thanks, Eric

9 19

efax port out
by carlos＠televolve.com April 26, 2011

April 26, 2011

$200 per number. Oren Yehezkely wrote: > Carlos, > > Just for the benefit of others, can you say how much did you pay? > > Thanks. > > Oren > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Carlos Alvarez<carlos at televolve.com> wrote: >> Efax and other endpoint services like those call forwarding and >> receptionist services are not bound by porting rules. I've had success >> in paying extort(COUGH) fees to get the numbers out, but they don't >> have to allow it. >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Apr 25, 2011, at 9:08 PM, "Eric Hiller"<clec at cygnustel.com> wrote: >> >>> We have been trying to port out an efax number for one of customers but >>> efax says they do not have to comply as they are not a phone company. XO >>> is the underlying carrier, but they will not accept a Port Out form from >>> our end user, which is not XO's end user. Any experience with this, ideas, >>> or suggestions? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Eric >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> VoiceOps mailing list >>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> VoiceOps at voiceops.org >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003

1 0

ACMEs SIP Dynamic HNT
by ujjval＠simplesignal.com April 26, 2011

April 26, 2011

Hi Guys: We have not used the ACMEs SIP Dynamic HNT feature, where the ACME sends OPTIONS msgs to individual endpoints on its Access side and adjusts their expires times as per individual Firewalls that they are behind. While it sounds cool, I was wondering if folks have noticed issues with using it given that some endpoints out there don't even honor the Expires header from REGISTRARs and as the ACME determines the correct NAT interval automatically, it may leave some endpoints de-registers for small intervals (as per ACME ACLI guide). Thx for your input UK

6 7

Calls to UK cell phones
by ndattilo＠rgts.com April 19, 2011

April 19, 2011

Anyone having an issue dialing UK cell phones that have 78 or 79 as the exchange? Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

1 0

911 backup solution
by victor＠impulse.net April 19, 2011

April 19, 2011

I'm looking for a viable backup solution for 911 calls. Here is a hypothetical question: If you had an E911 provider already but wanted to ensure that every 911 call is answered, even if that e911 provider is unreachable or unable to take the call, how would you accomplish this? Does anyone know of a provider that will accept 911 calls for any ANI, even if there's a hefty per-call cost? -- Victor Breen, VoIP Systems Administrator Impulse Advanced Communications (805) 456-5800

6 5

SPA8000 trunking and hunting
by rdawson＠alliedtelecom.net April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

Is anyone aware of other devices that support trunking and hunting features within the ATA itself like the SPA8000 does in the latest firmware? Preferably with a lower port density. Thanks, Rob

1 0