May 2021 - VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Verizon Wireless Contact
by cwhelan＠staff.gwi.net Jan. 21, 2022

Jan. 21, 2022

Hello everyone, I know this is a long shot, but I'm hoping someone on here works for Verizon Wireless or knows someone that is in a position to assist us. Recently, a change to call routing occurred and Verizon Wireless calls are now being delivered across our tandem instead of a SIP peer. Ideally, I would like to establish a SIP trunk to Verizon Wireless but changing the call flow is the short term goal. Thanks in advance for your help! Christopher Whelan Director of Network Engineering GWI office 207-602-1115 *cell* 207-751-5013 www.gwi.net

2 1

ANIs flagged as telemarketer/spammer/scammer
by abalashov＠evaristesys.com Nov. 14, 2021

Nov. 14, 2021

Hi, So, of course, it is a known problem in the legitimate side of the lead engagement call centre, survey, etc. business that ANIs get flagged as "telemarketer" pretty quickly and start showing up that way on people's phones. Your normative viewpoint on that may vary depending on what you think of lead gen calls, but regardless, a reasonable person would differentiate between: (1) Legitimate outbound dialing operations that are following up with leads who provided their phone number and agreed to be called (at least, as a matter of clicking "accept" on _something_), or for some other legitimate mass-dialing purpose, and who actually own the DID inventory from which they present local-market ANIs and can in fact be reached on those numbers; (2) Illegal spammers who use fake ANIs and call people who did not in any way consent to being called by them. I am trying to learn a bit more about how this is done and what a legitimate, above-board business can do about it. Ignoring the factor of third-party call-screening apps (which most people with a mobile don't use), where is this generally implemented? As I understand it, T-Mobile do it on the network level. I have T-Mobile myself, and probably 2/3rds of unfamiliar numbers, including quite legitimate ones, show up as "Scam Likely" ? I know that's come up on the list before. AT&T displays "Telemarketer"; do they do it that way too, or do they use a Google Android feature for that which they enable as part of their carrier defaults for carrier-issued phones? What about other carriers and Android? As far as I know, Apple don't do anything like this. Do people with iPhones just not receive this "service"? How does that work? Asking where the central, or the most influential authority lies and who provides it goes to the heart of the real question, which is: what can a legitimate business do if their number has been blacklisted this way? As I understand it, the maintainers of these lists, along with the criteria for getting on them, are elusive and inscrutable, and there's really no recourse and no appeals process. I furthermore understand that this has led to the widespread approach of rotating ANIs, but that's a losing battle; they get flagged too. I imagine it won't be long before the criteria for "Scam Likely" are just "number appears to call lots of numbers in this rate centre and otherwise hasn't been around very long". But this is all just conjecture on my part; I really don't know much about how my carrier, anyone's carrier, or some BigCo that's behind my mobile OS decides that a call is a "telemarketer" or "scam" call. If anyone can shed some light on how this really works and what, if anything can be done about it, I would be most appreciative. -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

8 14

Connecting to Remote Tandems
by voiceops＠ics-il.net July 9, 2021

July 9, 2021

I'm evaluating methods of extending our footprint. I purposely left out company names. One of the companies we talked to was really only interested in getting us the inbound long distance calls, not the local ones. Well, they would, but the terms were vastly different. Given that I still need to build out to connect to the local tandem, what's the point in using a third party to connect to long distance? Are the terms for connecting to the local tandems different because the access tandem is simpler, whereas the local tandem could potentially involve connections to a bunch of other switches, once volume dictated I needed direct connections... and they don't want to deal with that? Are there third parties that don't have vastly different terms for local tandem services? Also, is it likely that I just don't understand what's going on? I went circles with the sales rep to make sure I understood what he was saying, but I could be wrong. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

5 24

Programs to analyze CDRs
by marylou＠backuptelecom.com June 14, 2021

June 14, 2021

I have a client looking for recommendations on software programs to analyze their CDRs. They need one that will determine the percent of traffic by type: Local IntraLATA/IntraState, IntraLATA/Interstate, InterLATA/Interstate Any information on programs and what you like / dislike about them would be helpful! MARY LOU CAREY BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111

2 1

CSR BTN
by voiceops＠ics-il.net June 4, 2021

June 4, 2021

Does a CSR have to have the specific number being ported or just any number on the account? We're testing a third party network that we'll utilize in the short-term for out-of-area usage. We ported some of our own numbers to our account at the third party. The CSRs arrived with the main BTN on the account, not the number being ported. Our porting person rejected the CSRs because they weren't for the number being ported. Of course she knew what number was being attempted because it was an internal operation, but normally she wouldn't. It's my thought that the CSR is a customer information verification process. We wouldn't know the number actually being ported until the LSR came. Does the name, address, account number, TN, etc. match an account you have? If so, great. Where can I find a good resource on the process and what's normally acceptable for rejections? Of course I said, "Let me verify this before we do anything" and then she replied to the CSRs rejecting. *sigh* I guess we'll really be testing all scenarios. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

6 7

STIR/SHAKEN - Robocall Mitigation Plan
by marylou＠backuptelecom.com May 30, 2021

May 30, 2021

I've had several people ask some great questions about the Robocall Mitigation plan since I sent out my last e-mail so I just wanted to clarify who needs to file a Robocall Mitigation plan by June 30, 2021. All companies that sell or resell voice services of any type (VOIP, TDM, Wireless) OR any company that has an end user customer they provide DIDs to are considered telecom carriers. It does NOT matter if you use upstream providers or not. It does not matter if you use another carrier's certificate or not! If you provide DIDs to a paying customer for any reason you are considered a telecom carrier so you need to file a Robocall Mitigation Plan. For those of you who aren't familiar with me, you may be wondering why I bother to post about this. I've been a Telecom Carrier Consultant for the last 21 years and have helped over a hundred carriers (CLECs, ILECs, Paging, Satellite, and Wireless) install and maintain their facilities based networks. The reason I post information about this is not because I don't have enough work to do. It is because over the years I have seen certain parties we won't mention do anything and everything they can to put the small carriers out of business and I don't want anyone to be taken out because they didn't realize they needed to do something to comply. I am a firm believer that no company can be everything to everyone so there is a place in the world for all carriers that provide good services. I've had people coming to me from the beginning asking for help getting their STIR/SHAKEN certificate so I'm very familiar with the process and what the upstream carriers are telling their underlying carriers. I'm also very familiar with the many changes that have been made to the requirements for getting a certificate. It's been confusing for everyone involved and especially the mitigation plan because that started out as an alternative to getting a certificate but it's turned into something that is required of every carrier. So regardless of whether you've already turned up STIR/SHAKEN or you're using someone else's certificate.......make sure you file your Robocall Mitigation Plan. I am not the only consultant helping people get their paperwork done so they can qualify for a certificate, so there's no obligation to use my services. All I'm saying is that whether you do it on your own or you hire someone to help you, make sure you file your Robocall Mitigation plan by June 30th. For those of you who are already STIR/SHAKEN compliant, it just means you sign in and mark your company as compliant! MARY LOU CAREY BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111

1 0

LRN and valid values
by beckman＠angryox.com May 26, 2021

May 26, 2021

Carrier A provided us a US NPANXX Rate Deck that had some values in it that were not valid, such as 732040. When asked about it, they claim that Access Tandem Codes are valid LRN values for operator services calls. Carrier B provides an API for us to query to get the LRN for a termination number, so we can rate it properly and implement our own LCR. Carrier B says LRNs will always be valid NPANXX values, and 732040 and similar would never be returned. I don't have access to the LERG, and frankly, even if I did, I'm not sure where I'd look to see who wins the conflict. Any suggestions? Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 4

LRN and valid values
by Jamie.Montgomery＠comporium.com May 26, 2021

May 26, 2021

There is an entry for 732040A.. OCN refers back to Verizon of Jew Jersey. The Rate Center is all X's, so it's a special code of some kind.. cant be assinged to an originating number, I dont believe. Jamie M. ________________________________ From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of voiceops-request at voiceops.org <voiceops-request at voiceops.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 4:12 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] VoiceOps Digest, Vol 140, Issue 3 Send VoiceOps mailing list submissions to voiceops at voiceops.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.neth… or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to voiceops-request at voiceops.org You can reach the person managing the list at voiceops-owner at voiceops.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of VoiceOps digest..." Today's Topics: 1. LRN and valid values (Peter Beckman) 2. Re: LRN and valid values (Alex Balashov) 3. Re: LRN and valid values (Paul Timmins) 4. Robocall mitigation SCAM! (Mary Lou Carey) 5. Re: Robocall mitigation SCAM! (Mark Lindsey) 6. Re: Robocall mitigation SCAM! (Matthew Yaklin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 22:47:24 -0400 From: Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> To: VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: [VoiceOps] LRN and valid values Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.2105252244540.46257 at nog2.angryox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Carrier A provided us a US NPANXX Rate Deck that had some values in it that were not valid, such as 732040. When asked about it, they claim that Access Tandem Codes are valid LRN values for operator services calls. Carrier B provides an API for us to query to get the LRN for a termination number, so we can rate it properly and implement our own LCR. Carrier B says LRNs will always be valid NPANXX values, and 732040 and similar would never be returned. I don't have access to the LERG, and frankly, even if I did, I'm not sure where I'd look to see who wins the conflict. Any suggestions? Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angryo… --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 00:02:51 -0400 From: Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> To: VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LRN and valid values Message-ID: <0D4FB8A5-31EB-42C3-82BB-E76A88E4B820 at evaristesys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Where does this conflict emerge in practice? Do customers call numbers in this exchange? Do you get billed for calls (less any LRN dip fees) to this exchange even though none of your wholesale termination vendors can route it? ? Sent from mobile, with due apologies for brevity and errors. > On May 25, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> wrote: > > ?Carrier A provided us a US NPANXX Rate Deck that had some values in it that > were not valid, such as 732040. > > When asked about it, they claim that Access Tandem Codes are valid LRN > values for operator services calls. > > Carrier B provides an API for us to query to get the LRN for a termination > number, so we can rate it properly and implement our own LCR. Carrier B > says LRNs will always be valid NPANXX values, and 732040 and similar would > never be returned. > > I don't have access to the LERG, and frankly, even if I did, I'm not sure > where I'd look to see who wins the conflict. > > Any suggestions? > > Beckman > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Beckman Internet Guy > beckman at angryox.com https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angryo… > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.neth… ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 04:54:19 +0000 From: Paul Timmins <ptimmins at clearrate.com> To: Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> Cc: VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LRN and valid values Message-ID: <8EB46E7D-53C6-4675-BDCC-DD3D7511E989 at clearrate.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" How are you even getting operator assisted calls onto your network to begin with? Do you have an operator service you still pay for? > On May 25, 2021, at 10:47 PM, Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> wrote: > > Carrier A provided us a US NPANXX Rate Deck that had some values in it that > were not valid, such as 732040. > > When asked about it, they claim that Access Tandem Codes are valid LRN > values for operator services calls. > > Carrier B provides an API for us to query to get the LRN for a termination > number, so we can rate it properly and implement our own LCR. Carrier B > says LRNs will always be valid NPANXX values, and 732040 and similar would > never be returned. > > I don't have access to the LERG, and frankly, even if I did, I'm not sure > where I'd look to see who wins the conflict. > > Any suggestions? > > Beckman > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Beckman Internet Guy > beckman at angryox.com https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angryo… > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.neth… ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 14:38:53 -0500 From: Mary Lou Carey <marylou at backuptelecom.com> To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Robocall mitigation SCAM! Message-ID: <978d2c6b8d26de81c4686156b823f5b3 at backuptelecom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed I just heard through the grapevine that several companies have been shut down and/or threatened with the confiscation of their equipment for passing Robocall traffic. The companies that this happened to all claimed someone contacted them and told them to keep the TN/traffic up so they could help catch the offenders. Unfortunately, whoever is advising carriers to keep the traffic up is not on the up and up. The ITG and large carriers came in and shut them down because they continued to pass traffic that was identified as robocalls. If someone contacts your company about a trace back and advises you to keep the TNs / traffic up, DO NOT LEAVE IT UP! Document everything and turn down the Robocall traffic as soon as possible! Then send both the ITG and large carrier involved the account number and CDRs for the calls in question. Be safe out there.....it's getting crazy! MARY LOU CAREY BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 15:50:58 -0400 From: Mark Lindsey <lindsey at e-c-group.com> To: Mary Lou Carey <marylou at backuptelecom.com> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Robocall mitigation SCAM! Message-ID: <CBAAC14A-7815-4D2C-ADEA-64946F8F52C7 at e-c-group.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Good tips, Mary Lou! Do you think there's potentially any good intentions behind the advice to leave the traffic up? In the cybersecurity space, authorities will say that if your network has been compromised, you shouldn't immediately shutdown the hacked systems. For example, just this past September, this Joint Cybersecurity Advisory (AA20-245A) from the US and a few other governments... https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fus-cert.c… Under actions to avoid: "Mitigating the affected systems before responders can protect and recover data - This can cause the loss of volatile data such as memory and other host-based artifacts. - The adversary may notice and change their tactics, techniques, and procedures." Mark R Lindsey, SMTS | +1-229-316-0013 | mark at ecg.co | https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fecg.co%2F… <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fecg.co%2F…> > On May 26, 2021, at 3:38 PM, Mary Lou Carey <marylou at backuptelecom.com> wrote: > > I just heard through the grapevine that several companies have been shut down and/or threatened with the confiscation of their equipment for passing Robocall traffic. The companies that this happened to all claimed someone contacted them and told them to keep the TN/traffic up so they could help catch the offenders. Unfortunately, whoever is advising carriers to keep the traffic up is not on the up and up. The ITG and large carriers came in and shut them down because they continued to pass traffic that was identified as robocalls. > > If someone contacts your company about a trace back and advises you to keep the TNs / traffic up, DO NOT LEAVE IT UP! Document everything and turn down the Robocall traffic as soon as possible! Then send both the ITG and large carrier involved the account number and CDRs for the calls in question. > > Be safe out there.....it's getting crazy! > > MARY LOU CAREY > BackUP Telecom Consulting > Office: 615-791-9969 > Cell: 615-796-1111 > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.neth…

1 0

Caveat to the 2023 STIR/SHAKEN extension for small companies
by marylou＠backuptelecom.com May 26, 2021

May 26, 2021

One more thing.....I also found out that there's a caveat to the June 30, 2023 extension for small carriers. Although the FCC granted smaller carriers an extension to implement STIR/SHAKEN, that does not exempt your company from filing your Robocall Mitigation Plan by June 30th, 2021. So smaller carriers should get registered with the Robocall Mitigation Database ASAP and file your Robocall Mitigation plan by June 30, 2021. Then you will be given until June 30, 2023 to implement it. The mitigation database registration requires that you to have your FRNs and your 499 filing completed in order to submit your plan. Just trying to pass on all the information I run across because there's been so much confusion surrounding the process! MARY LOU CAREY BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111

1 0

Robocall mitigation SCAM!
by marylou＠backuptelecom.com May 26, 2021

May 26, 2021

I just heard through the grapevine that several companies have been shut down and/or threatened with the confiscation of their equipment for passing Robocall traffic. The companies that this happened to all claimed someone contacted them and told them to keep the TN/traffic up so they could help catch the offenders. Unfortunately, whoever is advising carriers to keep the traffic up is not on the up and up. The ITG and large carriers came in and shut them down because they continued to pass traffic that was identified as robocalls. If someone contacts your company about a trace back and advises you to keep the TNs / traffic up, DO NOT LEAVE IT UP! Document everything and turn down the Robocall traffic as soon as possible! Then send both the ITG and large carrier involved the account number and CDRs for the calls in question. Be safe out there.....it's getting crazy! MARY LOU CAREY BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111

4 5