- VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Inexpensive API-based E911 provider
by d＠d-man.org Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

Hi folks, We need an E911 provider, and fast. The requirements are simple ? ability to update addresses quickly via simple APIs, ability to call a test number of some sort, and reasonably priced without huge volume commits. Any suggestions and/or things I should look out for? - Darren

4 3

Troubles calling those free conference services
by RGarcia＠360.net Jan. 29, 2011

Jan. 29, 2011

Yep - .0007, sorry about that. ----- Original Message ----- From: Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> To: Rick Garcia; paul at timmins.net <paul at timmins.net>; dane at corp.sonic.net <dane at corp.sonic.net> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org <voiceops at voiceops.org> Sent: Sat Jan 29 15:27:29 2011 Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services I think it?s triple-O 7 that they are proposing?. Frank From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Rick Garcia Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:35 AM To: paul at timmins.net; dane at corp.sonic.net Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services I believe the FCC is addressing inter-carrier compensation in Feb. So potentially the problem could be solved soon. Revenue sharing at .007 doesn't seem so attractive to the ILEC or the conference provider. ----- Original Message ----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> To: Dane Jasper <dane at corp.sonic.net> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org <voiceops at voiceops.org> Sent: Sat Jan 29 08:19:27 2011 Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services If so, we would have to band together on an ILEC network, as charging the typical CLEC termination rates could get us accused of "traffic pumping" ourselves. Dane Jasper wrote: > I wonder if there is an opportunity for carriers to cooperate to > eliminate the market for these traffic pumping services. In other > words, if carriers were to band together and cooperate to launch a > free conferencing service, chat services, etc, we might limit in some > way the impact of the business model. > > -DJ > > >>> Frank Bulk wrote: >>>> Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing >>>> calls? >>> >>> Since when did this industry aid and abet thieves? It's not very >>> different from a doctor who gives you cholesterol drugs and vitamins >>> instead of telling you to stop eating at McDonald's twice a day. Is it >>> better to help someone keep doing the wrong thing? We have an >>> opportunity to affect positive change in telecommunications. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carlos Alvarez >>> TelEvolve >>> 602-889-3003 > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Troubles calling those free conference services
by RGarcia＠360.net Jan. 29, 2011

Jan. 29, 2011

I believe the FCC is addressing inter-carrier compensation in Feb. So potentially the problem could be solved soon. Revenue sharing at .007 doesn't seem so attractive to the ILEC or the conference provider. ----- Original Message ----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> To: Dane Jasper <dane at corp.sonic.net> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org <voiceops at voiceops.org> Sent: Sat Jan 29 08:19:27 2011 Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services If so, we would have to band together on an ILEC network, as charging the typical CLEC termination rates could get us accused of "traffic pumping" ourselves. Dane Jasper wrote: > I wonder if there is an opportunity for carriers to cooperate to > eliminate the market for these traffic pumping services. In other > words, if carriers were to band together and cooperate to launch a > free conferencing service, chat services, etc, we might limit in some > way the impact of the business model. > > -DJ > > >>> Frank Bulk wrote: >>>> Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing >>>> calls? >>> >>> Since when did this industry aid and abet thieves? It's not very >>> different from a doctor who gives you cholesterol drugs and vitamins >>> instead of telling you to stop eating at McDonald's twice a day. Is it >>> better to help someone keep doing the wrong thing? We have an >>> opportunity to affect positive change in telecommunications. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carlos Alvarez >>> TelEvolve >>> 602-889-3003 > _______________________________________________ > 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

2 1

Predictive dialer traffic and ACME packet SBC
by ujjval＠simplesignal.com Jan. 29, 2011

Jan. 29, 2011

Has anyone had customers use predictive dialers that can misfire (user error or whatever the cayse may be)and spew out ~50 calls per sec ... How does Acmepacket handle such a burst if you have rate limit on the session agent / peer? Anyone with experience this would appreciate if could share. Ujjval Karihaloo

2 2

Troubles calling those free conference services
by carlos＠televolve.com Jan. 29, 2011

Jan. 29, 2011

I'm sure everyone is aware of the problems with those "free" service that profit from arbitrage. We get occasional complaints about not being able to dial those, and so far we've explained the scam to them and told them we're not going to fix it. However, it happens often enough that I'd like to know what others are doing about it. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003

8 16

Ingate questions
by sil＠infiltrated.net Jan. 28, 2011

Jan. 28, 2011

How many if any are using it as an "SBC" -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP, CPT "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." - Warren Buffett 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA 4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5CCD6B5E

1 0

unsubscribe
by chris＠tidalwavetelecom.com Jan. 27, 2011

Jan. 27, 2011

Best Regards, Chris Chris Talbot Tidal Wave Telecom <blocked::http://www.tidalwavetelecom.com/> www.tidalwavetelecom.com (tel) +1.805.523.8187 This electronic transmission contains information and is confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message.

1 0

h.323 breech and toll fraud case
by carlos＠televolve.com Jan. 27, 2011

Jan. 27, 2011

Lonny Clark wrote: > The guy dialing the number and the guy receiving the call may never know > that the call went through a hack - they may be just calling as normal. > It's the carriers in between that are scamming the other carriers to > bear their costs. According to the customer's carrier, the call path was: End user switch > Carrier SBC > Level 3 > Globalstar So I'm still not seeing where the profit is, unless it's a Globalstar reseller taking a cut of the incoming call charges. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003

2 1

Hosted Support Models
by robert.dawson＠mindshift.com Jan. 27, 2011

Jan. 27, 2011

How many of you selling hosted business services are using a tiered support model vs. first call being handled by a skilled resource? If you switched models either way what was the outcome? Thanks, Rob

3 2

Verizon DE/MD area issues
by sil＠infiltrated.net Jan. 26, 2011

Jan. 26, 2011

Out of utter curiosity, has anyone been experiencing any issues with calls to and around Delaware to Verizon endpoints? Because of number portability I can't confirm fully that *all issues* are Verizon endpoints, but I've been seeing an unusually high amount of problems with clients calling to numbers in DE and MD which appear to be Verizon owned (**SEFRDESFDS0 switch 302-629 exchange). 1361 failures today, first 20 (should I say, first and only 20) I checked turn out to be various VZ endpoints in the DE, MD areas. Anyone else seeing things out of the ordinary in those parts? Further is it me, or has Level3 also been acting a bit on the stupid side. -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP, CPT "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." - Warren Buffett 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA 4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5CCD6B5E

2 1