Growing difficulties porting DIDs out of major VoIP carriers
Hello, I am hoping that someone may be able to shed some light as to the difficulties mobile carriers have to port DIDs away from major VoIP carriers such as Bandwidth and Onvoy. The problem does not seem to be on the VoIP providers. In most of the cases, they do not even receive an LSR. The mobile carriers seem to be asking for a CSR multiple times but never submit an LSR, then they tell the EU that the port request has failed. In another case, when the DID is with Bandwidth, the ATT system tells the customer that the number is with LOCKED with Google Voice and cannot be ported. I wonder who builds these faulty systems for these corporations? Any advice is appreciated. Oren
I believe this has more to do with shoddy record keeping than anything. Most voip carriers will port their own numbers around multiple times (using scale as leverage to get better deals playing carriers off each other). When they do that its not uncommon for them to use the same info (like their office address) versus the actual customer info, or their address parser code to translate between carrier A's system and carrier B's system mangles something, or there has been some M&A activity and the merged databases have bad info. In the end the new recorded address is not predictable by the customer and is easily and frequently rejected. I am moving through a project right now to move numbers between carriers and have found my losing carrier has done exactly this. With the state of record keeping and lack of appreciable standards I'm shocked that the LNP system works at all. On 3/5/2019 8:41 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Hello,
I am hoping that someone may be able to shed some light as to the difficulties mobile carriers have to port DIDs away from major VoIP carriers such as Bandwidth and Onvoy.
The problem does not seem to be on the VoIP providers. In most of the cases, they do not even receive an LSR. The mobile carriers seem to be asking for a CSR multiple times but never submit an LSR, then they tell the EU that the port request has failed.
In another case, when the DID is with Bandwidth, the ATT system tells the customer that the number is with LOCKED with Google Voice and cannot be ported. I wonder who builds these faulty systems for these corporations?
Any advice is appreciated.
Oren
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I agree with Ryan. We don't have any ports to cellular ever, and nearly zero port outs at all (we don't lose customers). But during acquisition, we encounter messes all the time. During a recent port from Onvoy to Bandwidth, we had a bunch of numbers with incorrect data on Onvoy (not our doing). People who came to use from Telesphere/Onvoy have crazy data like showing the address for Telesphere themselves, or the address of the Vonage datacenter downtown. There are also varying levels of "stickler" for data. I'm in the middle of porting in several numbers that belong to the same company, but are with various carriers. The submissions are identical, some fail and some get ported. But I'm learning that the data is the same on all of them. In particular, some demand that the authorized signer must match, and some do not. AT&T and Verizon both have some issues in their internal data as far as both phone numbers and IMEIs. The problems seem to stem from past ports that didn't get incorporated into their data. On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:10 AM Ryan Delgrosso <ryandelgrosso at gmail.com> wrote:
I believe this has more to do with shoddy record keeping than anything. Most voip carriers will port their own numbers around multiple times (using scale as leverage to get better deals playing carriers off each other). When they do that its not uncommon for them to use the same info (like their office address) versus the actual customer info, or their address parser code to translate between carrier A's system and carrier B's system mangles something, or there has been some M&A activity and the merged databases have bad info.
In the end the new recorded address is not predictable by the customer and is easily and frequently rejected.
I am moving through a project right now to move numbers between carriers and have found my losing carrier has done exactly this.
With the state of record keeping and lack of appreciable standards I'm shocked that the LNP system works at all. On 3/5/2019 8:41 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Hello,
I am hoping that someone may be able to shed some light as to the difficulties mobile carriers have to port DIDs away from major VoIP carriers such as Bandwidth and Onvoy.
The problem does not seem to be on the VoIP providers. In most of the cases, they do not even receive an LSR. The mobile carriers seem to be asking for a CSR multiple times but never submit an LSR, then they tell the EU that the port request has failed.
In another case, when the DID is with Bandwidth, the ATT system tells the customer that the number is with LOCKED with Google Voice and cannot be ported. I wonder who builds these faulty systems for these corporations?
Any advice is appreciated.
Oren
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing listVoiceOps at voiceops.orghttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Our experience has been similar, although the problem can be overcome if the gaining carrier is sufficiently determined as we are for porting-in from those difficult carriers. The more resellers involved, the lower the quality of the losing carrier?s records, for sure. Our systems are designed so that our wholesale customer is responsible for adding end user information to our systems either via portal or API, then a gaining carrier sees that information when a CSR is requested on the carrier side. The gaining carrier submits an LSR from there, the wholesale customer is notified automatically, an FOC is issued and NPAC release is performed. This makes the process quick and simple, while still giving the wholesale customer time to stop the port if unauthorized. We have certainly seen wireless carriers tell a subscriber that their number is non-portable, when the wireless carrier didn?t even pull the CSR. That?s just lazy on their part, but we?ve also seen sufficiently determined end users get them to do it with some prodding. Regards, Mike Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE Terra Nova Telecom, Inc. 11523 Palm Brush Trail #401 Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202 DIRECT: call or text 941 600-0207 http://www.tntelecom.net From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Ryan Delgrosso Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:00 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Growing difficulties porting DIDs out of major VoIP carriers I believe this has more to do with shoddy record keeping than anything. Most voip carriers will port their own numbers around multiple times (using scale as leverage to get better deals playing carriers off each other). When they do that its not uncommon for them to use the same info (like their office address) versus the actual customer info, or their address parser code to translate between carrier A's system and carrier B's system mangles something, or there has been some M&A activity and the merged databases have bad info. In the end the new recorded address is not predictable by the customer and is easily and frequently rejected. I am moving through a project right now to move numbers between carriers and have found my losing carrier has done exactly this. With the state of record keeping and lack of appreciable standards I'm shocked that the LNP system works at all. On 3/5/2019 8:41 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote: Hello, I am hoping that someone may be able to shed some light as to the difficulties mobile carriers have to port DIDs away from major VoIP carriers such as Bandwidth and Onvoy. The problem does not seem to be on the VoIP providers. In most of the cases, they do not even receive an LSR. The mobile carriers seem to be asking for a CSR multiple times but never submit an LSR, then they tell the EU that the port request has failed. In another case, when the DID is with Bandwidth, the ATT system tells the customer that the number is with LOCKED with Google Voice and cannot be ported. I wonder who builds these faulty systems for these corporations? Any advice is appreciated. Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
This does not get even to the accuracy of the account records. This issue is family and obviously true. I was able to narrow it down to mobile carriers using Syniverse to port out from Inteliquent/Onvoy. It seems like Syniverse only request a CSR but never submit an LSR. Does anybody know anything about that? Is there a contact person for Syniverse in this list? Thanks again. On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE < mike at astrocompanies.com> wrote:
Our experience has been similar, although the problem can be overcome if the gaining carrier is sufficiently determined as we are for porting-in from those difficult carriers. The more resellers involved, the lower the quality of the losing carrier?s records, for sure.
Our systems are designed so that our wholesale customer is responsible for adding end user information to our systems either via portal or API, then a gaining carrier sees that information when a CSR is requested on the carrier side. The gaining carrier submits an LSR from there, the wholesale customer is notified automatically, an FOC is issued and NPAC release is performed. This makes the process quick and simple, while still giving the wholesale customer time to stop the port if unauthorized.
We have certainly seen wireless carriers tell a subscriber that their number is non-portable, when the wireless carrier didn?t even pull the CSR. That?s just lazy on their part, but we?ve also seen sufficiently determined end users get them to do it with some prodding.
Regards,
Mike
Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE
Terra Nova Telecom, Inc.
11523 Palm Brush Trail #401
Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202
DIRECT: call or text 941 600-0207
*http://www.tntelecom.net <http://www.tntelecom.net>*
*From:* VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Delgrosso *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:00 PM *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Growing difficulties porting DIDs out of major VoIP carriers
I believe this has more to do with shoddy record keeping than anything. Most voip carriers will port their own numbers around multiple times (using scale as leverage to get better deals playing carriers off each other). When they do that its not uncommon for them to use the same info (like their office address) versus the actual customer info, or their address parser code to translate between carrier A's system and carrier B's system mangles something, or there has been some M&A activity and the merged databases have bad info.
In the end the new recorded address is not predictable by the customer and is easily and frequently rejected.
I am moving through a project right now to move numbers between carriers and have found my losing carrier has done exactly this.
With the state of record keeping and lack of appreciable standards I'm shocked that the LNP system works at all.
On 3/5/2019 8:41 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Hello,
I am hoping that someone may be able to shed some light as to the difficulties mobile carriers have to port DIDs away from major VoIP carriers such as Bandwidth and Onvoy.
The problem does not seem to be on the VoIP providers. In most of the cases, they do not even receive an LSR. The mobile carriers seem to be asking for a CSR multiple times but never submit an LSR, then they tell the EU that the port request has failed.
In another case, when the DID is with Bandwidth, the ATT system tells the customer that the number is with LOCKED with Google Voice and cannot be ported. I wonder who builds these faulty systems for these corporations?
Any advice is appreciated.
Oren
_______________________________________________
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
Technically, it is possible to port without an LSR as long as winning carrier submits their port request in NPAC and the losing carrier concurs. The LSR is technically just a courtesy notice sent to the losing carrier so they know to look for the port request in NPAC, but a lot of games get played when it comes to LSRs on both sides of the fence. The losing carriers often play games by refusing to concur in NPAC until they receive a "valid" LSR (which can require an act of God to be considered valid). Winning carriers also play games sometimes by refusing to put any effort into making the port happen. Tracking an LSR through the entire process involves a lot of work that they would prefer not to do so they purposely weed out the customers that don't really care enough to make a big deal about keeping their old number. Some winning carriers have no clue what to do if they run into a problem with the port request and others just refuse to deal with a request if doesn't go through easily. Last year I was without my business number for about 11 months after I moved because Comcast disconnected my service before the port completed. I complained that I'd had my number for 10 years before porting it to them but that didn't seem to bother them. They had no intention of putting the effort into getting my number back! Initially they claimed they couldn't get it back after it had been disconnected. Then they told me it had already been released back to the previous carrier. When I told them I was a telecom consultant and knew their SPID was still associated with my TN, they finally admitted it was still available, but claimed they couldn't give it back to me unless I installed new service with them. I told them I had it call forwarded to another number for months after I disconnected the equipment but they claimed they couldn't turn it back on unless there was equipment at my previous location. After numerous calls and a threat to file an FCC complaint, I finally got them to turn it up for a month so I could port it away. I ended up having to pay them $110.00 so they could dispatch a tech to my previous location and activate my number. (The tech hooked up the equipment, activated the phone service and then removed the equipment and told me not to return it until after my number ported.) SO frustrating, especially since I could have walked them through the entire process! Unfortunately there's not a lot of oversight and it's very difficult for an end user to get help when it happens so until these offending carriers get their hand slapped enough, they have no incentive to clean up their act! Mary Lou Carey BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111 On 2019-03-05 10:41 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Hello,
I am hoping that someone may be able to shed some light as to the difficulties mobile carriers have to port DIDs away from major VoIP carriers such as Bandwidth and Onvoy.
The problem does not seem to be on the VoIP providers. In most of the cases, they do not even receive an LSR. The mobile carriers seem to be asking for a CSR multiple times but never submit an LSR, then they tell the EU that the port request has failed.
In another case, when the DID is with Bandwidth, the ATT system tells the customer that the number is with LOCKED with Google Voice and cannot be ported. I wonder who builds these faulty systems for these corporations?
Any advice is appreciated.
Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
participants (5)
-
caalvarez＠gmail.com -
marylou＠backuptelecom.com -
mike＠astrocompanies.com -
orenyny＠gmail.com -
ryandelgrosso＠gmail.com