We have a customer in Northeast Georgia that currently has their phone service through an ILEC who I have been told will not sign the sharing agreements with the underlying VOIP networks, and therefore no one that I can find has any rate centers in that area. Also, the VOIP carriers have not been willing to do a off network port request, which when refused would allow me to continue forward on a complaint with the regulatory bodies. The underlying VOIP network companies have told me that they have Local Number Portability departments to work through this stuff, and I need to work with my higher level carriers to get a case opened with their LNP departments before they will talk to me. The higer level carriers are telling me they don't know what to do because they have never run into this before. Does anyone have any experience working through this mess? Thanks in advance for your help, Rob
There is at least one rural iLEC in NE Georgia that is a PITA to work with. If nothing else, I've seen them require direct tandem trunking (to their tandem) or else they will not deliver calls to ported out TNs across the regular iLEC (ATT) tandem. I've always been interested in the legality of this since my understanding of the FCC order is that it requires all LECs to allow for porting without any loss of functionality to the end user. One option is of course to file a complaint with the FCC per the following link: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints -Scott From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hutton Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:51 PM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Unportable Numbers We have a customer in Northeast Georgia that currently has their phone service through an ILEC who I have been told will not sign the sharing agreements with the underlying VOIP networks, and therefore no one that I can find has any rate centers in that area. Also, the VOIP carriers have not been willing to do a off network port request, which when refused would allow me to continue forward on a complaint with the regulatory bodies. The underlying VOIP network companies have told me that they have Local Number Portability departments to work through this stuff, and I need to work with my higher level carriers to get a case opened with their LNP departments before they will talk to me. The higer level carriers are telling me they don't know what to do because they have never run into this before. Does anyone have any experience working through this mess? Thanks in advance for your help, Rob
When Vonage stalled me on porting out a DID to another VOIP provider, filing a complaint with the FCC was (1) painless and (2) immediately effective. Highly recommended. (I gave Vonage plenty of clearly-communicated opportunity to do the right thing. They didn't lift a finger until they heard from the FCC.) Graham Freeman (Sent from my handheld) On 19 Oct 2011, at 14:39, "Scott Berkman" <scott at sberkman.net<mailto:scott at sberkman.net>> wrote: There is at least one rural iLEC in NE Georgia that is a PITA to work with. If nothing else, I?ve seen them require direct tandem trunking (to their tandem) or else they will not deliver calls to ported out TNs across the regular iLEC (ATT) tandem. I?ve always been interested in the legality of this since my understanding of the FCC order is that it requires all LECs to allow for porting without any loss of functionality to the end user. One option is of course to file a complaint with the FCC per the following link: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints -Scott From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hutton Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:51 PM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> Subject: [VoiceOps] Unportable Numbers We have a customer in Northeast Georgia that currently has their phone service through an ILEC who I have been told will not sign the sharing agreements with the underlying VOIP networks, and therefore no one that I can find has any rate centers in that area. Also, the VOIP carriers have not been willing to do a off network port request, which when refused would allow me to continue forward on a complaint with the regulatory bodies. The underlying VOIP network companies have told me that they have Local Number Portability departments to work through this stuff, and I need to work with my higher level carriers to get a case opened with their LNP departments before they will talk to me. The higer level carriers are telling me they don't know what to do because they have never run into this before. Does anyone have any experience working through this mess? Thanks in advance for your help, Rob _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
We had a situation in a different but similar vein where when we ported the customers number calls from a particular telco coop to the customer which were once local were now long distance with us. To add insult to injury, the GM of our customer lived in that coops operating area. I was told it was because that coop didn't have traffic exchange agreement with our upstream carrier partner. I attempted to complain to the FCC but my efforts totally fell on deaf ears and I gave up. From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Graham Freeman Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 2:51 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Unportable Numbers When Vonage stalled me on porting out a DID to another VOIP provider, filing a complaint with the FCC was (1) painless and (2) immediately effective. Highly recommended. (I gave Vonage plenty of clearly-communicated opportunity to do the right thing. They didn't lift a finger until they heard from the FCC.) Graham Freeman (Sent from my handheld) On 19 Oct 2011, at 14:39, "Scott Berkman" <scott at sberkman.net<mailto:scott at sberkman.net>> wrote: There is at least one rural iLEC in NE Georgia that is a PITA to work with. If nothing else, I've seen them require direct tandem trunking (to their tandem) or else they will not deliver calls to ported out TNs across the regular iLEC (ATT) tandem. I've always been interested in the legality of this since my understanding of the FCC order is that it requires all LECs to allow for porting without any loss of functionality to the end user. One option is of course to file a complaint with the FCC per the following link: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints -Scott From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hutton Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:51 PM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> Subject: [VoiceOps] Unportable Numbers We have a customer in Northeast Georgia that currently has their phone service through an ILEC who I have been told will not sign the sharing agreements with the underlying VOIP networks, and therefore no one that I can find has any rate centers in that area. Also, the VOIP carriers have not been willing to do a off network port request, which when refused would allow me to continue forward on a complaint with the regulatory bodies. The underlying VOIP network companies have told me that they have Local Number Portability departments to work through this stuff, and I need to work with my higher level carriers to get a case opened with their LNP departments before they will talk to me. The higer level carriers are telling me they don't know what to do because they have never run into this before. Does anyone have any experience working through this mess? Thanks in advance for your help, Rob _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops 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.
(From the CLEC perspective) In many states, your license states specific areas you are legally permitted to operate in, and many times this language says something to the effect of "The operating territories of AT&T and Frontier North, including but not limited to the following ratecenters..." with a huge list of ratecenters afterward. Unless your CLEC has licensure in such a way to permit them to operate in the ILEC's territory, they won't have the requisite operating authority to perform the port. Even if there are no technical impediments for them to do so, number portability is only eligible for carriers who can legally operate as a CLEC in the area they are porting numbers from. Much like how a police officer from one city in a state isn't a police officer elsewhere in the state. Once that is done, you generally have to have an interconnection agreement with the ILEC in the area that dictates how their calls will route to you, and how the calls are billed. This part can be waived by the ILEC, but I've only seen one do it so far. Is it necessary? No, I mean, the calls are already routing that way, right? It's not like their customers couldn't call you before....... Once those are done, it's generally good practice to make sure people in that area can call 911. 911 selective router footprints don't always match service provider footprints. I've seen plenty of cases where frontier customers use AT&T selective routers, or vice versa. After that, you generally feel comfortable letting customers know the area is open for service. Until then you're just asking for trouble. On 10/19/2011 05:35 PM, Scott Berkman wrote:
There is at least one rural iLEC in NE Georgia that is a PITA to work with. If nothing else, I've seen them require direct tandem trunking (to their tandem) or else they will not deliver calls to ported out TNs across the regular iLEC (ATT) tandem.
I've always been interested in the legality of this since my understanding of the FCC order is that it requires all LECs to allow for porting without any loss of functionality to the end user.
One option is of course to file a complaint with the FCC per the following link:
-Scott
*From:*voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hutton *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* VoiceOps at voiceops.org *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Unportable Numbers
We have a customer in Northeast Georgia that currently has their phone service through an ILEC who I have been told will not sign the sharing agreements with the underlying VOIP networks, and therefore no one that I can find has any rate centers in that area. Also, the VOIP carriers have not been willing to do a off network port request, which when refused would allow me to continue forward on a complaint with the regulatory bodies.
The underlying VOIP network companies have told me that they have Local Number Portability departments to work through this stuff, and I need to work with my higher level carriers to get a case opened with their LNP departments before they will talk to me. The higer level carriers are telling me they don't know what to do because they have never run into this before.
Does anyone have any experience working through this mess?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Rob
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I beleive there is only one iLEC in NE Georgia that has changed names within the last several years. I am told, legally, that they have to honor an off network port, and their refusal to do so would accelerate the complaint process. I just have to have someone willing to submit the port... On Wednesday 19 October 2011 17:35:37 Scott Berkman wrote:
There is at least one rural iLEC in NE Georgia that is a PITA to work with. If nothing else, I've seen them require direct tandem trunking (to their tandem) or else they will not deliver calls to ported out TNs across the regular iLEC (ATT) tandem.
I've always been interested in the legality of this since my understanding of the FCC order is that it requires all LECs to allow for porting without any loss of functionality to the end user.
One option is of course to file a complaint with the FCC per the following link:
-Scott
From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hutton Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:51 PM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Unportable Numbers
We have a customer in Northeast Georgia that currently has their phone service through an ILEC who I have been told will not sign the sharing agreements with the underlying VOIP networks, and therefore no one that I can find has any rate centers in that area. Also, the VOIP carriers have not been willing to do a off network port request, which when refused would allow me to continue forward on a complaint with the regulatory bodies.
The underlying VOIP network companies have told me that they have Local Number Portability departments to work through this stuff, and I need to work with my higher level carriers to get a case opened with their LNP departments before they will talk to me. The higer level carriers are telling me they don't know what to do because they have never run into this before.
Does anyone have any experience working through this mess?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Rob
On 10/19/2011 08:47 PM, Rob Hutton wrote:
I beleive there is only one iLEC in NE Georgia that has changed names within the last several years. I am told, legally, that they have to honor an off network port, and their refusal to do so would accelerate the complaint process. I just have to have someone willing to submit the port...
Can you order RFA service from them and port the number out yourself? :) -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
LNP does not apply to all ILEC's. Just as the TA96 mainly applied to RBOC's. The RLEC's are a special case and don't have to sign ICA or LNP agreements. On 10/19/2011 5:35 PM, Scott Berkman wrote:
There is at least one rural iLEC in NE Georgia that is a PITA to work with. If nothing else, I've seen them require direct tandem trunking (to their tandem) or else they will not deliver calls to ported out TNs across the regular iLEC (ATT) tandem.
I've always been interested in the legality of this since my understanding of the FCC order is that it requires all LECs to allow for porting without any loss of functionality to the end user.
One option is of course to file a complaint with the FCC per the following link:
-Scott
*From:*voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hutton *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* VoiceOps at voiceops.org *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Unportable Numbers
We have a customer in Northeast Georgia that currently has their phone service through an ILEC who I have been told will not sign the sharing agreements with the underlying VOIP networks, and therefore no one that I can find has any rate centers in that area. Also, the VOIP carriers have not been willing to do a off network port request, which when refused would allow me to continue forward on a complaint with the regulatory bodies.
The underlying VOIP network companies have told me that they have Local Number Portability departments to work through this stuff, and I need to work with my higher level carriers to get a case opened with their LNP departments before they will talk to me. The higer level carriers are telling me they don't know what to do because they have never run into this before.
Does anyone have any experience working through this mess?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Rob
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 10/20/2011 03:20 AM, Peter Rad. wrote:
LNP does not apply to all ILEC's. Just as the TA96 mainly applied to RBOC's. The RLEC's are a special case and don't have to sign ICA or LNP agreements.
What are the criteria of RLEC to which this exemption applies? Local yokels only? What about RLECs absorbed by the likes of Windstream, or associations? -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
LNP applies to all LECs no matter what. UNE does not apply to RLECs. RLECs must allow LNP and resale upon request, but they are not obligated to provide an avoided cost discount on resale (ie: they can make you pay the retail rate for resold products). Even CLECs have resale obligations, but since we're not obligated to provide avoided cost discounts there's typically no reason to do that. Especially since there's typically more favorable resale or wholesale conditions under private contracts anyway. -Paul On 10/20/2011 03:20 AM, Peter Rad. wrote:
LNP does not apply to all ILEC's. Just as the TA96 mainly applied to RBOC's. The RLEC's are a special case and don't have to sign ICA or LNP agreements.
On 10/19/2011 5:35 PM, Scott Berkman wrote:
There is at least one rural iLEC in NE Georgia that is a PITA to work with. If nothing else, I've seen them require direct tandem trunking (to their tandem) or else they will not deliver calls to ported out TNs across the regular iLEC (ATT) tandem.
I've always been interested in the legality of this since my understanding of the FCC order is that it requires all LECs to allow for porting without any loss of functionality to the end user.
One option is of course to file a complaint with the FCC per the following link:
-Scott
*From:*voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hutton *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* VoiceOps at voiceops.org *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Unportable Numbers
We have a customer in Northeast Georgia that currently has their phone service through an ILEC who I have been told will not sign the sharing agreements with the underlying VOIP networks, and therefore no one that I can find has any rate centers in that area. Also, the VOIP carriers have not been willing to do a off network port request, which when refused would allow me to continue forward on a complaint with the regulatory bodies.
The underlying VOIP network companies have told me that they have Local Number Portability departments to work through this stuff, and I need to work with my higher level carriers to get a case opened with their LNP departments before they will talk to me. The higer level carriers are telling me they don't know what to do because they have never run into this before.
Does anyone have any experience working through this mess?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Rob
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (7)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
graham.freeman＠cernio.com -
justlikeef＠gmail.com -
Marty_Sorensen＠adp.com -
paul＠timmins.net -
peter＠4isps.com -
scott＠sberkman.net