Guys: I know few months back there was a buzz about the Gotomeeting and other free conferencing numbers being dinged-up for very high per min rates. Has anyone had issues with Providers like Level3 charging high rates for these conferencing numbers? Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112 [cid:image001.jpg at 01CA7765.84A09880]<http://www.simplesignal.com/>
Ujjval Karihaloo wrote:
I know few months back there was a buzz about the Gotomeeting and other free conferencing numbers being dinged-up for very high per min rates. Has anyone had issues with Providers like Level3 charging high rates for these conferencing numbers?
If you are referring to prefixes routed to high-cost rural carriers playing access charge arbitrage games, all of the Tier 1s' stances on them range from high rates to refusal to route, and change periodically. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Some providers are pretty shady; they're simply limiting the number of calls to the troublesome NPAs instead of trying to charge their customers for the calls. Interestingly enough, of all the carrier rate sheets I've seen, I can't recall one of them that had pricing that reflected the arbitrage NPAs. David On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com>wrote:
Guys:
I know few months back there was a buzz about the Gotomeeting and other free conferencing numbers being dinged-up for very high per min rates. Has anyone had issues with Providers like Level3 charging high rates for these conferencing numbers?
Ujjval Karihaloo
VP Voice Engineering
IP Phone: +13032428610
E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc.
88 Inverness Circle East
Suite K105
Englewood, CO 80112
[image: bvoip] <http://www.simplesignal.com/>
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
That's because the carriers are generally otherwise legitimate rural carriers and don't charge anything more outrageous than other rural carriers, it just upsets nonrural carriers because someone jammed an asterisk box or 7 in there and run massive conference bridges and now they have to actually call a rural area and that costs more in intercarrier compensation than the rate they're charging. Note that calling that phone company's downstream customers always cost that, the non-rural carriers were assuming that nobody would ever call there, and those that did would be a minority of their traffic. This is the sort of reason you don't see anything distinct for those companies. They're already accounted for in the super high rate tier of whatever LD provider you're using. When you see those areas that are like $0.04/min that's where your very rural carriers are. -Paul David Hiers wrote:
Some providers are pretty shady; they're simply limiting the number of calls to the troublesome NPAs instead of trying to charge their customers for the calls.
Interestingly enough, of all the carrier rate sheets I've seen, I can't recall one of them that had pricing that reflected the arbitrage NPAs.
David
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com <mailto:ujjval at simplesignal.com>> wrote:
Guys:
I know few months back there was a buzz about the Gotomeeting and other free conferencing numbers being dinged-up for very high per min rates. Has anyone had issues with Providers like Level3 charging high rates for these conferencing numbers?
Ujjval Karihaloo
VP Voice Engineering
IP Phone: +13032428610
E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc.
88 Inverness Circle East
Suite K105
Englewood, CO 80112
bvoip <http://www.simplesignal.com/>
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto: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
Does anybody actually block these at the NPA level? I assumed that was just a figure of speech/turn of phrase. That seems dumb. I assume the blocking in fact happens at the NXX level? Or am I totally wrong? -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Level 3 reported that they have less bandwidth to those LECs to carriers...and terminate only some calls to those NPAs...I believe their LCR is blocking these high cost destinations. We can block at our Level too...but question is ...is that illegal? Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO? 80112 -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:11 AM To: Paul Timmins Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Does anybody actually block these at the NPA level? I assumed that was just a figure of speech/turn of phrase. That seems dumb. I assume the blocking in fact happens at the NXX level? Or am I totally wrong? -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Ujjval Karihaloo wrote:
Level 3 reported that they have less bandwidth to those LECs to carriers
That doesn't make any sense. Bandwidth in what respect? Size of trunk groups in access tandem links? Those places are in low-populated areas; it is logical to expect their facilities to be less dense there than in metro markets. That's not really "bandwidth" in the conventional sense, either way. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
On 12/8/09 10:22 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. Bandwidth in what respect? Size of trunk groups in access tandem links? Those places are in low-populated areas; it is logical to expect their facilities to be less dense there than in metro markets. That's not really "bandwidth" in the conventional sense, either way.
I'm working on a project that will require completion of up to 1m calls/hour into particular areas, so I'm learning a lot about the details of inter-carrier capacity and bandwidth available for voice. A company like L3 has IP connectivity into most of the areas where it can terminate/originate calls, and the amount of that is based on expectations of call volume based on the type of area and population. Then there are the telephony trunks from the L3 IP gateways to the local carrier(s) which have a hard limit of concurrent calls.
Carlos Alvarez wrote:
On 12/8/09 10:22 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. Bandwidth in what respect? Size of trunk groups in access tandem links? Those places are in low-populated areas; it is logical to expect their facilities to be less dense there than in metro markets. That's not really "bandwidth" in the conventional sense, either way.
I'm working on a project that will require completion of up to 1m calls/hour into particular areas, so I'm learning a lot about the details of inter-carrier capacity and bandwidth available for voice. A company like L3 has IP connectivity into most of the areas where it can terminate/originate calls, and the amount of that is based on expectations of call volume based on the type of area and population. Then there are the telephony trunks from the L3 IP gateways to the local carrier(s) which have a hard limit of concurrent calls.
Does that include access tandem links? I was under the impression that when it came to termination in podunk areas where a company like Level3 would have no interest in colonising end-offices, they just acted like a normal IXC and threw stuff into the tandem. And that the only way to do that remains SS7/TDM unless riding some sort of intermediary. Am I wrong? -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Yes, number of Tandem trunks and/or PRIs. Remember that Level 3's voice service was born out of their managed modem service. As the modem business (especially that of their really large wholesale customers) started declining, that capacity was converted to (or shared with) IP media gateways. Therefore areas that didn't have a large capacity in the modem world didn't have a large capacity for calls. Since the voice services have grown rapidly, lots of capacity has been added as needed in different areas, but like all carriers there are cost analysis's that go into where to add capacity and when. We have had a few issues recently with customer complaints on this very topic, and when I opened a Level 3 ticket for intermittent completion issues, I was told that they have a capacity issue based on the fact that for the given NPA-NXX, the capacity being requested far exceeds the population and expected population growth of the area. Based on that, Level 3 was not planning on adding a lot of capacity into that area any time soon. I passed this response on to the customer and recommended they bring this up with their conferencing provider. I believe that eventually the carriers that are offering these free conferencing services will see that they are losing business based on their practices and make appropriate changes, but we'll see how long that takes. -Scott -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:23 PM To: Ujjval Karihaloo Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Ujjval Karihaloo wrote:
Level 3 reported that they have less bandwidth to those LECs to carriers
That doesn't make any sense. Bandwidth in what respect? Size of trunk groups in access tandem links? Those places are in low-populated areas; it is logical to expect their facilities to be less dense there than in metro markets. That's not really "bandwidth" in the conventional sense, either way. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Scott Berkman wrote:
I passed this response on to the customer and recommended they bring this up with their conferencing provider. I believe that eventually the carriers that are offering these free conferencing services will see that they are losing business based on their practices and make appropriate changes, but we'll see how long that takes.
Most of these services are free, and thus the draw to them. So if they lose customers, they don't care. They make their money on the intercarrier compensation. Changing their practices makes them not make money off intercarrier compensation. -Paul
Scott Berkman wrote:
Yes, number of Tandem trunks and/or PRIs.
Remember that Level 3's voice service was born out of their managed modem service. As the modem business (especially that of their really large wholesale customers) started declining, that capacity was converted to (or shared with) IP media gateways. Therefore areas that didn't have a large capacity in the modem world didn't have a large capacity for calls.
Yes, that I know, but my understanding was that this applies to origination. That is why they have direct end-office trunks to nearly everywhere. How does the termination architecture work? I would assume it's like any other large CLEC and/or IXC: by default, they connect to a POI and have tandem groups from there, and also ride their own network to select end-offices in which colocate equipment for the purpose of generating UNEs, when/if there is switching equipment there. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
I don't have that level of knowledge of their network, but I can easily believe they'd only have tandem trunking in some of these rural places. -Scott -----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: Scott Berkman Cc: 'Ujjval Karihaloo'; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Scott Berkman wrote:
Yes, number of Tandem trunks and/or PRIs.
Remember that Level 3's voice service was born out of their managed modem service. As the modem business (especially that of their really large wholesale customers) started declining, that capacity was converted to (or shared with) IP media gateways. Therefore areas that didn't have a large capacity in the modem world didn't have a large capacity for calls.
Yes, that I know, but my understanding was that this applies to origination. That is why they have direct end-office trunks to nearly everywhere. How does the termination architecture work? I would assume it's like any other large CLEC and/or IXC: by default, they connect to a POI and have tandem groups from there, and also ride their own network to select end-offices in which colocate equipment for the purpose of generating UNEs, when/if there is switching equipment there. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Level 3 just told me that we need to start blocking these NPA-NXX's...and that they have a lot of trouble with them..no specific explaination. Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO? 80112 -----Original Message----- From: Scott Berkman [mailto:scott at sberkman.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:12 AM To: 'Alex Balashov' Cc: Ujjval Karihaloo; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs I don't have that level of knowledge of their network, but I can easily believe they'd only have tandem trunking in some of these rural places. -Scott -----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: Scott Berkman Cc: 'Ujjval Karihaloo'; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Scott Berkman wrote:
Yes, number of Tandem trunks and/or PRIs.
Remember that Level 3's voice service was born out of their managed modem service. As the modem business (especially that of their really large wholesale customers) started declining, that capacity was converted to (or shared with) IP media gateways. Therefore areas that didn't have a large capacity in the modem world didn't have a large capacity for calls.
Yes, that I know, but my understanding was that this applies to origination. That is why they have direct end-office trunks to nearly everywhere. How does the termination architecture work? I would assume it's like any other large CLEC and/or IXC: by default, they connect to a POI and have tandem groups from there, and also ride their own network to select end-offices in which colocate equipment for the purpose of generating UNEs, when/if there is switching equipment there. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Ujjval Karihaloo wrote:
Level 3 just told me that we need to start blocking these NPA-NXX's...and that they have a lot of trouble with them..no specific explaination.
Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112
Level3 told you to block exchanges????
Correct..cannot believe it!!! Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO? 80112 -----Original Message----- From: Peter R. [mailto:peter at 4isps.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:19 AM To: Ujjval Karihaloo Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Ujjval Karihaloo wrote:
Level 3 just told me that we need to start blocking these NPA-NXX's...and that they have a lot of trouble with them..no specific explaination.
Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112
Level3 told you to block exchanges????
What are some of these NPA-NXX's out of curiosity? -- Tim On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com> wrote:
Level 3 just told me that we need to start blocking these NPA-NXX's...and that they have a lot of trouble with them..no specific explaination.
Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO? 80112
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Berkman [mailto:scott at sberkman.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:12 AM To: 'Alex Balashov' Cc: Ujjval Karihaloo; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
I don't have that level of knowledge of their network, but I can easily believe they'd only have tandem trunking in some of these rural places.
? ? ? ?-Scott
-----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: Scott Berkman Cc: 'Ujjval Karihaloo'; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
Scott Berkman wrote:
Yes, number of Tandem trunks and/or PRIs.
? ? ? Remember that Level 3's voice service was born out of their managed modem service. ?As the modem business (especially that of their really large wholesale customers) started declining, that capacity was converted to (or shared with) IP media gateways. ?Therefore areas that didn't have a large capacity in the modem world didn't have a large capacity for calls.
Yes, that I know, but my understanding was that this applies to origination. ?That is why they have direct end-office trunks to nearly everywhere.
How does the termination architecture work? ?I would assume it's like any other large CLEC and/or IXC: ?by default, they connect to a POI and have tandem groups from there, and also ride their own network to select end-offices in which colocate equipment for the purpose of generating UNEs, when/if there is switching equipment there.
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web ? ? : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel ? ? : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct ?: (+1) (678) 954-0671
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Here you go... not sure if that's all there is......format got canned...but u get the idea IA SD NE KY MN MI 319-256 605-990 308-231 270-200 218-237 906-204 319-279 605-725 308-344 270-250 218-339 906-232 563-843 605-475 308-378 270-400 218-486 906-239 641-210 605-622 308-526 270-402 218-548 906-294 641-213 605-715 308-823 270-405 218-632 906-357 641-235 308-831 270-406 218-844 906-481 641-237 308-929 270-407 218-862 906-874 641-262 402-590 270-431 218-895 641-264 270-446 641-297 270-572 641-308 270-696 641-309 270-834 641-315 270-872 641-388 270-943 641-396 270-951 641-410 270-960 641-453 641-509 641-551 641-552 641-570 641-594 641-608 641-612 641-654 641-665 641-696 641-710 641-713 641-715 641-739 641-765 641-793 641-795 641-816 641-826 641-827 641-865 641-962 641-982 641-983 641-985 641-992 712-278 712-439 712-451 712-472 712-475 712-541 712-568 712-580 712-725 712-726 712-737 712-858 712-338 712-353 712-429 712-432 712-458 712-775 712-827 712-872 712-873 712-876 712-889 712-941 712-944 712-945 712-948 712-951 Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO? 80112 -----Original Message----- From: Tim Jackson [mailto:jackson.tim at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:23 AM To: Ujjval Karihaloo Cc: Scott Berkman; Alex Balashov; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs What are some of these NPA-NXX's out of curiosity? -- Tim On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com> wrote:
Level 3 just told me that we need to start blocking these NPA-NXX's...and that they have a lot of trouble with them..no specific explaination.
Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO? 80112
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Berkman [mailto:scott at sberkman.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:12 AM To: 'Alex Balashov' Cc: Ujjval Karihaloo; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
I don't have that level of knowledge of their network, but I can easily believe they'd only have tandem trunking in some of these rural places.
? ? ? ?-Scott
-----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: Scott Berkman Cc: 'Ujjval Karihaloo'; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
Scott Berkman wrote:
Yes, number of Tandem trunks and/or PRIs.
? ? ? Remember that Level 3's voice service was born out of their managed modem service. ?As the modem business (especially that of their really large wholesale customers) started declining, that capacity was converted to (or shared with) IP media gateways. ?Therefore areas that didn't have a large capacity in the modem world didn't have a large capacity for calls.
Yes, that I know, but my understanding was that this applies to origination. ?That is why they have direct end-office trunks to nearly everywhere.
How does the termination architecture work? ?I would assume it's like any other large CLEC and/or IXC: ?by default, they connect to a POI and have tandem groups from there, and also ride their own network to select end-offices in which colocate equipment for the purpose of generating UNEs, when/if there is switching equipment there.
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web ? ? : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel ? ? : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct ?: (+1) (678) 954-0671
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Michigan has mandatory thousands block pooling, and active LNP in most of those exchanges. I'm sure many of these other states are the same. Blocking this is a really dangerous thing to do, even if you don't care that the FCC would take a dim view. 906-204 for example has cingular cell phones in it. -Paul Ujjval Karihaloo wrote:
Here you go... not sure if that's all there is......format got canned...but u get the idea
IA SD NE KY MN MI 319-256 605-990 308-231 270-200 218-237 906-204 319-279 605-725 308-344 270-250 218-339 906-232 563-843 605-475 308-378 270-400 218-486 906-239 641-210 605-622 308-526 270-402 218-548 906-294 641-213 605-715 308-823 270-405 218-632 906-357 641-235 308-831 270-406 218-844 906-481 641-237 308-929 270-407 218-862 906-874 641-262 402-590 270-431 218-895 641-264 270-446 641-297 270-572 641-308 270-696 641-309 270-834 641-315 270-872 641-388 270-943 641-396 270-951 641-410 270-960 641-453 641-509 641-551 641-552 641-570 641-594 641-608 641-612 641-654 641-665 641-696 641-710 641-713 641-715 641-739 641-765 641-793 641-795 641-816 641-826 641-827 641-865 641-962 641-982 641-983 641-985 641-992 712-278 712-439 712-451 712-472 712-475 712-541 712-568 712-580 712-725 712-726 712-737 712-858 712-338 712-353 712-429 712-432 712-458 712-775 712-827 712-872 712-873 712-876 712-889 712-941 712-944 712-945 712-948 712-951
Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Jackson [mailto:jackson.tim at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:23 AM To: Ujjval Karihaloo Cc: Scott Berkman; Alex Balashov; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
What are some of these NPA-NXX's out of curiosity?
-- Tim
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com> wrote:
Level 3 just told me that we need to start blocking these NPA-NXX's...and that they have a lot of trouble with them..no specific explaination.
Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Berkman [mailto:scott at sberkman.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:12 AM To: 'Alex Balashov' Cc: Ujjval Karihaloo; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
I don't have that level of knowledge of their network, but I can easily believe they'd only have tandem trunking in some of these rural places.
-Scott
-----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: Scott Berkman Cc: 'Ujjval Karihaloo'; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
Scott Berkman wrote:
Yes, number of Tandem trunks and/or PRIs.
Remember that Level 3's voice service was born out of their managed modem service. As the modem business (especially that of their really
large
wholesale customers) started declining, that capacity was converted to (or shared with) IP media gateways. Therefore areas that didn't have a large capacity in the modem world didn't have a large capacity for calls.
Yes, that I know, but my understanding was that this applies to origination. That is why they have direct end-office trunks to nearly everywhere.
How does the termination architecture work? I would assume it's like any other large CLEC and/or IXC: by default, they connect to a POI and have tandem groups from there, and also ride their own network to select end-offices in which colocate equipment for the purpose of generating UNEs, when/if there is switching equipment there.
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
_______________________________________________ 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
Paul Timmins wrote:
Michigan has mandatory thousands block pooling, and active LNP in most of those exchanges. I'm sure many of these other states are the same. Blocking this is a really dangerous thing to do, even if you don't care that the FCC would take a dim view. 906-204 for example has cingular cell phones in it.
I was about to say, Ujjval: if you're going to block things, at least take care to block them at the NPA-NXX-Y pooled level. 90% of the markets in the country are pooled; NPA-NXX is no longer a useful way to determine which carrier a call is being routed to, and has not been for a long time. As Paul says, in MI there may be little to no correlation between NPA-NXX and what you (or L3) are/is seeking to block. LNP dips are ideal, but 7-digit prefixes will still get you get somewhere; NPA-NXX will not. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
I am not going to block and then have FCC knock on my door, I was just sharing info. Level 3 restricts calls to these anyway...after they hit L3 capacity, so I don't need to worry..Just tell Customers L3 is blocking it and they need to get other Conf Dial-in numbers from their Conf Provider - like someone here suggested - is the best way to handle this I think. Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO? 80112 -----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:55 AM To: Paul Timmins Cc: Ujjval Karihaloo; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Paul Timmins wrote:
Michigan has mandatory thousands block pooling, and active LNP in most of those exchanges. I'm sure many of these other states are the same. Blocking this is a really dangerous thing to do, even if you don't care that the FCC would take a dim view. 906-204 for example has cingular cell phones in it.
I was about to say, Ujjval: if you're going to block things, at least take care to block them at the NPA-NXX-Y pooled level. 90% of the markets in the country are pooled; NPA-NXX is no longer a useful way to determine which carrier a call is being routed to, and has not been for a long time. As Paul says, in MI there may be little to no correlation between NPA-NXX and what you (or L3) are/is seeking to block. LNP dips are ideal, but 7-digit prefixes will still get you get somewhere; NPA-NXX will not. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
<wryly>I didn't realize that IXCs and xLECs could pick and choose where to build out capacity</wryly> Frank -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Scott Berkman Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:07 PM To: 'Alex Balashov'; 'Ujjval Karihaloo' Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs <snip> We have had a few issues recently with customer complaints on this very topic, and when I opened a Level 3 ticket for intermittent completion issues, I was told that they have a capacity issue based on the fact that for the given NPA-NXX, the capacity being requested far exceeds the population and expected population growth of the area. Based on that, Level 3 was not planning on adding a lot of capacity into that area any time soon. <snip> -Scott
Google Voice will not complete calls at all to those exchanges and would up in front of the FCC for their trouble. ________________________________ From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of David Hiers Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:37 AM To: Ujjval Karihaloo Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Some providers are pretty shady; they're simply limiting the number of calls to the troublesome NPAs instead of trying to charge their customers for the calls. Interestingly enough, of all the carrier rate sheets I've seen, I can't recall one of them that had pricing that reflected the arbitrage NPAs. David On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com<mailto:ujjval at simplesignal.com>> wrote: Guys: I know few months back there was a buzz about the Gotomeeting and other free conferencing numbers being dinged-up for very high per min rates. Has anyone had issues with Providers like Level3 charging high rates for these conferencing numbers? Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112 [cid:image001.jpg at 01CA77E0.EFE9B150]<http://www.simplesignal.com/> _______________________________________________ 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.
Can't really blame them too much since they offer free US calls, no GOOD reason why calls to those npa-nxx's cost 6-12x more then a call to India. On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Sorensen, Marty wrote:
Google Voice will not complete calls at all to those exchanges and would up in front of the FCC for their trouble.
From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of David Hiers Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:37 AM To: Ujjval Karihaloo Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
Some providers are pretty shady; they're simply limiting the number of calls to the troublesome NPAs instead of trying to charge their customers for the calls.
Interestingly enough, of all the carrier rate sheets I've seen, I can't recall one of them that had pricing that reflected the arbitrage NPAs.
David
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com> wrote: Guys:
I know few months back there was a buzz about the Gotomeeting and other free conferencing numbers being dinged-up for very high per min rates. Has anyone had issues with Providers like Level3 charging high rates for these conferencing numbers?
Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112 <image001.jpg>
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list 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.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Parts of India have stronger and more robust infrastructure than many rural areas, as far as interconnection and cost per customer are concerned. The higher per minute rate reflects the costs of providing the customer's service, in some form. While it may seem outrageous, it's very, very expensive to provide service to 100 customers spread over a 10 mile radius, and that's what those costs are designed to reflect. I actually think it's funny that the rural ILECs are taking advantage of these rates and putting conference bridges here, even though it costs us money when our customers use them. Realize many CLECs also have intercarrier compensation rates of over a cent per minute too. But acting as if this was some sort of abuse of the system that deserves collateral damage to the legitimate customers who are also on the rural ILEC, I don't know about that. -Paul Colin wrote:
Can't really blame them too much since they offer free US calls, no GOOD reason why calls to those npa-nxx's cost 6-12x more then a call to India.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Sorensen, Marty wrote:
Google Voice will not complete calls at all to those exchanges and would up in front of the FCC for their trouble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org <mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *David Hiers *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:37 AM *To:* Ujjval Karihaloo *Cc:* voiceops at voiceops.org <mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs
Some providers are pretty shady; they're simply limiting the number of calls to the troublesome NPAs instead of trying to charge their customers for the calls.
Interestingly enough, of all the carrier rate sheets I've seen, I can't recall one of them that had pricing that reflected the arbitrage NPAs.
David
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com <mailto:ujjval at simplesignal.com>> wrote:
Guys:
I know few months back there was a buzz about the Gotomeeting and other free conferencing numbers being dinged-up for very high per min rates. Has anyone had issues with Providers like Level3 charging high rates for these conferencing numbers?
Ujjval Karihaloo
VP Voice Engineering
IP Phone: +13032428610
E-Fax: +17202391690
SimpleSignal Inc.
88 Inverness Circle East
Suite K105
Englewood, CO 80112
<image001.jpg> <http://www.simplesignal.com/>
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto: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 (12)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
carlos＠televolve.com -
frnkblk＠iname.com -
hiersd＠gmail.com -
jackson.tim＠gmail.com -
Marty_Sorensen＠adp.com -
paul＠timmins.net -
pete.barnwell＠whole.net.uk -
peter＠4isps.com -
scott＠sberkman.net -
ujjval＠simplesignal.com -
zavoid＠gmail.com