I've done that, but they're NOC guys, they don't really give a damn. That's why I was trying to find some sort of escalation level, or an "inside guy." Our customer confirmed that they simply can't bug their customer to do it. I'm thinking maybe a demand letter sent certified? I've already had to do that once, they ported out OUR main number, and we made a monetary demand after snapping it back. They paid. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Teal, Brent M <Brent.Teal at charter.com> wrote:
Call them and ask them to remove their local switch translations or you will contact the FCC/BBB. That normally will motivate the losing carrier.
*Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid* On Feb 16, 2017 2:41 PM, Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote: The port completed over a year ago. Everyone we call at Cox says it works, because they do their testing from their Vegas switch, but only the Phoenix switch has issues.
I guess I'm going to fall back on telling our customer that a Cox customer has to complain.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Jeff Waddell <jeff+voiceops@ waddellsolutions.com> wrote:
When did the port go thru?
The translations are still in Cox's switches - if you can find a NOC number for Cox, call it and tell them, they will do a lookup in the LERG and then remove the translations.
Or call your Public Utilities commission for the state
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
They seemed very unhappy with that suggestion, so I was looking for other options. They are lawyers, and don't want to ask their customers to do work for them.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Yaklin <myaklin at firstlight.net> wrote:
Does the customer know anyone who is local to them that uses Cox and would kindly open up a ticket with Cox listing the ported numbers they cannot call?
That may be a possible fix if your customer understands your predicament and feels they can ask that Cox customer for a bit of help.
Matt ------------------------------ *From:* VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:19:41 PM *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Escalating a problem with a Cox routing error
We have a customer who ported us/Onvoy from Cox. Nobody in the local area with Cox lines can call them, so clearly they didn't remove the numbers from their switch. But their NOC is in Vegas, and they *can* call these numbers. So they claim there's no problem on their end. Onvoy says they never see these calls, so clearly it's a Cox issue. Cox won't really respond to me much because I'm not their customer.
Any ideas?
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.
They slammed YOUR number? That's pretty balsy. -- Alex -- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com) Sent from my Google Nexus.
Surely not on purpose, but the fact that they were arrogant ("there's no way we'd port a number incorrectly") and didn't want to help was the only reason I went after them for cash. We wasted a lot of time on the matter. The porting guy could have researched it and returned it in seconds, but he simply refused to go find the physical port order. "My database says we should port this number." But hey, I get 330x35 Mbps at home, so they're good as an ISP... On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
They slammed YOUR number? That's pretty balsy.
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Surely he couldn't have returned it in seconds. It'd still require a whole new NPAC subscription, concurrency window, and what have you? -- Alex -- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com) Sent from my Google Nexus.
I don't know the internal machinations of the porting process. I can tell you that I've had Cox port out a block of numbers in literally seconds. The losing carrier refused to respond, the Cox NOC asked a bunch of recorded questions about ownership, and tap-tap-tap-done. I was under the impression that a snapback could be done extremely quickly. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
Surely he couldn't have returned it in seconds. It'd still require a whole new NPAC subscription, concurrency window, and what have you?
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Snapbacks can be done quickly if the carrier is modern and not full of red or blue tape *wink*. Someone ported a bunch of Peerless numbers away from us once and Peerless had them back to us within an hour. Plus somehow flagged our account that any port out request will be verified by us first. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know the internal machinations of the porting process. I can tell you that I've had Cox port out a block of numbers in literally seconds. The losing carrier refused to respond, the Cox NOC asked a bunch of recorded questions about ownership, and tap-tap-tap-done.
I was under the impression that a snapback could be done extremely quickly.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
Surely he couldn't have returned it in seconds. It'd still require a whole new NPAC subscription, concurrency window, and what have you?
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus. _______________________________________________ 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
The Cox issue is being fixed. Remember that my customer is a law office. When the office manager told her boss that Cox told us to pound sand, he made a call to their chief legal officer. Five minutes later I had a call. Then a second, and now they said it will be fixed within two hours. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Jared Geiger <jared at compuwizz.net> wrote:
Snapbacks can be done quickly if the carrier is modern and not full of red or blue tape *wink*. Someone ported a bunch of Peerless numbers away from us once and Peerless had them back to us within an hour. Plus somehow flagged our account that any port out request will be verified by us first.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know the internal machinations of the porting process. I can tell you that I've had Cox port out a block of numbers in literally seconds. The losing carrier refused to respond, the Cox NOC asked a bunch of recorded questions about ownership, and tap-tap-tap-done.
I was under the impression that a snapback could be done extremely quickly.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com
wrote:
Surely he couldn't have returned it in seconds. It'd still require a whole new NPAC subscription, concurrency window, and what have you?
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus. _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
peerless used to be great like that, other carriers seem to be by far advanced and ahead of the game On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Jared Geiger <jared at compuwizz.net> wrote:
Snapbacks can be done quickly if the carrier is modern and not full of red or blue tape *wink*. Someone ported a bunch of Peerless numbers away from us once and Peerless had them back to us within an hour. Plus somehow flagged our account that any port out request will be verified by us first.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know the internal machinations of the porting process. I can tell you that I've had Cox port out a block of numbers in literally seconds. The losing carrier refused to respond, the Cox NOC asked a bunch of recorded questions about ownership, and tap-tap-tap-done.
I was under the impression that a snapback could be done extremely quickly.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com
wrote:
Surely he couldn't have returned it in seconds. It'd still require a whole new NPAC subscription, concurrency window, and what have you?
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus. _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Izzy Goldstein Chief Technology Officer Main: (212) 477-1000 x 2085 <(212)%20477-1000> Direct: (929) 477-2085 Website: www.telego.com <http://www.telego.net/> <http://www.telego.com/> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this e-mail in error please notify us immediately by email reply and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TeleGo (T). Employees of TeleGo are expressly required not to make defamatory statements and not to infringe or authorize any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by email communications. Any such communication is contrary to TeleGo policy and outside the scope of the employment of the individual concerned. TeleGo will not accept any liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising. TeleGo Hosted PBX <https://youtu.be/DaT8YAZ4V0w>
participants (4)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
caalvarez＠gmail.com -
igoldstein＠telego.net -
jared＠compuwizz.net