Rejected port due to having other orders active on the account
This doesn't seem like a valid/legal reason to reject a port. Integra has always done this with both our own account with them and any other accounts we're porting from. If there is ANY open order on the account, they will reject a port. This could be simply ordering some DIDs or doing another port. In the current case, as has happened in the past, it's going to end up costing an extra month on a PRI. Is this valid? Anyone have experience getting them to see the error of their ways? -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
This has always rejected ports from most carriers we have worked with. The reason I believe is you can't have active orders on the same account (meaning they can't manage multiple orders at one time ;) . Series approach. michael sterl (sent from the local ski lift) On Oct 31, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
This doesn't seem like a valid/legal reason to reject a port. Integra has always done this with both our own account with them and any other accounts we're porting from. If there is ANY open order on the account, they will reject a port. This could be simply ordering some DIDs or doing another port. In the current case, as has happened in the past, it's going to end up costing an extra month on a PRI. Is this valid? Anyone have experience getting them to see the error of their ways?
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
This doesn't seem like a valid/legal reason to reject a port. Integra has always done this with both our own account with them and any other accounts we're porting from. If there is ANY open order on the account, they will reject a port. This could be simply ordering some DIDs or doing another port. In the current case, as has happened in the past, it's going to end up costing an extra month on a PRI. Is this valid? Anyone have experience getting them to see the error of their ways?
For a "simple port," this is not a valid reason to reject a port. That said, there aren't a lot of business ports in my experience that are legitimately simple ports. Ultimately, this being valid or not is somewhat irrelevant. The real question is - what can you do about it. When I'm handling ports, I try to "set my customers up to succeed." This, of course, if why so many folks won't port w/o having a copy of a recent invoice. It's in no way a port requirement, but it sure does up the odds of getting things right. Likewise, customers need to understand when porting that there are certain things likely to slow things down. Interestinly, I had a port recently where a pulled 10-20 #'s from Integra, all from the same account. One failed for open orders. The rest succeeded. The customer of course denied having any open orders. A month or so later it succeeded; we never knew why. -jbn
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Justin B Newman <justin at ejtown.org> wrote:
legitimately simple ports. Ultimately, this being valid or not is somewhat irrelevant. The real question is - what can you do about it.
The true question, of course. It's been going on for years and eating at me. We have wasted a lot of money, and our incoming customers have wasted a lot of money--all to Integra's enrichment.
When I'm handling ports, I try to "set my customers up to succeed." This, of course, if why so many folks won't port w/o having a copy of a recent invoice. It's in no way a port requirement, but it sure does
It is our requirement as well.
Interestinly, I had a port recently where a pulled 10-20 #'s from Integra, all from the same account. One failed for open orders. The rest succeeded. The customer of course denied having any open orders. A month or so later it succeeded; we never knew why.
We just had one number out of a large block fail supposedly for not having CSR. Um, right. One of the big frustrations with this is that sometimes we need to port from an Integra account to two ULCs (we outsource our fax service, those numbers don't go to our voice ULCs). No other carrier has ever given us a denial for multiple orders, only Integra. Does someone know of a list of rules on porting and reasons for denial that can be read by humans? -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
If the customer's account is truly in flux, it makes sense to me. If i have a pending order to disconnect 3 lines, and then you request to port the entire account, do I give you those 3 lines, or not? If the customer requests more lines, and you didn't know about them because the order is pending, do I leave those new lines on the circuit (they may have ordered them, for example, to satisfy a contractual minimum commitment for a few months, for example, and did not want you to port them) or do I allow your port to go through, and disconnect the T1 they were supposed to ride on? Or do I offer the new TNs to you, and it turns out they were supposed to remain with us? I think it's fair to reject for pending orders, but only if the winning carrier can find out what those orders are. Your LOA probably gives you blanket rights to operate on the customer's behalf - I suggest you do that a few times to see what the orders are, and if they're BS, file a complaint with the public service commission in the state you're operating in. If not, it may at least be enlightening. -Paul On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:15 , Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Justin B Newman <justin at ejtown.org> wrote: legitimately simple ports. Ultimately, this being valid or not is somewhat irrelevant. The real question is - what can you do about it.
The true question, of course. It's been going on for years and eating at me. We have wasted a lot of money, and our incoming customers have wasted a lot of money--all to Integra's enrichment.
When I'm handling ports, I try to "set my customers up to succeed." This, of course, if why so many folks won't port w/o having a copy of a recent invoice. It's in no way a port requirement, but it sure does
It is our requirement as well.
Interestinly, I had a port recently where a pulled 10-20 #'s from Integra, all from the same account. One failed for open orders. The rest succeeded. The customer of course denied having any open orders. A month or so later it succeeded; we never knew why.
We just had one number out of a large block fail supposedly for not having CSR. Um, right.
One of the big frustrations with this is that sometimes we need to port from an Integra account to two ULCs (we outsource our fax service, those numbers don't go to our voice ULCs). No other carrier has ever given us a denial for multiple orders, only Integra.
Does someone know of a list of rules on porting and reasons for denial that can be read by humans?
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Paul Timmins <paul at timmins.net> wrote:
If the customer's account is truly in flux, it makes sense to me. If i have a pending order to disconnect 3 lines, and then you request to port the entire account, do I give you those 3 lines, or not? If the customer requests more lines, and you didn't know about them because the order is pending, do I leave those new lines on the circuit (they may have ordered them, for example, to satisfy a contractual minimum commitment for a few months, for example, and did not want you to port them) or do I allow your port to go through, and disconnect the T1 they were supposed to ride on? Or do I offer the new TNs to you, and it turns out they were supposed to remain with us?
This is understandable, and we've never done that sort of thing. Mostly it's porting X numbers to carrier A, and Y numbers to carrier B. Leave the circuit alone until formally cancelled (which Integra requires 30 days notice of, even if you port out all numbers including BTN).
I think it's fair to reject for pending orders, but only if the winning carrier can find out what those orders are. Your LOA probably gives you blanket rights to operate on the customer's behalf - I suggest you do that a few times to see what the orders are, and if they're BS, file a complaint with the public service commission in the state you're operating in. If not, it may at least be enlightening.
We nearly always know what the pending orders are, because we initiated them, as above. The top problem we're trying to solve is being able to kill the new customer's commitment to Integra in less time. In a few cases it's just operational stuff where we need to move things from one circuit to another and such, but the real hard cost problem is delaying the turn-down of a PRI for 30 days or more. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
On Nov 1, 2012, at 16:06 , Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
This is understandable, and we've never done that sort of thing. Mostly it's porting X numbers to carrier A, and Y numbers to carrier B. Leave the circuit alone until formally cancelled (which Integra requires 30 days notice of, even if you port out all numbers including BTN).
This I'm pretty sure is an FCC Reg - when you port all numbers from a loop, that loop is to be disconnected right away unless specifically arranged otherwise.
We nearly always know what the pending orders are, because we initiated them, as above. The top problem we're trying to solve is being able to kill the new customer's commitment to Integra in less time. In a few cases it's just operational stuff where we need to move things from one circuit to another and such, but the real hard cost problem is delaying the turn-down of a PRI for 30 days or more.
If they followed the regs on disconnection of the loop on port out of all TNs, it sounds like this would be a non issue.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Paul Timmins <paul at timmins.net> wrote:
This I'm pretty sure is an FCC Reg - when you port all numbers from a loop, that loop is to be disconnected right away unless specifically arranged otherwise.
I thought so too, but we have one customer right now fighting an Integra bill where all numbers including BTN were ported out, they failed to send in written cancellation, and Integra wants to be paid for the time it was not in service.
If they followed the regs on disconnection of the loop on port out of all TNs, it sounds like this would be a non issue.
Well the biggest issue we are facing is porting different numbers to different carriers at the same time. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
participants (4)
-
carlos＠televolve.com -
justin＠ejtown.org -
michael＠simplesignal.com -
paul＠timmins.net