Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
Thanks… good info. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: Matthew Crocker Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 2:07 PM To: Faisal Imtiaz ; Victor C Cc: Nick Olsen ; voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer If they are an end-user the SIP INVITE should be sanitized by the providing carrier. Carrier <-> Carrier include CallerID with privacy bits set Carrier -> End-user include Sanitized CallerID (i.e. Anonymous or Private in the From header, no Remote-Party-ID) From: Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 2:02 PM To: Victor C mailto:victor.chukalovs...@gmail.com>> Cc: Matthew Crocker mailto:matt...@corp.crocker.com>>, Nick Olsen mailto:n...@floridavirtualsolutions.com>>, "voiceops@voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>" mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>> Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer Cool, Looks like it is similar laws here in the USA too.. I stand corrected… https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/01/2017-25917/calling-number-identification-service-caller-id Though I am curious about a scenario… Client is running his own pbx, and running Homer .. Would the Caller ID be visible to them in the homer trace ? Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> From: Victor C mailto:victor.chukalovs...@gmail.com>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:23 PM To: Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> Cc: Matthew Crocker mailto:matt...@corp.crocker.com>>; Nick Olsen mailto:n...@floridavirtualsolutions.com>>; voiceops@voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer Can’t speak for US, but at least in Canada what you described wont fly. You have obligations as a carrier to honour restricted caller id received from PSTN if the caller choose to withhold it. If your paying customer is not happy with a private incoming call, they should contact police as someone earlier suggested. If deemed necessary, police or court or whatever authority will reach to you for the private caller id. If you just disclose caller id on your customers request as you described, you may just as well disregard rpid / whatever privacy flag you have from pstn all together. But people dont do that afaik. On Sep 9, 2019, at 13:13, Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote: Who is your customer ? The Caller or the Called Entity ? Your obligations are to your paying customer….. (which in this case is the Called Entity) You have zero obligations to the caller…. If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may choose to provide it. What your client does with it, is not your concern. (Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients information confidential ) My two cents ! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> From: VoiceOps mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org>> On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM To: Nick Olsen mailto:n...@floridavirtualsolutions.com>>; voiceops@voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer You don’t know if it really is harassment. Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days. Have them call the police and open a case for harassment. The police can get a subpoena and request the call data. From: VoiceOps mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org>> on behalf of Nick Olsen mailto:n...@floridavirtualsolutions.com>> Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM To: "voiceops@voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>" mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>> Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on. Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" was the displayed Calling number and CNAM. Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full. Obviously, The
Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
Cool, Looks like it is similar laws here in the USA too.. I stand corrected… https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/01/2017-25917/calling-number-identification-service-caller-id Though I am curious about a scenario… Client is running his own pbx, and running Homer .. Would the Caller ID be visible to them in the homer trace ? Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: Victor C Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:23 PM To: Faisal Imtiaz Cc: Matthew Crocker ; Nick Olsen ; voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer Can’t speak for US, but at least in Canada what you described wont fly. You have obligations as a carrier to honour restricted caller id received from PSTN if the caller choose to withhold it. If your paying customer is not happy with a private incoming call, they should contact police as someone earlier suggested. If deemed necessary, police or court or whatever authority will reach to you for the private caller id. If you just disclose caller id on your customers request as you described, you may just as well disregard rpid / whatever privacy flag you have from pstn all together. But people dont do that afaik. On Sep 9, 2019, at 13:13, Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote: Who is your customer ? The Caller or the Called Entity ? Your obligations are to your paying customer….. (which in this case is the Called Entity) You have zero obligations to the caller…. If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may choose to provide it. What your client does with it, is not your concern. (Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients information confidential ) My two cents ! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> From: VoiceOps mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org>> On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM To: Nick Olsen mailto:n...@floridavirtualsolutions.com>>; voiceops@voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer You don’t know if it really is harassment. Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days. Have them call the police and open a case for harassment. The police can get a subpoena and request the call data. From: VoiceOps mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org>> on behalf of Nick Olsen mailto:n...@floridavirtualsolutions.com>> Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM To: "voiceops@voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>" mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>> Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on. Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" was the displayed Calling number and CNAM. Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full. Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private. What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court order or request from law enforcement) Nick Olsen Network Engineer Office: 321-408-5000 x103 Mobile: 321-794-0763 [Image removed by sender.] ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
Who is your customer ? The Caller or the Called Entity ? Your obligations are to your paying customer….. (which in this case is the Called Entity) You have zero obligations to the caller…. If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may choose to provide it. What your client does with it, is not your concern. (Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients information confidential ) My two cents ! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM To: Nick Olsen ; voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer You don’t know if it really is harassment. Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days. Have them call the police and open a case for harassment. The police can get a subpoena and request the call data. From: VoiceOps mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org>> on behalf of Nick Olsen mailto:n...@floridavirtualsolutions.com>> Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM To: "voiceops@voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>" mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>> Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on. Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" was the displayed Calling number and CNAM. Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full. Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private. What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court order or request from law enforcement) Nick Olsen Network Engineer Office: 321-408-5000 x103 Mobile: 321-794-0763 [Image removed by sender.] ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] Hotel IP phones
Hi Ernesto, In my opinion, trying to pick the IP Phone device for a Hotel would be the wrong way of approaching the solution. You need to nail down the other requirements (these features are typically grouped together under Hospitality Phone System), and in many cases there is a requirement to tie that into the Customer billing system. Once you nail down the backend, then you can make a decision on the handsets supported. Most of the Hotels we have as clients, are using Mitel phone system's (due to requirement to tie into the billing / customer management system). We do provide the IP/Sip PRI service to feed these phone systems. Best of Luck. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom > From: "Ernesto Miro Cons" <e...@transtelco.net> > To: "voiceops@voiceops.org" <voiceops@voiceops.org> > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 6:42:05 PM > Subject: [VoiceOps] Hotel IP phones > Good day everyone, > I was told that VoiceOps.org was a great place to begin discussions and > conversations with other carriers about Voice Over IP subjects, and hope I am > not breaking any rules for this forum. > I am being tasked with suggesting several models of IP phones for a small > hotel > in Texas in which we are providing it with their Internet Service. Each > provider suggested one the following wireless IP wireless models: > * Yealink - W56P > * SNOM - M65 > * Grandstream - DP720 > Then Polycom suggested going with a touchscreen phone with web browsing > capabilities, for room service convenience. (VVX 500) > I am a little lost as to what are the trending choices in IP phones for hotels > and would like to hear your though on the matter and ideas around the use and > setup of wireless IP phones or touchscreen IP phones. > Best regards, > -- > Ernesto Miro > Ingeniería de Proyectos Nuevos | New Projects Engineering > MX: +52 656- 257-4131 > US: +1 915-217-2650 > AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Esta comunicación es sólo para el uso de la > persona o > entidad a la que se dirige y puede contener información privilegiada, > confidencial y exenta de divulgación bajo la legislación aplicable. Si no es > el > destinatario de esta información, se le notifica que cualquier uso, difusión, > distribución o copia de la comunicación está estrictamente prohibido. > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that > is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. > If you are not the intended recipient of this information, you are notified > that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is > strictly prohibited. > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] . DDOS Attacks and ITSP's
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion... yours seem to be stuck in 1988... as we say, that was then and this is now...(BTW, I too have been involved in the industry for over 30+ years). The internet is no-longer an 'American thing', it began to become global ever since it transitioned from the University Networks into a Public Network You seem to be confusing ARIN, ICANN etc with NANOG and imply as if the shift of network standards control to an International Body vs an American Body is responsible for malicious traffic ... So if I apply your logic, then ... President Eisenhower who commissioned the National Highway infrastructure, is also responsible for the crime that happens involving anyone using a a getaway car as well as all the people who get killed on the road After all, all the smart folks who were responsible for the design and implementation of the National Highway system were also the experts in the Automotive industry at that time ? Get over it, you can stop wearing a tin hat, and get a global perspective on things... Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom > From: "GregoryB" <gb20090...@gmail.com> > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> > Cc: "voiceops@voiceops.org" <voiceops@voiceops.org> > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 1:56:45 PM > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] . DDOS Attacks and ITSP's >> That is a bunch of Bull !, and fear mongering >> ARIN is an organization that manages assignment... they are not a Traffic COP >> nor are they responsible for checking packet content ! > You’re entitled to your own opinion. > I have my own very practical and day to day experience in networking [since > 1988], routing and security as well as contacts in industry ever since. > Also I still have very fresh memories from previous “deregulation” when [the > only, back then] domain registrar - Internic had been removed from the power > and ICANN formed (1998). > But that was related to only the domain name space. Now the integrity and > reachability (neutrality?) of the whole Internet is at stake. > I’m not saying ARIN (or RIPE, LACNIC, etc.) is ideal, but the collective > expertise of people involved there (because those people actually work or > worked for technical, routing, infrastructure, etc. departments of backbone > Internet providers and largest as well as all possible ranges telecom > providers) combined with regular gathering of engineers and network > administrators who exchange their experience provides as a good environment to > collect, analyze and further systematise network matters. > -- > Regards, > G.B. >> On Mar 20, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > >> wrote: >>>>I don’t know of _who_ else may have more expertise in developing and >>>>deploying >> >>attack mitigation solutions than ARIN. >> Get real, just because they assign IP's and ASN's does not mean that they >> have >> dpi expertise ! >>>>> IMHO - it’s going worsen soon because of another vicious cycle of >>>>> “deregulations” and passing on more control over the Internet to 3rd >>>>> (foreign) >> >>> parties. >> That is a bunch of Bull !, and fear mongering >> ARIN is an organization that manages assignment... they are not a Traffic COP >> nor are they responsible for checking packet content ! >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>> From: "GregoryB" < gb20090...@gmail.com > >>> To: " voiceops@voiceops.org " < voiceops@voiceops.org > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 1:28:01 PM >>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] . DDOS Attacks and ITSP's >>> Just in case anyone may have any doubts… ARIN is again under the attack (2nd >>> time this month). >>> I don’t know of _who_ else may have more expertise in developing and >>> deploying >>> attack mitigation solutions than ARIN. >>> IMHO - it’s going worsen soon because of another vicious cycle of >>> “deregulations” and passing on more control over the Internet to 3rd >>> (foreign) >>> parties. >>> == >>> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:37:48 -0400 >>> From: ARIN < i...@arin.net > >>> To: arin-annou...@arin.net >>> Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN DDoS Attack >>> Message-ID: < 56ec590c.1030...@arin.net > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>> Starting at 1:25 PM EDT on Friday, 18 March, a DDoS attack began against >>> ARIN. This was and continues to be a sustained attack against our >>> provisioning services, email, and website
Re: [VoiceOps] . DDOS Attacks and ITSP's
>>I don’t know of _who_ else may have more expertise in developing and >>deploying attack mitigation solutions than ARIN. Get real, just because they assign IP's and ASN's does not mean that they have dpi expertise ! >>> IMHO - it’s going worsen soon because of another vicious cycle of >>> “deregulations” and passing on more control over the Internet to 3rd >>> (foreign) parties. That is a bunch of Bull !, and fear mongering ARIN is an organization that manages assignment... they are not a Traffic COP nor are they responsible for checking packet content ! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom > From: "GregoryB" <gb20090...@gmail.com> > To: "voiceops@voiceops.org" <voiceops@voiceops.org> > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 1:28:01 PM > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] . DDOS Attacks and ITSP's > Just in case anyone may have any doubts… ARIN is again under the attack (2nd > time this month). > I don’t know of _who_ else may have more expertise in developing and deploying > attack mitigation solutions than ARIN. > IMHO - it’s going worsen soon because of another vicious cycle of > “deregulations” and passing on more control over the Internet to 3rd (foreign) > parties. > == > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:37:48 -0400 > From: ARIN < i...@arin.net > > To: arin-annou...@arin.net > Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN DDoS Attack > Message-ID: < 56ec590c.1030...@arin.net > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Starting at 1:25 PM EDT on Friday, 18 March, a DDoS attack began against > ARIN. This was and continues to be a sustained attack against our > provisioning services, email, and website. We initiated our DDoS > mitigation plan and are in the process of mitigating various types of > attack traffic patterns. All our other public-facing services (Whois, > Whois-RWS, RDAP, DNS, IRR, and RPKI repository services) are not > affected by this attack and are operating normally. > We will announce an all clear 24 hours after the attacks have stopped. > Regards, > Mark Kosters > Chief Technology Officer > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > == > I have reasons of not wanting to provide my address nor name. > == >> On Mar 19, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Tim Linn < timot...@voipinnovations.com > >> wrote: >> Ryan, >> This is a great discussion to start. I can't contribute at this time, but I >> certainly plan on giving you guys all of the information about what we at VI >> have been doing, what has worked, what hasn't worked, what we saw, what we >> didn't see, etc. Certain contacts may not allow me to name company names, >> but I >> still think we can give out enough information to be useful. >> We definitely plan on giving this information out. Like you said, events like >> these are typically embarrassing and companies don't like to come out and >> describe exactly how negligent or naive they were to allow it. >> I feel that getting the knowledge out there is much more important than our >> pride though. Right now, we're not giving out a whole lot of information on >> what we are doing in fear that it will be "used against us." I do somewhat >> agree with your assessment about these people knowing this stuff already, but >> at this point we don't want to take the chance (as irrational as that seems). >> Once we're in a more stable place, I will certainly work with our Networking >> Engineer, Owner, and Operations Manager on trying to talk them into giving >> out >> the most information possible to arm you guys in the event that this occurs >> to >> any of you. >> In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to email me. I >> will >> do my best to help as much as I can. >> Timothy Linn >> Lead Systems Engineer >> Voip Innovations >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone >> Original message >> From: voiceops-requ...@voiceops.org >> Date: 2016/03/19 12:00 (GMT-05:00) >> To: voiceops@voiceops.org >> Subject: VoiceOps Digest, Vol 81, Issue 38 >> -- >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:07:56 -0700 >> From: Ryan Delgrosso < ryandelgro...@gmail.com > >> To: " voiceops@voiceops.org " < voiceops@voiceops.org > >> Subject: [VoiceOps] DDOS Attacks and ITSP's >> Message-ID: < 56ec985c.6050...@gmail.com > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >> With the current mega-thread about VI I figured I would get an >> educational discu
Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing
At the expense of sounding anal I have to point out a couple of minor corrections... > In the end they admitted that their consideration of the minimum fee as > telecom vs non-telecom was a choice based on lack of guidance from the > FCC, and on the advice of their telecom lawyers, decided to "play it safe" > and consider the minimum fee as telecom and pay the USF on that revenue, > rather than not and then find out after an audit that the FCC really > thought they should have paid. > While the overall statement is accurate, the detail reasoning is not quite accurate. While the FCC many not have a very black and white clear stance on the issue of minimum fee being telecom revenue or not... The Local States have set precedence in clearly stating that ETL fees (including minimum billing, setup fees etc) are telecom revenue. That is the reason why the Telecom Attorney advised as such. > Plus, since it is a passthrough for them, there is no undue burden on them > to do so. > No, you are gravely mistaken on this USF is a TAX on the service provider, and the service provider can choose to recover it from their customers as a fee. It is not a passthruough.. but it is a an opportunity to get more revenue,(while blaming the Feds for it !) While many can argue this is in-direct taxation and against the constitution, but I don't believe it has ever been challenged in the Highest Court. > While I disagree with their choice, the fact that they posit that it was a > choice due to ambiguity, not a clear misunderstanding of the FCC rules, > I'm taking a deep breath and letting it go. > So nice to see the common business trend of we are going to screw you because we can, and if you question it, we can very easily blame it on the Gov.. See we are not the bad guys ! When it comes to tax collection, fees recovery, it is the prevailing attitude among carriers, better to railroad the customers and make overbilling mistakes than to do the right thing because it is more profitable than doing the right thing.. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Peter Beckman" <beck...@angryox.com> > To: "NSP Strategist" <pe...@4isps.com> > Cc: "voiceops@voiceops.org" <voiceops@voiceops.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 3:24:32 PM > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing > On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Peter Rad. wrote: > >> USF is 16% -- you are all worked up over how much money? >> Emails to the list, frustration, looking up the law references -- you >> probably blew more time on this issue than what the actually fee was. > > Yeah, probably. > >> I understand it is the "principle" of the thing, but it was probably billed >> by USOC or billing item -- and that billing item always gets billed USF - and >> they use that USOC billing code for their 499, so they have no real process >> to not bill you USF since they will be remitting USF based on that USOC. > > In the end they admitted that their consideration of the minimum fee as > telecom vs non-telecom was a choice based on lack of guidance from the > FCC, and on the advice of their telecom lawyers, decided to "play it safe" > and consider the minimum fee as telecom and pay the USF on that revenue, > rather than not and then find out after an audit that the FCC really > thought they should have paid. > > Plus, since it is a passthrough for them, there is no undue burden on them > to do so. > > While I disagree with their choice, the fact that they posit that it was a > choice due to ambiguity, not a clear misunderstanding of the FCC rules, > I'm taking a deep breath and letting it go. > > Because you're right Peter -- I have blown more time on this issue than > was worth my energy or time/value. > > But damn, I hate it when I think the wrong thing was done and I can't get > no satisfaction. :-) > > Beckman > >> On 12/3/2015 12:33 PM, Peter Beckman wrote: >>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Carlos Alvarez wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with you, and I'd ask the carrier to remove that. It sounds like >>>> you haven't asked yet. The whole thing is highly negotiable anyway, since >>>> it wasn't an actual cost to them. You might even get them to drop it or >>>> severely reduce the overage based on future business. >>> >>> I've asked -- this email is verbatim what I sent to them. Their response: >>> >>> "We consider the minimum commitment to make up for services that were not >&
Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE
It has very little to do with actual Technology... it is a lot to do with Money, which is used to influence politics, which is used to influence regulations, which is used to influence business which is used to influence Money. To try to explain it any other way would be naive. Telecom (PSTN) is typically one of the top 3 or top 5 sources of revenue, economic activity, 'economic engine' for any nation in the world... and as such it is very tightly controlled. Yes, Technology developments are challenging the way the industry has been managed, however the battle still goes on in try to make a shift... which is going to happening, and will happen when and only when the folks whose lively hood has been threatened by the technological change either make enough money and get out (very unlikely) or are able to secure their financial futures by shaping regulations and or the business... :) It is a very complicated chess game... and oh if you think the ILEC's are fighting the VOIP (technology change) then think again, they are torn between openly embracing VOIP while using the PSTN as a front for collecting subsidies and continued influence of being able to change the laws. We are seeing all kinds of interesting shenanigans from the ILEC's e.g. delivering POTS services, while billing it as VOIP.. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Erik Flournoy" <e...@eespro.com> > To: "voiceops@voiceops.org" <voiceops@voiceops.org> > Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2015 4:17:26 PM > Subject: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE > Aloha Group, > I'm curious to know others thoughts on where they believe the traditional PSTN > is going vs VOIP and VoLTE. Now that Iconnectiv will be administering the LNP > in the US I feel as though it's the best time to try and propose new or more > up > to date solutions that allow smaller carriers to operate. > For example there is no charge to have the ability to port numbers in NPAC, > but > there is a monthly charge for the remote access to the NPAC. Then the > interconnectivity at the LEC level. The archaic ways of telecom have not > seemed > to change much although VOIP is now in my opinion the standard of telecom. > VOIP > will soon be able to get code blocks and route via SIP vs SS7 and LERG. LERG, > ASR/LSR, SS7 all systems owned by one monopolizing company. > Erik F. > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This e-mail message, including any attachments from EESPRO.com - contain > information which is CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. The information > is > intended only for the use of the individual named above and may not be > disseminated to any other party without written permission. If you are not the > intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the > message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, disclosure, distribution, copying or taking of any action in > reliance on the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify i > n...@eespro.com , and permanently delete this e-mail and the attachments > hereto, > if any, and destroy any printout thereof. > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing
Hmm. While the point may be arguable, but they are not wrong in doing so. There are different ways to look at this, your point of view is that they billed you a minimum commit fee. I bet you anything, that their point of view is that you committed to buying a certain base level of service, irrespective of usage.. (Think of it in a manner similar to how one would sell to a end user un-limited service.. e.g. it is $20 for the month, if you use it or not is not our concern). In the depth of regulatory details and clarifications, taxing authorities look at contract termination fees (or fees associated with meeting contract requirements) as being part of the revenues for providing that service. It is also common accounting practice to treat it as such. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Peter Beckman" <beck...@angryox.com> > To: "voiceops@voiceops.org" <voiceops@voiceops.org> > Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 9:23:39 PM > Subject: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing > Hey Folks -- > > I've got a carrier to which I've made a minimum commitment. I didn't get > around to getting my spend up to the commit, and when my contract renewed, > they billed me a minimum commit fee. Understandable, and I'm fine paying > it. I didn't get anything for it -- zero telecom-related services. > > However, they also charged the USF percentage on the minimum fee. > > The Language from the FCC leads me to believe that this carrier's > assessment of the USF on minimum billing is incorrect and illegal, as that > fee is not interstate nor international end-user revenues. For specific > detail, FCC Form 499-Q item 115 clearly states that the USF is to be > taxed on: > > "Telecommunications provided to other universal service contributors for > resale as telecommunications or as interconnected VoIP" > > The minimum fee is not telecommunications. > > Additionally Form 499-A for Line 418 states: > > "Line 418. — Other revenues that should not be reported in the contribution > bases; Non-interconnected VoIP Revenues. Line 418 should include all > non-telecommunications service revenues on the filer’s books, as well as > some revenues that are derived from telecommunications-related functions, > but that should not be included in the universal service or other fund > contribution bases. For example, information services offering a capability > for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, > utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications are not > included in the universal service or other fund contribution bases." > > Anyone else experience this? Or have any background? I do not believe the > carrier should charge me nor pay the FCC the USF on non-telecom fees. > > Any Telecom lawyers out there? > > Beckman > --- > Peter Beckman Internet Guy > beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ > --- > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] T1 Crossover Cable
https://supportforums.adtran.com/thread/4027 suggests that the cable should be a T1 x-over cable, please note that T1 x-over is not the same wiring as Ethernet x-over cable. You can easily make a loopback cable/plug to test each side if needed. (just google for t1 loopback wiring). Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: David Wessell da...@ringfree.biz To: Fred Posner f...@palner.com Cc: VoiceOps (voiceops@voiceops.org) voiceops@voiceops.org Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:17:02 AM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] T1 Crossover Cable So two different answers :) It's a 904 connecting on the t1 0/2 DSX interface. The main issue is that we keep getting D channel is DOWN. I've run through every step in the Adtran troubleshooting guide ( https://supportforums.adtran.com/servlet/JiveServlet/previewBody/4521-102-2-4862/PRI%20Troubleshooting.pdf ) and still get the message. We've matched all setings on the Shoretel side with those in the Adtran.. And I do have a ticket in with Adtran. But they take forever to call back :) It does appear that when they connect the the Adtran 904 for the Shoretel via a crossover cable the PRI interface itself stays down. A straight ethernet and the connection does come up. But the D Channel remains down. Thanks David On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Fred Posner f...@palner.com wrote: If you are connecting it directly, then generally yes... a crossover. If there's anything in-between the two, then generally the answer is no. Fred Posner The Palner Group, Inc. http://www.palner.com (web) +1-503-914-0999 (direct) +1-954-472-2896 (fax) On 10/31/2014 09:04 AM, David Wessell wrote: I'm connecting a Adtran 904 to a Shoretel system for a voice only PRI. Am I correct that a cross-over cable is needed and not a straight thru cable? The IT vendor and I are having a small disagreement. Thanks David -- Ringfree Communications, Inc http://ringfree.biz/ David Wessell / President 828-575-0030 x101 / da...@ringfree.biz mailto: da...@ringfree.biz Ringfree Communications, Inc Office: 828-575-0030 / Fax: 888-243-7830 PO BOX 1994 Hendersonville, NC 28793 http://ringfree.biz http://ringfree.biz/ This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these risks. Company Name is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and denies any responsibility for any damage arising from the use of e-mail. Any opinion and other statement contained in this message and any attachment are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. __ _ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/ mailman/listinfo/voiceops ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops -- David Wessell / President 828-575-0030 x101 / da...@ringfree.biz Ringfree Communications, Inc Office: 828-575-0030 / Fax: 888-243-7830 PO BOX 1994 Hendersonville, NC 28793 http://ringfree.biz This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these risks. Company Name is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and denies any responsibility for any damage arising from the use of e-mail. Any opinion and other statement contained in this message and any attachment are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https
Re: [VoiceOps] CPE side Passive Monitoring
While this is not a full solution out of the box, we use Mikrotik Routers as smart dmarc. They come in many sizes,they are inexpensive and have a lot of functionality built into the Mikrotik ROS which allows us to be able to do a lot of troubleshooting on demand from remote. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Kris Alberts kris.albe...@is.co.za To: voiceops@voiceops.org Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:45:05 AM Subject: [VoiceOps] CPE side Passive Monitoring Hi Looking for a cost effective, easily deployed, useful passive monitoring probe to be deployed at the customer prem for voip traffic monitoring. My main objective is to reduce MTTR and provide a clear demarcation service for customers that supplies their own LAN. We use a variety of CPE device (primarily Cisco though) so I will need to find an external hardware probe that caters for all use cases. There seems to be a variety of solutions available so was hoping you could share you experience on some of the solutions that you are using. I really need to understand the extent to which the added visibility optimised your product in terms of better support, fewer truck rolls etc. All of these listed products claims to do just that. Solutions that come to mind includes: Prognosis, Telchemy, Broadsoft PacketSmart, Flukenetworks and Appneta Pathview. I need to evaluate in the lines of : * Effectiveness as a demarcation service. * Easy of deployment (hosted, SaaS model). * Probe and licensing costing. * Support portal granular stats in order to reduce MTTR. Thanks Kris ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
