Re: [VoiceOps] Fax

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

If you must use SIP, try using T.38 (make sure your upstream provider
supports it). If for some reason you can't, use G.711 (and not any
compressed codec).

You could also replace your ATAs with something like this:
https://www.voipsupply.com/manufacturer/sangoma/sangoma-fax-station-applliances
which basically faxes to the local appliance, transmits it over the
internet with TCP, then faxes to the destination from the far end (skipping
any lossiness on your local internet connection). There are other products
that work the same way but I can't remember them right now.

For efax, a previous employer used this platform (because of the HIPAA
compliance): https://www.scrypt.com/
There's also just https://www.efax.com/
Twilio used to have a fax product, and when they retired it they suggested
a couple alternatives, including https://www.fax.plus/ and
https://www.mfax.io/.

They're all a little different, I would try them out, look at pricing etc.,
see what works for you.


On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:22 PM KARIM MEKKAOUI via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:

> Hi VOIPOPS Community
>
>
>
> Do you know about any fax over internet solution that works? We tried
> multiple ATA and multiple ATA configurations, sometime it works sometimes
> not.
>
>
>
> Also, do you know about any eFax solution provider that works good.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
>
>
> KARIM
>
> MEKTEL INC.
>
>
> ___
> 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] One Way Audio - Frontier Comm (Los Angeles area)

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

You could try emailing noc@ftr.com or asking on NANOG.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024, 12:16 PM Jim Rodgers via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:

> Beginning early yesterday, we're seeing dropped voice rtp traffic to some
> of our business customers in the Los Angeles metro area on Frontier Comm
> broadband fiber. The voice udp stream is leaving our data center and never
> making it to the Frontier fiber customer. It's not all of our customers,
> only random ones. We've sniffed the traffic on our side and see the voice
> rtp stream leave our data center but then sniffing on our customer's side
> the traffic never arrives (multiple Frontier fiber customers with this
> issue, not just one).
>
> Switching the customer over to an alternate Internet connection resolves
> the issue.
>
> Frontier frontline customer support doesn’t get it and they just want to
> roll a tech out for an issue that’s deeper inside their network.
>
> We have packet captures of both sides (our DC and your customer) showing
> the voice rtp stream leaving our DC and never showing up at the fiber
> customer.
>
> This doesn’t seem to be affecting every fiber customer in the Frontier
> footprint, it just seems to be random customers.
>
> Anyone else experiencing this issue? Any thoughts on who to contact on the
> Frontier side to get it resolved and/or get some eyes on it?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Jim
> ___
> 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] Sales contacts at Ribbon, Audiocodes

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

Thanks to everyone who responded! I received several contacts at Ribbon
(and I was able to connect with someone today), but none at Audiocodes. If
anyone has an Audiocodes sales contact I'd appreciate it. :)

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 6:24 PM Ross Tajvar  wrote:

> Does anyone have sales contacts at Ribbon or Audiocodes (for SBCs) they
> could share with me? I'm allergic to filling out "contact us" forms, and
> apparently my old contacts have moved on.
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

[VoiceOps] Sales contacts at Ribbon, Audiocodes

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

Does anyone have sales contacts at Ribbon or Audiocodes (for SBCs) they
could share with me? I'm allergic to filling out "contact us" forms, and
apparently my old contacts have moved on.
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

>  any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still
needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls
Yes, true...but I don't really care about retail consumers or resellers. If
they are doing enough VoIP volume that they care about peering, they can go
through the regulatory process and get their own OCN.

Similarly, I wouldn't peer with a business that used an internet connection
but didn't have their own ASN/IPs. It's just not worth it for me. If they
have that kind of need, they can participate the same way the grown-ups do.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:13 PM Peter Beckman  wrote:

> The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service
> provider?
>
> Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier
> of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business who also leases
> numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream
> carrier(s) to place/receive calls, either by channels or per minute, even
> if their upstream is directly peered and not transiting the PSTN at all.
>
> If this would be for the end user, then NANPA would have to delegate to the
> leasee, the leasee delegate to the reseller, the reseller to the end user,
> then the end user could publish their VoIP contact info, and anyone could
> call directly via VoIP, cutting out all of the middle peers.
>
> But, as another person said, this is ripe for abuse, and with no motivation
> by NANPA or the larger carriers to make calls less expensive for the
> reseller or end user, I see this going nowhere. Until there is some value
> in NANPA (plus all the other country telephony organizations) and the
> direct carriers leasing numbers to do so.
>
> Beckman
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps wrote:
>
> > I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like
> > an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth
> > it.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31 PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps <
> > voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here)
> suffer
> >> from a trust issue – what’s to prevent operator X from poisoning the
> >> protocol with bogus “stolen” numbers?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25 PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps <
> >> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49 AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps <
> >>> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own
> >>>> conversation. Someone had asked:
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be
> interested
> >>>> in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in
> >>> addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame
> also
> >>> invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route
> >>> advertisement and discovery.  As far as I know, very few people
> besides me
> >>> ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of
> >>> course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in
> production.)
> >>>
> >>> -Jared
> >>> ___
> >>> 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
> >>
> >
>
> ---
> Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
> beck...@angryox.com
> https://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] Voice Peering

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

We need BGP for VoIP! Wait no that's worse... /s

Jokes aside, my understanding of the way people do VoIP routing for private
peer interconnection is by looking up the OCN at call time and routing on
that. That way you don't have to worry about verifying individual numbers,
or keeping routing/ownership information up to date, or a myriad of other
things.

I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like
an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth
it.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31 PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:

> I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer
> from a trust issue – what’s to prevent operator X from poisoning the
> protocol with bogus “stolen” numbers?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25 PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49 AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps <
>> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own
>>> conversation. Someone had asked:
>>>
>>> ---
>>> I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested
>>> in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?
>>>
>>
>> Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in
>> addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also
>> invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route
>> advertisement and discovery.  As far as I know, very few people besides me
>> ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of
>> course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)
>>
>> -Jared
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 Landscape

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

This sounds like a carrier with a lot of SIP peers, which is already a
thing that exists today. It also requires a lot of time and work to build,
because you need some traffic for the other side to justify the cost to
interconnect with you.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 5:05 PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested
> in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?
>
> The service would just look like a carrier, except it would know how to
> reach all other participants directly with SIP, bypassing TDM land, and
> enabling rich media as a fringe benefit, as media would be direct between
> endpoints.
>
> I have a proof of concept and am wondering who out there might be willing
> to do some testing.
>
> Email me directly if interested, to talk about your network and how
> something like this might fit in.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jawaid
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 1:49 PM Mary Lou Carey via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>> If you already have SS7 services via Sigtran then going into a Frontier
>> area would just be a matter of adding another SS7 for that tandem.
>>
>> MARY LOU CAREY
>> BackUP Telecom Consulting
>> Office: 615-791-9969
>> Cell: 615-796-
>>
>> On 2023-10-12 11:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> > *nods* We take SIGTRAN over IPSec over the public Internet, then
>> > convert to SS7 over DS1s in some old Ciscos.
>> >
>> > -
>> > Mike Hammett
>> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> > http://www.ics-il.com
>> >
>> > Midwest Internet Exchange
>> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
>> >
>> > -
>> >
>> > From: "Nick Olsen" 
>> > To: "Mike Hammett" 
>> > Cc: "Mary Lou Carey" , "voiceops"
>> > 
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 6:04:03 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 Landscape
>> >
>> > We use them at $DAYJOB. We've had no issues with syniverse themselves
>> > in the recent years while I've been at the company. But plenty of
>> > issues with the transport providers to reach them. Luckily never both
>> > at the same time. Including a number of instances of flapping. Note,
>> > these are A-Links over TDM, not SIGTRAN at this time.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:22 PM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Anyone in here using Syniverse for these services and can speak to
>> >> their reliability?
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> Mike Hammett
>> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> >> http://www.ics-il.com
>> >>
>> >> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> >> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >>
>> >> From: "Mary Lou Carey" 
>> >> To: "Mike Hammett" 
>> >> Cc: "voiceops" 
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 11:59:14 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 Landscape
>> >>
>> >> There are pros and cons to everything. It sounds like in your case
>> >> you
>> >> may just want to keep your ISUP trunks and SS7 links, but maybe look
>> >> at
>> >> another provider for SS7. Syniverse is also an option but I'm not
>> >> sure
>> >> if their service has gone downhill like TNS' apparently has.
>> >>
>> >> MARY LOU CAREY
>> >> BackUP Telecom Consulting
>> >> Office: 615-791-9969
>> >> Cell: 615-796-
>> >>
>> >> On 2022-01-25 10:38 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> >>> Right, but as I said earlier, I'm already in the same building as
>> >> the
>> >>> tandem, so I'm just adding points of failure for moving an
>> >> existing
>> >>> operation somewhere else.
>> >>>
>> >>> -
>> >>> Mike Hammett
>> >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> >>> http://www.ics-il.com
>> >>>
>> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>> >>>
>> >>> -
>> >>>
>> >>> From: "Mary Lou Carey" 
>> >>> To: "Mike Hammett" 
>> >>> Cc: "Paul Timmins" , "voiceops"
>> >>> 
>> >>> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 10:42:22 PM
>> >>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 Landscape
>> >>>
>> >>> When you use a PSTN connection provider you route your traffic to
>> >> them
>> >>>
>> >>> via SIP and they handle all the SS7 so you can eliminate your
>> >> direct
>> >>> LIS
>> >>> trunks with the LEC and your SS7 Links.
>> >>>
>> >>> MARY LOU CAREY
>> >>> BackUP Telecom Consulting
>> >>> Office: 615-791-9969
>> >>> Cell: 615-796-
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2022-01-23 05:33 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>  Well right, but wouldn't I still need all of the same stuff
>> >> (perhaps
>> >>> a
>>  few less trunks to specific switches, only now I have fewer
>> >> minutes
>> >>> to
>>  spread the costs over?
>> 
>>  -
>>  Mike Hammett
>>  Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>  http://www.ics-il.com
>> 
>>  Midwest Internet Exchange
>>  http://www.midwest-ix.com
>> 
>>  -
>> 
>>  From: "Paul Timmins" 
>>  To: "Mike Hammett" 
>>  Cc: "voiceops" 
>>  Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 12:01:01 AM
>>  Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 Landscape
>> 
>>  Even without IPES you can switch 

Re: [VoiceOps] No-commit international calling

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

 is Israeli,
>> they started  charging 0.30 per minute. Currently BICS has more route
>> exceptions for pricing than they do have actual routes.  There is a lot
>> more here and I can talk for hours on the subject.
>>
>> Carriers want to advertise/offer the best route to win your business. So
>> say Cyprus cost 0.10 per minute for non EEA CLI, if a carrier has a GSM
>> gateway option that costs them 0.02 per minute they will issue you a rate
>> of say 0.3 per minute and if the GW is busy simply reject your calls. This
>> they they win whatever traffic you have going to them based on your A-Z
>> routing. I would tell you to look at:
>> Voxbeam
>> IDT (Net2Phone) - Ask them for their platinum rate deck, I would not go
>> any lower.
>>
>> My 9-5 is the equiv of a CLEC in Cyprus and our "specialty" is getting
>> good quality routes. If the others don't work free to email me off list and
>> I can try to help out.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 3:34 PM Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps <
>> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have an asterisk PBX for personal/business use. I use Flowroute for
>>> both origination and termination.
>>>
>>> Recently I've started needing to make some international calls
>>> (specifically mostly to the UK, but also some other places in Europe and
>>> Australia). There've been a few numbers where completion is very
>>> hit-or-miss, and a few that seem not to work at all (in both cases I get a
>>> SIP 500 back from the carrier).
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if this is a carrier issue - maybe Flowroute just has
>>> low-quality routes to some destinations? I'd like to try other carriers,
>>> and ideally keep a second one as a fallback, but I'm not sure who's out
>>> there with no commit.
>>>
>>> Looks like voip.ms is one option. Does anyone have any other
>>> suggestions?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ross
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely
>
> Jay
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

[VoiceOps] No-commit international calling

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

Hi all,

I have an asterisk PBX for personal/business use. I use Flowroute for both
origination and termination.

Recently I've started needing to make some international calls
(specifically mostly to the UK, but also some other places in Europe and
Australia). There've been a few numbers where completion is very
hit-or-miss, and a few that seem not to work at all (in both cases I get a
SIP 500 back from the carrier).

I'm wondering if this is a carrier issue - maybe Flowroute just has
low-quality routes to some destinations? I'd like to try other carriers,
and ideally keep a second one as a fallback, but I'm not sure who's out
there with no commit.

Looks like voip.ms is one option. Does anyone have any other suggestions?

Thanks,
Ross
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] dynect oracle end of life

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

Depending on your use-case, you may have success with DIY:
https://github.com/crazy-max/ddns-route53

On Tue, May 23, 2023, 4:29 PM Dovid Bender via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:

> We have been using dnsmadeeasy and it's been great. Not sure if they offer
> a migration tool.
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 4:04 PM Izzy Goldstein - TeleGo via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>> with Dynamic DNS from oracle being end of life next week,
>>
>> What are some companies that offer Dynamic DNS? and that has built tools
>> to migrate the data from dynect to them ?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Izzy Goldstein
>>
>> Chief Technology Officer - DevOps Master
>>
>> Main: (212) 477-1000 x 2085 <(212)%20477-1000>
>>
>> Direct: (929) 477-2085
>>
>> Website: https://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 
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Off-Net Numbers

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

Surely you have commercial relationships with these entities, and can work
backward from "who am I paying?"?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 4:26 PM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:

> Historically, we used multiple entities to get us off-net numbers. Who,
> what, when, I don't know.
>
> I have off-net numbers configured in my Metaswitch where I don't know who
> our upstream was, if we still have them, who they belonged to, etc. I can
> easily figure out what CLEC has them now, but we all know that there was
> probably someone between me and them, I just don't know who.
>
> Is there any likelihood of being able to determine that? I assume the
> different CLECs that "own" these numbers are not going to tell me who their
> reseller was, for me to then follow up with.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.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] onvoy contacts?

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

Are youasking for advice on how to stalk people?

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 6:54 PM jd via VoiceOps 
wrote:

> Can anyone from onvoy contact me off list?
>
>
>
> Also, what is the best path for cyber stalking using sms from a voip
> provider?
>
>
>
> thanks
> ___
> 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] Splitting voice and SMS

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

SMS routing is generally handled by NetNumber's routing database (the name
escapes me at the moment). NNIDs are the routing identifiers that they use
- perhaps they meant NNID vs SSID?

Twilio has a "hosted messaging" service, I think, which is where they
SMS-enable your number on their platform by changing the NNID to theirs
while leaving the voice-routing intact. But that process lead to a lot of
fraud across lots of carriers, so it's more restricted now.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 6:36 PM Chris Aloi via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:

> We’ve done this, essentially porting away the SMS piece of a number. From
> my experience, Bandwidth doesn’t allow “3rd party SMS enablement” of their
> numbers, but INTQ does.  I have a subset of my numbers with INTQ
> specifically because of this.
>
> ---
> Christopher Aloi
> cta...@gmail.com
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 17, 2022, at 6:21 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
> 
> I mentioned this as an option, but the scheduling vendor didn't like the
> idea.  I'm guessing they don't have a billing method for this.  Right now
> it's on hold until he can get someone on his tech side involved.  I was
> more just curious about his concept that he thinks they have done a split
> before.  He may be completely mistaken.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 3:15 PM Matthew Duggan 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi There,
>>
>> Twilio Gold Partner here. If they port the number to Twilio then using
>> Twilio Programmable Voice they calls could be forwarded either via sip or
>> pstn back to yourselves.
>>
>> They would have to pay Twilio the Egress cost. Feel free to message me
>> offline for further assistance.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> *Matthew Duggan | Head of DevOps*
>> *Mobile:* +447954163438
>> *Phone:* +44 (0)345 8800 808
>> *Email:* matthew.dug...@ciptex.com
>> *Address:* Peter House, Oxford Street, Manchester M1 5AN, United Kingdom
>>
>> *www.ciptex.com* 
>> [image: Logo]  [image: linkedin icon]
>>  [image: facebook icon]
>>  [image: twitter icon]
>>  [image: youtube icon]
>> 
>> [image: Banner] 
>> Legal: CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential
>> information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you
>> are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that
>> any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is
>> prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify Ciptex
>> Ltd. immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
>> individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Ciptex Ltd.
>> Ciptex Ltd - Registered Office: Chancery House, 30 St. Johns Road, Woking,
>> Surrey, GU21 7SA. Company Number: 05671321
>> --
>> *From:* VoiceOps  on behalf of Jorge
>> Guntanis via VoiceOps 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 11:04:12 PM
>> *To:* Carlos Alvarez 
>> *Cc:* VoiceOps 
>> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Splitting voice and SMS
>>
>>
>> CAUTION: This email may have originated from outside of the
>> organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
>> the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>> If they are already in twilio, they can create a SIP Trunk where you'd
>> connect to to get the inbound calls.
>> That way SMS stays at twilio and voice goes to you.
>>
>> I'm not aware of another way to do it cleanly.
>>
>> El mié, 17 de ago. de 2022 3:56 p. m., Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
>> voiceops@voiceops.org> escribió:
>>
>> We had an odd customer request, via a vendor trying to provide them with
>> automated scheduling services via SMS.  They are asking us to "release the
>> SSID" to allow them to do SMS on the number, but we keep the voice.  I'm
>> unaware of this ability, and they even said that so far, most carriers
>> won't even discuss it with them.
>>
>> Their service rides on the Twilio API, and I *think* Twilio uses
>> Bandwidth.  This number is currently with Bandwidth.  So I don't know if
>> that might make a difference.
>> ___
>> 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
>
> ___
> 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] [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

[Ross Tajvar]

>
> If you still want to allow 7-digit dialing and have a local 88X prefix,
> or if your dialplan allows 10-digit calls without a leading 1, then yes,
> you'll need a timeout. Or make it 9-988 until they pass another law.
>

 I think they already did:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/ten-digit-dialing
Relevant excerpt:

> If your company uses a PBX or VoIP phone system, you may need to update or
> reprogram it for 10-digit dialing. The transition to 10-digit dialing must
> be completed by July 15, 2022.
>

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 2:20 AM Jay Hennigan  wrote:

> On 7/17/22 21:19, Hunter Fuller wrote:
> > We operate a system with the "dial 9" scheme (apparently "useless"
> > according to other posters - a truly insightful attitude that I love
> > to see on this list),
>
> It's not unusual in old-school PBXs and wireline POTS where digits are
> processed serially. With cell phones dialing is en-banc with a SEND
> button so digit patterns no longer need to be unique. See note on
> en-banc dialing below.
>
> > so I can say that the expectation definitely is
> > NOT for people to dial 9911. In fact, there is a whole law about it,
> > which, like many, is written in blood:
> > https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/podcast/personal-story-behind-karis-law
>
> This did take some special programming, however. The leading 9 is a
> trunk access code and should return a second (often different sounding)
> dial tone. The law to which you refer is because of PBXs that weren't
> specially programmed to re-insert the stripped "9" and send the call on
> its way. The original expectation was "Seize an outside line (by dialing
> 9) wait for dial tone, dial 9-1-1."
>
> When I was programming Mitel PBXs back in the day, I ensured that both
> 9-11 and 9-911 would get routed to 9-1-1 regardless.
>
> > The difference is, if someone picks up a phone and dials 911, they
> > want 911. They don't want an "outside line" so that they can dial a
> > NANP 10-digit number beginning in 11, because no such number exists.
> > The problem is, such numbers DO exist that begin with 88, so, we are
> > in a bit of a pickle there. It seems the only solution is to do a
> > timeout... yeesh. (Unless I'm missing something.)
>
> Kinda, sorta. 7-digit local dialing is supposed to have been phased out,
> with all NANP numbers represented as 1+NPA-NXX-.
>
> This means that after your trunk access 9, you should expect a 1
> (followed by ten digits for a regular phone number), a 0 for operator or
> 011 international, or a three-digit code starting with 2 or 9 that until
> this week always ended in 11.
>
> > Dialing 911 directly (not 9911, but just 911) has always worked here,
> > long before Kari's Law, and it works without delay, as it should. I'd
> > love to make 988 work the same way but I'm just not sure how to
> > accomplish that.
>
> Program 88 as a sequence to re-insert the stripped 9 and send
> immediately on trunks accessed by a 9, just like you do with 11.
>
> If you still want to allow 7-digit dialing and have a local 88X prefix,
> or if your dialplan allows 10-digit calls without a leading 1, then yes,
> you'll need a timeout. Or make it 9-988 until they pass another law.
>
> Note: In fact, en-banc cell dialing broke a few advertisements where a
> word was spelled longer than 7 digits. For example, "Dial
> 1-800-HARDWARE" worked fine from a landline or (with prepended 9) from a
> PBX. As soon as the digits 1-800-427-3927 were dialed, the call would
> complete. With a cell phone, however, the number sent is 1-800-427-39273
> which doesn't match a valid number and the call would be rejected. Some
> cellular carriers have worked around the issue and truncate long strings
> to match the NANP.
>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
> ___
> 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] [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

[Ross Tajvar]

re: dialing 9 - I understand the plight of having to deal with legacy
expectations, but what's the point of sticking with this particular
one? What makes it not-useless?

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:29 AM Hunter Fuller  wrote:
>
> We operate a system with the "dial 9" scheme (apparently "useless"
> according to other posters - a truly insightful attitude that I love
> to see on this list), so I can say that the expectation definitely is
> NOT for people to dial 9911. In fact, there is a whole law about it,
> which, like many, is written in blood:
> https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/podcast/personal-story-behind-karis-law
>
> The difference is, if someone picks up a phone and dials 911, they
> want 911. They don't want an "outside line" so that they can dial a
> NANP 10-digit number beginning in 11, because no such number exists.
> The problem is, such numbers DO exist that begin with 88, so, we are
> in a bit of a pickle there. It seems the only solution is to do a
> timeout... yeesh. (Unless I'm missing something.)
>
> Dialing 911 directly (not 9911, but just 911) has always worked here,
> long before Kari's Law, and it works without delay, as it should. I'd
> love to make 988 work the same way but I'm just not sure how to
> accomplish that.
>
> --
> Hunter Fuller (they)
> Router Jockey
> VBH M-1C
> +1 256 824 5331
>
> Office of Information Technology
> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Network Engineering
>
>
> --
> Hunter Fuller (they)
> Router Jockey
> VBH M-1C
> +1 256 824 5331
>
> Office of Information Technology
> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Network Engineering
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:21 AM Brandon Svec
>  wrote:
> >
> > It shouldn't be much different than 911.  9911 and 911 can both work just 
> > as 9988 and 988 can both work fine with most any PBX that can translate 
> > dial plan digits.
> >
> > There is potential conflict with systems that can't handle inter-digit 
> > timeouts to allow both 988 and 9888-555-1212, I guess.  But in that case I 
> > suppose the expectation would be to dial 9988 and 9911 already..
> > Brandon
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 8:10 AM Zilk, David  wrote:
> >>
> >> How are folks dealing with allowing calls to 9-8-8 when an access code of 
> >> 9 is used. Does this not cause a conflict when calling toll free numbers 
> >> beginning with an NPA of 88x?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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
> ___
> 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] Comcast rejecting port requests for 4 months

[Ross Tajvar]

Ah, didn't know that. Well, with any luck those guys still work there, just
in a different physical location.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM Nate Burke  wrote:

> Not sure about the people, but I live in Naperville, and Comcast has left
> that building (all their signage is down)
>
> On 6/16/2022 5:21 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
>
> At Comcast, when you file an FCC complaint, it goes to these people (as of
> a couple years ago, might be different people now):
>
> William Landis | Engineer 3, Business Escalations
> 1415 West Diehl Road, Naperville, IL 60563
> Office: (331) 814-3041
> william_lan...@comcast.com
>
> his boss:
> Jeff Cox | Manager, Business Escalations
> Operations
> 1415 West Diehl Road, Naperville, IL 60563
> Office: (331) 401-5525
> jeffery_...@comcast.com
>
>
> They've been helpful to me in the past even without an FCC complaint, and
> one time even without being a customer (I kept getting business
> advertisements at my house). You could probably save some time by reaching
> out to them directly.
>
> As a sidenote, I've usually been able to request a CDR via the winning
> carrier and then build the ports based on the info the losing carrier
> provided. But it sounds like you're past those kinds of efforts at this
> point.
>
> Best of luck,
> Ross
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:58 PM Shawn L  wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to add (after I saw Aaron's comment which got stuck in my
>> spam) -- when you contact the state Public Service Commission, the carrier
>> jumps.  When I did it last, senior Spectrum management reached out to me
>> within a day or two and fixed the current issue, gave me porting
>> escalation contacts (which I already had and had contacted) and wanted to
>> do whatever it took to fix the issue.   Unfortunately, it didn't last.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:41 PM Shawn L  wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty much every time we port from Spectrum (ie ~ 90%) I have to open a
>>> ticket with them the next day to actually get the numbers removed from
>>> their switch.  They always port the number to our LRN, but then no Spectrum
>>> customers can call it once that's done.  Even after Spectrum removes their
>>> CPE equipment, they don't remove the numbers or routing and their customers
>>> can't complete a call to the ported numbers.  Normally, I'd say it's their
>>> problem, but when the company who just ported calls and says "I can't call
>>> my office from my house, you need to fix it", I open a ticket and 4-24
>>> hours later they reply with a resolution.
>>>
>>> Contacting the state PSC helped for a month or 2, then they went back to
>>> their 'normal ways' and blame it on staffing shortages.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 4:49 PM  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Comcast sounds scary.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve worked with Verizon, Time Warner, Frontier, and Spectrum.  I think
>>>> the longest I spent on a port was 8 months.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* VoiceOps  *On Behalf Of *Paul
>>>> Timmins
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2022 4:39 PM
>>>> *To:* voiceops@voiceops.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Comcast rejecting port requests for 4 months
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely. The team that does it is startek in the Philippines anyway
>>>> last I knew. They work on a different schedule than the continental US, and
>>>> aren't empowered to solve most problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you think being persistent matters, it doesn't. They won't even let
>>>> you get to a human to complain. The PUC and FCC is the only thing they care
>>>> about because they don't want to get fined.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, when their process works, it works. When it breaks down,
>>>> there's no real way to work it out of process. They're simply too big, and
>>>> their roles too bifurcated to actually let someone work something they
>>>> aren't typically able to address.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/16/22 16:33, Aaron de Bruyn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Comcast flat-out won't let customers talk to the team that accepts or
>>>> rejects ports.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu Jun 16, 2022, 08:20 PM GMT

Re: [VoiceOps] Comcast rejecting port requests for 4 months

[Ross Tajvar]

At Comcast, when you file an FCC complaint, it goes to these people (as of
a couple years ago, might be different people now):

William Landis | Engineer 3, Business Escalations
1415 West Diehl Road, Naperville, IL 60563
Office: (331) 814-3041
william_lan...@comcast.com

his boss:
Jeff Cox | Manager, Business Escalations
Operations
1415 West Diehl Road, Naperville, IL 60563
Office: (331) 401-5525
jeffery_...@comcast.com


They've been helpful to me in the past even without an FCC complaint, and
one time even without being a customer (I kept getting business
advertisements at my house). You could probably save some time by reaching
out to them directly.

As a sidenote, I've usually been able to request a CDR via the winning
carrier and then build the ports based on the info the losing carrier
provided. But it sounds like you're past those kinds of efforts at this
point.

Best of luck,
Ross

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:58 PM Shawn L  wrote:

> I just wanted to add (after I saw Aaron's comment which got stuck in my
> spam) -- when you contact the state Public Service Commission, the carrier
> jumps.  When I did it last, senior Spectrum management reached out to me
> within a day or two and fixed the current issue, gave me porting
> escalation contacts (which I already had and had contacted) and wanted to
> do whatever it took to fix the issue.   Unfortunately, it didn't last.
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:41 PM Shawn L  wrote:
>
>> Pretty much every time we port from Spectrum (ie ~ 90%) I have to open a
>> ticket with them the next day to actually get the numbers removed from
>> their switch.  They always port the number to our LRN, but then no Spectrum
>> customers can call it once that's done.  Even after Spectrum removes their
>> CPE equipment, they don't remove the numbers or routing and their customers
>> can't complete a call to the ported numbers.  Normally, I'd say it's their
>> problem, but when the company who just ported calls and says "I can't call
>> my office from my house, you need to fix it", I open a ticket and 4-24
>> hours later they reply with a resolution.
>>
>> Contacting the state PSC helped for a month or 2, then they went back to
>> their 'normal ways' and blame it on staffing shortages.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 4:49 PM  wrote:
>>
>>> Comcast sounds scary.
>>>
>>> I’ve worked with Verizon, Time Warner, Frontier, and Spectrum.  I think
>>> the longest I spent on a port was 8 months.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* VoiceOps  *On Behalf Of *Paul
>>> Timmins
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2022 4:39 PM
>>> *To:* voiceops@voiceops.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Comcast rejecting port requests for 4 months
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely. The team that does it is startek in the Philippines anyway
>>> last I knew. They work on a different schedule than the continental US, and
>>> aren't empowered to solve most problems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you think being persistent matters, it doesn't. They won't even let
>>> you get to a human to complain. The PUC and FCC is the only thing they care
>>> about because they don't want to get fined.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To be fair, when their process works, it works. When it breaks down,
>>> there's no real way to work it out of process. They're simply too big, and
>>> their roles too bifurcated to actually let someone work something they
>>> aren't typically able to address.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/16/22 16:33, Aaron de Bruyn wrote:
>>>
>>> Comcast flat-out won't let customers talk to the team that accepts or
>>> rejects ports.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -A
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu Jun 16, 2022, 08:20 PM GMT, a...@plexicomm.net wrote:
>>>
>>> I try to get all stake holders on a conference call.  New carrier, old
>>> carrier, you, and the customer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* VoiceOps 
>>>  *On Behalf Of *Aaron de Bruyn
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2022 4:09 PM
>>> *To:* voiceops@voiceops.org
>>> *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Comcast rejecting port requests for 4 months
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have a large SIP trunk with Comcast with around 275 numbers attached.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We've been trying to port about 200 of those numbers to another provider
>>> for the past 4 months to do some geeky things that Comcast doesn't support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Due to reasons only known to Comcast, there are 5 different account
>>> numbers vaguely associated with those phone numbers and I keep getting
>>> wildly different answers from Comcast staff.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One is for the EDI circuit.
>>>
>>> One is for the AdTran.
>>>
>>> One is for the SIP Trunk
>>>
>>> One is for "master billing"
>>>
>>> One is a "hierarchy account"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The winning carrier has submitted the requests with every possible
>>> combination of account number and 'CPNI code' (Comcast's account PIN) we
>>> have along with all our addressing information, copies of bills, etc...and
>>> Comcast keeps rejecting it with zero useful information. i.e. bad 

Re: [VoiceOps] Vitelity Inbound SMS Outage March 27, 2022 0150 to 1720 UTC

[Ross Tajvar]

Sounds like you need to find another provider...?

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022, 7:10 PM Peter Beckman  wrote:

> Vitelity hasn't posted anything about this, so I will for those that care.
>
> Short Version: Inbound SMS to all Vitelity DIDs failed between 0150 UTC and
> 1720 UTC on March 27, 2022
>
> Long Version:
>
> At 0150 UTC our Inbound SMS Monitoring detected that one of our DIDs did
> not receive a sent SMS.
>
> This continued until 0230 UTC where our system automatically cut a ticket
> (via email) to Vitelity that we were seeing 30+ minutes of zero inbound SMS
> messages to a random sample of our DIDs.
>
> At 0305 UTC I opened an emergency ticket about the issue.
>
> At 0341 UTC The ticket was responded to.
>
> At 0503 UTC I was able to talk to someone at Vitelity who confirmed that
> they also had sent SMS messages to their inbound DIDs and the messages were
> not received, and they were escalating. During that, I also provided DLRs
> for all the sent messages, showing that they were received by Onvoy,
> Iristel, Neutral Tandem, etc.
>
> Vitelity confirmed that they were esclating and "sounding the alarm."
>
> At 0810 UTC Vitelity updated the ticket and said they were still
> escalating. No change, 100% of SMS messages sent to Vitelity DIDs failed to
> reach Vitelity or us.
>
> At 1634 UTC I re-re-re-escalated the issue to the Inteliquent NOC and my
> Vitelity contact. I was informed that a tech had found that "a certificate
> had expired" and was causing all inbound SMS delivery to fail.
>
> Incidentally, this ALSO prevented an emails to Vitelity Support to ALSO not
> be delivered to the portal, and thus not open tickets.
>
> At 1720 UTC a test finally succeeded and we received our first SMS in over
> 15h 30m. Several tests after that across another sample of Vitelity DIDs
> were successful.
>
> At no point was status.vitelity.com actually updated with any sort of
> incident, and despite it being acknowledged to me, has still not posted any
> sign of the outage.
>
>
> Why I'm Posting
>
> This is the 48th SMS outage since August 2015 that Vitelity has
> experienced, and in most cases, I have been the first person to alert them
> to a problem. They do not monitor inbound SMS, they just wait for a
> customer complaint, and even then, I've been told "nobody else has opened a
> ticket," as if multiple customers need to complain before they take an
> outage seriously.
>
> In this case, it took 2 hours from opening an emergency ticket for Vitelity
> to actually test inbound SMS and confirm an issue, followed by another 12
> hours to actually find the root cause and fix it.
>
> Beckman
> ---
> Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
> beck...@angryox.com
> https://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

[VoiceOps] BackUP Telecom Consulting Contact

[Ross Tajvar]

Anyone know how to get in touch with Mary Lou Carey? I've sent her a few
emails but haven't gotten a response.
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] NetNumber CarrierID Access, Indirect / Reseller

[Ross Tajvar]

I would be interested in this.

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022, 2:29 AM Peter Beckman  wrote:

> I'd like access to NetNumber CarrierID API to ensure that NNIDs (SMS
> Routing) for our DIDs are correct and do not change unexpectedly, with or
> without authorization. NetNumber charges $500 per month minimum, which is
> more than I'd like to spend. The per-API or per-DID call (not sure which
> yet) is $0.0007 each.
>
> Is there any company that offers the same access at a per-API-call or
> per-DID-call rate?
>
> If not, and I start one, are there carriers/services out there that do not
> yet have access but would like/need it, or do have it but are spending more
> than they would like to access it?
>
> This really would just be a pass-thru API service to begin.
>
> Beckman
> ---
> Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
> beck...@angryox.com
> https://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] thinQ is making hay while Bandwidth is down

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

Windstream and Lumen are terrible for that on wireline.

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 6:35 PM Carlos Alvarez  wrote:

> Additionally, I've experienced a number of these cellular ports that
> seemed hung in mid-port, where some calls flowed to the wrong carrier and
> would die there.  The most amusing have been where the losing carrier tries
> to route the call internally.  Cox is also "good" at doing this shenanigan
> on wireline.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:21 PM Karl Douthit  wrote:
>
>> Mobile carriers will do an internal short term forwarding while LRN
>> changes get pushed or will use their existing agreements for porting and
>> push for an LRN change live.  If you have access to NPAC LRN updates you
>> can make your changes but that does not guarantee that others see them
>> ASAP, so usually it is a bit of both.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 3:12 PM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <
>> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Sep 27, 2021, at 6:04 PM, Aryn Nakaoka 808.356.2901 <
>>> anaka...@trinet-hi.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > How do cell phone companies port instantly? I can walk into Verizon
>>> and they can port my Tmobile number to them. Or are they all sharing a back
>>> end?
>>>
>>> It’s got to be something like that. Whatever it is, VoIP ITSPs don’t
>>> have it through their intermediated supply chain of ULCs.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>>>
>>> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
>>> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.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
>>
> ___
> 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] Bandwidth East Coast Issues

[Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps]

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 5:24 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I have IXes in areas where Inteliquent and Peerless have POPs. They
> haven't had any interest.
>
> I don't understand.
>

 I understand. Serious customers will pay for a PNI. Industry partners
(other large telcos with whom they exchange a lot of traffic) will get a
PNI because it is more reliable/higher bandwidth/etc. An IX presence may
help customers who send voice traffic over the internet, but I suspect
those customers make up a small percentage of any given telco's revenue.
So, there's no incentive. Same reason NTT/Telia/Lumen/etc. won't peer with
you over an IX. Why would they, when they can sell you transit?
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Wholesale Platforms - 2021 Edition

[Ross Tajvar]

I've used 2600hz and found it immature. Lots of bugs and design issues.
When it worked it was nice, but when it didn't work you were out of luck.
Support wasn't very good either. This was about a year ago - maybe it's
better now.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 10:07 PM Chris Wallace  wrote:

> Metaswitch (now Microswitch/Metasoft)
> Cisco Broadworks
> Ribbon (Genband)
> Netsapiens
> 2600Hz (Kazoo)
>
> I think 2600Hz is an interesting player and have been following them for
> the last couple of years. Would be interested in hearing others thoughts.
>
> —Chris
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:10 PM Mary Lou Carey 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry.I was referring to a different thread.
>>
>> MARY LOU CAREY
>> BackUP Telecom Consulting
>> Office: 615-791-9969
>> Cell: 615-796-
>>
>> On 2021-08-25 07:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>> > Mary,
>> >
>> > You received 4-5 responses to Calvin's email? Wondering how you got
>> > those, and I got none.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 2:57 PM Mary Lou Carey
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I got about 4-5 responses. I guess I will need to do a search on the
>> >> old
>> >> discussions even though a lot has changed.
>> >>
>> >> MARY LOU CAREY
>> >> BackUP Telecom Consulting
>> >> Office: 615-791-9969
>> >> Cell: 615-796-
>> >>
>> >> On 2021-08-22 06:09 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>> >> > Calvin,
>> >> >
>> >> > Did you receive any responses to this email? Last time when I asked
>> >> > the same question there was quite a bit of discussion in 2019 if I
>> >> > remember correctly.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:13 PM Calvin Ellison
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> This question comes up every few years, let's get an update for the
>> >> >> cloud era!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Looking for a wholesale voice & SMS routing, billing, and analytics
>> >> >> platform that can meet these requirements:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Cloud or Hosted solution for everything but the call path
>> >> >> * Scale is billions of call attempts per month, dozens of vendors
>> >> >> with full NPA-NXX or A-Z detailed breakouts
>> >> >> * Intelligent, performance-based rate generation, "better than LCR"
>> >> >> * Realtime intelligence in call routing (performance-based routing)
>> >> >> * Support for DID/Toll-Free inventory with forwarding/failover
>> >> >> routing
>> >> >> * Proper rating and costing for inbound, outbound, on-net,
>> >> >> toll-free, reciprocal comp, dips, commissions
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Call routing engines go next to our SBCs to minimize latency
>> >> >> * Call routing engines can operate disconnected from the main
>> >> >> database
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Call routing engines scale is up to 10,000 calls/messages per
>> >> >> second
>> >> >> * Management APIs for administrators and clients
>> >> >> * Client portal to manage trunks/binds, make payments, download
>> >> >> CDRs, view reporting/analytics
>> >> >> * Admin portal for provisioning, analytics, billing
>> >> >> * Agent portal for monitoring clients, commissions, payouts
>> >> >> * SMS must support SMPP and REST API for messaging
>> >> >> * MMS protocols supported
>> >> >> * No database license that costs more than the actual product
>> >> >> * Easy to use analytics - better than we can do with
>> >> >> Elasticsearch/Kibana
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bonus:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Support for Sansay VSXi external routing queries
>> >> >> * Support for Sansay VSXi provisioning
>> >> >> * STIR/SHAKEN features including enterprise extensions like
>> >> >> Delegated Certificates, DLT, Central TN, Registered Caller, etc.
>> >> >> * Ready for Rich Call Data/Branded Call Display
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Calvin Ellison
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Systems Architect
>> >> >>
>> >> >> calvin.elli...@voxox.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [1]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [2] [3] [4] [5]
>> >> >> The information contained herein is confidential and privileged
>> >> >> information or work product intended only for the individual or
>> >> >> entity to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized use, distribution,
>> >> >> or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> >> >> received this communication in error, please notify me immediately.
>> >> >> ___
>> >> >> VoiceOps mailing list
>> >> >> VoiceOps@voiceops.org
>> >> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Links:
>> >> > --
>> >> > [1] http://voxox.com
>> >> > [2] https://www.facebook.com/VOXOX/
>> >> > [3] https://www.instagram.com/voxoxofficial/
>> >> > [4] https://www.linkedin.com/company/3573541/admin/
>> >> > [5] https://twitter.com/Voxox
>> >> > ___
>> >> > 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
>>
> ___
> VoiceOps mailing list
> 

Re: [VoiceOps] Wholesale Platforms - 2021 Edition

[Ross Tajvar]

I wish more people would reply-all to the list instead of going unicast. I
am interested in the answer, but I don't think it makes sense for every
interested party to respond "please email me too" when that's what the list
is for.

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 3:57 PM Mary Lou Carey 
wrote:

> I got about 4-5 responses. I guess I will need to do a search on the old
> discussions even though a lot has changed.
>
> MARY LOU CAREY
> BackUP Telecom Consulting
> Office: 615-791-9969
> Cell: 615-796-
>
> On 2021-08-22 06:09 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
> > Calvin,
> >
> > Did you receive any responses to this email? Last time when I asked
> > the same question there was quite a bit of discussion in 2019 if I
> > remember correctly.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:13 PM Calvin Ellison
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> This question comes up every few years, let's get an update for the
> >> cloud era!
> >>
> >> Looking for a wholesale voice & SMS routing, billing, and analytics
> >> platform that can meet these requirements:
> >>
> >> * Cloud or Hosted solution for everything but the call path
> >> * Scale is billions of call attempts per month, dozens of vendors
> >> with full NPA-NXX or A-Z detailed breakouts
> >> * Intelligent, performance-based rate generation, "better than LCR"
> >> * Realtime intelligence in call routing (performance-based routing)
> >> * Support for DID/Toll-Free inventory with forwarding/failover
> >> routing
> >> * Proper rating and costing for inbound, outbound, on-net,
> >> toll-free, reciprocal comp, dips, commissions
> >>
> >> * Call routing engines go next to our SBCs to minimize latency
> >> * Call routing engines can operate disconnected from the main
> >> database
> >>
> >> * Call routing engines scale is up to 10,000 calls/messages per
> >> second
> >> * Management APIs for administrators and clients
> >> * Client portal to manage trunks/binds, make payments, download
> >> CDRs, view reporting/analytics
> >> * Admin portal for provisioning, analytics, billing
> >> * Agent portal for monitoring clients, commissions, payouts
> >> * SMS must support SMPP and REST API for messaging
> >> * MMS protocols supported
> >> * No database license that costs more than the actual product
> >> * Easy to use analytics - better than we can do with
> >> Elasticsearch/Kibana
> >>
> >> Bonus:
> >>
> >> * Support for Sansay VSXi external routing queries
> >> * Support for Sansay VSXi provisioning
> >> * STIR/SHAKEN features including enterprise extensions like
> >> Delegated Certificates, DLT, Central TN, Registered Caller, etc.
> >> * Ready for Rich Call Data/Branded Call Display
> >>
> >> Calvin Ellison
> >>
> >> Systems Architect
> >>
> >> calvin.elli...@voxox.com
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >> [2] [3] [4] [5]
> >> The information contained herein is confidential and privileged
> >> information or work product intended only for the individual or
> >> entity to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized use, distribution,
> >> or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> >> received this communication in error, please notify me immediately.
> >> ___
> >> VoiceOps mailing list
> >> VoiceOps@voiceops.org
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > --
> > [1] http://voxox.com
> > [2] https://www.facebook.com/VOXOX/
> > [3] https://www.instagram.com/voxoxofficial/
> > [4] https://www.linkedin.com/company/3573541/admin/
> > [5] https://twitter.com/Voxox
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Bandwidth vs Inteliquent

[Ross Tajvar]

> I don't know of any resellers of Bandwidth that would allow you direct
access to the Bandwidth API. The API is based on Account and you'd have
access to the full reseller account.

I believe Bandwidth allows subaccounts.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, 10:08 PM Peter Beckman  wrote:

> I've been happy with Bandwidth. Started with them mid-2015. They handle
> most of our inbound and outbound calling and SMS. APIs do what we need for
> the most part (there are some limits in viewing their inventory that I'm
> not a fan of), SMPP connections never die, tickets get addressed quickly,
> at least when the solution is straightforward.
>
> I haven't used Inteliquent directly, so I cannot speak to the true
> differences.
>
> I hear that Inteliquent wins for termination, and though I can get coverage
> in most places for Bandwidth on-net and Level3 off-net through Bandwidth,
> Inteliquent, with their acquisition of Onvoy/Voyant/Vitelity over the past
> few years, has coverage in more ratecenters. It just depends if you care
> about small rural switches or smaller cities.
>
> I'm sure the APIs are probably similar, though Bandwidth has several SDKs
> available, and I have not been able to find mention of Inteliquent SDKs on
> the Internet, and definitely not in GitHub.
>
> I don't know of any resellers of Bandwidth that would allow you direct
> access to the Bandwidth API. The API is based on Account and you'd have
> access to the full reseller account.
>
> https://dev.bandwidth.com/
>
> Beckman
>
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, Colton Conor wrote:
>
> > If you had to choose only between these two providers for wholesale
> > services, which would you choose and why? We are only considering these
> two
> > as the softswitch we are planning on using (Netsapiens) has only built
> out
> > Group MMS support for these two carriers APIs, and no one else.
> >
> > I have used many services over the years that have utilized both of these
> > carriers, but I have never had a direct relationship with them.
> >
> > Which has a better portal, API, and company overall? What are the true
> > differences?
> >
> > Are there any resellers to consider where we would still have direct
> access
> > to these carriers APIs?
> >
>
> ---
> 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
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] AT Verizon to block text messaging

[Ross Tajvar]

Is ther a reference on this? Or a news article or something?

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 11:42 AM Alex Balashov 
wrote:

> Sounds pretty dark and dystopian.
>
> On 3/4/21 11:29 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT and Verizon's move to
> > create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside
> > world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number
> > (and you obviously pay for that approval)?
> > Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP
> > traffic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Oren
> >
> > ___
> > VoiceOps mailing list
> > VoiceOps@voiceops.org
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> >
>
>
> --
> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>
> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.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] Voice peering

[Ross Tajvar]

Hmm, what do they call it? We are a (regular) SIP trunking customer of
Peerless now. I will ask them for more info about it but a product name
would help.
Also - what exactly do they do? Run an ENUM service for you?

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:40 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I haven't completed signing up, but that's the very service that Peerless
> Networks and Neutral Tandem\Inteliquent do for many carriers.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *"Ross Tajvar" 
> *To: *"VoiceOps" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 5, 2021 7:57:12 AM
> *Subject: *[VoiceOps] Voice peering
>
> Based on this presentation [0] from Comcast, they are interconnecting with
> their biggest voice peers via SIP rather than SS7. They appear to use ENUM
> for route selection. I'm sure others are doing this too, though I can't
> find anything public.
>
> I'm interested if anyone has more info on how this works. I'm guessing
> participants maintain their own private ENUM servers and just trust each
> other? As far as I know the only way to validate number ownership is via an
> LNP dip, which would be expensive to do for every call.
>
> I would like to be able to consume a service like that, at least in an
> outbound direction; as a small operator, I'm sure convincing large carriers
> to trust my ENUM server would be very difficult. But having a greater
> degree of interconnectedness (and mostly importantly avoiding TDM) seems
> like a good thing.
>
> Does anyone have experience with this sort of thing?
>
> Thanks,
> Ross
>
> [0] https://silo.tips/download/voice-peering-interworking-sip-and-bgp
>
> ___
> 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

[VoiceOps] Voice peering

[Ross Tajvar]

Based on this presentation [0] from Comcast, they are interconnecting with
their biggest voice peers via SIP rather than SS7. They appear to use ENUM
for route selection. I'm sure others are doing this too, though I can't
find anything public.

I'm interested if anyone has more info on how this works. I'm guessing
participants maintain their own private ENUM servers and just trust each
other? As far as I know the only way to validate number ownership is via an
LNP dip, which would be expensive to do for every call.

I would like to be able to consume a service like that, at least in an
outbound direction; as a small operator, I'm sure convincing large carriers
to trust my ENUM server would be very difficult. But having a greater
degree of interconnectedness (and mostly importantly avoiding TDM) seems
like a good thing.

Does anyone have experience with this sort of thing?

Thanks,
Ross

[0] https://silo.tips/download/voice-peering-interworking-sip-and-bgp
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Question about SS7 routing

[Ross Tajvar]

I see, that makes sense. So then I have two follow-up questions:

   1. If you are connected to multiple carriers, e.g. multiple long
   distance carriers, how do you populate your routing table? (Obviously "it
   depends" but I'd be interested to hear an example.)
   2. If you are setting up equipment for the first time, with a new number
   block, how do you make sure other people include you/your block in their
   routing tables?


On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:56 PM Paul Timmins  wrote:

> You only send calls to point codes you're connected to with ISUP trunks
> (what is a control network without bearer channels?), so you don't really
> do it that way. You would look at your usual LCR/routing table, and the
> adjacent switch you want to pass it to, be it a local end office, feature
> group D regional ILEC tandem, or long distance carrier wholesale circuit,
> and you would send it to the point code of the switch you're connected to
> that is the appropriate next hop for the call.
>
>
> --
> *From:* VoiceOps  on behalf of Ross Tajvar
> 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:46 PM
> *To:* VoiceOps
> *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Question about SS7 routing
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to understand how routing works in SS7-land. I am familiar with
> portability, and I know (at least in the US) the first step in routing a
> call is doing an LNP dip to get the LRN.
>
> However, it looks like addresses in MTP3 are "point codes" (PCs) which are
> assigned to switches. Calls are set up with ISDN-UP, which is transported
> via MTP3. So in order for a call to be set up, the destination switch's PC
> must be known. How is the destination PC determined from the destination
> LRN?
>
> Thanks,
> Ross
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

[VoiceOps] Question about SS7 routing

[Ross Tajvar]

Hi all,

I'm trying to understand how routing works in SS7-land. I am familiar with
portability, and I know (at least in the US) the first step in routing a
call is doing an LNP dip to get the LRN.

However, it looks like addresses in MTP3 are "point codes" (PCs) which are
assigned to switches. Calls are set up with ISDN-UP, which is transported
via MTP3. So in order for a call to be set up, the destination switch's PC
must be known. How is the destination PC determined from the destination
LRN?

Thanks,
Ross
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Comcast - Data Side?

[Ross Tajvar]

Traceroutes in both directions during the problem period will make this
much easier to address.

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 1:48 PM Mark Wiles  wrote:

> Anyone from Comcast monitoring here?
>
>
>
> I know it’s a long shot; but, we have a wholesale partner in GA that
> resells our hosted services.
>
> They have Comcast internet in their office, and many of their customers
> also use Comcast.
>
> Within the past few weeks, they’ve started having degradation of voice
> quality; but it appears their customers/traffic not traversing Comcast are
> not seeing this.
>
> They test with softphone using cellular data… issue’s not there.  They
> move their office over to their backup (a WOW cable model), and so far, not
> seeing the issue either.
>
>
>
> Our wholesale partner opened a ticket with Comcast, and was told their
> level was low, and they’ll be out to visit on Monday.  While that could be
> true, it seems unlikely all of the partner customers seeing this issue also
> suffer from low signal levels.
>
>
>
> If there’s someone with Comcast here, and would like to go the extra mile
> for a customer, we’d love to hear from you!
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mobile numbers for SMS

[Ross Tajvar]

I'm also interested in this.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 4:22 PM Dovid Bender  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have access to true mobile numbers for SMS (numbers that when
> a lookup is done, it will show the numbers as being truly mobile and not a
> regular number that can get SMS)? I am working on a proof of concept and I
> need about one hundred numbers to start with the potential to grow. Please
> contact me off  list.
>
> TIA.
>
> Dovid
>
> ___
> 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] Get ready for a weird dialplan change. 9-8-8 suicide hotline.

[Ross Tajvar]

This is very cool! Should we (as a VoIP reseller/not a CLEC) be doing this
forward or should we expect our upstreams to do it?

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 10:53 PM Mark R Lindsey, ECG 
wrote:

> Fortunately, all we have to do is setup call forwarding for 988 calls to
> go to +1-800-273-8255
>
> If anyone here would like to help, they can send me the config steps
> necessary to make this work on the platforms you manage. I’ll collect and
> publish them (tentatively at http://988.support/ ).
>
> For me, the health-and-safety element of voice telecom is a big part of
> the reason it’s important. People depend on us — in a small way — for their
> safety.
>
> —
> Mark R Lindsey ECG +1-229-316-0013
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 21:45 Jay Hennigan  wrote:
>
>> This should be fun. FCC is designating 9-8-8 as a service code.
>>
>>
>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-designates-988-national-suicide-prevention-lifeline
>>
>> --
>> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
>> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
>> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
>> ___
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps@voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
> --
> Mark R Lindsey | Senior Member of Technical Staff / VP
> +1-229-316-0013 | Calendar: https://ecg.co/lindsey
> ___
> 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] Charter/Spectrum Port Out?

[Ross Tajvar]

I've done the same thing with Bandwidth before. A capable porting team
makes a big difference.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:51 PM chris  wrote:

>
> Glad we could help you sort through this. We know how painful these
> situations can be sometimes :)
>
> chris
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:33 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>> Finally got this sorted out thanks to Chris at Vilario.
>> They were able to grab the numbers from Charter when voip.ms couldn't.
>> After they grabbed the numbers, they allowed the broken voip.ms porting
>> team to pull in the numbers over.
>>
>> -A
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:55 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there anyone at Charter/Spectrum (Oregon area) that can help with a
>>> port out?
>>>
>>> It's been rejected 5 times now.
>>> Every time I call in, the rep gives me a slightly different variation of
>>> the address to re-submit.
>>>
>>> The winning carrier keeps getting rejected and asks for a CSR copy.
>>> Charter/Spectrum flat-out tells me "we don't do CSR reports for small
>>> business customers" and then proceeds to give me a slightly different
>>> version of the address every time I call in.
>>>
>>> They absolutely refuse to let me talk to or communicate with the team
>>> that actually makes the accept/reject decision to find out why.  They
>>> simply say "it was rejected because of the address".
>>>
>>> I've spent hours on the phone over the last few weeks and I'm getting
>>> nowhere.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -A
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>> 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
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Charter/Spectrum Port Out?

[Ross Tajvar]

Sounds like they're jerking you around, and it's time to file a complaint
with the FCC.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:20 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:

> Someone messaged me off-list.  I should have been clearer.
> We *have* included a copy of the bill and their 4-digit PIN they use to
> protect the voice services.
> They ignore it.  It keeps getting kicked back as rejected due to the
> address.
> I've called them 15 times over the last few weeks and been given 15
> different ways of supplying the address.
> City/State in all caps, with or without a comma between them.  OR vs Ore
> Combinations of the billing address verses the service address.  One asked
> us to add a second address line with the text 'CBN'...
>
> All this to avoid them jacking the price by $25/line.
>
> -A
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:55 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn 
> wrote:
>
>> Is there anyone at Charter/Spectrum (Oregon area) that can help with a
>> port out?
>>
>> It's been rejected 5 times now.
>> Every time I call in, the rep gives me a slightly different variation of
>> the address to re-submit.
>>
>> The winning carrier keeps getting rejected and asks for a CSR copy.
>> Charter/Spectrum flat-out tells me "we don't do CSR reports for small
>> business customers" and then proceeds to give me a slightly different
>> version of the address every time I call in.
>>
>> They absolutely refuse to let me talk to or communicate with the team
>> that actually makes the accept/reject decision to find out why.  They
>> simply say "it was rejected because of the address".
>>
>> I've spent hours on the phone over the last few weeks and I'm getting
>> nowhere.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -A
>>
>>
>> ___
> 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] Outages - T-Mobile?

[Ross Tajvar]

"The trigger event is known to be a leased fiber circuit failure from a
third party provider in the Southeast."

Wonder who the carrier is?

They have some poor redundancy if one circuit failure caused a national
outage.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:53 PM Jared Geiger  wrote:

> https://www.t-mobile.com/news/update-for-customers-on-network-issues
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:01 PM Jared Geiger  wrote:
>
>> Over/Under odds its ENUM issues? (Bad reference to the "It's always DNS")
>>
>> Kind of related: Is Inteliquent still the sole PSTN connectivity provider
>> for T-Mo?
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:48 PM Alex Balashov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have T-Mobile, and could receive calls and SMS fine over the cell
>>> network, but could not SMS or call out to anywhere for quite some time.
>>> I didn't specifically test whether it would work over WiFi instead.
>>>
>>> -- Alex
>>>
>>> On 6/15/20 9:27 PM, mgraves mstvp.com wrote:
>>> > Curiously, when T-Mo was completely down for me (zero bars) even
>>> calling
>>> > via Wi-Fi was down.
>>> >
>>> > Michael Graves
>>> >
>>> > mgra...@mstvp.com 
>>> >
>>> > o: (713) 861-4005
>>> >
>>> > c: (713) 201-1262
>>> >
>>> > sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
>>> >
>>> > *From:* VoiceOps  *On Behalf Of *Kent
>>> Adams
>>> > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2020 8:18 PM
>>> > *To:* Alex Balashov 
>>> > *Cc:* Voiceops.org 
>>> > *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Outages - T-Mobile?
>>> >
>>> > The reports appear to be conflated. Verizon users among others cannot
>>> > reach Tmobile customers and report their own carrier as the issue,
>>> > regardless of fault. Now, the reports about Facebook messenger being
>>> > down along with T-Mobile do seem suspicious, but the messenger issue
>>> has
>>> > since been resolved.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 9:15 PM Alex Balashov >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'd be curious to know what shared infrastructure accounts for
>>> outages
>>> > at multiple wireless majors.
>>> >
>>> > On 6/15/20 8:57 PM, Chris Aloi wrote:
>>> >  > Yes, started getting reports to multiple wireless carriers
>>> around
>>> > 3PM EST. Bandwidth confirmed T-Mobile outage. Haven’t confirmed
>>> > other carriers.  I wonder what root cause is? Seems to be pretty
>>> big.
>>> >  >
>>> >  > ---
>>> >  > Christopher Aloi
>>> >  > cta...@gmail.com 
>>> >  > Sent from my iPhone
>>> >  >
>>> >  >> On Jun 15, 2020, at 8:51 PM, Sean Salvadalena
>>> > mailto:s...@commandlink.com>> wrote:
>>> >  >>
>>> >  > ___
>>> >  > VoiceOps mailing list
>>> >  > VoiceOps@voiceops.org 
>>> >  > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>> >  >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>>> >
>>> > Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
>>> > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>>> > ___
>>> > VoiceOps mailing list
>>> > VoiceOps@voiceops.org 
>>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>>>
>>> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
>>> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.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
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Multi-tenant Fax Server

[Ross Tajvar]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, 10:01 PM Ball, Jared  wrote:

> Many customers still send faxes.  I know that this angers some people and
> they don't see the point.  It does take 30 seconds to train someone on how
> to send a fax and it takes a lot longer to teach someone who is not
> computer savvy to operate a scanner, find the attachment and sent it via
> email.  I know it is sad in 2020 that there are people that cannot navigate
> a file system.  It is a reality in many lines of business.
>
> If it makes you feel better to vent about fax should be dead feel free. I
> agree that it should be dead too but understand that there are a lot of
> people who are not ready to adopt technology.
>
> --Jared
>

I don't think anyone was complaining about faxes in this thread.

>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Multi-tenant Fax Server

[Ross Tajvar]

FreePBX has a commercial module that has worked for me in the past, though
their software release quality and support often leaves something to be
desired.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:05 PM Ryan Delgrosso 
wrote:

> My first suggestion is its not so hard to roll your own on top of
> freeswitch but if you need a commercial product faxback has a very complete
> solution.
>
>
> On 4/17/2020 8:36 AM, Jamie M wrote:
>
> I work for a small ITSP that is looking to bring fax in house. Need to do
> fax to e-mail, e-mail to fax, as well as ATA's connected to fax machines.
> Our upstream voice providers support T.38, I'm just not sure what server /
> software to use. If any one can point me in the right direction it would be
> much appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
> Jamie
>
> ___
> VoiceOps mailing 
> listVoiceOps@voiceops.orghttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
> ___
> 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] PSTN Info

[Ross Tajvar]

Thanks everyone for the referral! Unfortunately, my interest is academic
rather than commercial, so I was hoping for a written resource since I
don't have a budget to hire a consultant. My background is in the MSP/ISP
space. I have a lot of familiarity with computer networks and SIP, but the
PSTN has always been a black box for me. So I am just trying to understand
it better.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:51 PM Alex Balashov 
wrote:

> I came along a bit after UNE-P was dismembered, more mid-late 2000s, but
> it was a time when a thorough understanding of the arcana of ICAs, CO
> colos, UNE cross-connects and hand-offs, and SS7 were still what the kids
> call “trending”.
>
> I would agree that Fred’s output on these topics was voluminous,
> encyclopaedic, and comprehensive.
>
> —
> Sent from mobile, with due apologies for brevity and errors.
>
> > On Feb 26, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Mary Lou Carey 
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes those were the "good old days" when everyone was saying UNE-P and
> resale were the future of Telecom! My how times have changed huh?
> >
> > MARY LOU CAREY
> > BackUP Telecom Consulting
> > Office: 615-791-9969
> > Cell: 615-796-
> >
> >> On 2020-02-25 04:42 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
> >> +1
> >> Yeah, Fred Goldstein really knows everything and anything about
> >> absolutely everything. I learned an enormous amount from him back on the
> >> isp-clec list back in the day, merely as a passive observer, which is
> >> where I also came to know of Mary Lou. :-)
> >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 04:36:56PM -0600, Mary Lou Carey wrote:
> >>> Fred Goldstein with Interisle Consulting is a Network Engineer that is
> like
> >>> the walking "Encyclopedia of Telecom"! I've brought him in on numerous
> jobs
> >>> when my needed help with picking equipment or the best method for
> operations
> >>> and he's always been helpful.
> >>> Fred's e-mail is f...@interisle.net and his phone number is (617)
> 795-2701.
> >>> MARY LOU CAREY
> >>> BackUP Telecom Consulting
> >>> Office: 615-791-9969
> >>> Cell: 615-796-
> >>>> On 2020-02-25 04:22 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
> >>> > Hi all,
> >>> >
> >>> > I am looking for some resources to help me understand how to interact
> >>> > with the PSTN more directly. I have worked for companies which
> offered
> >>> > VoIP service, but we've always used other carriers upstream (e.g.
> >>> > Bandwidth, Flowroute, etc.). I've found a few references to the
> >>> > regulatory process (e.g.
> >>> > https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/how-to-get-an-lrn/). What I'm
> >>> > looking for is a technical description of the equipment required and
> >>> > how it works.
> >>> >
> >>> > Does anyone know of any good references for this kind of information?
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Ross
> >>> > ___
> >>> > 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
> ___
> 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

[VoiceOps] PSTN Info

[Ross Tajvar]

Hi all,

I am looking for some resources to help me understand how to interact with
the PSTN more directly. I have worked for companies which offered VoIP
service, but we've always used other carriers upstream (e.g. Bandwidth,
Flowroute, etc.). I've found a few references to the regulatory process
(e.g. https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/how-to-get-an-lrn/). What I'm
looking for is a technical description of the equipment required and how it
works.

Does anyone know of any good references for this kind of information?

Thanks,
Ross
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

[VoiceOps] Visible Wireless security contact

[Ross Tajvar]

I'm looking to get in touch with someone on the Visible Wireless security
team. If you have a contact please shoot me their info.

Thanks,
Ross
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Who do we call - 3rd plus party carrier issues affecting local customers

[Ross Tajvar]

In my experience, filing an FCC complaint does a lot to motivate someone
(usually someone with some away) from the carrier in question to speak to
you.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 10:45 PM Jamie Montgomery <
jamie.montgom...@comporium.com> wrote:

> Greetings..
>
>
>
> Looking for the proper way to identify a third party carrier..
>
>
>
> We have had a monthlong ongoing issue with external calls into our switch
> with terrible quality. It’s random, but it’s calls to ported numbers into
> one of our CLEC areas. When an affected call comes in, it is reported as
> static or delay. We have obtained an audio capture of a couple of these
> calls from the ingress point of our TDM network, and the audio is severely
> delayed and choppy as if it was delayed within an IP network. We’re
> assuming the call has been routed through an IP low-cost carrier somewhere.
> (Working with T-Mobile below, we found that their switches would route
> calls that originates and terminates locally in South Carolina through
> Washington state carriers.)
>
>
>
> All of the calls with an issue come into us from a legacy ATT tandem, but
> not all of the calls from the ATT tandem are affected. We’ve been trying to
> get in touch with ATT for a month, and have recently spoken to some people
> with no resolution. We continue to call them daily. We worked with T-Mobile
> on issues with their wireless customers calling our CLEC customers
> experiencing this problem. The guys at T-Mobile were excellent to work
> with. (They reached out to their 3rd party carrier Inteloquent who had
> rerouted calls away from CenturyLink, which resolved calls from T-Mobile
> devices.) We’re getting dozens of trouble calls a day from several of our
> CLEC customers on calls originating from many other sources (Verizon, local
> ILEC  landlines, etc.). We’ve explained to our customer that the trouble is
> not ours, that we’re doing our best to track down the problem carrier, but
> we’re been notified by our customers that we’re going to lose them,
> regardless.
>
>
>
> Our last idea is to file a complaint with the FCC, but that’s leaving
> issues unresolved. My questions to the community are:
>
>- What’s the most effective way to zero in on the problem carrier  to
>troubleshoot the issue?
>- What legal means do we have to empower somebody to support us in
>finding the issue?
>- What would you do if your hands were tied like ours seem to be?
>- (What other questions should I be asking the community that come to
>mind?)
>
>
>
> My background is switching and some at work experience of the SS7 network.
> I’m of the opinion that I’m not the most qualified in our organization to
> engage the FCC or twist ATT’s arm to work with us.. but no one else beside
> the on-point technician is making any effort. Internal responsibilities
> aside: How do we make the extra effort to keep our customers?
>
>
>
> I appreciate the time you took from your day reading this.
>
>
>
> *Jamie Montgomery | Comporium*
>
> Network Facilities Engineering | Voice Network Engineering Associate
>
> www.comporium.com
>
> jamie.montgom...@comporium.com
>
>
> *The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments
> thereto are confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from
> disclosure, and are intended for the use of the individual or entity named
> above. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any
> attachments by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail and destroy the
> original message, attachments, and all copies.*
>
>
> ___
> 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] looking for IVR PBX Workflow template

[Ross Tajvar]

I don't know of any special purpose software that does this. I just use
regular diagramming software. I'm partial to draw.io.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, 9:47 AM Izzy Goldstein - TeleGo 
wrote:

> i need something that will draw the call flow
> lets say it will start by a DID, and go thru clauses to check time frames,
> and now the call ends up an a IVR asking the caller to select their
> language, and now the call ends up into another IVR asking which
> department, and based on selection it will route the call to a specific
> extension or to a Queue etc
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:43 AM Shripal Daphtary 
> wrote:
>
>> Izzy - are you looking for software that JUST does the work flow
>> visualization, or like a CPAAS designer?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Izzy Goldstein - TeleGo <
>> igoldst...@telego.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> i am looking for a workflow software that i can use to design a workflow
>>> for incoming calls,
>>> - if it is currently during business hours
>>> - they hear a list of options to press (different language)
>>> - if they press 1 for english , they will hear other greetings with
>>> other set of options etc
>>>
>>> i want to design this workflow so that its easy to hand off to the
>>> department that sets up new accounts, and they will know how to design the
>>> PBX for this client based on the workflow
>>>
>>> what software do you use?
>>> what software did you use ?
>>> what software have you heard of, that can do this ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Izzy Goldstein
>>>
>>> Chief Technology Officer
>>>
>>> Main: (212) 477-1000 x 2085 <(212)%20477-1000>
>>>
>>> Direct: (929) 477-2085
>>>
>>> Website: 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 
>>> ___
>>> VoiceOps mailing list
>>> VoiceOps@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 
>
>
> 
>
>
> 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 
> ___
> 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] Windstream Translations?

[Ross Tajvar]

Here's what I have regarding porting out. Hopefully something here will
help you. Good luck, my experience with them has been terrible.

Port Out - Taking #s from Windstream to other companies. (PON#)

Toll Free: 8008651498

Email: wci.scsc.ls...@windstream.com



Escalation Process:

1st Level: wci.scsc.ls...@windstream.com, wci.concurre...@windstream.com
(for concurrence requests)

2nd Level: 800-865-1498 Option 8

3rd Level:  candace.m.tr...@windstream.com Lead Rep or call 800-865-1498
Option 6 Ext 42191

4th Level: sheryl.h...@windstream.com  Manager

5th Level:   lori.shep...@windstream.com   Staff Manager


On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 1:34 PM Mark Wiles  wrote:

> Anyone with Windstream, involved in translations, watching here and
> available for a Windstream problem?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mark
>
>
> ___
> 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