Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

2017-03-09 Thread Nathan Anderson 
?That only shows TX ratecenters...


What was the HI TN so's I can LRN lookup it? :)  (off-list is fine)


-- Nathan


From: Erik Flournoy 
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 11:31 PM
To: Nathan Anderson
Cc: Carlos Alvarez; voiceops@voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

The power of the global helpdesk better know as google:

https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-by-ocn?ocn=683G

I ported a TN to them in HAWAII how much more remote do you need to be... :-D

Erik

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Nathan Anderson 
> wrote:

?What the what?


I've ported TF numbers to Flowroute (as they're a RespOrg), which isn't 
surprising or new.  But any local numbers that I have ported to Flowroute have 
always come up as Level3, or Onvoy, or whatever.


Perhaps they are only in a limited number of states at this point.  I 
definitely cannot find OCNs assigned to Flowroute in Idaho, or even in their 
home state of Washington.


-- Nathan


From: VoiceOps 
> on behalf 
of Erik Flournoy >
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Carlos Alvarez
Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

I ported a number to FlowRoute directly. Can't get any realer then that.

Erik

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Carlos Alvarez 
> wrote:
It's as real as fax is dead.


On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Alex Balashov 
> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:27:16PM -0800, Calvin Ellison wrote:

> It's real and it's already happening.

I've been told this for two or three years now. I'll believe it when I
see it.

--
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] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

2017-03-09 Thread Erik Flournoy 
The power of the global helpdesk better know as google:

https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-by-ocn?ocn=683G

I ported a TN to them in HAWAII how much more remote do you need to be...
:-D

Erik

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Nathan Anderson  wrote:

> ​What the what?
>
>
> I've ported TF numbers to Flowroute (as they're a RespOrg), which isn't
> surprising or new.  But any local numbers that I have ported to Flowroute
> have always come up as Level3, or Onvoy, or whatever.
>
>
> Perhaps they are only in a limited number of states at this point.  I
> definitely cannot find OCNs assigned to Flowroute in Idaho, or even in
> their home state of Washington.
>
>
> -- Nathan
> --
> *From:* VoiceOps  on behalf of Erik
> Flournoy 
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2017 9:37 PM
> *To:* Carlos Alvarez
> *Cc:* voiceops@voiceops.org
> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access
>
> I ported a number to FlowRoute directly. Can't get any realer then
> that.
>
> Erik
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Carlos Alvarez 
> wrote:
>
>> It's as real as fax is dead.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Alex Balashov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:27:16PM -0800, Calvin Ellison wrote:
>>>
>>> > It's real and it's already happening.
>>>
>>> I've been told this for two or three years now. I'll believe it when I
>>> see it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

2017-03-09 Thread Nathan Anderson 
?What the what?


I've ported TF numbers to Flowroute (as they're a RespOrg), which isn't 
surprising or new.  But any local numbers that I have ported to Flowroute have 
always come up as Level3, or Onvoy, or whatever.


Perhaps they are only in a limited number of states at this point.  I 
definitely cannot find OCNs assigned to Flowroute in Idaho, or even in their 
home state of Washington.


-- Nathan


From: VoiceOps  on behalf of Erik Flournoy 

Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Carlos Alvarez
Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

I ported a number to FlowRoute directly. Can't get any realer then that.

Erik

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Carlos Alvarez 
> wrote:
It's as real as fax is dead.


On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Alex Balashov 
> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:27:16PM -0800, Calvin Ellison wrote:

> It's real and it's already happening.

I've been told this for two or three years now. I'll believe it when I
see it.

--
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] Past due/overdue invoices for Doctor offices - How to handle?

2017-03-09 Thread Alex Balashov 
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 05:33:08PM -0700, Carlos Alvarez wrote:

> Our lawyer said that fighting an indemnification battle is much harder
> than "they violated our contract therefore we're not liable."

That's what I figured, and you gave me the confirmation I was after.

> We fired them, by the way.  They were assholes anyway.  Any time a new
> prospect comes to you saying he's looking for a great VoIP carrier because
> the last four have sucked, don't let your ego tell you that you're better.
> Realize that the common problem with all of them is that customer.

Sigh. Yes. Applies in many other spheres of business too. Ask me how I
know.

-- Alex

-- 
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

Re: [VoiceOps] Past due/overdue invoices for Doctor offices - How to handle?

2017-03-09 Thread Carlos Alvarez 
I guess the reverse of the question would be...why?  We've never been
approached by a real prospect who wanted to use it in such cases, nor has
anyone ever complained about this wording.  We took that language idea from
the many similar software license agreements, like the ones saying you
can't use it in a nuclear plant or air traffic control for example.  Our
lawyer said that fighting an indemnification battle is much harder than
"they violated our contract therefore we're not liable."

That choice was backed up when we were threatened with a lawsuit by a
plumbing company that takes emergency calls 24x7.  We had a planned outage
on a Sunday and they said they lost an emergency damage call, so we should
be partly responsible for the damage that they couldn't respond to promptly.

We fired them, by the way.  They were assholes anyway.  Any time a new
prospect comes to you saying he's looking for a great VoIP carrier because
the last four have sucked, don't let your ego tell you that you're better.
Realize that the common problem with all of them is that customer.



On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Alex Balashov 
wrote:

> Carlos,
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 12:23:13PM -0700, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>
> > Our ToS also includes:
> > This service may not be used in any life support, emergency response, or
> > other critical communications which may cause loss of life, injury, or
> > property damage.
>
> I am curious why you take this approach as opposed to allowing such use,
> provided that you are indemnified from any civil liability arising as a
> result of exclusive dependence on your service in such uses.
>
> --
> 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

Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

2017-03-09 Thread Carlos Alvarez 
It's as real as fax is dead.


On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Alex Balashov 
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:27:16PM -0800, Calvin Ellison wrote:
>
> > It's real and it's already happening.
>
> I've been told this for two or three years now. I'll believe it when I
> see it.
>
> --
> 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] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

2017-03-09 Thread Pete Eisengrein 
Thanks Calvin. Great info.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Calvin Ellison 
wrote:

> Take a look here:
> https://www.nationalnanpa.com/tools/trainGuides/getting-
> started-for-interconnected-voip-providers.pdf
>
>1. FCC waiver
>2. File notice with States
>3. OCN for IP-Enabled Services
>4. Interconnect agreement with a CLEC or LEC capable of providing the
>IP handoff
>5. POI CLLI to use as your switch in BIRRDS/LERG, SHA uses your
>interconnect provider's actual switch.
>
> Contact Inteliquent about their Host Switch product for VoIP carriers.
> It's real and it's already happening.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Calvin Ellison*
> Voice Operations Engineer
> calvin.elli...@voxox.com
> +1 (213) 285-0555 <(213)%20285-0555>
>
> ---
> *voxox.com  *
> 5825 Oberlin Drive, Suite 5
> San Diego, CA 92121
> [image: Voxox]
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Pete Eisengrein 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello VoiceOp'rs
>>
>>
>> In 2015 the FCC released an order which allows non-CLEC VoIP providers to
>> get numbers directly from the NANP:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-voip-direct-access
>> -numbering-report-and-order
>>
>>
>>
>> This document describes in great detail, well, not much; it doesn’t
>> really get to the heart of the matter – the *how*. I can think of
>> several ways it **could** be done, but don't know how it actually **is**
>> done,
>>
>>
>> Is anyone out there doing this today or was part of the trial and willing
>> to discuss and/or maybe point me toward more engineering-y documentation or
>> maybe even (*gasp*) a reference architecture?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> ___
>> 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] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

2017-03-09 Thread Calvin Ellison 
Take a look here:
https://www.nationalnanpa.com/tools/trainGuides/getting-started-for-interconnected-voip-providers.pdf

   1. FCC waiver
   2. File notice with States
   3. OCN for IP-Enabled Services
   4. Interconnect agreement with a CLEC or LEC capable of providing the IP
   handoff
   5. POI CLLI to use as your switch in BIRRDS/LERG, SHA uses your
   interconnect provider's actual switch.

Contact Inteliquent about their Host Switch product for VoIP carriers. It's
real and it's already happening.




Regards,

*Calvin Ellison*
Voice Operations Engineer
calvin.elli...@voxox.com
+1 (213) 285-0555

---
*voxox.com  *
5825 Oberlin Drive, Suite 5
San Diego, CA 92121
[image: Voxox]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Pete Eisengrein  wrote:

> Hello VoiceOp'rs
>
>
> In 2015 the FCC released an order which allows non-CLEC VoIP providers to
> get numbers directly from the NANP:
>
>
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-voip-direct-
> access-numbering-report-and-order
>
>
>
> This document describes in great detail, well, not much; it doesn’t really
> get to the heart of the matter – the *how*. I can think of several ways
> it **could** be done, but don't know how it actually **is** done,
>
>
> Is anyone out there doing this today or was part of the trial and willing
> to discuss and/or maybe point me toward more engineering-y documentation or
> maybe even (*gasp*) a reference architecture?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
>
> ___
> 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] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

2017-03-09 Thread Alex Balashov 
It remains on the list of dreams deferred, aspirations unrealised, goals
unaccomplished, and ambitions foreclosed.

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:04:17PM -0500, Pete Eisengrein wrote:

> Hello VoiceOp'rs
> 
> 
> In 2015 the FCC released an order which allows non-CLEC VoIP providers to
> get numbers directly from the NANP:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-voip-direct-access-numbering-report-and-order
> 
> 
> 
> This document describes in great detail, well, not much; it doesn’t really
> get to the heart of the matter – the *how*. I can think of several ways it *
> *could** be done, but don't know how it actually **is** done,
> 
> 
> Is anyone out there doing this today or was part of the trial and willing
> to discuss and/or maybe point me toward more engineering-y documentation or
> maybe even (*gasp*) a reference architecture?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pete

> ___
> 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] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access

2017-03-09 Thread Pete Eisengrein 
Hello VoiceOp'rs


In 2015 the FCC released an order which allows non-CLEC VoIP providers to
get numbers directly from the NANP:



https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-voip-direct-access-numbering-report-and-order



This document describes in great detail, well, not much; it doesn’t really
get to the heart of the matter – the *how*. I can think of several ways it *
*could** be done, but don't know how it actually **is** done,


Is anyone out there doing this today or was part of the trial and willing
to discuss and/or maybe point me toward more engineering-y documentation or
maybe even (*gasp*) a reference architecture?


Thanks,

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

Re: [VoiceOps] Past due/overdue invoices for Doctor offices - How to handle?

2017-03-09 Thread Carlos Alvarez 
Ah, gotcha, I was thinking inbound calling.  But yeah, as someone else
said, cell phones are around.  We've seen so few 911 calls on our network
that I assume people always just call it from their cell phones anyway.
Except for one manufacturing customer who seems to have a 911 call at least
monthly...

Either way, our attorney advised that the non-payment disconnect is
perfectly valid if spelled out in writing and the customer is warned of the
impending disconnect.  We have automatic notifications in our invoicing
system.



On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:54 PM, jungle Boogie 
wrote:

> On 9 March 2017 at 11:23, Carlos Alvarez  wrote:
> > Doctor's offices are not considered emergency medical facilities, and in
> > fact, 100% of our doctor/medical offices include "if this is an emergency
> > dial 911" at the beginning of their greetings.
>
> Well this is more of the case if the Doctor is seeing someone in their
> office, and there some type of a medical emergency.
>
> Your TOS seems to cover that for in/outbound calling regardless.
>
>
> --
> ---
> inum: 883510009027723
> sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Past due/overdue invoices for Doctor offices - How to handle?

2017-03-09 Thread jungle Boogie 
On 9 March 2017 at 11:23, Carlos Alvarez  wrote:
> Doctor's offices are not considered emergency medical facilities, and in
> fact, 100% of our doctor/medical offices include "if this is an emergency
> dial 911" at the beginning of their greetings.

Well this is more of the case if the Doctor is seeing someone in their
office, and there some type of a medical emergency.

Your TOS seems to cover that for in/outbound calling regardless.


-- 
---
inum: 883510009027723
sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Past due/overdue invoices for Doctor offices - How to handle?

2017-03-09 Thread Paul Timmins 
I'd imagine Doc has a cellphone if s*it hits the fan. If not, he surely 
has a visa card that he could give you.


And yes, we warm line customers who don't pay for a day or so first, 
they can call repair and 911 and that's it. Then that goes dark too.


On 03/09/2017 02:23 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
I'm not sure why you'd treat them any differently from any other 
customer?  Your service agreement should include clear info on when 
accounts will be disconnected, and presumably the customer signed it.  
Doctor's offices are not considered emergency medical facilities, and 
in fact, 100% of our doctor/medical offices include "if this is an 
emergency dial 911" at the beginning of their greetings.


Our ToS also includes:
This service may not be used in any life support, emergency response, 
or other critical communications which may cause loss of life, injury, 
or property damage. Customer acknowledges that the service may be 
interrupted on nights and weekends for routine maintenance.




On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:16 PM, jungle Boogie 
> wrote:


Hi All,

What's the general rule/experience when dealing with Doctor offices
that have unpaid invoices on postpaid telephone service plans?

This may vary largely in different regions/states, but can a VoIP
provider threaten to disconnect telephone service for unpaid invoices?
If a Doctor office is on a pre-paid plan, like most VoIP operations,
are is there any liabilities on the VoIP provider when the balance
falls below a 0 or negative balance and there happens to be a medical
emergency? Perhaps it would be possible to disable calling to everyone
except 911. Is this a legitimate practice?

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



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

Re: [VoiceOps] Past due/overdue invoices for Doctor offices - How to handle?

2017-03-09 Thread Carlos Alvarez 
I'm not sure why you'd treat them any differently from any other customer?
Your service agreement should include clear info on when accounts will be
disconnected, and presumably the customer signed it.  Doctor's offices are
not considered emergency medical facilities, and in fact, 100% of our
doctor/medical offices include "if this is an emergency dial 911" at the
beginning of their greetings.

Our ToS also includes:
This service may not be used in any life support, emergency response, or
other critical communications which may cause loss of life, injury, or
property damage.  Customer acknowledges that the service may be interrupted
on nights and weekends for routine maintenance.



On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:16 PM, jungle Boogie 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> What's the general rule/experience when dealing with Doctor offices
> that have unpaid invoices on postpaid telephone service plans?
>
> This may vary largely in different regions/states, but can a VoIP
> provider threaten to disconnect telephone service for unpaid invoices?
> If a Doctor office is on a pre-paid plan, like most VoIP operations,
> are is there any liabilities on the VoIP provider when the balance
> falls below a 0 or negative balance and there happens to be a medical
> emergency? Perhaps it would be possible to disable calling to everyone
> except 911. Is this a legitimate practice?
>
> 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

[VoiceOps] Past due/overdue invoices for Doctor offices - How to handle?

2017-03-09 Thread jungle Boogie 
Hi All,

What's the general rule/experience when dealing with Doctor offices
that have unpaid invoices on postpaid telephone service plans?

This may vary largely in different regions/states, but can a VoIP
provider threaten to disconnect telephone service for unpaid invoices?
If a Doctor office is on a pre-paid plan, like most VoIP operations,
are is there any liabilities on the VoIP provider when the balance
falls below a 0 or negative balance and there happens to be a medical
emergency? Perhaps it would be possible to disable calling to everyone
except 911. Is this a legitimate practice?

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