Re: [VoiceOps] CNAM lookup options for Broadowks (SIP or SOAP)

I use a similar service from TNS for my meta. They support subscribe/notify and invite/302On Jun 30, 2017 5:16 PM, Matthew Crocker wrote:   Hello,     I’m looking into getting CNAM lookups working in Broadworks instead of having my Taqua perform SS7 dips.  

Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.

You as the originating carrier need to either connect to Comcast's local tandem serving that DeKalb lrn or pay someone to get it there. I reach Comcast through inteliquent usually, that would be my suggestion but you have to do what makes sense to you.And on an earlier reference yeah if you

Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.

://www.midwest-ix.comFrom: "Paul Timmins" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: voiceops@voiceops.orgSent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 5:19:11 PMSubject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc. If that were true, you wouldn't be able to use inteliquent (et al) as your access tandem. Everyone is sup

Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.

e: 615-771-7868 (temporary) Cell: 615-796- On 2018-08-29 11:38 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > You don't actually have to establish connectivity to all ILECs in an > area, even if you are porting out numbers from their ratecenters. The > ILECs already have to have a way to rea

Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.

to figure that out. Mary Lou Carey BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary) Cell: 615-796- On 2018-08-29 11:38 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > You don't actually have to establish connectivity to all ILECs in an > area, even if you are porting out number

Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.

he routing of the ILEC switch in the LERG to figure that out. Mary Lou Carey BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary) Cell: 615-796- On 2018-08-29 11:38 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > You don't actually have to establish connectivity to all ILECs in an > a

Re: [VoiceOps] 605-562 - Arbitrage scam?

to international. Definitely different than a few years back when almost everything was to African destinations.   The fraudsters are very smart and evolve over time, always have to be vigilant!   From: Paul Timmins Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:48 PM To: Robert Dawson , Paul Timmins

Re: [VoiceOps] Robocall Mitigation in lieu of STIR/SHAKEN

I'm guessing I'll use some CDR analysis on our TDM switch to look for customers sending numbers they don't own on caller ID, and just make a report and build exceptions in a table for stuff we allow. It would ideally over time just come down to a handful of anomalies. Most of our customers send

Re: [VoiceOps] Fake Voicemail Anti-Robocall Tactics

Legal or not it’s genius. Humans will notice right away and it’ll cost for the robocallers. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 16, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Calvin Ellison wrote: > >  > Today we received a notice from one of our underlying carriers that included > the following statement: > >> * If a

Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 Landscape

Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/> > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > > > > From: "Paul Timmins" > To: "Mike Hammett" > Cc: "voiceops&quo

Re: [VoiceOps] Identity Header Test Tool

I can’t speak for the other sites, but telcodata.us updates 3 times a week from the CNAC, NANPA, and National Pooling. Often because of how much work it is to change ownership and networks and everything else, carriers who get acquired usually get attritioned off into one of the two over time,

Re: [VoiceOps] recommendations for PRI/POTS/DATA CPE device with fiber handoff

then still doesn't always work. But the DS1 PWE is rock solid. -Paul On Tue, 01/28/2014 03:53 PM, Matt Yaklin myak...@g4.net wrote: I was looking at a variation of your idea. http://adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/product/1189608G1 The MX408e. 8 DS1 circuit emulated T1 interfaces 4

Re: [VoiceOps] CNAM on toll free?

There's no place where the CNAM database pointcode can be stored in the 800SMS. Would be awesome if the industry got their act together on this. On Fri, 02/14/2014 01:55 PM, Graham Freeman gfree...@sungevity.com wrote: Hi, folks, Can toll-free numbers have CNAM registrations? We're hoping to

Re: [VoiceOps] Fraud

side. This strategy nearly eliminates losses on our side, because the account team knows what that traffic cost us, the NOC helps prevent the customer from further fraud by giving them advice or helping them, and the customer has to pay us maybe $100. -Paul On Tue, 02/25/2014 09:34 AM, My List

Re: [VoiceOps] Linefeed in CNAM data?

, for example). They have this synthetic CNAM data that's really questionable sometimes. -Paul On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:12 PM, Nathan Anderson nath...@fsr.com wrote: Our CNAM lookup provider is sending us name data for one particular number that includes a linefeed in it. It's possible that it's

Re: [VoiceOps] New Exchange 217/777

a route to you either directly, through whatever tandem homing arrangements you have, or via another IXC (really common especially in rural areas to see a Level 3/Global Crossing hand off to Qwest/ATT/Verizon for the final termination.). -Paul On 07/15/2014 10:52 AM, Adam Vocks wrote: So

Re: [VoiceOps] New Exchange 217/777

which failed. Odd things is that Level3 is directly connected to the Tandem we subtend. I wouldn't think Level3 would send it off their network??? Adam -Original Message- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:30 PM

Re: [VoiceOps] New Exchange 217/777

which failed. Odd things is that Level3 is directly connected to the Tandem we subtend. I wouldn't think Level3 would send it off their network??? Adam -Original Message- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:30 PM

Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP over 3G/4G Data Connection

, TLS and SRTP) -Paul On Fri, 07/25/2014 12:41 PM, Jared Geiger ja...@compuwizz.net wrote: I would suggest getting a static IP from the carrier. The Carrier Grade NAT that US mobile providers use could make stationary phones lose registration without it. On LTE, you'll be fine with almost any

Re: [VoiceOps] Multi Tenant Commercial Softswitch Besides Broadsoft

Our asterisk system is peaking at over 800 standing calls without breaking a sweat. On 08/07/2014 11:01 AM, Peter Rad. wrote: From what I have been told, Asterisk can handle 300 simultaneous calls per user. Most ITSPs wouldn't know because they aren't seeing that kind of volume. Cbeyond

Re: [VoiceOps] HD voice?

If anyone has contacts with cell providers that are interested in testing out HD Voice interop (or hell anyone, especially if they're interconnected with inteliquent) I'm very much in favor of playing with it with other providers and see what we can get going. On Oct 30, 2014, at 20:48,

Re: [VoiceOps] Need tollfree termination to Italy, Brazil and Malaysia

We can help you..all we do is Int'l voice ... please let me know where your company is registered and located so that can assign appropriate sales engineer. regards, Paul Stamoulis     +1 212 444 3003 www.OneStopTel.net   Thousands of Carriers...One Connection

Re: [VoiceOps] SIP HD Peering with Wireless Carriers

If this is happening I want in. I know Intelliquent allows G722 interconnect, is anyone actually using it and want to play with it with us? On 02/13/2015 09:11 AM, Colton Conor wrote: As you know most all the wireless cellular carriers are deploying HD voice with VoLTE. Most of these carriers,

Re: [VoiceOps] IXC/LD No audio or delayed audio

to terminate a call on me, pleading CPNI regulations. -Paul On 04/23/2015 10:17 AM, Starr, Steve wrote: A growing number of IXC/LD calls inbound into us have either no audio or delayed audio. We are attempting to narrow down the common carrier, but this is a difficult task. We have IXC trunks

Re: [VoiceOps] Wholesale Orig Provider with Low DID MRC and LNP Fees

On 06/18/2015 01:59 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: On 06/18/2015 01:47 PM, Colton Conor wrote: What nationwide providers offers DID's at a true wholesale rate? What is a true wholesale rate? Isn't that a bit like asking, Which major stores offer Old Spice at a true retail rate? (i.e. a retail

Re: [VoiceOps] ATT Cellular - DTMF

was resolved. -Paul On Wed, 06/24/2015 12:57 PM, Adam Vocks adam.vo...@cticomputers.com wrote: I’ve got an odd problem that someone might be able to point me in the right direction to get some help. ATT cellular customer calls a number destined to our LRN. Customer presses a digit

Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy

I know a guy who runs a site that sells the npa nxx to carrier type at a fraction of the lerg costs On Aug 19, 2015 11:39 AM, Alex Balashov abalas...@evaristesys.com wrote: ‎Indeed, you'd start from the NPAC, which would get you, for a given TN, an LRN. Then what? ‎ -- Alex Balashov | 

Re: [VoiceOps] ADT Alarms Special Dialing?

TA5k only speaks DTMF inband VDSL2 and ADSL2+ combo cards. It's not a changeable setting. -Paul On Aug 6, 2015, at 21:55, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote: Wow thanks to all this has been a huge help! So we are using a Broadsoft for the voice switch connected by SIP to an Adtran

Re: [VoiceOps] ADT Alarms Special Dialing?

isn't liable to me if my home gets broken into during that time, and my employer is liable for nothing more than perhaps a service credit for the 2 days I was without service. -Paul On 08/07/2015 02:41 PM, David Thompson wrote: Alarm systems being serviced over VoIP are generally speaking

Re: [VoiceOps] ADT Alarms Special Dialing?

On 08/10/2015 06:36 PM, Colton Conor wrote: Paul, So is this just a limitation of Adtran's implementation of SIP on the 5000, or are all MSAN's from Vendors like Calix, Zhone, and ALU the same way? Specific to the 5k. We have some older Zhone equipment that does T.38 and RFC-2833 and mid

Re: [VoiceOps] Disconnected numbers and SIP

If this was true, why does ISUP 1 map to 404 by standard? On Oct 21, 2015 2:13 PM, Brooks Bridges wrote: > > "6xx codes are supposed to be used to indicate definitive knowledge that a > number can't be reached by any other means globally." > > Yet vendors build hardware that

Re: [VoiceOps] Disconnected numbers and SIP

I would consider anything but 404 (at least as long as the terminating LEC send a cause code 1 properly) a glaring bug that I would demand a fix for until I received one, but I have different standards than most (many?) folk it seems. But I have zero tolerance for exotica on my TDM or SIP

Re: [VoiceOps] Lack of Quality Industry-wide

can now guarantee any sort of QoS. Hopefully we will come up with better long term solutions in the years to come. Paul Stamoulis +1 212 444 3003 www.OneStopTel.net<http://www.onestoptel.net/> Thousands of Carriers...One Connection! Onestopcorp and Onestoptel mo

Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy

doorstep, but yes, LATA. And the business reason has to do with local calling areas if you're not on an unlimited plan, as well as intercarrier compensation even if you are. -Paul ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net

Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy

On 08/25/2015 05:52 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: On 08/25/2015 04:41 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: most landline carriers won't port it to a landline if it's out of ratecenter. I thought ports were only possible within a rate centre, and so by definition impossible to port to a carrier which doesn't

Re: [VoiceOps] ADT Alarms Special Dialing?

Especially curious if that Broadsoft by chance is hooking to a Taqua T7000 running RFC2833 DTMF. I know of some bugs if so. -Paul On Aug 27, 2015, at 00:22, Nathan Anderson nath...@fsr.com wrote: Wait, weren't we talking about turning *off* both OOB DTMF (RFC2833) as well as T.38

Re: [VoiceOps] WiFi SIP phones recommendations

to the OS unless it asks the current station BSSID and decides to do something about it. "APs properly configured" comes into play here heavily. -Paul ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] WiFi SIP phones recommendations

, then it goes down for reboot. -Paul ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy

On 08/25/2015 04:29 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: On 08/25/2015 04:24 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: taking the obvious cell phone blocks out first saves you time and money. Curious, how does that deal with a scenario in which there was an intermodal port wireless - fixed-line? Or does this just

Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy

and scrub them after dipping too. -Paul ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy

Right. All these products are doing is doing the NPA-NXX lookup AFTER the LNP lookup. The NPA-NXX of the LRN is the carrier of record. If it's a cell phone company NPA/NXX you're dealing with a cellphone. -Paul On 08/19/2015 07:25 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote: Their lists are already cleaned

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

the number is active, the losing carrier has little recourse. Adding a step where your ability to port relies on the good graces of the losing carrier is going to create a far worse situation. -Paul On 12/07/2015 11:06 AM, Peter Beckman wrote: I hadn't heard of Iconectiv (one "n")

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

internet lawyers would take as a case. -Paul On 12/07/2015 12:00 PM, Pete E wrote: These are the crux of the issue. If there were a cooperative group willing to peer to circumvent the PSTN, and if the group were large enough, then it could offer *some* competitive pressure to get the ILEC's

Re: [VoiceOps] SIP provider that will route to free conference services

Then they should charge a rate relative to the costs of terminating it and route it without discrimination. Hence the point of the FCC's order. > On Dec 2, 2015, at 20:21, Colin Brown wrote: > > that's because 712-775 is an expensive rate. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at

Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

IANAL but that's how I read it too. USF is to be levied on interstate services (of which voip is automatically because internet) and a contract shortfall is neither federal in jurisdiction nor a telecommunications service. > On Dec 2, 2015, at 19:23, Peter Beckman wrote:

[VoiceOps] "West" (humor)

o_content=One+West+-+911Enable> I made this fake marketing poster for them in honor of their new brand: http://www.telcodata.us/~paul/911enable-intrado-west.jpg <http://www.telcodata.us/~paul/911enable-intrado-west.jpg> -Paul signature.asc Description: Message signed with

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

of this company, you're not going to find them. They have entrenched interest in maintaining the status quo. I'd love for it to be different, but I see this only as more consolidation around the dinosaurs that created this convoluted market to begin with. -Paul > On Dec 5, 2015, at 14:17, Erik Flour

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

of the trust relationships between us to maintain the integrity of the network, what little it even has at this point. -Paul > On Dec 5, 2015, at 14:41, Erik Flournoy <e...@eespro.com> wrote: > > What's Inteliquent's Position? PSTN 2.0 is a great way to describe the > u

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

to know who to complain about? Is WHOIS enough? -Paul > On Dec 5, 2015, at 15:14, Erik Flournoy <e...@eespro.com> wrote: > > Additionally to come to Neustar NPAC extremely LATE proposal rescue of using > the IP and SMS fields in the NPAC to packet route calls instead of via t

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

5/2015 04:55 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: > >> I'd say probably 1/3 to 1/2 of our traffic ends up never touching >> RBOC equipment. > > Oh, okay, so there's been some progress in this area since I last looked > around. > > I suppose it's moderated by the degree to which the

Re: [VoiceOps] FreeSwitch IPPBX

mou...@onestoptel.net> for more detailed info or follow up. ps Paul Stamoulis +1 917 734 4946 www.OneStopTel.net<http://www.onestoptel.net/> Thousands of Carriers...One Connection! Onestopcorp and Onestoptel monitors and reads all emails as only busi

Re: [VoiceOps] Unsecured conference lines

Does it expose you to anything? If not shrug and shut it off. If so, offer it with something that passes the exposure on instead, explaining your costs change. No need to lecture them on their own laws or protect them from themselves. They need a service provider, not a parent. :) On

Re: [VoiceOps] Can anyone port a Rock Hill, SC number?

. -Paul On 01/18/2016 10:37 AM, Peter Beckman wrote: 803-981- Verizon Wireless None of my current sources can port it, not even Verizon non-Wireless itself. Simply unportable forever? --- Peter Beckman Internet Guy

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

uot; That actually meets FCC requirements. It doesn't meet ATIS recommendations but they're only recommendations (mostly put in place by people who really like the status quo). -Paul > On Feb 10, 2016, at 08:14, Colton Conor <colton.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So what is the best ca

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

They just drop the customer's subscriber information out of the switch and send a final bill. -Paul On 02/10/2016 11:50 AM, Mary Lou Carey wrote: I really wonder if the big wireless carriers follow the same process that wireline carriers do because the typical wireline process takes more than

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

February 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins <p...@timmins.net> wrote: > > My understanding is that the winning carrier submits the subscription, issues an electronic WPR (https://www.syniverse.com/files/Single_Line_WPR.pdf) - similar to an LSR. The losing carrier verifies the WPR's a

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

happens. Why move fast to let our customers leave when we can legally take our time and spend a couple days collecting more revenue from them? -Paul (DEFINITELY not speaking on behalf of my employer!) On 02/09/2016 04:24 PM, Adam Vocks wrote: Our landline ports are instantaneous. (Or so we think

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

A lot of it also comes down to cellular portability being required by the FCC to process ports in 4 hours or less from the day it was started as well. The FCC saw how wireline worked and said they weren't going to have that on wireless. Shortly after they cleaned up wireline (it used to be much

Re: [VoiceOps] Test Call Request

Level 3 routed away from an "underlying carrier" and now i can call through just fine. They opened a ticket with the "underlying carrier" so hopefully that kicks this issue in the junk for you :D On 02/12/2016 05:33 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote: Called from 414-269-60xx via SIP Logic out of NYC.

Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Innovations reliability

Sadly, assassins win if i stop breathing, so if someone starts to choke me, I fight it the best I can and run away at my earliest opportunity. On 03/17/2016 07:38 PM, Anthony Orlando via VoiceOps wrote: It's a shame we can't support them. This could be anyone of us. Hackers win if you port

Re: [VoiceOps] SS7

You could do it by saying "hey, this handset is roaming on me" then directing the call back to the handset in question, I figure. It would be inbound only intercept, but i could see that working. -Paul On 04/21/2016 02:12 PM, Matthew Yaklin wrote: The part I was curious about a

Re: [VoiceOps] Recommendations for high-cps SS7 OC-X gear?

that entire OC-48, you're all but eyeballs deep in Sonus or Metaswitch land. -Paul > On Apr 20, 2016, at 17:54, Brooks Bridges <bbrid...@o1.com> wrote: > > Looking for suggestions for NEBS compliant gear that can support SS7, handle > OC-3 or higher levels of channels, and can support

Re: [VoiceOps] Hunt Group "as a Service"

We can help you – call me when you can. ps From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Rafael Possamai Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:26 PM To: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Hunt Group "as a Service" Hi all, Not sure if this has been discussed here

Re: [VoiceOps] AT / Onvoy / Vonage call routing screwup after LNP

experienced it somewhere before I'm sure, and might have a workflow for fixing it. Of course, opening a ticket with the originating carrier (AT) definitely needs to happen, since they're making the routing decision they're the ones that can fix it. -Paul On 12/05/2016 09:16 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote

Re: [VoiceOps] Feedback request - Inteliquent

had, though a few times we've had to apply firm but reasonable pressure to get them to look at issues they initially thought weren't theirs, but i get that with a lot of companies from time to time. -Paul > On Apr 19, 2017, at 19:42, Brad Anouar <brad.ano...@masergy.com> wrote: &g

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

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

Re: [VoiceOps] under what circumstances can a port out request be rejected?

These are for tollfree, the rules for LNP are different. On 04/05/2017 06:45 PM, Reinventing Rich wrote: Thanks mark! On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Mark Diaz > wrote: According to or legal firm, these are the valid disputes:

Re: [VoiceOps] TN and carrier list in a rate center

If you're set up in the NPAC you can request a report of all LNP data in your region, or subsections thereof. If a snapshot is good enough. -Paul On 04/05/2017 07:10 PM, Keln Taylor wrote: Not free. Cheaper. :) I was hoping there might be a more efficient (and I assumed cheaper) way than

Re: [VoiceOps] SDWAN for VOIP

other pros or cons between them? Everest Broadband - Your Local Voice & Data Network Experts - we're always nearby Paul Stamoulis 1 212 444 3003 www.EverestBroadband.com<http://t.sidekickopen16.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XZs5w

Re: [VoiceOps] Neustar Port PS Alternative?

You can get all that information in the LTI, if i recall > On Jan 2, 2018, at 18:01, Robert Johnson wrote: > > Nuestar's Port PS is now a paid service and I have been tasked with finding > quotes for competing services. Iconectiv was my first choice, but I have been

Re: [VoiceOps] Phone auth for incoming calls?

occur. TLS is good when you don't want your local IT staff to know what the CEO is talking about, or to wiretap his coworkers (assuming hosted PBX). The likely attack surface for a customer's confidentiality will be somewhere between that handset and you,

Re: [VoiceOps] Creating an International Rate Deck

and for wholesale int’l sales, well that’s a whole other subject that gets much more complex… good luck, Paul Stamoulis+1 212 444 3003 Onestopcorp – thousands of technology solutions... just one call! Please connect at https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-stamoulis-56504531/ From: VoiceOps On Behalf

Re: [VoiceOps] Creating an International Rate Deck

Do you have a way to NOT route calls that are losing money? That would solve the “underwater rate” problem…. Otherwise, you really can not do wholesale at all… Paul Stamoulis+1 212 444 3003 Onestopcorp – thousands of technology solutions... just one call! Please connect at https

[VoiceOps] 605-562 - Arbitrage scam?

Is anyone else seeing lots of long duration calls to the 605-562 exchange that when you dial the respective number, it supervises to dead air? Seems like a new kind of toll fraud that international fraud detection systems won't catch. -Paul

Re: [VoiceOps] 605-562 - Arbitrage scam?

on behalf of Matthew Yaklin *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:14:02 PM *To:* Paul Timmins; voiceops@voiceops.org *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] 605-562 - Arbitrage scam? Paul, Why do you mention international toll fraud when that is an area code and exchange for Pine Ridge South Dakota

Re: [VoiceOps] Connecting to Remote Tandems

already have a TDM switch and SS7 links and transport. If you lack either of the 3, it can work out financially. -Paul > On Aug 9, 2019, at 5:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > I wanted to note that I am still interested in working with competitive > tandem providers for &q

Re: [VoiceOps] Connecting to Remote Tandems

fault, it's AT maintaining artificial barriers to competition. As if they'd have it any other way. -Paul On 8/9/19 3:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I'm evaluating methods of extending our footprint. I purposely left out company names. One of the companies we talked to was really only interested

Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?

I see it as stopping fraud the same way SPF and DKIM stopped spam. On 12/17/19 3:38 PM, Dovid Bender wrote: Mike beat me to it. It's going to stop fraud. The bigger issue you are going to have is the larger packets. So many devices out there can't seem to fragment packets correctly. On Tue,

Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?

On 12/17/19 6:24 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: There are many other reasons why SIP messages are getting bigger and bigger, of which STIR/SHAKEN is not the first, second or fifth: other standards, WebRTC interop, more/wideband codecs in SDP bodies, SRTP(-SDES/DTLS), support for other features and

Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?

> On Dec 19, 2019, at 12:09 AM, Peter Beckman wrote: > > Is STIR/SHAKEN not really completed and ready for deployment yet? The FCC > and larger carriers seem to be moving forward with test implementations > without of TN authorization and delegation. Oh, thank goodness. I was worried for a

Re: [VoiceOps] Three Digit Numbers

tp://www.midwest-ix.com/> > > > > From: "Brandon Svec" > To: "Mike Hammett" > Cc: "Paul Timmins" , "Voiceops.org" > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 11:42:15 AM > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Three Digit Numbers > > NANPA d

Re: [VoiceOps] Three Digit Numbers

gt; - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/> > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > > > > From: "Ken Mix" > To: "M

Re: [VoiceOps] Analog Phone Lines - Timesouce for PBX System

A lot of older systems will set the clock from the incoming caller ID data - the time and date are in the stream of FSK along with the number and name. You'd want to make sure that ATA has valid time and timezones set, then send a call into them and the PBX should jump to the correct time and

Re: [VoiceOps] Toll Free Caller ID

1. What's the news on using TFN as a caller ID? 1. People have been doing it for years 2. Does this require a local charge number in P-Charge-Info or P_Asserted_Identity or elsewhere? 1. It does if you want calling other toll-free numbers or 911 to work, otherwise it doesn't

Re: [VoiceOps] Investigating random call completion issues nationwide

We've been seeing issues on outbound related to (supposedly) tandem overload in some areas through Verizon Business at a minimum, it would be unsuprising to see that affect incoming to other carriers, since by definition, it's outgoing calls from us to other carriers that are affected. Verizon

Re: [VoiceOps] Three Digit Numbers

711 and 811 have federal mandates to go to telecommunications relay service and one call facilities flagging services respectively. Be careful about working like that. > On Mar 24, 2020, at 11:10 AM, Carlos Alvarez wrote: > > We don't handle any others in a traditional way. Well, 611 is

Re: [VoiceOps] Outsourcing STIR/SHAKEN Setup

calls from carrier X” step. — Sent from mobile, with due apologies for brevity and errors. On Sep 2, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Paul Timmins <mailto:ptimm...@clearrate.com>> wrote:  The solution is that you sign your calls with your certificate. Carriers aren't doing LNP dips to verify

Re: [VoiceOps] Outsourcing STIR/SHAKEN Setup

you attest A a call from "0" or "911", or "999-999-"? Yes, you could. It'd work for a while, til someone said "Wow, Alex's SPID is signing tons of bullshit. Let's block attested calls from his SPID" -Paul From: Voic

Re: [VoiceOps] Outsourcing STIR/SHAKEN Setup

not as complicated as people are making it out to be. Transnexus has been great to work with, as has Inteliquent. -Paul On 9/2/20 2:52 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: Thank you, that’s very clear and sums it all up! One lingering question: even without providing a fully attestable chain of custody, if the call

Re: [VoiceOps] Question about SS7 routing

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

Re: [VoiceOps] Outsourcing STIR/SHAKEN Setup

In practice i can sign anything and it properly flags on comcast and tmo. There are totally legitimate circumstances (like forwarding a call) where you might attest C a call that isn't sourced from a number you own. From: VoiceOps on behalf of Jared Geiger

Re: [VoiceOps] TNS Outage?

We use them for CNAM/LNP/TF lookups and aren't seeing issues. We don't get our A Links from them though. From: VoiceOps on behalf of randal k Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:03 PM To: VoiceOps Subject: [VoiceOps] TNS Outage? We have redundant A-Links to

Re: [VoiceOps] Got my first inbound call with a STIR/SHAKEN checkmark

Can you imagine AT or Verizon actually doing IP interconnect in a meaningful way? I'm not holding my breath. (he says, as he made a test call today to another small/medium sized CLEC with their newly minted STIR/SHAKEN services today, and passes tons of calls to T-Mo and comcast with the

Re: [VoiceOps] Question about SS7 routing

be something like a minimum of 10-11 T1s to various tandems and trunk groups, in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan this could be two T1s to Marquette, MI, one for local/intralata calling, one for interlata calls. -Paul From: Ross Tajvar Sent: Wednesday, September 2

Re: [VoiceOps] Charter/Spectrum Port Out?

Have you guys filed a State PUC complaint? I've seen same day resolution on that stuff sometimes. On 6/18/20 5:48 PM, jd wrote: I’m having this same issue with ringcentral, nobody is answering me and they’re claiming to not even see the port request, it’s just rejected. There must be

[VoiceOps] Production STIR/SHAKEN

Is anyone but T-Mobile and Comcast (and now us) doing STIR/SHAKEN right now and want to make test calls? We're on Inteliquent if that helps. -Paul Paul Timmins Senior Network Engineer Clear Rate Communications Direct: (248) 556-4532 Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366

Re: [VoiceOps] Area code 886

11xx codes are a pulse dial substitute for the matching *xx code. so 1167 sets the privacy flag just like *67 does. They're not dialable outside of a class 5 end user. (12xx replaces the #) From: VoiceOps on behalf of Jared Geiger Sent: Friday, July 24,

Re: [VoiceOps] Production STIR/SHAKEN

. -Paul From: VoiceOps on behalf of Dave Frigen Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:49 PM To: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Production STIR/SHAKEN Paul, this is in reply to your question posted on July 24th: Currently there are 34 active STI-GA

Re: [VoiceOps] Can carriers still refuse port-outs if an account is being closed?

he account in full, or not, but can't cancel the renewal. Even if they do, it leaves the question of being billed for one more month of service they won't be using. On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:55 PM Paul Timmins <mailto:p...@timmins.net>> wrote: Send a letter cancelling the au

Re: [VoiceOps] Can carriers still refuse port-outs if an account is being closed?

Send a letter cancelling the autorenewal, allowing it to go month to month. Then port it. On 7/22/20 3:43 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote: We've had issues in the long past where ILECs in particular would refuse a port-out for "pending orders" if they had received a 30 day notice of cancellation. 

  1   2   >