Re: [VoiceOps] AT Wireless / FirstNet routing issue contact

Oh hey, I didn't see who was creating this email. Have you tried the rural call completion route, Collin? https://about.att.com/sites/rural_call_completion The FCC is taking a dim view of this nonsense lately and is ready to bring some FO to the FA game. On 2/20/24 14:02, Collin Rose via

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

I mean, if you disclosed the information and it wasn't legally protected in a way you had a duty for (a care practitioner disclosing medical information, or a phone company disclosing subscriber information) then you should be cool, I'd think. In the US truth is an affirmative defense for libel

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

It is, and there's a family of youtube streamers out there who make a living doing it (Pierogi at Scammer Payback for example). One of those interesting instances where laws differ between countries. On Sep 20, 2023, at 1:04 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps wrote: List messages often arrive

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

I wonder if the plan is to spoof a victim's number and get people to block someone who is about to be victimized to prevent them from complaining or stopping some form of fraud that they're planning. Did the stir/shaken header on this call indicate it came from Verizon Wireless? > On Sep 19,

Re: [VoiceOps] Inappropriately Signed Calls

re? > https://authenticateapp.iconectiv.com/splist > > How are you turning a signature into a contact point? > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:05 AM Paul Timmins <mailto:p...@timmins.net>> wrote: >> "I just met you and I know this is crazy," >> "but you h

Re: [VoiceOps] Inappropriately Signed Calls

f a misconfiguration, maybe they typo-ed something similar and it happens to be your number, maybe you discovered the next unrepentant robocalling company. Paul Timmins Telecommunications Consultant Timmins Technologies, LLC / telcodata.us 248-379-7826 > On Sep 12, 2023, at 11:27 AM, Jef

Re: [VoiceOps] Directory Listings

a directory listing only agreement, or at least they would a decade ago. It provided access to Verigate CSR/Directory listing features, as well as LEX. -Paul > On Aug 23, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Mary Lou Carey via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Directory Listing orders have always been submitted thro

Re: [VoiceOps] TF CPR dip?

ou're tall enough to ride their ride, even those usually are wholesale through a smaller carrier who they'd rather negotiate with than you directly. (* shut up, you're the exception that proves the rule if anyone wants to bicker about that here.) -Paul > On Aug 9, 2023, at 11:26 PM, Pau

Re: [VoiceOps] TF CPR dip?

toward a carrier. Super rare, you'll see CIC 0110 with a DIAL# that's a ring-to or a CIC that's a ring-to. It happens, but I have rarely seen it in practice in a few thousand records. -Paul > On Aug 9, 2023, at 11:18 PM, Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Jay, > &

Re: [VoiceOps] Dominican Republic LERG Data

Because all unassigned prefixes go to the local ILEC. Things don't have to be in the LERG to work when things work that way. > On Aug 9, 2023, at 7:15 PM, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Yet I called them! How would that be possible if it was a typo? > > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Mary

Re: [VoiceOps] Dominican Republic LERG Data

NANPA doesn't run 828 beyond just setting that area code aside and delegating it to the DR government, and localcallingguide.com appears to just assume everything goes to the incumbent (809-200- through 809-999- with the exceptions that are listed in the

Re: [VoiceOps] Call term misrouting?

I wouldn't be surprised to see carriers dumping these calls via a GSM gateway, this is really common in europe with gray routes. It'd explain why you get weird cellular voicemail, if they sent the number to the cell phone wrong to actually dial out. > On Jul 26, 2023, at 6:36 PM, Nathan

Re: [VoiceOps] Historic Number Data (+1)

I (telcodata) do have an archive of the NANPA data files and the CNAC taken 3 times a week since 2020-10-28. Not sure if they'll work for you. On 7/13/23 15:10, Calvin E. via VoiceOps wrote: What are some recommended sources of number data, as it has changed over time? I only need from 2019

Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN warning!

Always worth pointing out that in March 2020, Somos rolled out TFNIdentity. We have it set up on customers who want to source from their TFNs, I haven't seen many carriers actually look it up, but it does exist. > On Jul 7, 2023, at 5:34 PM, Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps > wrote: > > I

Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN warning!

long term idea is that other STIs would set up around the world over time and there would be a collection of root certificates much like browser SSL stacks, so you could authenticate calls that came in from other countries and tie them back to a regulatory regime th

Re: [VoiceOps] Releasing numbers back to original carrier

ation-service> verizon.com<https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/account/manage-service/vacation-service> [favicon.ico] <https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/account/manage-service/vacation-service> It's a pretty standard service, and if you're charging them for it, you'r

Re: [VoiceOps] TN Reputation Services

I'm guessing they want to register with the various reputation services to avoid being flagged as a robodialer. Free Caller Registryfreecallerregistry.com firstorion.comTNS Report a Robocallreportarobocall.comSubmit a request – Hiyahiyahelp.zendesk.comThere's also a paid service that Neustar runs

Re: [VoiceOps] TF number ported out/re-assigned without authorization

I can’t imagine why the new user of the number would want all those misdirected calls, it’ll probably cost them a pretty penny. What a mess for everyone. > On Mar 23, 2023, at 00:57, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Have the customer sue Thinq, if they feel it is worth it. > > Or

Re: [VoiceOps] 911 Records of Inbound-Only TNs

a pANI, and forwards a call to the PSAP with it, so no real database ever existed for nomadic voip calls like that, and never would. Mobile works this way, and some nomadic voip systems do too. -Paul From: VoiceOps on behalf of Mike Hammett via VoiceOps Sent

Re: [VoiceOps] Off-Net Numbers

I mean, call them and see what trunk group they come in on. Surely there must be a hint like that somewhere. They can't come in out of thin air. On Mar 17, 2023, at 4:25 PM, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps wrote: Historically, we used multiple entities to get us off-net numbers. Who, what, when,

Re: [VoiceOps] Neustar SOA Archives

Well, more clearly - You can tell when they ported last. Ideally if you have cleaned up the switch recently, there would not be more than one port between now and then. If you waited so long that the customer has changed carriers more than once, well... On Feb 23, 2023, at 10:28 AM, Paul

Re: [VoiceOps] Neustar SOA Archives

Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> ____ From: "Paul Timmins" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "VoiceOps" Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 6:17:46 PM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Neustar SOA Archives I enjoyed

Re: [VoiceOps] Neustar SOA Archives

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" Sent: Wednesday, February

Re: [VoiceOps] Neustar SOA Archives

Ask to get a BDD set up from the NPAC and you'll have a copy of the regional LNP database every morning, piping fresh. You'l want to write a script or something because the files are a lot too big for something like excel, but a comparison is easy at that point. On Feb 22, 2023, at 6:18 PM,

Re: [VoiceOps] Alarm panels and how they dial DTMF digits - pots migration from DMS to Metaswitch issue

. That was on the TA900 series, but maybe something similar is happening here? -Paul > On Feb 13, 2023, at 3:47 PM, Jay Hennigan via VoiceOps > wrote: > > On 2/13/23 11:48, Matthew Yaklin wrote: > >> --- The issue is that when the alarm panel dials the INVITE from the TA5k >> does not

Re: [VoiceOps] onvoy contacts?

> Best way to approach a cyber stalker who originates messages from voip > providers I'd defer to the responding officers, but I'd think a couple officers at each door in full battle rattle, with arrest warrant in hand. > On Dec 2, 2022, at 7:05 PM, jd via VoiceOps wrote: > > Woops! No, I

Re: [VoiceOps] What attestation for verified calls?

Attestation A is the one people typically indicate for. None of the other levels really indicate verification of the ID's accuracy. > On Sep 19, 2022, at 9:55 AM, Jeff Anderson via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Has the industry as a whole more or less settled on a particular attestation > level when

Re: [VoiceOps] [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

Some states (Michigan among them) use +1 for toll alerting. If you dial a long distance call 10 digits, it's supposed to say it requires a 1. On 7/19/22 13:00, James Cloos via VoiceOps wrote: NA> This convention is handy for those who still get charged for NA> long-distance, as you can't

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] Comcast rejecting port requests for 4 months

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

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

-A ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops -- Paul Timmins Clear Rate Communications Direct: (248) 556-4532 Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 Network Operations

Re: [VoiceOps] STI-CA average pricing

Transnexus also has a CA they sell separately. https://transnexus.com/sti-ca/ > On Jun 4, 2022, at 2:05 PM, Mary Lou Carey wrote: > > As far as I know, NEUSTAR is the only CA that will allow you to get a token > without using their STIR/SHAKEN services.I

Re: [VoiceOps] Establishing a new LRN

All I've ever had to do was put it in on LTI and that's it. As long as you're the NXX holder with the NANPA (not a thousands block). I'm sure there's somewhere to put it in the LERG if you enjoy dealing with that. I sure don't and never have. On 6/3/22 14:02, Matthew Crocker wrote: Hello

Re: [VoiceOps] Waiver request for fees for Reassigned Numbers Database

iceops 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:

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] SS7 Landscape

ntelligent 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: "Paul Timmins" > To: "Mike Hammett" &

Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 Landscape

Reduce your reliance on it more and more. Switch to IP tandems (Inteliquent/Peerless/etc) and ip interconnect. The people who make and support SS7 equipment are in a dying market, the brain drain on it is immense as people retire, and the longer you rely on it, the worse it's gonna get. TNS is

Re: [VoiceOps] Misrouting 911 Calls?

I'm going to be the unpopular one here, and point out that Comcast is not really responsible to route 911 calls for you when you use numbers that they don't provide. For the cost of an hour of an attorney's time, you could just set up trunking to basically anyone else to handle those

Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP SMS Campaign Fees

raise all sorts of competitive concerns. But cartel behavior is somehow OK if it makes a laughable attempt at addressing spam texts. I shouldn't need mom's permission to send texts. This is still a public switched phone network, right? -Paul From: VoiceOps

Re: [VoiceOps] National Do Not Call Registry"

on the behalf of the nation. -Paul On 10/11/21 10:04 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: Hi John How have you been? So, I did see the information on the site I just did not know if there was a different licensing model for carriers. It looks like if we were going to offer an API for customers to check

Re: [VoiceOps] thinQ is making hay while Bandwidth is down

As long as they could reach the NPAC, they could port. Everything else is just formalities and details that are technically optional. From: Aryn Nakaoka 808.356.2901 Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 12:52 PM To: Paul Timmins Cc: Alex Balashov ; VoiceOps Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] thinQ

Re: [VoiceOps] thinQ is making hay while Bandwidth is down

between them quickly in a similar fashion to create a real differentiated product. -Paul > On Sep 27, 2021, at 5:53 PM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps > wrote: > > No, nobody can “flash-port” numbers to a different LRN like that. Anyone who > claims this has a bri

Re: [VoiceOps] Bandwidth East Coast Issues

I just looked into all the big wholesalers, and they all have terrible peering policies, and are rarely at public exchanges even when it would be trivial *looks at Inteliquent and Equinox Chicago* this is kind of embarrassing for the industry. > On Sep 26, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Mike Hammett

Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN concerns

it remains ludicrously unwanted and comes from what must be easily dozens of unique source numbers so I can't just block it. What do they think they're accomplishing here? Do they not realize they're next against the wall with such hostile calling patterns? -Paul

Re: [VoiceOps] interconnect directly with a PSAP?

INDigital's system they built with Penninsula FiberNet in Michigan is SIP, with private ethernet connectivity to PFN's switches (not public IP networks). Not sure about other states. From: VoiceOps on behalf of Rob Verk Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 2:55 PM

Re: [VoiceOps] interconnect directly with a PSAP?

The answer to all 3 is, it depends. Generally there are non clec ways to attach to 911 directly (the exact process will have to be worked out by talking to the carrier providing 911 in that area) (or indirectly through the likes of intrado or intelliquent) and at least in Michigan, the carrier

Re: [VoiceOps] 8YY Traffic

How would you go about determining if a toll free number is intralata or not? From: VoiceOps on behalf of Mary Lou Carey Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 5:31 PM To: Mike Hammett Cc: voiceops Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] 8YY Traffic You should be able to route 8YY

Re: [VoiceOps] TMobile Sending Calls to LRN not Called Number

ugh, in the CalledPartyNumber field, not CallingParty. Have not had enough caffeine today. Might not be enough caffeine on the planet for today. On 7/1/21 12:15 PM, Paul Timmins via VoiceOps wrote: STIR/SHAKEN isn't implemented at all in TDM world. I've had problems on and off for years where

Re: [VoiceOps] TMobile Sending Calls to LRN not Called Number

n? Happens probably once a year since I set up the network in 2007 we'll have a spate of them for a day. -Paul On 7/1/21 11:42 AM, Mary Lou Carey wrote: I'm not an expert in how STIR/SHAKEN is implemented in the TDM world, but I've never heard of this happening until recently. I've heard anything

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

The metaswitch way is that it will do it automatically for you if it thinks you're behind a NAT. So if you force nat, it will do the fast registration automatically. It's one line of config on the sip adjacency for the MaxUC application. > On Jun 10, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Matthew Crocker wrote: >

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

be, before the pin-hole goes away? Strange we’ve not run into this before. *From:* VoiceOps *On Behalf Of *Paul Timmins *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2021 11:12 AM *To:* voiceops@voiceops.org *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data The perimeta s

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

On 6/10/21 6:23 AM, Alex Balashov wrote: Yeah, observing it as an outsider who is not a service provider, I'm a little shocked to say the least. It's hard to understand where that kind of money is supposed to come from with the margins in this business. -- Alex Passthru fees to the end

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

multilink T1s). If we fund them all, then you get 33.4% and rising. If we told that other school that they had to demonstrate the 10gb ring was insufficient for their needs in order to upgrade, we'd have more money to spend on the rural and inner city districts who don't have the money. -Paul

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

OS7R3SB2CeIgsA5IPv6mEk65Mh92RokKDZDpu9AsXm=1> ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops -- Paul Timmins Clear Rate Communications Direct: (248) 556-4532 Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 Netwo

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

It feels like every year, I see some elementary school building a 100gb coherent 288 strand dark fiber ring on e-rate funds. Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit, but in the case of a local district, only by a bit (they were doing 40gb, for a district). A far cry from when we just subsidized some

Re: [VoiceOps] LRN and valid values

never seen any code like that in the network outside of AT's weird BTNs (313-K60- and such) but those again, aren't billable and in that case aren't even really numbers and in any case, don't appear in the PSTN at all, just in category 11 files and on bills and ASRs and LSRs) -Paul > On May 27, 2021,

Re: [VoiceOps] LRN and valid values

How are you even getting operator assisted calls onto your network to begin with? Do you have an operator service you still pay for? > On May 25, 2021, at 10:47 PM, Peter Beckman wrote: > > Carrier A provided us a US NPANXX Rate Deck that had some values in it that > were not valid, such as

Re: [VoiceOps] Malformed Caller ID

That sounds exactly like you're sending stuff that should be E.164 formatted out as 10 digit national. I looked up DeKalb IL and the first two digits of your area code are "81". Which is the country code for Japan. So your calls are being interpreted as +8157563626 instead of +18157563626 and a

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

I suspect that will more than pass muster, given it's what we're expected to do under S/S but more thorough, with hard know your customer enforcement. > On Mar 11, 2021, at 1:22 AM, Nathan Anderson wrote: > > I don't know if this will pass muster or not, and I don't think it will be > too

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

I expect that people will attest spam. But we're allowed to block carriers by spid if we want if we start getting garbage. The effective telecom death penalty that'd create (along with the liability) will be an interesting enforcement mechanism. From: VoiceOps

Re: [VoiceOps] Fake Voicemail Anti-Robocall Tactics

Y'all realize that if the trust of carriers to not let garbage calls with spoofed near neighbor anis on their networks none of these other problems would exist, right? (using my backup iPhone for the last few days, I have been exposed to the brunt of the garbage google has been call screening

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] False 911 calls and old abandoned DID

No, it's really just 1-9 clicks, or 10 clicks for 0. I've got a rotary dial on the desk next to me. On 1/21/21 6:42 PM, Pete Mundy wrote: So close! But on the PoTS equipment I'm familiar with (others can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong on a larger scale) the numbers are reversed (well

Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 problems

The part of the company to call depends on what part of the company those trunks come from. Contact your AT account manager. If they're IXC circuits, https://primeaccess.att.com/shell.cfm?section=4343 On 12/21/20 10:56 AM, Dave Frigen wrote: We’ve narrowed this down to calls completing on

Re: [VoiceOps] Definition: Local Calls

Local calling areas are defined in the CLEC tariff filed with the state. Most CLECs mirror the ILEC local calling areas. Check your tariffs to see what the PUC approved you to do. On 12/8/20 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Is there any legal definition as to what constitutes local calls? I

Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN for call centers

name) is probably adequate. -Paul ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Verizon Wireless Porting

https://www.syniverse.com/customer-support-resources Contact the trading partner contact to set up an agreement with the carriers. They all use Syniverse Port Out GUI. > On Nov 24, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Does anyone

Re: [VoiceOps] Recommendations for STIR/SHAKEN Consultants

Working with TransNexus has been painless and their console makes troubleshooting so easy it's immensely obvious where you are messing up and even more so if someone else's stuff is messing up. On Nov 12, 2020 14:21, "Zilk, David" wrote: We are looking for a consultant to assist in the process

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] 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] 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] 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

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

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] 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

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] 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] 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,

[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] 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. 

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

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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?

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] 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] 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] 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

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] 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

[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] 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

  1   2   >