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

=PBjoUvq8KMnesATVqIKQBQusg=AFQjCNH2qBc564HinryGMOa2FkThS79Cbgsig2=F8akfOEutOotlZa9pIvWGQbvm=bv.60157871,d.cWc m...@g4.net On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Paul Timmins wrote: Here's an attempt to increase my SNR.. http://www.adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/group/3968 The Total Access 372 provides

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

We do something similar in our environment. We have a per-tn blacklist that starts with all country codes except about 20 of them in it. If a customer calls to complain (I think one of them did this so far out of thousands), we remove a specific country from the list (or all of them). Combined

Re: [VoiceOps] Linefeed in CNAM data?

6617480240 - 6617480993: NEUTRAL TANDEM-CALIFORNIA, LLC - CA CA (OCN: 649C) NPAC SPID (ONSP): 505B 6617480240 - SKYPE CALLER That's what I get via TNSi, who uses the legacy Verisign SS7 based CNAM system. I wonder if the SS7 provider providing that data uses TARGUSinfo. (Syniverse does, for

Re: [VoiceOps] New Exchange 217/777

What's worse really is not that you have to look at ILEC tandems out of area - they don't perform any route filtering, if the originating caller is calling out of area, it gets sent to their PIC/LPIC LD carrier. So what you really need is every IXC in the country to make sure they have a

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

On the other hand, if you can get SIP/TLS over TCP going, do in fact do that. You'll work around a lot of NAT and ALG issues because the ALGs can't see the traffic. Most of them don't even look at 5060/tcp as well, so TCP is often enough. TCP is good for being behind multiple layers of NAT

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] 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

NT/Inteliquent has always been awesome in helping narrow this down. If you haven't called them for fear of wasting their time, I strongly suggest it. ATT is next to useless on FGD trunking no matter who you talk to. I usually can't even get them to tell me which carrier is attempting to

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

ATT doesn't (reliably) pass two way audio until the call supervises. I had a customer with this issue before and they were sending a proceeding (technically a 183 with SDP because they were SIP) and playing a menu recording, and not sending the supervisory message (in their case a 200 ok) until

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?

The liability of a common carrier is typically limited to the amount paid for their services. I can't sue FedEx for a million dollars because they delivered a million dollar contract a day late and caused me to lose the deal. We'd all be bankrupt if someone dialed 911 during a phone outage and

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] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy

On Aug 25, 2015, at 23:49, John Levine jo...@taugh.com 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 operate in that rate

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?

, August 26, 2015 7:27 PM To: Paul Timmins Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] ADT Alarms Special Dialing? Know anything about other vendors besides Adtran and Zhone? What about Calix and ALU? Do their POTs/Combo cards support T.38 and RFC-2833? On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:21

Re: [VoiceOps] WiFi SIP phones recommendations

On 09/08/2015 03:43 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: On 09/08/2015 03:35 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote: Every Wifi phone I've tried will roam just fine between APs assuming the APs are properly configured. Really? Can this take place seamlessly mid-call? With DHCP? What about DHCP lease acquisition

Re: [VoiceOps] WiFi SIP phones recommendations

On 09/08/2015 03:58 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: In principle, yes, but I've never seen an OS network management infrastructure which eliminates this bureaucracy when switching APs or does this seamlessly. For example, as far as I know, neither my Ubuntu laptop nor my Android phone will

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

On 08/25/2015 04:22 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: That's exactly right. There's no way to clean up a list by NPA-NXX. You need to know where the call is going to go, which cannot be determined from the number itself[1]. So, you still need to do an LNP lookup to know which prefix the number is

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

PM Paul Timmins p...@timmins.net mailto:p...@timmins.net wrote: 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 mailto:abalas...@evaristesys.com wrote

Re: [VoiceOps] SIP return message on misdials - 487 or 500/503 or ?

Ideally these would be the codes you should receive and the circumstances based on ISDN conditions of the PSTN number: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3398#section-7.2.4.1 On 10/05/2015 11:16 AM, Erick Bergquist wrote: Hello, Just trying to get idea of what is normal on what providers should

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

No, it won't. The rejections the other side provides are largely optional, and in fact the FCC has issued strict guidance about the necessary level of matching on an LSR (I want to say it's telephone number, account number, PIN if applicable, and zipcode, but I know there's some conditional

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

to hash this out? On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Paul Timmins <p...@timmins.net <mailto:p...@timmins.net>> wrote: Ah, but how would you know what IPs your inbound call should be trusted from for your SBCs? It's hard enough to get people properly interopped when

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)

Intrado announced they are rebranding to "West" today: http://www.intrado.com/events/OneWest/911Enable/?utm_source=iContact_medium=email_campaign=Intrado_content=One+West+-+911Enable

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

I can only point out what I pointed out in the FCC comment period - iconnectiv already charges both sides for the LERG, which it solely maintains with an iron grip. It maintains many if not practically all of the standards documents, and now we're proposing (well, too late for future tense) to

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

der services from most ILEC's you need access to > telecordia to get CLLI codes or NC/NCI codes all information owned and > licensed by one company. > > > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com > <mailto:abalas...@evaristesys.com>&

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

Ah, but how would you know what IPs your inbound call should be trusted from for your SBCs? It's hard enough to get people properly interopped when the calling activity is planned, let alone have random endpoints hit your network. Are they going to use E.164? Should they send npdi/rn data?

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] 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?

Ooh! You found a fun one! Nobody in that ratecenter except the RLEC and the various wireless characters, and possibly your lucky day, these guys: http://www.navacore.net/ They look like they'd be willing to sell you a sip trunk on it from their website, that's on you to negotiate of course.

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

? Today we just have our customer sign an loa, > and then upload the LOA to our wholesaler. They take it from there, but I > would like to know the process and what is involved. Does each carrier have > their own system to verifying that the number and account number belongs to > the said

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

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 accuracy (TN/PIN/Address/Zip) and issues a confirmation and concurrence, and then the

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

If both carriers have a good business relationship and are willing to write matching orders in the NPAC (winning carrier makes the subscriptions, the losing carrier submits concurrence) you can port numbers in literally seconds. But we're not required to do things that fast so it rarely

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 and perhaps

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

You're going to handle 500CPS of legacy sonet based TDM and question dropping 7 figures on the solution? *cringes* This is literally what platforms like metaswitch, sonus and many others are made for. If you're looking for low cost, Taqua's solution is decent, and if you need to take that

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

The fact that Vonage hasn't disconnected the ATAs makes me feel like their disconnect workflow hasn't quite worked, and if they have a direct peering arrangement with AT this could be involved in that. They may try to contact Vonage as well and ask them about it, they certainly have

Re: [VoiceOps] Feedback request - Inteliquent

We started with Inteliquent when they were Neutral Tandem. We use their local interconnection, Feature Group D originating and terminating, and AIA (on-net LD termination) products and have had minimal issues with them over the years, and they've been generally helpful with any issues we have

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] 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?

> On Aug 9, 2018, at 9:47 PM, Brandon Martin > wrote: > > On 08/09/2018 04:46 AM, Alex Balashov wrote: >> Yes, but until and unless your upstream supply chain is doing TLS and >> you can provide end-to-end security, it's a pointless waste of time. > > There's also an argument to be made

[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

Inteliquent has several products: Outbound IXC termination - good for sending translated toll free calls. They give you money for sending the calls. LTS - inbound and outbound local/local toll exchange with inteliquent members. Not an A-Z product, but the cheapest way to send calls to

Re: [VoiceOps] Connecting to Remote Tandems

I'm sure I know which one you're talking about. It's because they exist in entirely different regulatory domains. The upside of inbound feature group D is that you get to cut out a terrible ILEC tandem, and at least the vendor I'm thinking of doesn't charge for the trunks themselves, so you're

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

The solution is that you sign your calls with your certificate. Carriers aren't doing LNP dips to verify the number is really yours, they're trusting your attestation (A: yes, the caller id is verified, B: it comes from our customer, but not verified, C: "this touched our switches, good luck

Re: [VoiceOps] Outsourcing STIR/SHAKEN Setup

e down to the on-the-ground realities, political viability, etc of taking that “block attested 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 wrote:  The solution is that you sign your calls with your certi

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

, 2020 6:10 PM To: Paul Timmins Cc: VoiceOps Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Question about SS7 routing 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

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

T-Mobile is using PA certificates, I'm passing live traffic with them right now. What I've heard so far intercarrier is just Comcast (private cert), T-Mobile (STI-PA cert), Twilio (not sure), and us (STI-PA cert). Verizon and AT have just been doing private interconnect from what I understand.

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] 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] 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] STIR/SHAKEN for call centers

On 12/2/20 4:49 PM, Patrick Labbett wrote: However, it's not clear (to me) how the Attestation aspect of things will work (and if it even effects the typical customer): * Does just being a customer of the Originating Carrier give the Call Center's calls Full Attestation? That depends

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] 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] 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] 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] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

On 6/10/21 11:11 AM, Joseph Jackson wrote: Is that a bad thing? -Original Message- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:07 AM To: Adam Moffett; VoiceOps Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021 It feels

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

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] "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] "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] 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] LRN and valid values

G6ATC and LERG6ODD, and that's fine, but why would it be in an NPANXX > rate deck??? > > On Wed, 26 May 2021, Paul Timmins wrote: > >> How are you even getting operator assisted calls onto your network to begin >> with? Do you have an operator service you still pay for? >

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] 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] 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

  1   2   >