Send VoiceOps mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of VoiceOps digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Sandy Watch (Carlos Alvarez)
2. Re: Rejected port due to having other orders active on the
account (Paul Timmins)
3. Re: Rejected port due to having other orders active on the
account (Carlos Alvarez)
4. Re: Rejected port due to having other orders active on the
account (Paul Timmins)
5. Re: Rejected port due to having other orders active on the
account (Carlos Alvarez)
6. Looking for some premium A-Z international carriers (Ken Adams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:45:26 -0700
From: Carlos Alvarez <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Sandy Watch
Message-ID:
<cafn1dugd7ad0gkekct+nubvm-fsmfffhqm1deegd+jnk2-s...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Peter Rad. <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wonder how these outages will affect cloud computing sales and migration.
Overall I predict a huge uptick in cloud migration. The people whose
buildings and servers are under water or cut off from the world will see
the value of having that off-site.
The cloud companies who only had one datacenter and are now flooded will be
out of business shortly. Just like the VoIP companies that are in that
situation.
--
Carlos Alvarez
TelEvolve
602-889-3003
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20121101/81e86d09/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:01:33 -0400
From: Paul Timmins <[email protected]>
To: Carlos Alvarez <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Rejected port due to having other orders
active on the account
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
If the customer's account is truly in flux, it makes sense to me. If i have a
pending order to disconnect 3 lines, and then you request to port the entire
account, do I give you those 3 lines, or not? If the customer requests more
lines, and you didn't know about them because the order is pending, do I leave
those new lines on the circuit (they may have ordered them, for example, to
satisfy a contractual minimum commitment for a few months, for example, and did
not want you to port them) or do I allow your port to go through, and
disconnect the T1 they were supposed to ride on? Or do I offer the new TNs to
you, and it turns out they were supposed to remain with us?
I think it's fair to reject for pending orders, but only if the winning carrier
can find out what those orders are. Your LOA probably gives you blanket rights
to operate on the customer's behalf - I suggest you do that a few times to see
what the orders are, and if they're BS, file a complaint with the public
service commission in the state you're operating in. If not, it may at least be
enlightening.
-Paul
On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:15 , Carlos Alvarez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Justin B Newman <[email protected]> wrote:
> legitimately simple ports. Ultimately, this being valid or not is
> somewhat irrelevant. The real question is - what can you do about it.
>
> The true question, of course. It's been going on for years and eating at me.
> We have wasted a lot of money, and our incoming customers have wasted a lot
> of money--all to Integra's enrichment.
>
> When I'm handling ports, I try to "set my customers up to succeed."
> This, of course, if why so many folks won't port w/o having a copy of
> a recent invoice. It's in no way a port requirement, but it sure does
>
> It is our requirement as well.
>
> Interestinly, I had a port recently where a pulled 10-20 #'s from
> Integra, all from the same account. One failed for open orders. The
> rest succeeded. The customer of course denied having any open orders.
> A month or so later it succeeded; we never knew why.
>
> We just had one number out of a large block fail supposedly for not having
> CSR. Um, right.
>
> One of the big frustrations with this is that sometimes we need to port from
> an Integra account to two ULCs (we outsource our fax service, those numbers
> don't go to our voice ULCs). No other carrier has ever given us a denial for
> multiple orders, only Integra.
>
> Does someone know of a list of rules on porting and reasons for denial that
> can be read by humans?
>
> --
> Carlos Alvarez
> TelEvolve
> 602-889-3003
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20121101/28280282/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:06:19 -0700
From: Carlos Alvarez <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Rejected port due to having other orders
active on the account
Message-ID:
<cafn1dueze6fak_psyer8wsv_jdqoku+9y1dmt9fdukzqvgj...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Paul Timmins <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the customer's account is truly in flux, it makes sense to me. If i
> have a pending order to disconnect 3 lines, and then you request to port
> the entire account, do I give you those 3 lines, or not? If the customer
> requests more lines, and you didn't know about them because the order is
> pending, do I leave those new lines on the circuit (they may have ordered
> them, for example, to satisfy a contractual minimum commitment for a few
> months, for example, and did not want you to port them) or do I allow your
> port to go through, and disconnect the T1 they were supposed to ride on? Or
> do I offer the new TNs to you, and it turns out they were supposed to
> remain with us?
>
This is understandable, and we've never done that sort of thing. Mostly
it's porting X numbers to carrier A, and Y numbers to carrier B. Leave the
circuit alone until formally cancelled (which Integra requires 30 days
notice of, even if you port out all numbers including BTN).
> I think it's fair to reject for pending orders, but only if the winning
> carrier can find out what those orders are. Your LOA probably gives you
> blanket rights to operate on the customer's behalf - I suggest you do that
> a few times to see what the orders are, and if they're BS, file a complaint
> with the public service commission in the state you're operating in. If
> not, it may at least be enlightening.
>
We nearly always know what the pending orders are, because we initiated
them, as above. The top problem we're trying to solve is being able to
kill the new customer's commitment to Integra in less time. In a few cases
it's just operational stuff where we need to move things from one circuit
to another and such, but the real hard cost problem is delaying the
turn-down of a PRI for 30 days or more.
--
Carlos Alvarez
TelEvolve
602-889-3003
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20121101/e1b7d7b9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:13:32 -0400
From: Paul Timmins <[email protected]>
To: Carlos Alvarez <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Rejected port due to having other orders
active on the account
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
On Nov 1, 2012, at 16:06 , Carlos Alvarez <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is understandable, and we've never done that sort of thing. Mostly it's
> porting X numbers to carrier A, and Y numbers to carrier B. Leave the
> circuit alone until formally cancelled (which Integra requires 30 days notice
> of, even if you port out all numbers including BTN).
This I'm pretty sure is an FCC Reg - when you port all numbers from a loop,
that loop is to be disconnected right away unless specifically arranged
otherwise.
> We nearly always know what the pending orders are, because we initiated them,
> as above. The top problem we're trying to solve is being able to kill the
> new customer's commitment to Integra in less time. In a few cases it's just
> operational stuff where we need to move things from one circuit to another
> and such, but the real hard cost problem is delaying the turn-down of a PRI
> for 30 days or more.
If they followed the regs on disconnection of the loop on port out of all TNs,
it sounds like this would be a non issue.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:25:26 -0700
From: Carlos Alvarez <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Rejected port due to having other orders
active on the account
Message-ID:
<CAFn1dUFfs=beo9xx=TVVn4qa0Su=ytkr5w8dqren8685zr5...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Paul Timmins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This I'm pretty sure is an FCC Reg - when you port all numbers from a
> loop, that loop is to be disconnected right away unless specifically
> arranged otherwise.
>
I thought so too, but we have one customer right now fighting an Integra
bill where all numbers including BTN were ported out, they failed to send
in written cancellation, and Integra wants to be paid for the time it was
not in service.
> If they followed the regs on disconnection of the loop on port out of all
> TNs, it sounds like this would be a non issue.
>
Well the biggest issue we are facing is porting different numbers to
different carriers at the same time.
--
Carlos Alvarez
TelEvolve
602-889-3003
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20121101/50e7ec26/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:41:38 -0500
From: Ken Adams <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [VoiceOps] Looking for some premium A-Z international
carriers
Message-ID:
<CAA3rdWxR0vn3vPywy33NzNaqyo983rAQ0yerTFPK=ne2v6y...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
We are starting to build up some decent international business and we are
looking for some suggestions and your experiences with some international
A-Z white/premium route providers.
Any suggestions and your experience with the carrier will be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
--
*Ken Adams*
Vice President Network Operations
*Ironton Global*
610-794-2365 o
214-498-6514 c
[email protected]
*This transmission and all accompanying documents are confidential. This
information is intended only for the use of the individuals listed above.
An**y unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.
If you believe this transmission has been sent in error, please notify the
sender immediately and arrange for the return or destruction of these
documents. Thank you.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20121102/d3c12395/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
End of VoiceOps Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3
***************************************
