[VoiceOps] efax port out

[Eric Hiller]

So what should the next step be, go back to XO and say all of this to them
and see if they budge?

-Eric

On Tue, April 26, 2011 9:07 am, Paul Timmins wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 09:20 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Alex Balashov
>> <abalashov at evaristesys.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Are you sure?  The FCC was pretty firm in its 2007 clarification that
>>> ITSPs do not own numbers, but that logical end-customers own numbers
>>> I am guessing, however, that an inbound-only application provider like
>>> Efax is not considered an ITSP.  However, there is precedent for an
>>> end-customer forcing a hosted IVR company to allow a port-out (though I
>>> don't know to what extent regulatorily enshrined).
>>>
>> You would need to raise the issue with the regulators, for an
>> official determination,  assuming you exhausted all options for
>> escalation
>> with the existing service provider,  and the SP doesn't offer any
>> additional
>> services the customer could buy that  are "obviously" subject to porting
>> rules.
>>
>> The clarification the FCC made in 2007 was referring specifically to
>> interconnected VoIP providers at the time; there was no clear mention of
>> information service providers that utilize  dedicated phone numbers
>> to deliver other data services.  The FCC could of course take action to
>> revise the rules;  they could also consider requiring e-mail service
>> providers provide  Local "E-mail address portability" again.
>>
>
> The clarification was just that, a clarification of a long standing
> rule, in the FCC's opinion. What eFax and others are doing is providing
> a service to an end user, and refusing to allow a number dedicated to
> the use of an end user to be ported out.
>
> FCC's opinion made it clear that the CLEC's obligation to port out was
> not avoidable just because the CLEC's customer wasn't the end user. They
> also made it clear that the ITSP was bound directly by LNP rules and
> could be subjected to penalties just like a CLEC could.
>
> Seems like one could make up any number of "excuses" why they're not a
> phone carrier, or why they really own the number even though it's for
> someone else's exclusive use, but at the end of the day I strongly doubt
> any of these rationales would do anything more than antagonize the FCC,
> and I look forward eagerly to the test cases.
>
> -Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
>