[VoiceOps] efax port out

[Carlos Alvarez]

I don't know the entire porting process from the inside, however, I have 
been on the receiving side of what seemed like a forced port.  I believe 
a CLEC/ILEC can actually do this, and I agree, it would be awesome to 
see the results.

In my case I had requested a port from one CLEC to another (Cox to Time 
Warner, PRI to PRI) with about 70 days notice.  Cox basically ignored 
it, and come move time, they had not acted upon it (normal with them, 
they suck when you try to leave).  Around midnight I had a TW NOC tech 
on the phone and he asked things like "do you own these numbers" and "do 
you authorize me to do this port without concurrence from your old 
carrier?"  Then he did it instantly.


Jed Stafford wrote:
> Porting is a two party process. If the owning carrier does not release the number the port will not go through.
>
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:
>
>> What would be interesting would be to have a cooperating carrier do a portout without concurrence, and then let them file a slamming complaint and try to justify that they are the end user. Of course, it'd have to be someone with some big stones.
>>
>> On 04/26/2011 12:28 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>>> They are an ITSP, and the FCC ruling trumps the contract.  What I'm saying is that there is nothing clear on these non-carrier services, so the contract still has weight.  It's clear that Efax and the others are not ITSPs.  Last I heard you couldn't port from Google Voice, and they are big enough to make this an issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul Timmins wrote:
>>>> VoicePulse had similar language in their contracts, and it didn't do a
>>>> thing for them.
>>>>
>>>> On 04/26/2011 11:45 AM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>>>>> Here's an additional complication I forgot to mention: These services
>>>>> all seem to include "you can't port" into their TOS. At least Efax and
>>>>> Answer Phoenix, the two I researched, do. So not only is our position
>>>>> with the FCC tenuous at best, the customer effectively signed a
>>>>> contract acknowledging that they don't own the numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin B Newman wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Eric Hiller<clec at cygnustel.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>> So what should the next step be, go back to XO and say all of this
>>>>>>> to them
>>>>>>> and see if they budge?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck. The last time I tried this, XO (and the provider) asserted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Information Service
>>>>>> - Person asserting end-user status not customer of record
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FCC indicated that to pursue the complaint a fee would be required
>>>>>> - and it wasn't worth it to anyone involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -jbn
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> VoiceOps mailing list
>>>>>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>


-- 
Carlos Alvarez
TelEvolve
602-889-3003