[VoiceOps] efax port out

[Carlos Alvarez]

Hahaha, 24 hour LNP, where fantasy fails to meet reality.

But anyway another problem of the losing carrier not realizing they lost 
the number is that they keep routing it internally.  That means anyone 
on that carrier can no longer call the number.  This is getting bad, to 
where we run into it at least once a month.


Paul Timmins wrote:
> Per the FCC 1 day port order, the medium timer in NPAC is set to 24
> hours, at least according to my memory (my computer's misbehaving so I
> can't get in to verify that).
>
> If you create the SV, and it is not put in conflict within 24 hours by
> the losing carrier, you can port without concurrence.
>
> There's nothing illegal, or immoral about doing it, it's just bypassing
> the industry process, and in general if you're going to do that, you'd
> better be right. Otherwise you're looking for trouble, and your customer
> might still get bills from their old carrier because they won't realize
> they've been ported out.
>
> Of course, if the losing carrier has their OSS systems integrated with
> the NPAC, their system will likely place the order in conflict as soon
> as you create it (hi, AT&T) unless you have a valid FOC on an LSR with a
> matching due date. But even carriers like XO aren't integrated this way
> typically, so you can take numbers away rather simply.
>
> -Paul
>
> On 04/26/2011 01:10 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>> 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