[VoiceOps] efax port out

[Oren Yehezkely]

They closed Gizmo5 and asked their customers to find another provider.
Until now they did not integrate any of their services to the best of
my knowledge.
So it seems that they bought it in order to kill the service, or for a
reason that is not clear to me.

However, the service is much more than call forwarding.

Oren

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
> I haven't paid close attention, but I think they are now with the
> integration of Gizmo5. Before that they were just a forwarding service, no?
>
>
> --
> Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is google voice NOT an interconnected VoIP carrier?  I certainly use it to
> make and receive PSTN calls.  They also have a procedure to port in, just no
> mention as to how one would port out, but the porting rules in both
> directions should apply as Google voice seems to me to meet it definition of
> an interconnected VoIP carrier.
>
> Eric Fort
> Fort Consulting
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Alvarez
>> TelEvolve
>> 602-889-3003
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>