From lclarkpdx+voiceops at gmail.com  Thu Sep  5 15:47:57 2019
From: lclarkpdx+voiceops at gmail.com (Lonny Clark)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:47:57 -0700
Subject: [VoiceOps] Ringing problems
In-Reply-To: <CAHm=SaJTPt3y_ocb=VoKoJg_6zJdR7vMiUxR3_mzW33EEZfQEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHm=SaJTPt3y_ocb=VoKoJg_6zJdR7vMiUxR3_mzW33EEZfQEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN4g9N7=O9dUN6sEPLahx5Ah3s1Tk0YgMLCqEsSdwTm41hJ4cQ@mail.gmail.com>

Microsoft Lync and Skype for Business platforms do the '183 w/SDP-then-180
response to INVITE' all the time.

When I worked with AcmePacket SBCs, and connecting to MSFT platforms to
PSTN/carrier, for inbound calls we had the SBC change any 183 response to
180 and delete the SDP before sending the response to a PSTN connection.
That way the PSTN only sees 180, and ringback generation from the
originating side continues.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:37 AM Pete Eisengrein <peeip989 at gmail.com> wrote:

> We have recently gotten several complaints about not getting, or severely
> abbreviated ringback. The first few examples we were able to trace back to
> a carrier and believe it is because the call sets up with 183 Session
> Progress w/SDP and <1 second later get a 180 Ringing and the audible
> ringing stops.
>
> We heard a similar complaint in Europe last with an EU carrier. And again
> today with yet another US (global) provider.
>
> So, my questions are:
>
> 1- Anyone else seeing this? If so, what's your workaround/fix?
> 2- Since this is not contained to a single carrier, anyone aware of an SBC
> or softswitch maker recently released code that might be causing?
>
> Thanks,
> Pete
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190905/8d5cbfee/attachment.htm>

From nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com  Mon Sep  9 12:50:02 2019
From: nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com (Nick Olsen)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:50:02 -0400
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
Message-ID: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some
feedback on.

Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their
business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed
*67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure
enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.

Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from
Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the
Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.

Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private.
What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to
my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end
user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court
order or request from law enforcement)

*Nick Olsen*
Network Engineer
Office: 321-408-5000 x103
Mobile: 321-794-0763
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/a0f30bc0/attachment.htm>

From matthew at corp.crocker.com  Mon Sep  9 13:01:46 2019
From: matthew at corp.crocker.com (Matthew Crocker)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:01:46 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
In-Reply-To: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>


You don?t know if it really is harassment.

Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days.  Have them call the police and open a case for harassment.  The police can get a subpoena and request the call data.

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM
To: "voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on.

Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.

Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.

Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private. What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court order or request from law enforcement)

Nick Olsen
Network Engineer
Office: 321-408-5000 x103
Mobile: 321-794-0763
[Image removed by sender.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/330bfd88/attachment.htm>

From faisal at snappytelecom.net  Mon Sep  9 13:13:18 2019
From: faisal at snappytelecom.net (Faisal Imtiaz)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:13:18 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
In-Reply-To: <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>
References: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>
Message-ID: <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Who is your customer ?  The Caller or the Called Entity ?

Your obligations are to your paying customer?.. (which in this case is the Called Entity)
You have zero obligations to the caller?.
If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may choose to provide it.
What your client does with it, is not your concern.
(Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients information confidential )

My two cents !

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM
To: Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer


You don?t know if it really is harassment.

Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days.  Have them call the police and open a case for harassment.  The police can get a subpoena and request the call data.

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org>> on behalf of Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM
To: "voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>" <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on.

Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.

Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.

Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private. What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court order or request from law enforcement)

Nick Olsen
Network Engineer
Office: 321-408-5000 x103
Mobile: 321-794-0763
[Image removed by sender.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/5fd1a6b1/attachment-0001.htm>

From nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com  Mon Sep  9 13:15:02 2019
From: nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com (Nick Olsen)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:15:02 -0400
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>
 <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAAsJ=sC+gjixkhHAp=Cpsr0piA2yNH8nTqsTmQfxU9nNLqwkrQ@mail.gmail.com>

My customer is the called Party. The caller blocking their caller ID is
supposedly the source of the harassment.

*Nick Olsen*
Network Engineer
Office: 321-408-5000 x103
Mobile: 321-794-0763



On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:13 PM Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
wrote:

> Who is your customer ?  The Caller or the Called Entity ?
>
>
>
> Your obligations are to your paying customer?.. (which in this case is the
> Called Entity)
>
> You have zero obligations to the caller?.
>
> If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may
> choose to provide it.
>
> What your client does with it, is not your concern.
>
> (Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients
> information confidential )
>
>
>
> My two cents !
>
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
>
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
>
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net
>
>
>
> *From:* VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> *On Behalf Of *Matthew
> Crocker
> *Sent:* Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM
> *To:* Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
>
>
>
>
>
> You don?t know if it really is harassment.
>
>
>
> Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for
> 90 days.  Have them call the police and open a case for harassment.  The
> police can get a subpoena and request the call data.
>
>
>
> *From: *VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Nick Olsen <
> nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>
> *Date: *Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM
> *To: *"voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>
> *Subject: *[VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
>
>
>
> Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some
> feedback on.
>
>
>
> Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their
> business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed
> *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure
> enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.
>
>
>
> Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from
> Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the
> Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.
>
>
>
> Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private.
> What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to
> my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end
> user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court
> order or request from law enforcement)
>
>
> *Nick Olsen*
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Office: 321-408-5000 x103
>
> Mobile: 321-794-0763
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/b8b8dff5/attachment.htm>

From victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com  Mon Sep  9 13:23:13 2019
From: victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com (Victor C)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:23:13 -0400
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>
 <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <3FD3BDFB-92EF-43DF-9ACA-2AF32FEE3D19@gmail.com>

Can?t speak for US, but at least in Canada what you described wont fly. 

You have obligations as a carrier to honour restricted caller id received from PSTN if the caller choose to withhold it. If your paying customer is not happy with a private incoming call, they should contact police as someone earlier suggested. If deemed necessary, police or court or whatever authority will reach to you for the private caller id.

If you just disclose caller id on your customers request as you described, you may just as well disregard rpid / whatever privacy flag you have from pstn all together. But people dont do that afaik.


> On Sep 9, 2019, at 13:13, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net> wrote:
> 
> Who is your customer ?  The Caller or the Called Entity ?
>  
> Your obligations are to your paying customer?.. (which in this case is the Called Entity)
> You have zero obligations to the caller?.
> If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may choose to provide it.
> What your client does with it, is not your concern.
> (Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients information confidential )
>  
> My two cents !
>  
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>  
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>  
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net
>  
> From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM
> To: Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
>  
>  
> You don?t know if it really is harassment.
>  
> Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days.  Have them call the police and open a case for harassment.  The police can get a subpoena and request the call data.  
>  
> From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>
> Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM
> To: "voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>
> Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
>  
> Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on.
>  
> Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.
>  
> Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.
>  
> Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private. What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court order or request from law enforcement)
> 
> Nick Olsen
> Network Engineer
> Office: 321-408-5000 x103
> Mobile: 321-794-0763
> 
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/c6340002/attachment.htm>

From faisal at snappytelecom.net  Mon Sep  9 14:02:47 2019
From: faisal at snappytelecom.net (Faisal Imtiaz)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:02:47 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
In-Reply-To: <3FD3BDFB-92EF-43DF-9ACA-2AF32FEE3D19@gmail.com>
References: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>
 <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <3FD3BDFB-92EF-43DF-9ACA-2AF32FEE3D19@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BL0PR12MB257780AECEED64A2CEE56E1AC7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Cool,
Looks like it is similar laws here in the USA too..
I stand corrected?

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/01/2017-25917/calling-number-identification-service-caller-id

Though I am curious about a scenario?
Client is running his own pbx, and running Homer ..
Would the Caller ID be visible to them in the homer trace ?

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net

From: Victor C <victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:23 PM
To: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com>; Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Can?t speak for US, but at least in Canada what you described wont fly.

You have obligations as a carrier to honour restricted caller id received from PSTN if the caller choose to withhold it. If your paying customer is not happy with a private incoming call, they should contact police as someone earlier suggested. If deemed necessary, police or court or whatever authority will reach to you for the private caller id.

If you just disclose caller id on your customers request as you described, you may just as well disregard rpid / whatever privacy flag you have from pstn all together. But people dont do that afaik.


On Sep 9, 2019, at 13:13, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net<mailto:faisal at snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
Who is your customer ?  The Caller or the Called Entity ?

Your obligations are to your paying customer?.. (which in this case is the Called Entity)
You have zero obligations to the caller?.
If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may choose to provide it.
What your client does with it, is not your concern.
(Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients information confidential )

My two cents !

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net<mailto:Support at Snappytelecom.net>

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org>> On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM
To: Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>; voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer


You don?t know if it really is harassment.

Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days.  Have them call the police and open a case for harassment.  The police can get a subpoena and request the call data.

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org>> on behalf of Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM
To: "voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>" <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on.

Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.

Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.

Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private. What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court order or request from law enforcement)

Nick Olsen
Network Engineer
Office: 321-408-5000 x103
Mobile: 321-794-0763
[Image removed by sender.]
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/2c2fa567/attachment-0001.htm>

From matthew at corp.crocker.com  Mon Sep  9 14:07:25 2019
From: matthew at corp.crocker.com (Matthew Crocker)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:07:25 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR12MB257780AECEED64A2CEE56E1AC7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>
 <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <3FD3BDFB-92EF-43DF-9ACA-2AF32FEE3D19@gmail.com>
 <BL0PR12MB257780AECEED64A2CEE56E1AC7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <2333A3DA-D501-41A5-8031-3194FD9269C9@corp.crocker.com>


If they are an end-user the SIP INVITE should be sanitized by the providing carrier.

Carrier <-> Carrier include CallerID with privacy bits set
Carrier -> End-user include Sanitized CallerID (i.e. Anonymous or Private in the From header,  no Remote-Party-ID)



From: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 2:02 PM
To: Victor C <victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com>, Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>, "voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Cool,
Looks like it is similar laws here in the USA too..
I stand corrected?

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/01/2017-25917/calling-number-identification-service-caller-id

Though I am curious about a scenario?
Client is running his own pbx, and running Homer ..
Would the Caller ID be visible to them in the homer trace ?

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net

From: Victor C <victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:23 PM
To: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com>; Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Can?t speak for US, but at least in Canada what you described wont fly.

You have obligations as a carrier to honour restricted caller id received from PSTN if the caller choose to withhold it. If your paying customer is not happy with a private incoming call, they should contact police as someone earlier suggested. If deemed necessary, police or court or whatever authority will reach to you for the private caller id.

If you just disclose caller id on your customers request as you described, you may just as well disregard rpid / whatever privacy flag you have from pstn all together. But people dont do that afaik.


On Sep 9, 2019, at 13:13, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net<mailto:faisal at snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
Who is your customer ?  The Caller or the Called Entity ?

Your obligations are to your paying customer?.. (which in this case is the Called Entity)
You have zero obligations to the caller?.
If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may choose to provide it.
What your client does with it, is not your concern.
(Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients information confidential )

My two cents !

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net<mailto:Support at Snappytelecom.net>

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org>> On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM
To: Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>; voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer


You don?t know if it really is harassment.

Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days.  Have them call the police and open a case for harassment.  The police can get a subpoena and request the call data.

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org>> on behalf of Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM
To: "voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>" <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on.

Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.

Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.

Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private. What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court order or request from law enforcement)

Nick Olsen
Network Engineer
Office: 321-408-5000 x103
Mobile: 321-794-0763
[Image removed by sender.]
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/07d518e1/attachment-0001.htm>

From faisal at snappytelecom.net  Mon Sep  9 14:12:30 2019
From: faisal at snappytelecom.net (Faisal Imtiaz)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:12:30 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
In-Reply-To: <2333A3DA-D501-41A5-8031-3194FD9269C9@corp.crocker.com>
References: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>
 <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <3FD3BDFB-92EF-43DF-9ACA-2AF32FEE3D19@gmail.com>
 <BL0PR12MB257780AECEED64A2CEE56E1AC7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <2333A3DA-D501-41A5-8031-3194FD9269C9@corp.crocker.com>
Message-ID: <BL0PR12MB25771EEE0ED47D18057D249CC7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Thanks? good info.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net

From: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 2:07 PM
To: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net>; Victor C <victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer


If they are an end-user the SIP INVITE should be sanitized by the providing carrier.

Carrier <-> Carrier include CallerID with privacy bits set
Carrier -> End-user include Sanitized CallerID (i.e. Anonymous or Private in the From header,  no Remote-Party-ID)



From: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net<mailto:faisal at snappytelecom.net>>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 2:02 PM
To: Victor C <victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com<mailto:victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com>>
Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com<mailto:matthew at corp.crocker.com>>, Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>, "voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>" <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>
Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Cool,
Looks like it is similar laws here in the USA too..
I stand corrected?

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/01/2017-25917/calling-number-identification-service-caller-id

Though I am curious about a scenario?
Client is running his own pbx, and running Homer ..
Would the Caller ID be visible to them in the homer trace ?

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net<mailto:Support at Snappytelecom.net>

From: Victor C <victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com<mailto:victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:23 PM
To: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net<mailto:faisal at snappytelecom.net>>
Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com<mailto:matthew at corp.crocker.com>>; Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>; voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Can?t speak for US, but at least in Canada what you described wont fly.

You have obligations as a carrier to honour restricted caller id received from PSTN if the caller choose to withhold it. If your paying customer is not happy with a private incoming call, they should contact police as someone earlier suggested. If deemed necessary, police or court or whatever authority will reach to you for the private caller id.

If you just disclose caller id on your customers request as you described, you may just as well disregard rpid / whatever privacy flag you have from pstn all together. But people dont do that afaik.


On Sep 9, 2019, at 13:13, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net<mailto:faisal at snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
Who is your customer ?  The Caller or the Called Entity ?

Your obligations are to your paying customer?.. (which in this case is the Called Entity)
You have zero obligations to the caller?.
If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may choose to provide it.
What your client does with it, is not your concern.
(Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients information confidential )

My two cents !

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net<mailto:Support at Snappytelecom.net>

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org>> On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM
To: Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>; voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer


You don?t know if it really is harassment.

Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for 90 days.  Have them call the police and open a case for harassment.  The police can get a subpoena and request the call data.

From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org>> on behalf of Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com<mailto:nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM
To: "voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>" <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer

Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some feedback on.

Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.

Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.

Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private. What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court order or request from law enforcement)

Nick Olsen
Network Engineer
Office: 321-408-5000 x103
Mobile: 321-794-0763
[Image removed by sender.]
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/0e107c30/attachment-0001.htm>

From nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com  Mon Sep  9 14:13:01 2019
From: nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com (Nick Olsen)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:13:01 -0400
Subject: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR12MB257780AECEED64A2CEE56E1AC7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAsJ=sA8eS2f0OqsKfReoP8MjLPeyQCAq1GvA09wbJ_avObXuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1AF69C-822B-468E-A83B-FDF0679AB72C@corp.crocker.com>
 <BL0PR12MB2577C0540A82E02154BBF5A7C7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <3FD3BDFB-92EF-43DF-9ACA-2AF32FEE3D19@gmail.com>
 <BL0PR12MB257780AECEED64A2CEE56E1AC7B70@BL0PR12MB2577.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAAsJ=sDbSk3oGK4gAt+th_CsDUXcwtwd+nAbOib-UehOxWkncA@mail.gmail.com>

With us specifically. We're Asterisk based. Asterisk doesn't pass the RPID
field to the B-LEG of the call. So it's not passed to my customer.

The better question becomes where is that line drawn? I'm just buying it
wholesale from the usual suspects. It seems like that data shouldn't be
passed to wholesale customers (Like me).

*Nick Olsen*
Network Engineer
Office: 321-408-5000 x103
Mobile: 321-794-0763



On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 2:02 PM Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
wrote:

> Cool,
>
> Looks like it is similar laws here in the USA too..
>
> I stand corrected?
>
>
>
>
> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/01/2017-25917/calling-number-identification-service-caller-id
>
>
>
> Though I am curious about a scenario?
>
> Client is running his own pbx, and running Homer ..
>
> Would the Caller ID be visible to them in the homer trace ?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
>
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
>
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Victor C <victor.chukalovskiy at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 9, 2019 1:23 PM
> *To:* Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
> *Cc:* Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com>; Nick Olsen <
> nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
>
>
>
> Can?t speak for US, but at least in Canada what you described wont fly.
>
>
>
> You have obligations as a carrier to honour restricted caller id received
> from PSTN if the caller choose to withhold it. If your paying customer is
> not happy with a private incoming call, they should contact police as
> someone earlier suggested. If deemed necessary, police or court or whatever
> authority will reach to you for the private caller id.
>
>
>
> If you just disclose caller id on your customers request as you described,
> you may just as well disregard rpid / whatever privacy flag you have from
> pstn all together. But people dont do that afaik.
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2019, at 13:13, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net> wrote:
>
> Who is your customer ?  The Caller or the Called Entity ?
>
>
>
> Your obligations are to your paying customer?.. (which in this case is the
> Called Entity)
>
> You have zero obligations to the caller?.
>
> If your client is asking for the information, and you have it, you may
> choose to provide it.
>
> What your client does with it, is not your concern.
>
> (Law enforcement overrides your agreement of keeping your clients
> information confidential )
>
>
>
> My two cents !
>
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
>
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
>
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net
>
>
>
> *From:* VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> *On Behalf Of *Matthew
> Crocker
> *Sent:* Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM
> *To:* Nick Olsen <nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
>
>
>
>
>
> You don?t know if it really is harassment.
>
>
>
> Tell the customer you have the call details and will retain the data for
> 90 days.  Have them call the police and open a case for harassment.  The
> police can get a subpoena and request the call data.
>
>
>
> *From: *VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Nick Olsen <
> nick at floridavirtualsolutions.com>
> *Date: *Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:50 PM
> *To: *"voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>
> *Subject: *[VoiceOps] Disclosing Restricted Caller ID to customer
>
>
>
> Greetings all, Had an interesting case come up today that I wanted some
> feedback on.
>
>
>
> Customer called claiming they had been receiving harassing calls to their
> business number, But the calls were caller ID blocked (Caller likely dialed
> *67 before the call). I found the CDR's for the call in question, And sure
> enough "Anonymous" <Restricted> was the displayed Calling number and CNAM.
>
>
>
> Out of curiosity, I went and pulled the capture of the same call from
> Homer. And sure enough, The actual calling number is delivered in the
> Remote-Party-ID field, With Privacy=full.
>
>
>
> Obviously, The caller asked for... and expected that data to be private.
> What's everyones thoughts on the legality of disclosing that information to
> my customer receiving the call? Would you provide it on request to the end
> user? Or limit that information only if requested by legal request? (Court
> order or request from law enforcement)
>
>
> *Nick Olsen*
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Office: 321-408-5000 x103
>
> Mobile: 321-794-0763
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190909/3fbc4cdc/attachment.htm>

From kuylenj at eastex.com  Mon Sep  9 14:30:22 2019
From: kuylenj at eastex.com (Jason Kuylen)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:30:22 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] VoiceOps Digest, Vol 121, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <mailman.69.1568052757.2114.voiceops@voiceops.org>
References: <mailman.69.1568052757.2114.voiceops@voiceops.org>
Message-ID: <8c0cf4b976614f45962cb9f4be146ad2@ETCHes1.EASTEX.OFFICE>

We have a form that the customer takes to the Sheriff's Office that basically says " I 'customer' do hereby request that Telco identify the source of calls that happened at date/time. I authorize and agree not to hold telco to any claims, demands, other legalese, etc." The customer signs it and has the sheriff or deputy sign and are given a reference number. We then call or fax the information to the Sheriff after the customer brings us back the form and performs a Caller Originated Trace.

We absolutely under no circumstances give information directly to the customer.

-----Original Message-----
From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of voiceops-request at voiceops.org
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:13 PM
To: voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: VoiceOps Digest, Vol 121, Issue 4

Send VoiceOps mailing list submissions to
voiceops at voiceops.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_voiceops&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=UsggrYHjFUWXi3kKPTjVkMUoseBpwHsFa0CMhvYkPUo&m=eiHWslAflAXZq56a6xrfbzZyNgcbtDRYsq_pEVQR9HE&s=FeO3hxrT4NO3W4Hi8DwgyMIOd6RoSJSmio8MoUdzjRk&e=
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
voiceops-request at voiceops.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
voiceops-owner at voiceops.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of VoiceOps digest..."

Important/Confidential: This communication and any files or documents attached to it are intended only for the use of the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that may be confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that the copying, disclosure, distribution, storage, retransmission or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all forms of this communication (electronic or paper).

From kim at winther.dk  Tue Sep 10 09:46:27 2019
From: kim at winther.dk (Kim Winther)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:46:27 +0200
Subject: [VoiceOps] TDS Telecom XSP?
Message-ID: <4F4F23E0-FE4D-4F61-A029-5C77E1F2DA5D@winther.dk>

Hello

Anyone here from TDS who can help us find out what XSP address 3rd parties (such as my Call Control for BroadWorks app) should use?


Best regards

Kim 
-- 
Kim Winther
Developer, etc - Office: +45 87370407 - Mobile: +45 53574760



From alex.lopez at opsys.com  Mon Sep 16 15:00:14 2019
From: alex.lopez at opsys.com (Alexander Lopez)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:00:14 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] Verizon Business CNAM admin
Message-ID: <BN8PR04MB5665A2DE5FD67A91BC59F2A7818C0@BN8PR04MB5665.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Does anyone on this list have a contact method for asking VZ business to update a CNAM record?

It appears correct on every API I can query but on any number that VZ terminates it appears incorrectly.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190916/81225601/attachment-0001.htm>

From Kili.Land at gtt.net  Mon Sep 16 15:03:45 2019
From: Kili.Land at gtt.net (Kili Land)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:03:45 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] Verizon Business CNAM admin
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR04MB5665A2DE5FD67A91BC59F2A7818C0@BN8PR04MB5665.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN8PR04MB5665A2DE5FD67A91BC59F2A7818C0@BN8PR04MB5665.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB653201B6351F05E285135DB8E28C0@AM0PR04MB6532.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Verizon does not supply us with CNAM, that is done via a dip with Syniverse.

What is the number and I can show you what Syniverse is providing just for confirmation.


From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Lopez
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 2:00 PM
To: voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: [VoiceOps] Verizon Business CNAM admin

Does anyone on this list have a contact method for asking VZ business to update a CNAM record?

It appears correct on every API I can query but on any number that VZ terminates it appears incorrectly.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190916/10f9a6c8/attachment.htm>

From Kili.Land at gtt.net  Mon Sep 16 15:04:55 2019
From: Kili.Land at gtt.net (Kili Land)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:04:55 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] Verizon Business CNAM admin
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR04MB653201B6351F05E285135DB8E28C0@AM0PR04MB6532.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN8PR04MB5665A2DE5FD67A91BC59F2A7818C0@BN8PR04MB5665.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <AM0PR04MB653201B6351F05E285135DB8E28C0@AM0PR04MB6532.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB6532E0F2623F9289AFDF0BC8E28C0@AM0PR04MB6532.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Hah - never mind....I totally spaced this was on the voiceops distro and not my from our voiceops internal distro - seems my rules for my mail sorting have broken. Please ignore my previous response.

From: Kili Land
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 2:04 PM
To: Alexander Lopez <alex.lopez at opsys.com>; voiceops at voiceops.org
Cc: Dawn Marie Henderson <dawn.henderson at gtt.net>
Subject: RE: Verizon Business CNAM admin

Verizon does not supply us with CNAM, that is done via a dip with Syniverse.

What is the number and I can show you what Syniverse is providing just for confirmation.


From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Lopez
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 2:00 PM
To: voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: [VoiceOps] Verizon Business CNAM admin

Does anyone on this list have a contact method for asking VZ business to update a CNAM record?

It appears correct on every API I can query but on any number that VZ terminates it appears incorrectly.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190916/af18413d/attachment.htm>

From geoff.mina at ringcentral.com  Tue Sep 17 11:01:26 2019
From: geoff.mina at ringcentral.com (Geoff Mina)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:01:26 +0000
Subject: [VoiceOps] ATT Toll-Free Database Capacity
In-Reply-To: <HK2PR03MB4418DD156828F2EB9A5EDAA08C8F0@HK2PR03MB4418.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HK2PR03MB4418DD156828F2EB9A5EDAA08C8F0@HK2PR03MB4418.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <HK2PR03MB441811DEBD31F9A1D2CE2C0D8C8F0@HK2PR03MB4418.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>

Greetings,
I have a vendor (BlueTone out of NY) that is claiming that the ATT Toll-Free Database has reached capacity and ATT is asking all resellers and customers to delete translations for anything that is producing material volume or CIC'd entirely to ATT.  Can anyone on the list confirm this - or are they just trying to strong arm us into allocating more traffic (which is what I assume)

Thanks,
Geoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190917/edf6a8ea/attachment-0001.htm>