[VoiceOps] TF number ported out/re-assigned without authorization

Carlos Alvarez caalvarez at gmail.com
Tue Mar 14 13:39:41 EDT 2023

 We don’t list DIDs on our invoices when customers have a large number (and
they have close to 1k).  We do have CDRs showing that we test called it
last year, and thinQ has confirmed that a mistake caused it to be taken
back by their resporg.  So I think ownership evidence is solid.

I don’t know what you mean by NASC it, that’s probably access we do not
have, as an ultra-small ITSP.  We just go through thinQ and Bandwidth for
all number management and porting.

They are trying to get it released back from Telnyx.  If that is refused,
we’re going to be headed into a storm, I think.

On Mar 14, 2023 at 9:54:48 AM, Ivan Kovacevic <ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca>

> Do you have a <30 day invoice with the number on it?
> I would try to NASC it... it may set off a pissing match between you and
> the current user, but if you can show that you had it first... you may win
> it.
> [image: Star Telecom - Cloud Communications and Customer Experience
> Solutions] <http://www.startelecom.ca>
>   <https://www.linkedin.com/company/star-telecom-www-startelecom-ca-/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/startelecomcanada>
> <https://twitter.com/startelecom?lang=en>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7Us9bsIx2_ua1-LSQ3FGhw>
> *Ivan Kovacevic*
> www.startelecom.ca
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:45 PM Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
> voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
>> This is a huge problem, so while I’m waiting for thinQ to tell me what
>> they can do, I thought I’d check with my other resources.  They gave us a
>> small block of TF numbers some time back, and we assigned them to one
>> customer.  We tested them in March of 2022.  One of them was not put into
>> use as it was for a pre-planned project this year; the customer needed to
>> physically publish the number on posters, via letters, and by email.  Now
>> it’s time to start the project, and we find out that the number has been
>> given to Telnyx.  We were told by thinQ that it was part of a bad inventory
>> load, but that can’t be possible since it did work.  And we also have
>> working numbers from the same batch (for now…that’s worrisome too).
>> Currently the number goes to a fax tone, and we don’t know who owns it.
>> I have not tried sending a fax.  I’m not sure how I’d start that
>> conversation.
>> This seems like a massive failing on thinQ’s part.  The end user is a
>> regional government authority that has spread the number far and wide.  In
>> fact if you google the number, you get the government agency’s info.  What
>> can we force them to do?  The project was to go live on Monday.
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original
> message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20230314/d16b51e1/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the VoiceOps mailing list