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

[Todd Wolf]

Bill copy and signed resporg documents...should show a clear path of ownership. If your docs supersede the one after the fact and you didn't release the number or lose it due to non payment with notice etc..



-----Original Message-----
From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Peter Beckman via VoiceOps
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 9:30 PM
To: Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com>
Cc: VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] TF number ported out/re-assigned without authorization

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps wrote:

> On Mar 14, 2023 at 2:03:17 PM, Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> We've also put numbers into production that our carrier provided, 
>> only to find out they should not have been in their inventory at all.
>>
>
> I’ve learned this lesson, hence the test calls.  But this is a new one 
> on me; how often should we have to test all of our numbers??

  Should you HAVE to? Never. How often do you NEED to, so you can avoid
  situations like this? Once every 2 weeks in my estimation, unfortunately.

  I tried to find an affordable way to ensure that the ILEC/CLEC/Resporg of
  one of our numbers had not changed, but I couldn't find one. I also found
  that if the number moved internally, e.g. one Bandwidth customer to
  another, I'd never detect it. Test Calls and SMS messages seemed to be the
  most deterministic indicator.

  I will commend and recommend Alcazar Networks for offering a very
  reliable, though about 24 hours out of date, LNP/LRN API at affordable
  rates. USD$0.00025 per extended query, or a flat rate for higher usage.

  https://www.alcazarnetworks.com/data_services_lnp_lrn.php

  Anyone know of a RespOrg API that would tell us information about a TF
  number?

> That’s uglier than a Pontiac Aztek.

  But reliably detects carrier failures.

> I just hope thinQ can handle this.  Looking at our call records vs 
> their TF number history, it’s clear when it was ours, then taken, then 
> given out again.  I believe someone else on the list suggested that 
> previous ownership is superior to current ownership?  If it comes down 
> to that, anyone know the process to enforce it?

  The challenge here is what is ownership?

  Really, nobody owns a phone number. NANPA leases it to carriers, and
  carriers lease it to companies or individuals. It is up to the carrier to
  lease it to only one entity. Thinq failed to do so. IMHO Thinq should be
  working their butts off to fix this for you.

  I do not know of an FCC rule that would help you scare Thinq into doing
  the right thing and fixing this.

Beckman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman                                                  Internet Guy
beckman at angryox.com                                https://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------