<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">No, it won't. The rejections the other
side provides are largely optional, and in fact the FCC has issued
strict guidance about the necessary level of matching on an LSR (I
want to say it's telephone number, account number, PIN if
applicable, and zipcode, but I know there's some conditional
variations on this).<br>
<br>
Making the customer request a code from their losing carrier
violates (at least the spirit, if not the letter of) current
regulations by giving the current carrier a chance to market to an
existing customer, threaten them, or make them pay a fee or
contract termination price up front to get the code, or create
undue levels of complexity on getting the code.<br>
<br>
Currently, you can create subscriptions against a number and force
the issue, porting the number under hostile conditions is in fact
technically possible (in fact, i've done it before, with a service
provider placing a large quantity of numbers in conflict over a
unrelated dispute, conflict expiration window can be your friend
if you use it carefully). The only person who can complain about
it is the customer themselves as long as the numbers are active,
so if they're on your side and you're certain the number is
active, the losing carrier has little recourse. Adding a step
where your ability to port relies on the good graces of the losing
carrier is going to create a far worse situation.<br>
<br>
-Paul<br>
<br>
On 12/07/2015 11:06 AM, Peter Beckman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.BSF.2.20.1512071031010.34827@nog2.angryox.com"
type="cite">I hadn't heard of Iconectiv (one "n") before. I found
this:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ericsson.com/news/150326-fcc-authorizes-local-number-portability_244069647_c">http://www.ericsson.com/news/150326-fcc-authorizes-local-number-portability_244069647_c</a>
<br>
<br>
Was it Neustar prior to this change?
<br>
<br>
I dream of a process for LNP that goes like this:
<br>
<br>
1. Customer goes to current carrier, requests a Porting
Authorization
<br>
Code for a number (or set of numbers), either online or
over the phone.
<br>
<br>
2. Current carrier generates a Porting Authorization Code and
provides
<br>
it to the Customer.
<br>
<br>
3. Customer goes to new carrier, provides Phone Number,
Current
<br>
Carrier, and the Porting Authorization Code.
<br>
<br>
4. New carrier submits port request to Current Carrer with the
Number
<br>
and Porting Authorization Code. No name, billing address,
PIN/SSN,
<br>
just those three things.
<br>
<br>
5. Current carrier matches the Porting Authorization Code with
their
<br>
records for that Number and the port goes through.
<br>
<br>
Since all of this is centralized, just have Iconectiv manage it --
the
<br>
Current Carrier uses an API with Iconectiv to register the number
and get a
<br>
code back. The New Carrier uses the API with Iconectiv with the
number and
<br>
the code to verify porting. Codes expire after x days.
<br>
<br>
Will Iconectiv bring this level of sanity to porting in the NANP?
Or will
<br>
it be more of the same, with rejections for an incorrect street
abbreviation?
<br>
<br>
I know it's more complicated than that to implement, but it really
ticks me
<br>
off how difficult it is to port numbers these days if you aren't a
Tier 1
<br>
wireless carrier.
<br>
<br>
Beckman
<br>
<br>
On Sat, 5 Dec 2015, Erik Flournoy wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Aloha Group,
<br>
<br>
I'm curious to know others thoughts on where they believe the
traditional
<br>
PSTN is going vs VOIP and VoLTE. Now that Iconnectiv will be
administering
<br>
the LNP in the US I feel as though it's the best time to try and
propose
<br>
new or more up to date solutions that allow smaller carriers to
operate.
<br>
<br>
For example there is no charge to have the ability to port
numbers in NPAC,
<br>
but there is a monthly charge for the remote access to the NPAC.
Then the
<br>
interconnectivity at the LEC level. The archaic ways of telecom
have not
<br>
seemed to change much although VOIP is now in my opinion the
standard of
<br>
telecom. VOIP will soon be able to get code blocks and route via
SIP vs SS7
<br>
and LERG. LERG, ASR/LSR, SS7 all systems owned by one
monopolizing company.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
Peter Beckman
Internet Guy
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:beckman@angryox.com">beckman@angryox.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.angryox.com/">http://www.angryox.com/</a>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a>
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>