<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>*nod* I remember you from the ISP-CLEC mailing list. I probably only lurked on that list, maybe the occasional question.<br><br><div><span name="x"></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br><br><br>Midwest Internet Exchange<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<br><br><span name="x"></span><br></div><br><hr id="zwchr"><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"BackUP Telecom Consulting" <marylou@backuptelecom.com><br><b>To: </b>"Mike Hammett" <voiceops@ics-il.net><br><b>Cc: </b>"Adam Vocks" <Adam.Vocks@cticomputers.com>, voiceops@voiceops.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, August 30, 2018 1:05:35 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.<br><br>Thanks for the vote of confidence Adam! LOL!<br><br>Mike......while I do have clients that I do everything for, I never <br>insist on operating that way because it makes both of us too dependent <br>on each other. I have a lot of clients that only seek my help from time <br>to time because they only need help from time to time, so I charge on a <br>per hour basis for service provided rather than a monthly basis. I've <br>found what works best for everyone involved is to train my clients on <br>the tasks that are simple or repetitive and advise / do the work for the <br>non-repetitive tasks that require more skill / experience. I've been <br>doing it this way for 18 years and I've never run out of work, so it <br>works well for everyone involved! If you''re interested feel free to <br>give me a call! If not, that's okay too.<br><br><br>Mary Lou Carey<br><br>BackUP Telecom Consulting<br><br>Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary)<br><br>Cell: 615-796-1111<br><br>On 2018-08-30 09:04 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:<br>> I'm looking for one part (perhaps even two parts) educational and one<br>> part get it fixed.<br>> <br>> Fixing it could be as simple as not sending sending that traffic to<br>> that tandem anymore. Easiest and cheapest (unless volume dictates<br>> otherwise) way, though perhaps not the best. I've also made inquiries<br>> to Frontier as to what services they have that could help solve this,<br>> be it some value-add to take it to that tandem for me anyway, a DS1 to<br>> that other tandem, etc. I've also reached out to others (including<br>> Centurylink) for quoting out that transport. Probably need some other<br>> paperwork as well (not sure if we have an ICA with them or not, I'm<br>> guessing not), but I'm sure they'll tell me what I need to connect<br>> when I ask to connect.<br>> <br>> I'm one of those guys that likes to understand a situation vs.<br>> outsourcing from the beginning. Sure, outsourcing may end up being the<br>> best way of implementing it, but I can't just always take everyone at<br>> their word and then not understand what's going on when things go<br>> sideways.<br>> <br>> The summary seems to be that Comcast did something wrong (or at least<br>> unconventionally) and now I have to do extra work\expense to work<br>> around it.<br>> <br>> -----<br>> Mike Hammett<br>> Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>> http://www.ics-il.com<br>> <br>> Midwest Internet Exchange<br>> http://www.midwest-ix.com<br>> <br>> -------------------------<br>> <br>> FROM: "Adam Vocks" <Adam.Vocks@cticomputers.com><br>> TO: "Mike Hammett" <voiceops@ics-il.net>, paul@timmins.net<br>> CC: voiceops@voiceops.org<br>> SENT: Thursday, August 30, 2018 8:04:06 AM<br>> SUBJECT: RE: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.<br>> <br>> Hi Mike, if you have money to throw at the problem, I think I'd just<br>> hire Mary to track down and fix the problem for you. She's obviously<br>> knowledgeable, probably has enough contacts and is now familiar with<br>> your problem.<br>> <br>> Adam<br>> <br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org] On Behalf Of<br>> Mike<br>> Hammett<br>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 7:17 AM<br>> To: paul@timmins.net<br>> Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org<br>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.<br>> <br>> 1) How do I find an appropriate contact to ask?<br>> 2) From what Mary has said, Comcast is doing it wrong in my area. I<br>> suppose it's useful to know how something is SUPPOSED to be done and<br>> acknowledge that it very well could be very different in production.<br>> <br>> -----<br>> Mike Hammett<br>> Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>> http://www.ics-il.com<br>> <br>> Midwest Internet Exchange<br>> http://www.midwest-ix.com<br>> <br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: paul@timmins.net<br>> To: voiceops@ics-il.net, voiceops@voiceops.org,<br>> marylou@backuptelecom.com<br>> Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org, marylou@backuptelecom.com<br>> Sent: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:04:33 -0500 (CDT)<br>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.<br>> <br>> <div dir="auto">The block owner often has a connection to the ILEC<br>> tandem for their block in that range, but that's not always<br>> necessary (I don't have any ilec FGD groups in the Chicago LATA,<br>> so<br>> it's not universally necessary).<div dir="auto"><br></div><div<br>> dir="auto">The only way to know for certain is to check the LERG or<br>> just<br>> ask the carrier, which is what I usually do because I don't like<br>> giving money to iconnectiv, since they tend to like to send me legally<br>> cartoonish Cease and Descists every few years for the last<br>> decade.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div<br>> class="gmail_quote">On Aug 29, 2018 21:49, Mike Hammett<br>> <voiceops@ics-il.net> wrote:<br><blockquote><html><head><style>p<br>> {<br>> margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style="font-family:<br>> arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000">So then<br>> in<br>> my situation:<br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&<br>> amp;exchange=901<br><br><br>Comcast has 815-901 as<br>> well as<br>> 815-901-0. Verizon Wireless has 1k-8k. 9k I guess would be either<br>> not<br>> provisioned or default back to Comcast because they have the 10k<br>> block.<br>> Because they have the parent 10k block, are they then required to have<br>> a<br>> connection to the tandem I'm on anyway? The 1k block I now<br>> understand could be elsewhere, but the 10k?<br><br>Interesting that<br>> AT&T U-Verse voice isn't on legacy AT&T<br>> infrastructure.<br><br><div><span></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike<br>> Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing<br>> Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br><br><br>Midwest Internet<br>> Exchange<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<br><br><span></span><br></div><br><br>> <hr id="zwchr"><div<br>> style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:n<br>> one;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From:<br>> </b>paul@timmins.net<br><b>To: </b>voiceops@ics-il.net,<br>> voiceops@voiceops.org, marylou@backuptelecom.com<br><b>Cc:<br>> </b>voiceops@voiceops.org, marylou@backuptelecom.com<br><b>Sent:<br>> </b>Wednesday,<br>> August<br>> 29, 2018 7:08:15 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems,<br>> etc.<br><br><div dir="auto">Thousands blocks are basically just a<br>> fancy<br>> LNP operation. Your tandem homing has to follow 10k blocks, and the 1k<br>> blocks are basically mass ported to your LRN. Even if the numbers are<br>> usually homed a certain way because they are in a ratecenter, they<br>> won't be in this case because they are ported numbers and supposed<br>> to be routed to your LRN. Example would be the Detroit LATA where<br>> there<br>> are about 6 or so AT&T and other tandems. I'm homed off<br>> WBFDMIMN20T. The local carrier has local/local toll trunks to me all<br>> over the place, but all intercarrier calls and out of area calls other<br>> than local traffic from AT&T LEC comes through my LRN 248-574-7678<br>> off WBFDMIMN20T. This saves me from having to create FGD trunking<br>> ports<br>> to all the other tandems in the region, only the barely used<br>> local/intra<br>> trunking from AT&T ILEC, who has moved most customers to their<br>> uverse VoIP<br>> affilia<br>> te here, and those don't use the local/intra trunks either.<div<br>> dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It lowers my capex and opex<br>> having<br>> potentially over provisioned/underutilized trunking all over the<br>> place,<br>> saves numbers and decreases the need for splits and overlays, and even<br>> saves at&t money. Only people who lose out are ribbon and<br>> metaswitch<br>> (and whoever supports at&ts 5ESS and EWSD deployments) on<br>> licensing<br>> and support costs for unneeded channels.</div></div><div<br>> class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 29, 2018<br>> 19:51,<br>> Mike Hammett <voiceops@ics-il.net><br>> wrote:<br><blockquote><style>p<br>> { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family:<br>> arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000"><font<br>> face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:<br>> 10pt;">"</span></font><span style="font-family: "Times New<br>> Roman"; font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,<br>> 255);">they give you market entry without the technic<br>> al need<br>> to establish extra homing arrangements that aren't beneficial to<br>> you."</span><div><br></div><div>Could you elaborate on<br>> that?<br><br><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;<br>> font-size: 10pt;"><span></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike<br>> Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing<br>> Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br><br><br>Midwest Internet<br>> Exchange<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<br><br><span></span><br></div><br><br>> <hr id="zwchr" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;<br>> font-size: 10pt;"><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial,<br>> sans-serif;<br>> font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style:<br>> normal; text-decoration: none;"><b>From:<br>> </b>paul@timmins.net<br><b>To:<br>> </b>marylou@backuptelecom.com, ptimmins@clearrate.com,<br>> voiceops@voiceops.org<br><b>Cc: </b>voiceops@voiceops.org,<br>> ptimmins@clearrate.com<br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, August 29, 2018<br>> 6:05:39 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems,<br>> etc.<br><br><div dir="auto">I've had some i<br>> nteresti<br>> ng arguments with other carriers regarding their obligation to<br>> connect<br>> to us. Oh, you aren't connected where I'm homed? Go order<br>> connectivity then.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">They have<br>> a<br>> little more power to make demands when you have more than 24 standing<br>> calls to them, but by and large with these stubborn providers we never<br>> do, and when they have complained i've given them a location they<br>> can install 1 way trunks to me at (as I have no desire to terminate<br>> traffic to them directly), and they always balk and find some other<br>> way<br>> of dealing with it because it was all well and good until it was their<br>> money they were spending instead of mine. The trick ends up being to<br>> never do 10k blocks when you don't have to. Thousands blocks<br>> aren't just great for number consolidation, they give you market<br>> entry without the technical need to establish extra homing<br>> arrangements<br>> that aren't beneficial to you. Sure sometimes you're the guy<br>> who<br>> has to own<br>> the 10k<br>> block, bu<blockquote><p>That's true if the ILEC has an agreement<br>> with the tandem provider. There<br>> are some little ILECs that have their own tandem and refuse to use the<br>> <br>> big ILEC tandem provider! You have to look at the routing of the ILEC<br>> switch in the LERG to figure that out.<br>> <br>> Mary Lou Carey<br>> <br>> BackUP Telecom Consulting<br>> <br>> Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary)<br>> <br>> Cell: 615-796-1111<br>> <br>> On 2018-08-29 11:38 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:<br>> > You don't actually have to establish connectivity to all<br>> ILECs<br>> in an<br>> > area, even if you are porting out numbers from their ratecenters.<br>> The<br>> > ILECs already have to have a way to reach any other tandem in the<br>> LATA<br>> > so as long as you have an LRN homed on A tandem in the area, and<br>> port<br>> > your numbers to that, you're good to go.<br>> ><br>> > The ILECs don't LIKE it, but if we cared what they truly<br>> liked<br>> we'd<br>> > all just leave the market.<br>> ><br>> > On Aug 29, 2018 12:33, BackUP Telecom Consulting<br>> > wrote:<br>> ><br>> > When there are multiple ILECs in a LATA like in LA - LATA 730,<br>> you<br>> > would<br>> > set up an interconnection point with each ILEC. So you'd have<br>> one for<br>> > the AT&T areas and one for the old Verizon areas. When you<br>> have<br>> trunks<br>> ><br>> > to both carriers in the LATA, you can use your own network to<br>> switch<br>> > traffic from the one LATA to the other LATA, but you can't<br>> deliver it<br>> > to<br>> > the ILEC and expect them to hand it off to the other ILEC. It<br>> would<br>> > work<br>> > the same with the third party providers.......as long as they<br>> have<br>> a<br>> > connection in both ILEC areas, then they can use their own<br>> network<br>> to<br>> > deliver the traffic from the one ILEC area to the other ILEC<br>> area.<br>> ><br>> > Mary Lou Carey<br>> ><br>> > BackUP Telecom Consulting<br>> ><br>> > Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary)<br>> ><br>> > Cell: 615-796-1111<br>> ><br>> > On 2018-08-28 08:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:<br>> >> I thought everyone connected to the ILEC-hosted tandem<br>> responsible<br>> > for<br>> >> the rate centers where the number blocks were assigned, but<br>> that<br>> > seems<br>> >> to not always be the case when there are multiple ILEC-hosted<br>> > tandems<br>> >> in a LATA.<br>> >><br>> >> -----<br>> >> Mike Hammett<br>> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>> >> http://www.ics-il.com<br>> >><br>> >> Midwest Internet Exchange<br>> >> http://www.midwest-ix.com<br>> >><br>> >> -------------------------<br>> >><br>> >> FROM: "Erik"<br>> >> TO: "Mike Hammett"<br>> >> CC: voiceops@voiceops.org<br>> >> SENT: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:25:40 PM<br>> >> SUBJECT: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.<br>> >><br>> >> Most providers simply connect to the tandem at the ILEC. The<br>> end<br>> >> office transit termination and origination cost is SO LOW<br>> that<br>> it<br>> >> doesn't make since to have a switch or access point at<br>> the<br>> end<br>> > office.<br>> >> Since most things are ILEC if not all are VOIP everything is<br>> coming<br>> >> from a centralize switch point. Hopefully all the 1970's<br>> billing<br>> >> methods will disappear.<br>> >><br>> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Mike Hammett<br>> >> wrote:<br>> >><br>> >>> Meaning if I thought were true? I had just assumed that<br>> Inteliquent<br>> >>> did have the connections to every tandem in the LATAs<br>> they<br>> serve,<br>> >>> given that (my thought) that you could only port numbers<br>> on<br>> the<br>> > same<br>> >>> tandem, so universal coverage would require connections<br>> to<br>> every<br>> >>> tandem. We're actually looking at someone like<br>> Inteliquent to<br>> > expand<br>> >>> our footprint.<br>> >>><br>> >>> So I'm supposed to be connected to every tandem in my<br>> LATA? In my<br>> >>> LATA, there are only two (I believe), but some LATAs<br>> (like<br>> Chicago)<br>> >>> have several. I'm supposed to drag a DS1 (or use<br>> Inteliquent, etc.<br>> >>> if available) to connect to each one, even if I don't<br>> provide<br>> >>> service in the rate centers traditionally served by that<br>> tandem? It<br>> >>> seems like Comcast threw a dart at a dart board in<br>> choosing<br>> which<br>> >>> tandem to connect to vs. going with the one that everyone<br>> else in<br>> >>> that town uses.<br>> >>><br>> >>> So then I could port a number from any rate center in my<br>> LATA (say<br>> >>> Savanna) and point it to my LRN, living off of a tandem<br>> switch that<br>> >>> the Savanna ILEC isn't connected to (from my outside<br>> world<br>> >>> perspective)? Is there even the LATA constraint? Given<br>> the<br>> porting<br>> >>> limitations I had experienced in the VoIP world, I<br>> assumed<br>> it was a<br>> >>> tandem-by-tandem basis.<br>> >>><br>> >>> So the LERG shows which tandem I need to send traffic to<br>> if<br>> I want<br>> >>> to talk to them, but they could send their outbound calls<br>> to a<br>> >>> different tandem? My current customer complaint is for<br>> calls that<br>> >>> we're sending to Comcast, apparently homed off of the<br>> other tandem.<br>> >>><br>> >>> If everyone is supposed to be on every tandem, then why<br>> can't the<br>> >>> tandem I'm on just accept the calls I'm sending<br>> to<br>> Comcast, since<br>> >>> Comcast should be there? Obviously me not being on the<br>> other tandem<br>> >>> would affect inbound traffic to me.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Is there another service I should be paying Frontier for<br>> to<br>> get me<br>> >>> to the other tandem with some value-add service? I know<br>> CenturyLink<br>> >>> hops through almost every town going that way (former<br>> LightCore and<br>> >>> others before route). Frontier or CenturyLink may be able<br>> to get me<br>> >>> a DS1 to the other tandem if I need that.<br>> >>><br>> >>> I'm aware that I could still be completely missing<br>> the<br>> mark.<br>> >>><br>> >>> BTW: Thanks for TelcoData. I subscribed a long time ago,<br>> but<br>> > haven't<br>> >>> for many ages.<br>> >>><br>> >>> -----<br>> >>> Mike Hammett<br>> >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>> >>> http://www.ics-il.com<br>> >>><br>> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange<br>> >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com<br>> >>><br>> >>> -------------------------<br>> >>><br>> >>> FROM: "Paul Timmins"<br>> >>> TO: "Mike Hammett"<br>> >>> CC: voiceops@voiceops.org<br>> >>> SENT: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 5:19:11 PM<br>> >>> SUBJECT: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.<br>> >>><br>> >>> If that were true, you wouldn't be able to use<br>> inteliquent (et al)<br>> >>> as your access tandem. Everyone is supposed to be<br>> directly<br>> or<br>> >>> indirectly connected to every tandem in the LATA (which<br>> you<br>> can't<br>> >>> independently verify, as telcodata and the LERG both show<br>> >>> terminating tandem information to reach that end office,<br>> not what<br>> >>> tandems the end office is hooked to to terminate calls.<br>> >>><br>> >>> On Aug 28, 2018 17:47, Mike Hammett wrote:<br>> >>><br>> >>> I thought you had to be on the same tandem to port a<br>> number, but<br>> >>> with what our tandem operator (Frontier) is telling me,<br>> this isn't<br>> >>> the case.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Comcast ported a number from us in town A. The LRN they<br>> pointed to<br>> >>> is based in town B (per TelcoData). The tandem generally<br>> used by<br>> >>> carriers in both towns is based in town B. Naturally, we<br>> send<br>> >>> traffic to that tandem.<br>> >>><br>> >>> The operator of that tandem is telling us that the LRN is<br>> actually<br>> >>> homed off of a different tandem in our LATA (operated by<br>> >>> CenturyLink) in town C. Unfortunately, I can't<br>> corroborate this<br>> >>> information with TelcoData the only rate center I see off<br>> of that<br>> >>> tandem in TelcoData is an AT&T town next door.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Where can I read up authoritatively on the porting<br>> requirements<br>> > that<br>> >>> would apply to this and related bits of info I should<br>> know?<br>> >>><br>> >>> I'm checking on our LERG access as I know that has<br>> the<br>> > authoritative<br>> >>> information, but I don't have that access at the<br>> moment. Maybe<br>> > we're<br>> >>> not subscribed to it.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Number NPA-NXX in town A:<br>> >>><br>> >><br>> ><br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex<br>> change=991<br>> > [1]<br>> >>><br>> >>> LRN NPA-NXX in town B:<br>> >>><br>> >><br>> ><br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex<br>> change=901<br>> > [2]<br>> >>><br>> >>> Tandem in town B:<br>> >>><br>> >><br>> ><br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILX<br>> A50T<br>> > [3]<br>> >>> Tandem in town C:<br>> >>><br>> >><br>> ><br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILX<br>> A50T<br>> > [4]<br>> >>><br>> >>> Thanks.<br>> >>><br>> >>> -----<br>> >>> Mike Hammett<br>> >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>> >>> http://www.ics-il.com<br>> >>><br>> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange<br>> >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com<br>> >>><br>> >>> _______________________________________________<br>> >>> VoiceOps mailing list<br>> >>> VoiceOps@voiceops.org<br>> >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops<br>> >> _______________________________________________<br>> >> VoiceOps mailing list<br>> >> VoiceOps@voiceops.org<br>> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops<br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > VoiceOps mailing list<br>> > VoiceOps@voiceops.org<br>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Links:<br>> > ------<br>> > [1]<br>> ><br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex<br>> change=991<br>> > [2]<br>> ><br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex<br>> change=901<br>> > [3]<br>> ><br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILX<br>> A50T<br>> > [4]<br>> ><br>> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILX<br>> A50T<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> VoiceOps mailing list<br>> VoiceOps@voiceops.org<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops<br>> </p></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br><br>> VoiceOps mailing<br>> list<br>VoiceOps@voiceops.org<br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinf<br>> o/voiceops<br></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html><br>> </blockquote></body></html><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> VoiceOps mailing list<br>> VoiceOps@voiceops.org<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> VoiceOps mailing list<br>> VoiceOps@voiceops.org<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops<br></div><br></div></body></html>