Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

I pseudo know one of the guys that bought the NW operations. I couldn't get 
much out of him, but I was assuming they were going to overbuild the copper 
with glass. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Dev"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 1:47:56 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 

Also, leak documents showing you chronically underfunded builds to pay 
shareholder dividends. Because that’s going to work long term. 


https://stopthecap.com/2020/03/31/frontiers-inner-secrets-revealed-we-underinvested-for-years/
 


They sold off the northwest states, which have since been resold twice. But who 
wants plant that will suck millions to make work at some acceptable level? 
Sounds like a fire sale, you get the parts you want with the ones no one wants. 





On Apr 15, 2020, at 5:08 AM, Mark Radabaugh < m...@amplex.net > wrote: 


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
 


Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money. Round and round it goes. 


Mark -- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 




-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Look for other CLECs that have a presence on that other tandem. 




https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-by-ratecenter-state?ratecenter=COMANCHE=TX
 




Anyone using Inteliquent\Onvoy should be able to port. That is, unless they 
never built it, don't want more traffic there, etc. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 1:29:29 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Thanks, 
I have found a contact at a Frontier tandem. I doubt that will help as the 
mechanics of porting are a lot different than the process to get it moving. 
Hopefully he can find someone that can give me the exact "what it takes". It 
seems like it might take a CLEC status and a connection to that CLLI. 


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:45 PM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Different tandem switch. 


https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=BWWDTXXA02T 
vs 
https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=SANGTXXA02T 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Lewis Bergman" < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:56:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Let me be clear. Most areas we can port easily from Frontier Like Ballinger and 
Winters. But Some, like Comanche, TX I can't. 


the LATA 961 is the same for both. 
The problems are in NPA 325 NXX 330 & 356 and NPA 254 NXX 879 in this example. 


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 





Well, that’s true. Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you can port 
numbers. 

We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs. Usually we can 
port numbers to Level3. A couple towns in our service area they aren’t, or 
didn’t used to be, a choice. Sometimes we had to use Bandwidth.com, there were 
a couple others that came and went, more recently Inteliquent has emerged as 
another choice with wide coverage. Inteliquent has a complicated history of 
acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy, Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I 
don’t know the whole story. 




From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM 
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that was an 
issue. 
I don't think it's been an issue recently. 


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 






-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 


Lewis Bergman 
325-439-0533 Cell 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 


Lewis Bergman 
325-439-0533 Cell 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Dev]

Also, leak documents showing you chronically underfunded builds to pay 
shareholder dividends. Because that’s going to work long term.

https://stopthecap.com/2020/03/31/frontiers-inner-secrets-revealed-we-underinvested-for-years/
 


They sold off the northwest states, which have since been resold twice. But who 
wants plant that will suck millions to make work at some acceptable level? 
Sounds like a fire sale, you get the parts you want with the ones no one wants.

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 5:08 AM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
>  
> 
> 
> Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it 
> goes.
> 
> Mark
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Lewis Bergman]

Ages ago I had a full NXX in each rate center within about a hundred miles
of us. I think there were about 52 of them. I could use many, but many
ended up requiring us to get a T1 from that rate center to our CLLI to use.
As a result, maybe 20 something of them never got used. At that time we
were doing a lot of creative things with our paging  system so we didn't
have to pay anything other than OCN management and 502 reporting for all
that.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Many VoIP providers interface with Neutral Tandem, Peerless, or similar
> networks, so your call path doesn't touch that local switch. For anyone
> else (say the incumbent), the call path *WILL* involve that local tandem.
> Most providers aren't willing (or allowed) to half-ass it by having a
> number in that town and then just not connecting to the local tandem,
> effectively isolating from anyone that *IS* on that local tandem.
>
> The local and long distance tandems are switches of last resort.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------
> *From: *"Adam Moffett" 
> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:45:54 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it
>
> Ok, so I'm a ported voip number calling another ported voip number (and
> that's more common today than any actual PSTN termination). What does the
> local tandem have to do with it anymore?
>
>
> On 4/16/2020 1:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as
> Inteliquent's Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a
> termination provider of some kind, through a variety of sold and resold
> long distance services, finally arriving at an area's long distance tandem
> switch. From there, CLECs attach their switches (whether local or over
> some kind of DS1 transport) to that switch. Calls are then completed to the
> customer. I don't know of any bypass requirements on this switch.
>
> If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch
> (generally if not always at the same location) that just serves the
> ratecenters in that LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town
> served by this tandem, you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often.
> The tandem switch operator will then make the two parties (you and the
> other operator you have more than 24 calls to) arrange your own direct
> DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, but it could very well be the
> cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the market. If that ILEC
> switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty cheap. If that
> ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, you may
> have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you
> hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because
> there are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between
> major ILEC in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high
> cost scenario, you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to
> the point where you don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of
> traffic there (usually same ratecenter).
>
>
> That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed
> up) no matter what.
>
> LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a
> carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used
> for PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on
> the actual dialed number.
>
> BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to
> the carrier.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> &l

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Lewis Bergman]

Thanks,
I have found a contact at a Frontier tandem. I doubt that will help as the
mechanics of porting are a lot different than the process to get it moving.
Hopefully he can find someone that can give me the exact "what it takes".
It seems like it might take a CLEC status and a connection to that CLLI.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:45 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Different tandem switch.
>
>
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=BWWDTXXA02T
> vs
>
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=SANGTXXA02T
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------
> *From: *"Lewis Bergman" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:56:17 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it
>
> Let me be clear. Most areas we can port easily from Frontier Like
> Ballinger and Winters. But Some, like Comanche, TX I can't.
>
> the LATA 961 is the same for both.
> The problems are in NPA 325 NXX 330 & 356 and NPA 254 NXX 879 in this
> example.
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Well, that’s true.  Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you
>> can port numbers.
>>
>>
>>
>> We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs.  Usually we
>> can port numbers to Level3.  A couple towns in our service area they
>> aren’t, or didn’t used to be, a choice.  Sometimes we had to use
>> Bandwidth.com, there were a couple others that came and went, more recently
>> Inteliquent has emerged as another choice with wide coverage.  Inteliquent
>> has a complicated history of acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy,
>> Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I don’t know the whole story.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it
>>
>>
>>
>> I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they
>> can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why that
>> was an issue.
>>
>> I don't think it's been an issue recently.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>
>> We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without
>> success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to
>> get that done?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>>
>> On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>> > So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing
>> > ever happened?
>>
>>
>> Contracts are only held against the little guys.
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Lewis Bergman
> 325-439-0533 Cell
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Many VoIP providers interface with Neutral Tandem, Peerless, or similar 
networks, so your call path doesn't touch that local switch. For anyone else 
(say the incumbent), the call path *WILL* involve that local tandem. Most 
providers aren't willing (or allowed) to half-ass it by having a number in that 
town and then just not connecting to the local tandem, effectively isolating 
from anyone that *IS* on that local tandem. 


The local and long distance tandems are switches of last resort. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:45:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Ok, so I'm a ported voip number calling another ported voip number (and that's 
more common today than any actual PSTN termination). What does the local tandem 
have to do with it anymore? 



On 4/16/2020 1:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as Inteliquent's 
Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a termination provider of 
some kind, through a variety of sold and resold long distance services, finally 
arriving at an area's long distance tandem switch. From there, CLECs attach 
their switches (whether local or over some kind of DS1 transport) to that 
switch. Calls are then completed to the customer. I don't know of any bypass 
requirements on this switch. 


If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch (generally 
if not always at the same location) that just serves the ratecenters in that 
LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town served by this tandem, 
you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often. The tandem switch operator 
will then make the two parties (you and the other operator you have more than 
24 calls to) arrange your own direct DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, 
but it could very well be the cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the 
market. If that ILEC switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty 
cheap. If that ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, 
you may have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you 
hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because there 
are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between major ILEC 
in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high cost scenario, 
you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to the point where you 
don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of traffic there (usually same 
ratecenter). 




That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed up) 
no matter what. 


LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a 
carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used for 
PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on the 
actual dialed number. 


BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to the 
carrier. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number. I've heard a similar 
explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that area), but I'm 
wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to achieve. Then I wonder: 
Isn't there a central LNP database? (Used to be Neustar, but it's another 
company now). The LNP database tells a caller where to send the callwhy 
would they need a physical connection to any particular place to make that 
happen? 



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped caring. But 
I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar. If so, check Voip Innovations 
and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the number in. 






On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thurs

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

In the LATA I do most of my work in, Frontier is the dominate ILEC. They have a 
tandem switch in the largest town that serves all Frontier rate centers (20+) 
in the LATA, plus one independent. CenturyLink has another tandem switch. They 
have a handful (5 - 10) of ratecenters and their tandem switch also serves the 
couple AT rate centers. 




If you get numbers in a given rate center, I * believe* you have to have them 
attach to the same tandem switch that the ILEC in that rate center uses. I 
believe you can port any number in the LATA, but you still have to have a way 
of reaching that other tandem switch. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:42:59 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as Inteliquent's 
Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a termination provider of 
some kind, through a variety of sold and resold long distance services, finally 
arriving at an area's long distance tandem switch. From there, CLECs attach 
their switches (whether local or over some kind of DS1 transport) to that 
switch. Calls are then completed to the customer. I don't know of any bypass 
requirements on this switch. 


If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch (generally 
if not always at the same location) that just serves the ratecenters in that 
LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town served by this tandem, 
you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often. The tandem switch operator 
will then make the two parties (you and the other operator you have more than 
24 calls to) arrange your own direct DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, 
but it could very well be the cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the 
market. If that ILEC switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty 
cheap. If that ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, 
you may have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you 
hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because there 
are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between major ILEC 
in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high cost scenario, 
you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to the point where you 
don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of traffic there (usually same 
ratecenter). 




That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed up) 
no matter what. 


LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a 
carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used for 
PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on the 
actual dialed number. 


BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to the 
carrier. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number. I've heard a similar 
explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that area), but I'm 
wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to achieve. Then I wonder: 
Isn't there a central LNP database? (Used to be Neustar, but it's another 
company now). The LNP database tells a caller where to send the callwhy 
would they need a physical connection to any particular place to make that 
happen? 



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped caring. But 
I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar. If so, check Voip Innovations 
and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the number in. 






On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


I'

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Adam Moffett]

Ok, so I'm a ported voip number calling another ported voip number (and 
that's more common today than any actual PSTN termination). What does 
the local tandem have to do with it anymore?



On 4/16/2020 1:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as 
Inteliquent's Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a 
termination provider of some kind, through a variety of sold and 
resold long distance services, finally arriving at an area's long 
distance tandem switch. From there, CLECs attach their switches 
(whether local or over some kind of DS1 transport) to that switch. 
Calls are then completed to the customer. I don't know of any bypass 
requirements on this switch.


If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch 
(generally if not always at the same location) that just serves the 
ratecenters in that LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large 
town served by this tandem, you more than likely will cross 24 peak 
calls often. The tandem switch operator will then make the two parties 
(you and the other operator you have more than 24 calls to) arrange 
your own direct DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, but it 
could very well be the cable MSO if they have a high penetration in 
the market. If that ILEC switch is in the same building as you, the 
DS1 is pretty cheap. If that ILEC switch is some independent operator 
that's quite far away, you may have few options of connecting directly 
with them. It could cost you hundreds if not thousands of dollars a 
month for that DS1, purely because there are limited options. 
Obviously there's a range of scenarios between major ILEC in the same 
building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high cost scenario, 
you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to the point 
where you don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of traffic 
there (usually same ratecenter).



That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I 
messed up) no matter what.


LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) 
that a carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is 
just used for PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it 
routes based on the actual dialed number.


BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block 
to the carrier.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Adam Moffett" 
*To: *af@af.afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number.  I've heard 
a similar explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that 
area), but I'm wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to 
achieve.  Then I wonder: Isn't there a central LNP database?  (Used to 
be Neustar, but it's another company now). The LNP database tells a 
caller where to send the callwhy would they need a physical 
connection to any particular place to make that happen?



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped 
caring.  But I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar.  If so, 
check Voip Innovations and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port 
the number in.





On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to
that area's tandem switch(es).

Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached
to a tandem (in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP
carrier doesn't connect to. It could also mean that there is a
high volume of calls with that particular CO and the cost for them
to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you have over
a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem
switch capacity.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <htt

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Different tandem switch. 


https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=BWWDTXXA02T 
vs 
https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=SANGTXXA02T 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:56:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Let me be clear. Most areas we can port easily from Frontier Like Ballinger and 
Winters. But Some, like Comanche, TX I can't. 


the LATA 961 is the same for both. 
The problems are in NPA 325 NXX 330 & 356 and NPA 254 NXX 879 in this example. 


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 





Well, that’s true. Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you can port 
numbers. 

We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs. Usually we can 
port numbers to Level3. A couple towns in our service area they aren’t, or 
didn’t used to be, a choice. Sometimes we had to use Bandwidth.com, there were 
a couple others that came and went, more recently Inteliquent has emerged as 
another choice with wide coverage. Inteliquent has a complicated history of 
acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy, Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I 
don’t know the whole story. 




From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM 
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that was an 
issue. 
I don't think it's been an issue recently. 


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 






-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 


Lewis Bergman 
325-439-0533 Cell 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as Inteliquent's 
Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a termination provider of 
some kind, through a variety of sold and resold long distance services, finally 
arriving at an area's long distance tandem switch. From there, CLECs attach 
their switches (whether local or over some kind of DS1 transport) to that 
switch. Calls are then completed to the customer. I don't know of any bypass 
requirements on this switch. 


If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch (generally 
if not always at the same location) that just serves the ratecenters in that 
LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town served by this tandem, 
you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often. The tandem switch operator 
will then make the two parties (you and the other operator you have more than 
24 calls to) arrange your own direct DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, 
but it could very well be the cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the 
market. If that ILEC switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty 
cheap. If that ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, 
you may have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you 
hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because there 
are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between major ILEC 
in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high cost scenario, 
you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to the point where you 
don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of traffic there (usually same 
ratecenter). 




That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed up) 
no matter what. 


LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a 
carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used for 
PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on the 
actual dialed number. 


BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to the 
carrier. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number. I've heard a similar 
explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that area), but I'm 
wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to achieve. Then I wonder: 
Isn't there a central LNP database? (Used to be Neustar, but it's another 
company now). The LNP database tells a caller where to send the callwhy 
would they need a physical connection to any particular place to make that 
happen? 



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped caring. But 
I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar. If so, check Voip Innovations 
and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the number in. 






On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that was an 
issue. 

I don't think it's been an issue recently. 


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 






-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Lewis Bergman]

Let me be clear. Most areas we can port easily from Frontier Like Ballinger
and Winters. But Some, like Comanche, TX I can't.

the LATA 961 is the same for both.
The problems are in NPA 325 NXX 330 & 356 and NPA 254 NXX 879 in this
example.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Well, that’s true.  Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you
> can port numbers.
>
>
>
> We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs.  Usually we
> can port numbers to Level3.  A couple towns in our service area they
> aren’t, or didn’t used to be, a choice.  Sometimes we had to use
> Bandwidth.com, there were a couple others that came and went, more recently
> Inteliquent has emerged as another choice with wide coverage.  Inteliquent
> has a complicated history of acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy,
> Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I don’t know the whole story.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it
>
>
>
> I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they
> can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why that
> was an issue.
>
> I don't think it's been an issue recently.
>
>
>
> On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>
> We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without
> success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to
> get that done?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
> On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> > So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing
> > ever happened?
>
>
> Contracts are only held against the little guys.
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Adam Moffett]

Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number.  I've heard a 
similar explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that 
area), but I'm wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to 
achieve.  Then I wonder: Isn't there a central LNP database?  (Used to 
be Neustar, but it's another company now). The LNP database tells a 
caller where to send the callwhy would they need a physical 
connection to any particular place to make that happen?



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped 
caring.  But I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar.  If so, 
check Voip Innovations and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the 
number in.





On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that 
area's tandem switch(es).


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to 
a tandem (in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier 
doesn't connect to. It could also mean that there is a high volume of 
calls with that particular CO and the cost for them to get a PRI 
directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you have over a certain volume 
to a particular switch, the tandem operator will often make you 
connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch capacity.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Adam Moffett" 
*To: *af@af.afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because 
they can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never 
understood why that was an issue.


I don't think it's been an issue recently.


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's
without success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it
takes to be able to get that done?

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen mailto:se...@rollernet.us>> wrote:

On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as
if nothing
> ever happened?


Contracts are only held against the little guys.

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Ken Hohhof]

Well, that’s true.  Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you can 
port numbers.

 

We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs.  Usually we can 
port numbers to Level3.  A couple towns in our service area they aren’t, or 
didn’t used to be, a choice.  Sometimes we had to use Bandwidth.com, there were 
a couple others that came and went, more recently Inteliquent has emerged as 
another choice with wide coverage.  Inteliquent has a complicated history of 
acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy, Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I 
don’t know the whole story.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why that was an 
issue.  

I don't think it's been an issue recently.

 

On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen mailto:se...@rollernet.us> > wrote:

On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened?


Contracts are only held against the little guys.

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[chuck]

In the LATA data base each switch is specified to be port capable or not.  I 
think they have to make the switch port capable if they receive a “bona fide” 
request.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 8:57 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 

Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: af@af.afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it


I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why that was an 
issue.  


I don't think it's been an issue recently.



On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

  We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 

  On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened?


Contracts are only held against the little guys.

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


   

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that was an 
issue. 

I don't think it's been an issue recently. 


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 






-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Adam Moffett]

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they 
can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why 
that was an issue.


I don't think it's been an issue recently.


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's 
without success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes 
to be able to get that done?


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen > wrote:


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if
nothing
> ever happened?


Contracts are only held against the little guys.

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Ken Hohhof]

We have done it for years, I haven't ported a Frontier number for a few
months though.  Usually if there's a problem, it's they claim there's an LNP
freeze on the account and we have to get the customer to call Frontier
customer service and have the freeze removed.  Don't do this preemptively
though, that may result in the opposite of what you want.

The only other problem would be the customer name or address doesn't match
what is on the account.  This is to protect against slamming.  Best to get a
copy of the most recent Frontier bill.

If the port is rejected, you should get a reason code.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:03 AM
To: Mike Hammett 
Cc: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

Yup. We do it. My home phone VoIP number used to be a frontier number. 

What issue are you having?

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> --=_Part_1487_2018052107.1587038324397
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> We've been doing it for 15 years. I'm not the one that does it, but I
believe we enter them into their VFO system. We use that for other CLEC
things, so I don't know if a voice-only CLEC would have that same tool or
not. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Lewis Bergman"  
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:10:11 AM 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it...

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Matt Hoppes]

Yup. We do it. My home phone VoIP number used to be a frontier number. 

What issue are you having?

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> --=_Part_1487_2018052107.1587038324397
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> We've been doing it for 15 years. I'm not the one that does it, but I believe 
> we enter them into their VFO system. We use that for other CLEC things, so I 
> don't know if a voice-only CLEC would have that same tool or not. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Lewis Bergman"  
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:10:11 AM 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it...

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

We've been doing it for 15 years. I'm not the one that does it, but I believe 
we enter them into their VFO system. We use that for other CLEC things, so I 
don't know if a voice-only CLEC would have that same tool or not. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:10:11 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 



-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Seth Mattinen]

On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
ever happened?



Contracts are only held against the little guys.

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Brian Webster]

Bingo. Remembering they have merged/acquired a lot of companies and union 
contracts may have been a big part of that. Pension funding and healthcare 
costs could be a big burden and vary from market to market causing discontent 
among workers too.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 1:38 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

Void any union contracts that may have been signed

On 4/15/20 9:35 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

“drive operation efficiencies” is corporate-speak for layoffs, right?

 

But yeah, efficiency and growth doesn’t sound like a revolutionary new approach 
just discovered recently.

 

Maybe they mean “all we could do until now was figure out each month how to pay 
the interest on our crushing debt, and now we might actually have some money to 
deploy something modern like fiber or wireless that customers actually want”.

 

 

From: AF  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:11 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

"With this agreement with our bondholders, we can now focus on executing our 
strategy to drive operational efficiencies and position our business for 
long-term growth."

 

The hell were you doing before, Bernie?


 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

 

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:23 AM  wrote:

They didn’t mention Utah and it is a reorg not a liquidation...

 

From: Mark Radabaugh 

Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:08 AM

To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 

Subject: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
 

 

Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it goes.

 

Mark


  _  


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Ken Hohhof]

I don’t know if bankruptcy lets you do that, but it would kind of make sense.  
No doubt part of the reason AT and Verizon wanted to dump all those copper 
networks was the craft was unionized whereas the mobile side of their business 
probably is non-union or even outsourced.  How do we get rid of CWA and IBEW?  
Sell it off to Frontier.  Hey, Mikey!

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:38 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

Void any union contracts that may have been signed

On 4/15/20 9:35 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

“drive operation efficiencies” is corporate-speak for layoffs, right?

 

But yeah, efficiency and growth doesn’t sound like a revolutionary new approach 
just discovered recently.

 

Maybe they mean “all we could do until now was figure out each month how to pay 
the interest on our crushing debt, and now we might actually have some money to 
deploy something modern like fiber or wireless that customers actually want”.

 

 

From: AF  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:11 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

"With this agreement with our bondholders, we can now focus on executing our 
strategy to drive operational efficiencies and position our business for 
long-term growth."

 

The hell were you doing before, Bernie?


 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

 

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:23 AM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > 
wrote:

They didn’t mention Utah and it is a reorg not a liquidation...

 

From: Mark Radabaugh 

Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:08 AM

To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 

Subject: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
 

 

Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it goes.

 

Mark


  _  


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Robert]

Void any union contracts that may have been signed

On 4/15/20 9:35 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


“drive operation efficiencies” is corporate-speak for layoffs, right?

But yeah, efficiency and growth doesn’t sound like a revolutionary new 
approach just discovered recently.


Maybe they mean “all we could do until now was figure out each month 
how to pay the interest on our crushing debt, and now we might 
actually have some money to deploy something modern like fiber or 
wireless that customers actually want”.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:11 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

"With this agreement with our bondholders, we can now focus on 
executing our strategy to drive operational efficiencies and position 
our business for long-term growth."


The hell were you doing before, Bernie?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:23 AM <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:


They didn’t mention Utah and it is a reorg not a liquidation...

*From:*Mark Radabaugh

*Sent:*Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:08 AM

*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group

    *Subject:*[AFMUG] And there we have it


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html


Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money. Round and
round it goes.

Mark



-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Ken Hohhof]

“drive operation efficiencies” is corporate-speak for layoffs, right?

 

But yeah, efficiency and growth doesn’t sound like a revolutionary new approach 
just discovered recently.

 

Maybe they mean “all we could do until now was figure out each month how to pay 
the interest on our crushing debt, and now we might actually have some money to 
deploy something modern like fiber or wireless that customers actually want”.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:11 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

"With this agreement with our bondholders, we can now focus on executing our 
strategy to drive operational efficiencies and position our business for 
long-term growth."

 

The hell were you doing before, Bernie?


 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

 

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:23 AM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > 
wrote:

They didn’t mention Utah and it is a reorg not a liquidation...

 

From: Mark Radabaugh 

Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:08 AM

To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 

Subject: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
 

 

Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it goes.

 

Mark


  _  


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Josh Luthman]

"With this agreement with our bondholders, we can now focus on executing
our strategy to drive operational efficiencies and position our business
for long-term growth."

The hell were you doing before, Bernie?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:23 AM  wrote:

> They didn’t mention Utah and it is a reorg not a liquidation...
>
> *From:* Mark Radabaugh
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:08 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] And there we have it
>
>
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
>
> Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it
> goes.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[chuck]

They didn’t mention Utah and it is a reorg not a liquidation...

From: Mark Radabaugh 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:08 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [AFMUG] And there we have it

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
 

Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it goes.

Mark



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Doug Hass]

They know exactly what they have for assets and liabilities, and will be
required to file a list of the latter. Bankruptcy laws don’t require them
to disclose anything more than a range in this initial filing.

El El mié, abr. 15, 2020 a la(s) 7:47 a. m., Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> escribió:

> “The Norwalk, Connecticut-based company estimated its assets and
> liabilities both in the range of $10 billion to $50 billion”
>
> That’s a rather. Uhhh. Large range.
>
> I feel like that’s like me saying our assets are somewhere between $10,000
> and $150,000.
>
> How do you not know what you have? Of course that might be why they’re in
> the situation that they are in.
>
> On Apr 15, 2020, at 8:08 AM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
>
> Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it
> goes.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
Doug Hass
Chair, Association of Corporate Counsel Employment and Labor Law Network
hassd...@gmail.com
(847) 957-1061
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Matt Hoppes]

“The Norwalk, Connecticut-based company estimated its assets and liabilities 
both in the range of $10 billion to $50 billion”

That’s a rather. Uhhh. Large range. 

I feel like that’s like me saying our assets are somewhere between $10,000 and 
$150,000.

How do you not know what you have? Of course that might be why they’re in the 
situation that they are in.

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 8:08 AM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
> 
> Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it 
> goes.
> 
> Mark
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mark Radabaugh]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
 


Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it goes.

Mark-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com