Re: [VoiceOps] Three Digit Numbers
811/711 have never been test numbers for 911 at Bandwidth. As long as we've had a 911 test number it's been 933. [image: BandwidthBlue.png] James Milko • Sr. Director, IP and Voice Network Engineering 900 Main Campus Drive, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27606 e: jmi...@bandwidth.com On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:37 PM Carlos Alvarez wrote: > Try sending 811 to your upstreams, and see what happens, I'd be curious. > It seems odd to think that Intelliquent and Bandwidth are violating the law > by using those as 911 test numbers. > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:55 AM Hiers, David wrote: > >> I’m not up on the final status, but 811 started off being not all that >> optional… >> >> >> >> >> >> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-05-59A1.pdf >> >> >> >> “require the use of 811 as the national abbreviated dialing code for >> providing advanced notice of excavation activities to underground facility >> operators within two years after publication of this Order in the Federal >> Register…” >> >> >> >> >> >> “The 811 abbreviated dialing code shall be deployed ubiquitously by >> carriers…” >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Carlos >> Alvarez >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 24, 2020 8:36 AM >> *To:* Ed Guy >> *Cc:* voiceops@voiceops.org >> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Three Digit Numbers >> >> >> >> Context matters here, i think. We are a business-only provider, we don't >> have any residential. That means that we probably serve people with fewer >> need for some of these services. We have a customer that's a major road >> construction company, and they've never dialed 811. They know WHO to call, >> and don't need this national system at all. >> >> >> >> We do have a big list of 911-inclusive dialing patters like that, an >> 9911, etc. >> >> >> >> Our only international users are call centers owned by US companies, and >> have specifically asked us to block 911. I can't find any regulation >> requiring us to provide them with emergency dialing on softphones used for >> a call center. >> >> >> >> Like Nick, we used to route 411 to Free411, but during a major system >> revamp, we saw that it had only ever been dialed twice--during testing. So >> we didn't re-implement it in the new system. >> >> >> >> In our state, 511 is for traffic info, but again, we don't handle that >> and nobody has complained. It's 2020, people use the web. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:26 AM Ed Guy wrote: >> >> See https://nationalnanpa.com/number_resource_info/n11_codes.html >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nationalnanpa.com_number-5Fresource-5Finfo_n11-5Fcodes.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=N13-TaG7c-EYAiUNohBk74oLRjUiBTwVm-KSnr4bPSc&r=-GzOCp0ppLaBQPFaZ7lZ4bUUBQxpFBukitRP75oaRdQ&m=tl9zw0D7cTZtm62zcgN7LHwxsuqcTXVyUuJPEaOe8hE&s=ARmkQAWsporAHBisnvO-3jazn6o7Gh23P4I-9tRpKFg&e=> >> >> >> >> Couple things to keep in mind – >> >> Consider handling 112 and 999 if your service might be used >> internationally. >> >> Also – not sure where the current regulation is on this, but the >> requirements around 911 suggest handling >> all sorts of additional dialing patterns, e.g., 1010xxx911, et al. Much >> of this is legacy, but be aware. >> >> >> >> /Ed >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *VoiceOps on behalf of Carlos >> Alvarez >> *Date: *Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 11:20 AM >> *To: *"voiceops@voiceops.org" >> *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] Three Digit Numbers >> >> >> >> We're in the US, and yes 811 is the underground utility line, but I don't >> think any of our carriers will pass it. I don't recall the details on who >> does what, but carriers like Intelliquent, Bandwidth, and thinQ all do 911 >> testing on 711/811. >> >> >> >> Yeah, I just tried 811 to Intelliquent and it read back my phone number. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:14 AM Mike Hammett wrote: >> >> What country is this? I believe 811 is supposed to be a USA-wide number >> to call for locating utilities for digging projects. >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> <
Re: [VoiceOps] SHAKEN/STIR
https://www.sipforum.org/activities/technical-wg-overview-and-charter/atissip-forum-nni-task-force-charter/ You may need Sipforum or ATIS membership to get in. [image: BandwidthBlue.png] James Milko • Sr. Director, IP and Voice Network Engineering 900 Main Campus Drive, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27606 o: 919-439-1935 e: jmi...@bandwidth.com On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:03 AM Dovid Bender wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone know if there are any email lists for SHAKEN/STIR. All I have > seen so far is the RFC's and the IETF which is very bland. I am looking to > see if there are any groups that are working on possible libs for > SHAEKN/STIR as well as OSS to make things a bit easier. > > TIA. > > Regards, > > Dovid > > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Providers and direct NANP access
http://www.localcallingguide.com/lca_prefix.php?ocn=197D On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:27:16PM -0800, Calvin Ellison wrote: > > > It's real and it's already happening. > > I've been told this for two or three years now. I'll believe it when I > see it. > > -- > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC > > Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC
Since this thread pretty much immediately devolved into complaining about the way marketing has worked for the last 100 years. Does anyone have any actual experience? I'm pretty interested in anyone who has tried to run a Sonus SWe in AWS at the moment. If you tried transcoding I'm curious on how that worked out. JM On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: > Has any more worked with products similar to > http://www.sonus.net/products/session-border-controllers/virtualized-sbc-swe > > What has your experience been? > > Cheers > Ryan > > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] G.729 A/B Experiences
Biased as all get out, but if your carrier doesn't support at least 729 and 711 find a new carrier. JM On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Calvin Ellison wrote: > Could you put their voice on wires (POTS/PRI/VoIP), and the rest of their > data on fixed wireless? > This doesn't necessarily give you any more calls per Kbps, but at least > keeps voice and data independent. Wires for dependability, radio waves for > bandwidth at the cost of some latency & packet loss. > > One consideration when using G.729 is how you're going to deliver it to a > mostly non-G.729 world. Are your not-quite-broadband customers attached to > some PBX that will handle it and send G.711 to your carriers? That's going > to cost some CPU or dedicated transcoding hardware. Will your providers > accept G.729 and transcode for you? Is there a cost for it? Or will your > carriers blindly throw your G.729 at their LCR and hope something sticks? > > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] Disconnected numbers and SIP
We've found 404 to be extremely reliable when received from upstream carriers. It's one of the very few codes that we don't route advance on because we found that calls never compete if someone hands back a 404. JM On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: > Thanks. And I'm guessing the best one can hope for from a SIP termination > provider is an ambiguous 404, or, more likely, a 503, which seems to have > become misused an opaque, catch-all epithet for any and all completion > failures? > > -- > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC > 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300 > Atlanta, GA 30346 > United States > > Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct) > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ > > Sent from my BlackBerry. > > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:49 PM, John Levine wrote: > >> most landline carriers won't port it to a landline if it's out of > >> ratecenter. > > > >I thought ports were only possible within a rate centre, and so by > >definition impossible to port to a carrier which doesn't operate in that > >rate centre? > > It is my impression that ports are technically possible anywhere > within a LATA, but for business reasons most telcos won't port between > rate centers. > > They're definitely not possible across the country because long > distance calls only do the LNP lookup after routing the call to > the destination tandem. (That's the "L" in LNP.) > > Usually this is because their numbers can't support nomadic 911. ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy
It could be anytime the *LEC still has the entire A block. As far as how common it is I can't really say. My cell phone and childhood phone number are both native routed. Wireline: http://www.localcallingguide.com/lca_prefix.php?npa=732&nxx=363 Wireless: http://www.localcallingguide.com/lca_prefix.php?npa=201&nxx=320 James Milko Architect, Network Engineering 900 Main Campus Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 Bandwidth <http://www.bandwidth.com/business/> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: > Aren't 95%+ rate centres pooled these days? If so, they'd still have > LRNs, since LRN-guided routing is a requirement of pooling. So, who still > has non-pooled 10K blocks? Is that common in metro, or largely a trait of > rural LECs? > > -- > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC > 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300 > Atlanta, GA 30346 > United States > > Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct) > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ > > Sent from my BlackBerry. > *From: *James Milko > *Sent: *Wednesday, August 19, 2015 13:32 > *To: *Alex Balashov > *Cc: *VoiceOps > *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed > accuracy > > NPAC has a service type field that indicates wireless/wireline. That > doesn't solve for native numbers though since they won't have LRN data > since they don't have LRNs. I don't remember offhand if LERG has a > wireless/wireline indication for a given [A]OCN or block. > > James Milko > > Architect, Network Engineering > > 900 Main Campus Drive > > Raleigh, NC 27606 > > Bandwidth <http://www.bandwidth.com/business/> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Alex Balashov > wrote: > >> Indeed, you'd start from the NPAC, which would get you, for a given TN, >> an LRN. Then what? >> >> -- >> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC >> 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300 >> Atlanta, GA 30346 >> United States >> >> Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct) >> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ >> >> Sent from my BlackBerry. >> Original Message >> From: Kidd Filby >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:52 >> To: Carlos Alvarez >> Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org >> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed >> accuracy >> >> If I were to offer this service or database access, I would start with my >> own local copy of NPAC that I'd update every X-minutes a day. This product >> is available now and has been for a while. This is the only sure-way, I >> know of, to have the most accurate data to work from. >> >> Kidd >> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Carlos Alvarez >> wrote: >> I have a customer in market research who is legally required to manually >> dial calls to cell phones. Right now they are considering abandoning all >> of their auto/predictive dialer software and going to manual dial for >> everything, because the list-scrubbing services have been shown to be >> inaccurate. There are extreme penalties for auto-dialing a cell phone, and >> "best effort" is NOT a defense to this, at all. For example, Gallup just >> settle a claim for $12M. >> >> So they need a totally accurate way to prevent a cell phone call from >> originating from their dialer. The only thing I can think of is some sort >> of LRN dip + LRN-to-carrier-type response. One of their people talked to >> Neustar, but didn't get great answers because he doesn't really understand >> telephony. Before I get in touch with Neustar, I thought I'd see if people >> here have some ideas. >> >> If you provide a commercial product for this, please feel free to tell me >> so on or off list, the customer is willing to pay for the service and we're >> open to all options. I don't have a budget number yet but manual dialing >> is going to cost them quite a bit for some types of studies. >> >> >> ___ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> VoiceOps@voiceops.org >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kidd Filby >> 661.557.5640 (C) >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/kiddfilby >> >> ___ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> VoiceOps@voiceops.org >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> > > > > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed accuracy
NPAC has a service type field that indicates wireless/wireline. That doesn't solve for native numbers though since they won't have LRN data since they don't have LRNs. I don't remember offhand if LERG has a wireless/wireline indication for a given [A]OCN or block. James Milko Architect, Network Engineering 900 Main Campus Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 Bandwidth <http://www.bandwidth.com/business/> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Alex Balashov wrote: > Indeed, you'd start from the NPAC, which would get you, for a given TN, > an LRN. Then what? > > -- > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC > 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300 > Atlanta, GA 30346 > United States > > Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct) > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ > > Sent from my BlackBerry. > Original Message > From: Kidd Filby > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:52 > To: Carlos Alvarez > Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Preventing calls to cell phones with guaranteed > accuracy > > If I were to offer this service or database access, I would start with my > own local copy of NPAC that I'd update every X-minutes a day. This product > is available now and has been for a while. This is the only sure-way, I > know of, to have the most accurate data to work from. > > Kidd > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Carlos Alvarez > wrote: > I have a customer in market research who is legally required to manually > dial calls to cell phones. Right now they are considering abandoning all > of their auto/predictive dialer software and going to manual dial for > everything, because the list-scrubbing services have been shown to be > inaccurate. There are extreme penalties for auto-dialing a cell phone, and > "best effort" is NOT a defense to this, at all. For example, Gallup just > settle a claim for $12M. > > So they need a totally accurate way to prevent a cell phone call from > originating from their dialer. The only thing I can think of is some sort > of LRN dip + LRN-to-carrier-type response. One of their people talked to > Neustar, but didn't get great answers because he doesn't really understand > telephony. Before I get in touch with Neustar, I thought I'd see if people > here have some ideas. > > If you provide a commercial product for this, please feel free to tell me > so on or off list, the customer is willing to pay for the service and we're > open to all options. I don't have a budget number yet but manual dialing > is going to cost them quite a bit for some types of studies. > > > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > > > > > -- > Kidd Filby > 661.557.5640 (C) > http://www.linkedin.com/in/kiddfilby > > ___ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
