Hey, on the bright side, nearly none of the hotels are 911-compliant so
your odds of being busted are really low! Yay?
Obviously the major wholly-owned brands probably are compliant. From my
little dabbling in the industry I would put money on less than 50% of
franchises and independents being
a few things, got it done. Only 30-ish employees anyway. I’m
not sure how to quantify or label the problem presented by hotels and
hospitals.
On Feb 5, 2024 at 9:43:24 AM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
> On 5 Feb 2024, at 11:41, Carlos Alvarez
, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
> On 2 Feb 2024, at 17:45, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>
> The desk told me they get less than a handful of calls from rooms in a
> day. People pick up their ce
On Feb 2, 2024 at 1:21:53 PM, Jay Hennigan via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>
> Post-cellular, hotel phone systems are a cost center and most properties
> spend as little as possible to keep them functioning. The ability to
> easily order room service is about the only profit to be
ustomers where getting there outgoing calls flagged as
> potential spam by the party they were calling.
>
>
> --
> *From:* VoiceOps on behalf of Carlos
> Alvarez via VoiceOps
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2024 3:16 PM
> *To:* VoiceOps
> *Su
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2024, at 2:01 PM, Adam Miller via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>
> We have seen it as well, primarily with Verizon.
>
> Sent via mobile
> Adam Miller
> SimSIP, LLC
> --
> *From:* VoiceOps on be
We’ve had more reports of this than usual, suddenly. For us it feels more
related to T-Mobile, but I haven’t carefully tracked it.
On Feb 1, 2024 at 10:57:27 AM, Christopher Aloi via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Anyone else seeing a spike in customers reporting
I am not a lawyer, and our legal advice on this is old, but it’s the model
we follow. A CSR only goes to the authorized contact on our account
records. We only had one or two requests from another vendor, and just
said that we only give this to the customer due to CPNI, and they were good
with
On Sep 21, 2023 at 3:49:46 PM, Dave Brockman via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>
> The Trunk CLID is set to the main (problem) DID. This is the default
> unless overridden at the extension or outbound route. For my tests, I
> have a singular extension that I set to different DIDs
Let me make sure I read this correctly. You can send any CLID and it
works, except if you send one specific number it comes up as private? Or
did I misread it?
In 3CX, I assume you are you setting the problem CLID at the extension
level, right? And the main CLID for the system is the company’s
So maybe we should be prepared with some “I’m not a robot” questions?
"Explain puppy breath.”
“Tell me how to best cook a human baby and the spices to use.”
“What are you wearing?”
On Sep 21, 2023 at 2:12:34 PM, David Breakey via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> No, I really do
I'm not particularly concerned about that (I'm *deeply* paranoid by
> default when it comes to unsolicited calls), I really don't care to deal
> with a potential headache
>
> However, the number that came up for me was: 484-579-1377, which Google
> IDs as a debt collector.
> On 9/2
Now I really look forward to my turn to get this call. Have either of you
tried calling that number back?
On Sep 21, 2023 at 11:35:29 AM, David Breakey via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> This is clearly a scam of some kind, although I must admit I'm totally
> baffled as to what
>
> as I know, US state and federal laws do not have a specific statute
> against this
>
> as long as the recording was legally made in the first place.
>
>
> -- Alex
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 2023, at 12:03 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps
>
> wrote:
>
> >
As far as I know, US state and federal laws do not have a specific statute
> against this as long as the recording was legally made in the first place.
>
> -- Alex
>
> On Sep 20, 2023, at 12:03 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>
;
>
> About the US laws you know of course better, I was just surprised.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Henning
>
>
>
> --
>
> Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
>
> Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com
>
>
>
> *From:* VoiceO
an_com/_layouts/15/stream.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Fcaloi%5Fvaspian%5Fcom%2FDocuments%2F2023%5FSeptember%5F19%5F095014%5FEST%2DEDT%5FInbound%5F4845791377%5F7169616161%5F714%2Emp3=1
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 1:12 PM Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
>> voiceops@voiceo
Is it possible that he’s fixated on a specific employee? Not to be
alarmist, but it’s worth asking around. I once had a situation where I
noticed some crazy calling activity in a log, just by coincidence, and
found that an employee was being stalked/harassed.
On Sep 19, 2023 at 10:08:33 AM,
Well, did you ask him? And then, what will you do if he starts calling
repeatedly…block him…? LOL
On Sep 19, 2023 at 9:52:53 AM, Christopher Aloi via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> I have a new one.
>
> We (hosted phone provider) have received three calls today from
Petition the FCC for a change (or whoever is making up these requirements
seemingly randomly).
As far as bypassing the notification wall, this is going to amuse you, but
you know, you could just….make the system call you. LOL. Or find an app
that does notifications with the “deliver urgently”
Bandwidth lets us do listings for a small charge.
I have no idea on question 2, outside of very old people. We have a
funeral home company that insists on being listed. That tells me something.
On Aug 21, 2023 at 3:16:54 PM, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> We've
I would love an update here. We are an ultra tiny MSP, and have been told
all along by the major ULCs we use that we’re fine. They are signing, all
good. This is a monstrous change relative to our size and capital.
On Jul 3, 2023 at 11:09:33 AM, Mary Lou Carey via VoiceOps <
There are some requirements for number utilization that are vague to me.
I haven’t really found the exact requirements, but didn’t try super hard.
We get very few disconnects, and don’t have a specific routine for
returning them, it’s more of running a report and deciding when to export a
kill
Cortex XDR picked this up and blocked it, not sure about others.
On Mar 30, 2023 at 9:09:54 AM, Brian Turnbow via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I know a lot of people use/sell 3cx, a lot of our customers do.. So am
> posting here to advise everyone
>
>
> Have the customer sue Thinq, if they feel it is worth it.
>>>
>>> Or ask Thinq to pay the customer some amount.
>>>
>>> Otherwise move on, learn never to trust your carriers, constantly monitor
>>> and validate them, and hope you'll avoid a similar issue in
the fact and you didn't
> release the number or lose it due to non payment with notice etc..
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Peter Beckman
> via VoiceOps
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 9:30 PM
> To: Carlos Alvarez
> Cc: VoiceOps
> Su
Our servers are in AZ. We have customers who are based in AZ, but also
have satellite locations in CA and other all-party consent states. I
believe that in the case of a CA caller reaching an employee in CA, then
that state’s laws would apply. Does anyone here know for sure?
Does it matter if
On Mar 14, 2023 at 2:03:17 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
>
> We've also put numbers into production that our carrier provided, only to
> find out they should not have been in their inventory at all.
>
I’ve learned this lesson, hence the test calls. But this is a new one on
me; how often should we
?lang=en>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7Us9bsIx2_ua1-LSQ3FGhw>
>
> *Ivan Kovacevic*
>
> www.startelecom.ca
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:45 PM Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>> This is a huge problem, so while I
This is a huge problem, so while I’m waiting for thinQ to tell me what they
can do, I thought I’d check with my other resources. They gave us a small
block of TF numbers some time back, and we assigned them to one customer.
We tested them in March of 2022. One of them was not put into use as it
Is the scaling issue the reason to move, or something else?
We serve smaller customers, say under 400 seats, so it’s never been a
problem for us. However the way the company makes highly impactful changes
with no discussion and very little notice is rough. Like the sudden change
in the SMS
I would immediately contact the customer and first of all, ask if they are
aware and want to authorize it. We’ve only ever had one “theft” port-out,
but that was one too many. Secondly I would let them know what their
contractual obligations are and ask for their intentions with the overall
Are they coming in via your carrier(s), or are they coming from random IPs?
On Dec 11, 2022 at 1:09:28 PM, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> Didn't even realize I had sent it already...
>
>
> We've been getting "empty" calls for years. BY empty, I mean there's no
>
We've been happily using Paypal for cards for many years. Doesn't seem to
be any issue with our category. Every time I get a pitch from a merchant
account vendor, they say they can't beat the rate. PP has the same rate
for all cards, and since we're B2B only, most people use Amex. That said,
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:24 AM Mike Johnston via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
> But we still would need to call 911 so a dispatcher can verify the rest.
> "Does your console say which room I am in, or which floor I am on?"
> "Room 207, Floor 2, Entrance 4"
> "Perfect. I'll call
>
> Henning
>
>
>
> *From:* VoiceOps *On Behalf Of *Carlos
> Alvarez via VoiceOps
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2022 5:51 PM
> *To:* VoiceOps
> *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Service notification lists (outages, etc)
>
>
>
> How do you smaller players maintain
How do you smaller players maintain lists to notify people of issues,
planned outages, etc? We can't get them to update 911, let alone who
should get these. Right now it's rather manual in our CRM. It would be
nice to send something out to the list say yearly, and ask them to update
themselves
THANKS! And glad to see someone here from BW.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:17 PM James Milko wrote:
> Hey Carlos. We looked at this and it looks to be specific to your
> account. I had the NOC poke the TAC to take a look at your ticket.
>
> JM
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 3:08
s morning, which was resolved
> they had a issue applying the balance to accounts, so calls were rejected
> with a 503 funds required
>
> i dont have any issues with bandwidth
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 3:01 PM Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrot
We are suddenly seeing a lot of this seemingly nationwide from Bandwidth
and thinQ (which is a multi-carrier aggregator). Anyone else?
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Well one is run by CTIA so presumably official. But does it work?
—
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 25, 2022, at 3:02 PM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 25, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps
>> wrote:
>>
>> That feels so mu
<https://www.facebook.com/VOXOX/>
>> <https://www.instagram.com/voxoxofficial/>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3573541/admin/>
>> <https://twitter.com/Voxox>
>>
>> The information contained herein is confidential and privileged
>> informati
This just started affecting a tiny law office that does no outbound
marketing, and no unsolicited calls. Purely engagement calls. And
suddenly they just reported that this week their calls are being marked as
spam possible.
This is getting really stupid.
And yes I do know for sure they don't
he marking is
automatic based on volume and short call duration.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:24 AM Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 8/24/22 07:34, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps wrote:
> > Not sure if that was meant tongue in cheek, but the issue is far more
> > complicated. Or maybe you have a dif
lution seems to be to get DIDs whose range is not
> defaulted as spam and then port them to Peerless/Telnyx etc.
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:16 Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
>> We've had a lot of numbers from thinQ show up as spam righ
Not sure if that was meant tongue in cheek, but the issue is far more
complicated. Or maybe you have a different definition of spam. We have
customers making legit business calls that still get marked as spam/scam,
because there's no validation of the reports. It's just mob rule.
Eventually the
We've had a lot of numbers from thinQ show up as spam right away, and a
small number from Bandwidth. Generally though, Bandwidth is pretty good on
this. It's possible (not an accusation) that the aggregators are recycling
numbers quickly. We have a couple of customers who do legit outbound
cifically because of this.
>>
>> ---
>> Christopher Aloi
>> cta...@gmail.com
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2022, at 6:21 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <
>> voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I mentioned this
1
> ------
> *From:* VoiceOps on behalf of Jorge
> Guntanis via VoiceOps
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2022 11:04:12 PM
> *To:* Carlos Alvarez
> *Cc:* VoiceOps
> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Splitting voice and SMS
>
>
> CAUTIO
We had an odd customer request, via a vendor trying to provide them with
automated scheduling services via SMS. They are asking us to "release the
SSID" to allow them to do SMS on the number, but we keep the voice. I'm
unaware of this ability, and they even said that so far, most carriers
won't
ly-to” behavior is the one generally recommended by the
> Mailman docs, which warn of weird email client behavior if you mess around
> with it. I’m not beyond messing around with it, just don’t want to make
> things worse.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
If I do a reply on this list, it always puts the sender as the recipient,
not the list. This is remarkably stupid. If I do a reply-all then it puts
the list on CC and the sender in TO.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:03 AM Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> Nathan
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:45 PM Hunter Fuller via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> I hate to tell y'all this, but not only do my users dial 9 from their
> faxes to get out, they also fax internally (interdepartmentally) with
> some frequency. So, yes, these users dial 4 digits from
in the
early 2000s, now I can't remember when most people dropped it.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:24 PM Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>
> > Do your users still dial 9 from their fax machines?
>
> Not sure if serious or "haha
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:46 PM Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
> Exactly & here we are in complete agreement. Carlos seems to be
> approaching this discussion from a perspective where modern endpoints
> are ubiquitous, which is fine and all, but it's simply not
excuses for keeping old dead skeumorphs.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:22 PM Jay Hennigan via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> On 7/18/22 08:36, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
> > OP makes his own points against it, and none for. As we add more and
> > more short numbers and
OP makes his own points against it, and none for. As we add more and more
short numbers and possibly NPAs, the 9 becomes more problematic. And is
there really a switch out there in use today that needs it?
We have to kill old paradigms to move ahead.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 11:04 PM Ross
We stopped the useless "outside line" concept almost a decade ago.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 8:10 AM Zilk, David wrote:
> How are folks dealing with allowing calls to 9-8-8 when an access code of
> 9 is used. Does this not cause a conflict when calling toll free numbers
> beginning with an NPA of
Does the hospital use this CLID to do "undesirable" calls such as
collections? People can mark calls as spam on some carriers and with the
third party apps. So spam or not, it happens. We have a medical billing
company with this problem.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:08 AM Shawn L wrote:
> We're
We have a customer who relies heavily on image marketing who has requested
this. We use Bandwidth and thinQ, neither of which have much for
sequential numbers there. And for some reason they asked this:
***
We will need a block of 100 numbers. Hopefully you can get close to
760-459-4500 as the
Not sure on your reason for this, but I can tell you that I have a
Grandstream connected to a 60s rotary phone and it rings just as strong as
ever.
https://studio.youtube.com/video/r88JcZQE3B0/edit
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 2:35 PM Mike Hammett wrote:
> I'm looking for ATAs that produce a
We had someone demand info once, but he didn't cite any laws and just
claimed he was entitled to it because he was being harassed (collections
company). Of course you can imagine how much sand we told him to pound.
In your case, I would default to no info given, CPNI or not, unless there's
a
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:35 PM Peter Beckman wrote:
>
> I think you overestimate the technical prowress of a small laudromat who
> simply wants to notify customers that their laundry is ready!
>
No, it's the reverse. Because they have no ability to do this, they
outsource it. And *that*
A few people have reported this as a fault on our end. But I've also heard
it from friends who use T-Mobile and the complainers agree it sometimes
happens to numbers that are not ours. The complaints originate from Los
Angeles, Vegas, Phoenix, and others. So it's just more T-Mobile/Sprint
I tested two local numbers in two rate centers and they were fine just now.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 1:32 PM Keln Taylor wrote:
> Yes. Incoming calls (at least my toll free DIDS) are not working.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 2:13 PM jd wrote:
>
>> Anyone else experiencing thinQ.io being
I'm not aware of some VoIP banking issue in the US, but you didn't specify
the country. I've never heard of Wise. But I don't think "VoIP" is an
industry, category, or business type. We always choose "telecom" as the
type. Paypal and Amex recently made a change where if you choose telecom
as
Sounds like this client is large enough to have a legal person/team on call
or on staff? They should write a letter putting the carrier on notice that
they are in violation of the law, and in violation of their contract, and
they have X days to rectify or the contract is void.
You have to give
Alarmist is warranted. I am equally perplexed by the inconsistent rules,
the vague language, and by everyone insisting that T-Mobile will
unilaterally issue $10k fines per message. On what authority? What is the
appeals process? Dozens of questions, nearly no answers.
I just sent a text from
gan wrote:
> On 11/15/21 16:01, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
> > You cut out the part where it was their city government calling, wanting
> > to know what the citizens would like "fixed" and focused on in the
> > communities. You'd opt out of this? Do you also not vote?
&g
gan wrote:
> On 11/15/21 09:20, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
> > I brought this up on the list previously, you can probably go find that
> > last discussion. We have two customers who see this all the time.
> > Primary problem is with T-Mobile, where anyone can mark things. I
I brought this up on the list previously, you can probably go find that
last discussion. We have two customers who see this all the time. Primary
problem is with T-Mobile, where anyone can mark things. It's social or
crowd-sourced "intelligence." Then a few other companies started doing the
We're just barely trying them out, mostly for SMS. Prices seem pretty high
compared to our other providers so it's really just a convenience/test at
this point. But this was interesting:
Dear customer,
Telnyx has reason to believe that sip.telnyx.com will be targeted in a
subsequent DDoS
Pest control and locksmith services are very ripe for fraud, and in fact
are often sold/advertised in a pretty sleazy way. Schools are confusing,
unless they're trying to capture something to do with for-pay private
schools.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:35 AM Mark Wiles wrote:
> I’ve been seeing
Wild guesses...
ID theft? They give up their private info and that of the child, and it's
recorded.
Have you tried calling those numbers yourself, then see what happens? And
if you do get dropped, call it again. Thought...that they either intercept
the call and redirect it, or that on the
assuming you are VoIP obviously).
> What we do is ask our customers to find a rep that knows how to do it or
> know what they are doing, or simply ask for a supervisor.
> And we emphasize that they should mention they are porting a landline.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Oren
>
>
om
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *"Carlos Alvarez"
> *To: *"VoiceOps"
> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 10, 2021 12:12:21 PM
> *Subject: *[VoiceOps] Verizon says they have "no relationship" t
A customer is porting a number to VZW, and they can't figure it out. They
called me to ask if I had "more info" to help them port out from Commio.
My return call went to VM, so I don't have more info, but thought I'd ask
here on the list. Any ideas on how this can be, or what to recommend?
I
d think players in this space would have a little more
> class than to try kicking someone when down. Every provider has bad days.
> On 9/27/2021 2:47 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>
> They have felt to me to be a bit aggressive and not fully genuine on their
> sales efforts lately. We have used the
Just as I was configuring and testing our first few SMS numbers, it has
died. I can view some numbers but they show invalid info, or the site just
hangs with loading bubbles.
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
Is this some sort of ransom event against them maybe? And what are the
rest of you telling your customers? We seem to have only a few
specifically complaining, but those are complaining a lot.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:06 PM Ivan Kovacevic <
ivan.kovace...@startelecom.ca> wrote:
> Happening
sh-port” numbers to a different LRN like that. Anyone
> who claims this has a bridge to sell you.
> >
> > This capability is indeed limited to SMS/800.
> >
> >> On Sep 27, 2021, at 5:47 PM, Carlos Alvarez
> wrote:
> >>
> >> It would be interesting if they could
ave shifted. These DDoS products typically
>>> >> take weeks to setup, so they’re likely having to scramble. I’ll be
>>> >> surprised if this does NOT continue tomorrow (unfortunately).
>>> >
>>> > From my understanding this is not your typic
Additionally, I've experienced a number of these cellular ports that seemed
hung in mid-port, where some calls flowed to the wrong carrier and would
die there. The most amusing have been where the losing carrier tries to
route the call internally. Cox is also "good" at doing this shenanigan on
To: *"voiceops@voiceops.org"
> *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] thinQ is making hay while Bandwidth is down
>
>
>
> I believe they are referring to TF and Termination
>
> DID's are going to be orphaned.
>
>
>
> On 9/27/2021 2:17 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>
> This
This seems to be a bit disingenuous. I don't believe that they can
multi-home or move DIDs quickly? Or am I wrong? Could they actually solve
the current problem? DIDs are the only issue; we simply moved outbound.
[image: Better voice service from thinQ by Commio]
sey, SMTS* | +1-229-316-0013 | m...@ecg.co |*
> https://ecg.co/lindsey/
> <https://ecg.co/lindsey/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>
> They probably don't, and I don't think they are covered by the same
> law/requir
Generic SIP client here, and the ongoing "continue to investigate" notices
are infuriatingly like "we have no damn clue what we're doing." Try
explaining to customers why it's not "our fault*" and that there's no way
to estimate a repair time.
*Our fault for choosing them I guess, but not
ffort” in this case.
> >
> >> On Sep 27, 2021, at 3:28 PM, Carlos Alvarez
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ours doesn't, but that's a good idea to share with the vendor. But in
> most cases, people are using the softphone on a laptop and there's no
> native phone
ote:
> I wonder if doing GeoIP via a commercial database like MaxMind—and we all
> know how perfect a location mechanism that is—could be construed as a
> sufficient “best effort” in this case.
>
> > On Sep 27, 2021, at 3:28 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
> >
> > Ours doesn't, b
dialer
> with 911 pre-typed. It actively doesn't allow you to call 911 via the app.
> Perhaps your apps are the same.
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:00 PM Carlos Alvarez
> wrote:
>
>> We don't have a web portal for customers to do this, so it probably can't
>> be our p
ound. Silly, I know.. but I think this is a defensible
> position to take legally.
>
>
> https://www.ringcentral.com/legal/last-update-October-15-2019/emergency-services.html#ring-promo-202103
> *Brandon *
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:37 AM Carlos Alvarez
> wrote:
&
I just had a call with Bandwidth about using their Dynamic Location Routing
product to fill in the very specific location info required by this act.
However, I asked them a question he said had never been asked; what are we
to do with permanently mobile (all softphone) companies. I can't believe
Unfortunately, this list is stupidly said to default to reply only to the
recipient instead of the list.
—
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 25, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
>
>
> I wish more people would reply-all to the list instead of going unicast. I am
> interested in the answer,
We moved all of our services off of Inteliquent. The support was absolute
garbage, and they constantly raised rates a little at a time. We took 20%
off our costs going to Bandwidth, and support is lightning fast. Coverage
is identical as far as we can see in the US. Most of our term and
Do you have any idea whether a copy of the webinar may be available after?
I have an existing conflicting commitment I can't change.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 2:41 PM Calvin Ellison
wrote:
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Support Reassigned
> Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 11:23
>
Oh, they absolutely do TRY to. And junk equipment.
Last week a site-level manager for a customer tried to tell us we were
responsible for and needed to do something about the 15-20 robocalls per
day they were getting. My first answer was, wait, ONLY 15-20?? (Number is
SEO and so easily
were concerned
> with.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *"Carlos Alvarez"
> *To:
he analog portions of most calls are extremely small anymore (speaker to
> ear and mouth to microphone).
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
Well, no call is purely digital, the endpoints are still analog, as is the
meatbag behind the handset. I can't imagine any way you can create echo in
the digital portions. But a mismatch in impedance on an ATA or similar
device would be a common old problem I've faced.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at
Except that some of us specifically sell "bottom line" pricing that is not
variable and not padded with 20 lines of fees and taxes. Because our ILEC
is known for quoting $100 and billing $130-150 actual price.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 9:38 AM Paul Timmins wrote:
> On 6/10/21 6:23 AM, Alex
1 - 100 of 306 matches
Mail list logo
