I’m not a lawyer nor a legal strategist, but I see few downsides in going to war for it. At the very least, the matter will go to the general counsel and maybe get some actual attention.
— Alex > On Mar 23, 2023, at 2:47 AM, Paul Timmins via VoiceOps > <voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote: > > I can’t imagine why the new user of the number would want all those > misdirected calls, it’ll probably cost them a pretty penny. What a mess for > everyone. > > >> On Mar 23, 2023, at 00:57, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps >> <voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote: >> >> 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 future. >> >> Beckman >> >>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps wrote: >>> >>> To get everyone updated, we were just told that nothing will be done, and >>> our customer is just out of luck on what they have already spent >>> publicizing the incorrectly assigned number. I have no idea yet if/how >>> they will try to pass this cost to us, or if/when lawyers will get >>> involved. Mistakes happen of course, but in this chain of events, who is >>> liable for actual costs due to some amount of negligence? >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 14, 2023 at 9:48:09 PM, Todd Wolf <tw...@wolftechgroup.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill copy and signed resporg documents...should show a clear path of >>>> ownership. If your docs supersede the one after the fact and you didn't >>>> release the number or lose it due to non payment with notice etc.. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: VoiceOps <voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Peter Beckman >>>> via VoiceOps >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 9:30 PM >>>> To: Carlos Alvarez <caalva...@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: VoiceOps <voiceops@voiceops.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] TF number ported out/re-assigned without >>>> authorization >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mar 14, 2023 at 2:03:17 PM, Peter Beckman <beck...@angryox.com> 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 have to test all of our numbers?? >>>> >>>> >>>> Should you HAVE to? Never. How often do you NEED to, so you can avoid >>>> situations like this? Once every 2 weeks in my estimation, unfortunately. >>>> >>>> I tried to find an affordable way to ensure that the ILEC/CLEC/Resporg of >>>> one of our numbers had not changed, but I couldn't find one. I also found >>>> that if the number moved internally, e.g. one Bandwidth customer to >>>> another, I'd never detect it. Test Calls and SMS messages seemed to be the >>>> most deterministic indicator. >>>> >>>> I will commend and recommend Alcazar Networks for offering a very >>>> reliable, though about 24 hours out of date, LNP/LRN API at affordable >>>> rates. USD$0.00025 per extended query, or a flat rate for higher usage. >>>> >>>> https://www.alcazarnetworks.com/data_services_lnp_lrn.php >>>> >>>> Anyone know of a RespOrg API that would tell us information about a TF >>>> number? >>>> >>>> That’s uglier than a Pontiac Aztek. >>>> >>>> >>>> But reliably detects carrier failures. >>>> >>>> I just hope thinQ can handle this. Looking at our call records vs >>>> >>>> their TF number history, it’s clear when it was ours, then taken, then >>>> >>>> given out again. I believe someone else on the list suggested that >>>> >>>> previous ownership is superior to current ownership? If it comes down >>>> >>>> to that, anyone know the process to enforce it? >>>> >>>> >>>> The challenge here is what is ownership? >>>> >>>> Really, nobody owns a phone number. NANPA leases it to carriers, and >>>> carriers lease it to companies or individuals. It is up to the carrier to >>>> lease it to only one entity. Thinq failed to do so. IMHO Thinq should be >>>> working their butts off to fix this for you. >>>> >>>> I do not know of an FCC rule that would help you scare Thinq into doing >>>> the right thing and fixing this. >>>> >>>> Beckman >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Peter Beckman Internet Guy >>>> beck...@angryox.com >>>> https://www.angryox.com/ >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Peter Beckman Internet Guy >> beck...@angryox.com https://www.angryox.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 > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps@voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops -- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops