nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27 | reply to stevech0
Re: Voice Pulse Dropping My Phone Number ... Global NAPS?
Disagree. There's plenty of things VoIP can do for a business - for a fraction of the price - that POTS would not. |
|
meeeeeeeeeeeeeee
@comcast.net |  reply to bmcent1
so what happened to the porting of your phone number.. was verizon able to do this? |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to stevech0
said by stevech0  :why would someone with a small business to run muck about with risky Internet-based VoIP? Seems like a poor cost/risk benefit tradeoff, and a needless time diversion. for the same reason that you will take your turn at a 4-way stop sign -- you expect others to obey the rules and not crash into you. to my knowledge, the only US-based VOIP providers that are in any way tainted by not following the portability rules are VoicePulse and MagicJack. I can't recall similar complaints about any other providers. |
|
stevech0
join:2006-09-17
San Diego, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·VoicePulse
1 edit | to my knowledge, the only US-based VOIP providers that are in any way tainted by not following the portability rules are VoicePulse and MagicJack. I can't recall similar complaints about any other providers.
Go read the sordid history of ViaTalk, on all fronts, not just NP.
As a simple residential user, I've been pleased with VoicePulse. Quite near POTS reliability on my cable modem. |
|
usa2k
Please PRAY for Rebekah
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Canton, MI
clubs:
·VOIPo
·WOW Internet and C..
·Broadvox Direct
| said by stevech0 :Go read the sordid history of ViaTalk, on all fronts, not just NP. As a simple residential user, I've been pleased with VoicePulse. Quite near POTS reliability on my cable modem. Was that:
"... not just LNP"
--
Jim, VoIP 12/2002, VOIPo 2/2007
FAH-Tool ... Pets ... USA2K site ... Artist-247 |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
| reply to RockyBB
said by RockyBB :To my knowledge, the only US-based VOIP providers that are in any way tainted by not following the portability rules are VoicePulse and MagicJack. I can't recall similar complaints about any other providers. What about BroadVoice, which is under the same corporate roof as Global_NAPS? |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| said by PX Eliezer :said by RockyBB :To my knowledge What about BroadVoice Strange as it might sound, I don't possess all knowledge! Though I don't recall complaints about BV and LNP.
I might also mention that though VP is tainted with LNP problems, it should be understood that not all VP customers would have that issue -- only those numbers that were sourced by troublesome CLECs such as Global NAPS are affected. |
|
kieranmullen
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Portland, OR
clubs:
·Gizmo5
·Skype
·Vitelity VOIP
·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
·VoicePulse
| reply to PX Eliezer
I believe that those who had complaints about BV porting was an issue with BV and their policies not their carriers.
However I was able to port out a number that was on the $5 per month BYOD plan just fine.
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com
|
|
bmcent1
join:2009-06-29
Frederick, MD
| reply to bmcent1
Hi all, thanks for the additional comments and continued interest 
I cannot yet report joy or no joy, but my guess is that it isn't looking good for keeping my number.
I'd initially started a port via Verizon on Monday, 6/29. They said, due to it being a land line, it would go through on Friday. So I had to wait 5 days to see what would happen. They said I would get a text message when the number ported Friday.
I received no text message, and my original numbers rang the original phones all weekend, so I knew it didn't go through.
Monday (7/6) Verizon called me to explain that they received a rejection to the port request with a reason "name does not match." This was exactly what Voice Pulse said would happen. I explained that to Verizon and assured that I pay the bill for that phone number. They said they would note that and send the request back to Global NAPS.
Today is another Friday, and I haven't received any good news. I'm very concerned at this point because VP originally mentioned "on about July 13th" as the date the phone number would be taken.
I am on the phone with Verizon now, they tried to conference in Global NAPS to get permission per FCC rules but the Verizon rep says he tried three times and keeps getting sent into voice mail at Global NAPS.
I found the 24x7 "Emergency Number" for Global Naps (after clicking through to Maryland on their website) and provided that to the Verizon rep. He tried that number and said it rang the same person who answered his call and transferred him to voice mail the first 3 times. He left a voice mail explaining his involvement and seeking a resolution today. We'll see what happens... |
|
bmcent1
join:2009-06-29
Frederick, MD
| reply to stevech0
said by stevech0 :why would someone with a small business to run muck about with risky Internet-based VoIP? Seems like a poor cost/risk benefit tradeoff, and a needless time diversion. VOIP provided nice features to a small business...
- Scheduled DND was great for a home office line
- Ability to forward calls to my cell if expecting an important call and going to be out of the office
- VMs e-mailed to my Black Berry as attachments
POTS may provide all of these, but if so, at a serious premium to the price of VOIP and with a small business, being frugal is important stretching a thin budget in the early years.
In hindsight, yes, I've been bit by VOIP, but this is never a scenario I imagined. And given the FCC rules, not one most people would make a plan B for. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
1 edit | Please see this if you haven't already:
»www.pcworld.com/article/168165/v···you.html
It deals with this same problem. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
2 edits | reply to bmcent1
"The Dog in the Manger"
--------------------------------------------
From Aesop:
A Dog asleep in a manger filled with hay, was awakened by the Cattle, which came in tired and hungry from working in the field. But the Dog would not let them get near the manger, and snarled and snapped as if it were filled with the best of meat and bones, all for himself.
The Cattle looked at the Dog in disgust. "How selfish he is!" said one. "He cannot eat the hay and yet he will not let us eat it who are so hungry for it!"
Now the farmer came in. When he saw how the Dog was acting, he seized a stick and drove him out of the stable with many a blow for his selfish behavior.
Moral: Do not grudge others what you cannot enjoy yourself.
----------------------------------
Sooner or later, the FCC is going to get SERIOUSLY pissed at these people. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
1 edit | reply to bmcent1
Regarding yesterday's PC World news story on Global_NAPS and their portsnorting:
»www.pcworld.com/article/168165/v···you.html
That was written by Christina Tynan-Wood
who has a multiplicity of roles online.
This is from one of her websites:
"Got a problem? Have a technical question? Having a problem with a high-tech company?
Write to me for help! I will intervene on your behalf or answer your question here.
I can’t answer every question but I'll do my best.
If I use your question here you get a prize!
Send email to christina [at] geekgirlfriends [dot] com"
So---couldn't hurt! |
|
Seeley
join:2009-01-31
Eatontown, NJ
| reply to bmcent1
Man, I'm glad I came across this thread. I have been trying to port a VP/NAPS number to Callcentric since Feb and it doesn't look good. I have filed a complaint naming VP w/ Naps in the notes back in the end of May. AND.....
Last Fri(July 10) I also received a crypic message from Steve at VP saying:
This is Steve reaching out to you from Voicepulse and the reason I'm calling is there's important and time-dated information pertaining to your account in specific relation to one of the phone numbers you have, 732-876-****. Being that this material is time-dated in nature, it is imperative that we review as soon as possible. So if you can please reach out to me at your earliest convenience, we'll really apreciate it.
I have not talked to Steve yet and it doesn't make any difference because it seems my naps number will either be dropped by VP or NON-portable. So why worry. As a matter of fact I just received ANOTHER update on my ticket with Callcentric that says(and this has been going on since Feb):
We have been notified by our underlying carrier that your order has been rejected/cancelled, and we should resubmit your order to them with updated documentation. You may either upload your documentation into this ticket, or you may choose to close this ticket out and open a new one. Either way, please update us back at your earliest convenience so we may proceed. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| any consumer having difficulty getting VoicePulse to release their phone number should be filing a complaint to the FCC at »https://esupport.fcc.gov/sform2000/formB···ge=2000B
Fill in the comments section with all info, including dates and cut n' paste all correspondence. Speak professionally and business-like; no curse words. Provide all names and phone numbers of the offending company. This is a simple number porting issue which FCC guidelines have already declared to be a routine, must obey action. VoicePulse is in obvious violation of FCC guidelines. Your service provider is VoicePulse, and they are the ones with the obligation ... your narrative should not mention any other provider other than the new one.
Seeley, you should call Steve back. Be sure to ask him his last name and direct phone number. Then tell him to get your number ported out in 24 hours or you will be raising the issue with the FCC. Be sure to provide the link I gave above, so he knows you mean business. VoicePulse knows the rules, and they know they are in violation of the rules. Tell Steve that if he doesn't get your number ported out in 24 hours, you will consider that non-action to be your invitation to have the FCC to investigate VoicePulse's willful violation of FCC guidelines about number portability. Confirm the spelling of Steve's name, as it will be included in your FCC report. If Steve won't answer to you, he can answer to the FCC. The FCC is the police in these type of issues, and you must involve them as VoicePulse will not cooperate. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs: | Is this really a VP issue or an issue where Global NAPS is holding the number hostage. From what I have been reading it is the latter. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| it's likely an issue that GlobalNAPS is not releasing the number. But in a complaint to the FCC, a user cannot complain about a carrier's provider -- user pays the carrier, not any underlying provider. so the FCC needs to know about VoicePulse -- let VP point the finger ... according to FCC rules, the finger points right back at VP for using a provider that itself does not obey the rules. so VP is complicit. |
|
burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA
·voip.ms
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to PX Eliezer
Geesh. 172 days to do a port, and only after jumping through hoops no one has jumped before. Broadvoice and GlobalNAPS just want to wear a customer out until they give up. I wonder what one sh*tty number means to GlobalNAPS to have to put customers through this. Whether one needs to complain about their provider, the carrier, or both, to the FCC, they need to complain. Both need to comply with FCC regulations if they want to do business in the U.S. To have excuses of pointing fingers to each other just so they don't have to port, is unacceptable. |
|
csudsu11
join:2004-05-28
Hackensack, NJ
| reply to bmcent1
After many calls and lengthy conversations with numerous contacts at VoicePulse, I have learned the following. It was not easy to piece together the facts, mostly because they seem to be trying to avoid violating an NDA or some company policy.
GlobalNAPS was one of the very first providers VoicePulse began using. This was back in 2003-2004, before VoIP providers were required by the FCC to allow porting of their numbers and before Broadvoice existed. Therefore, it was implied that LNP was never agreed upon when the contract was signed, numbers ordered, and distributed to new VoicePulse customers.
This probably continued without much notice until late 2007 when the FCC ruled that VoIP providers had to support LNP.
At that point, it's probably safe to assume that many GNAPS numbers had been distributed by VoicePulse. VoicePulse claims (with supporting evidence on the forums) that they promptly began approving ports, regardless of provider, in compliance with the FCC ruling. However, they soon learned that GNAPS was rejecting all ports taking advantage of some loophole they believe applies to them. It appears the VP employees I talked to have no motivation to hold the numbers and have been ready and willing to ease the process in any way. However, they already know the outcome of GNAPS numbers and are saying they're not portable because it's the hard truth, due entirely to GNAPS refusal to port.
I believe VoicePulse is at fault for entering into a contract that didn't allow LNP, although that's somewhat mitigated by the fact that it wasn't a requirement when they signed it. They really had no way of knowing what the next FCC commissioner would implement. GlobalNAPS on the other hand is known (google them) to be a highly litigious and unscrupulous business partner in recent years, being involved in dozens of lawsuits. They are obviously not afraid of the FCC or any other entity, regardless of size or legal power. It's unlikely that a small VoIP provider will be able to force their hand to do anything, so it seems like VoicePulse is stuck fielding FCC complaints with no resolution.
Based on what users are reporting here, it sounds like they're doing the only thing possible to remove the target off their backs -- disconnecting GNAPS numbers. It's a catch-22, the more users complain that they can't port the numbers, the more motivation VP has to just drop their footprint in those areas to avoid trouble. It's unfortunate for the customers in those areas, but what's the alternate outcome here? |
|
Seeley
join:2009-01-31
Eatontown, NJ
1 edit | said by csudsu11 :Based on what users are reporting here, it sounds like they're doing the only thing possible to remove the target off their backs -- disconnecting GNAPS numbers. It's a catch-22, the more users complain that they can't port the numbers, the more motivation VP has to just drop their footprint in those areas to avoid trouble. It's unfortunate for the customers in those areas, but what's the alternate outcome here? Possibley they are only dropping those GNAPS numbers with FCC complaints and not all GNAPS numbers? |
|
