music4praise
join:2006-02-22
Big Rapids, MI
 ·QuantumVoice
·VoicePulse
| reply to Seeley
Re: Voice Pulse Dropping My Phone Number ... Global NAPS?
said by Seeley  :Possibley they are only dropping those GNAPS numbers with FCC complaints and not all GNAPS numbers? In my area VoicePulse had only GNAPS numbers and now they are no longer offering a local exchance on their signup site. I checked a couple of other areas that I know about and those numbers are gone too. It looks like VoicePulse is dropping all of their GNAPS numbers. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey | The number of new phone numbers (DID) available from VoicePulse does seem to have dropped significantly, as far as I can tell. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
| reply to csudsu11
said by csudsu11 : 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? Thanks much for all the info. 
My view:
If you adopt a child, and the child gets quite ill, you are responsible for medical care.
You might wish that you had never done the adoption, you might wish for a time machine, but the fact remains that it is your responsibility. You took on the obligation.
VoicePulse is is a similar situation. At the least, they should have hired an attorney (if they haven't) and pursued this in court.
Because:
a) It's their responsibility.
b) Even if they lose, they would have tried. And they would look good in the process.
c) It's to their own benefit. This whole mess clearly is not good for their reputation.
d) If the FCC determines that VP did not make a good enough effort to deal with GN, then VP itself will face FCC penalties. |
|
burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA
·voip.ms
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to bmcent1
Contracts or no contracts, why does Global NAPS think they're so special and don't have to port? Saying that the contracts they wrote up earlier this decade don't require porting is not an excuse. They're all under FCC regulation if they want to do business in the U.S. If they don't want to follow FCC rules then they should close down their business or sell it.
It's like a company saying that since it has been around since the early 1800's and way back then they signed perpetual contracts to be supplied slaves, so they should still be allowed to use slaves regardless that slavery is now illegal. There are no "grandfathering" provisions here. It's the same with the FCC or they would end up having no control over these carriers. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey | 1+
Also, every business contract that I have ever seen includes a general clause about all the parties complying with all applicable laws and regulations. |
|
josephf
join:2009-04-26 | reply to PX Eliezer
Perhaps the risk of VP litigating was GNAPS may have dropped VP as a client forcing VP customers to change numbers. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to csudsu11
said by csudsu11 :After many calls and lengthy conversations with numerous contacts at VoicePulse, I have learned the following. ... so it seems like VoicePulse is stuck fielding FCC complaints with no resolution. Your summary was nicely done.
Action item for those with phone numbers in this situation ... After your port out request is rejected, file complaint with FCC using link I provided in a post above. Still mention only VP because your relationship is with them, and not an underlying provider. FCC regulations require VP and any carrier selling to VP to obey the porting rules. There is no easy out for VP, despite it not being their fault; they are nonetheless responsible to their customers. As mentioned, they have legal means to pursue against their underlying providers if those providers cause harm to VP. All these providers are Big Boys, they have resources, they have legal counsel, they know what they are doing and why, and at least one of them is taking the risk as a purposeful business decision. As a consumer, you are not obligated to feel sorry for any company ... you simply want your number ported, as is your legal right. If a guy broke in your house and stole your stuff, left a note to apologize, and it turned out he and his family were broke and hungry, you would still pursue legal action against him for breaking in your house. Same thing here ... VP is breaking the rules, irrespective of circumstances, and they must be held accountable. VP has legal means to pursue the company that put them in the position of violation of the rules; in a civil trial against a provider they would be all lined up to win triple damages so don't cry for VP. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
| Interesting reading from the New York State Public Service Commission regarding their difficulties with Global_NAPS.
It appears that they were assigned certain blocks of numbers in error, then did not want to give them back. The NYS authorities finally had to order the NANPA to reclaim the numbers.
Note: This is a PDF document. And it is heavy reading, but rewarding.
»www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c···l6tA1WTQ |
|
burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA
·voip.ms
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | said by PX Eliezer :Interesting reading from the New York State Public Service Commission regarding their difficulties with Global_NAPS. It appears that they were assigned certain blocks of numbers in error, then did not want to give them back. The NYS authorities finally had to order the NANPA to reclaim the numbers. Note: This is a PDF document. And it is heavy reading, but rewarding. In briefly reading it, I saw the following sentence:
"For the downstate New York area, Global NAPs was assigned 10,000 numbers in each
of the 540 and 550 exchanges for the 212, 347, 516, 631, 718, 845, 914, and 917 area
codes, for a total of 180,000 numbers."
They probably thought they hit paydirt, especially with being assigned 20,000 (212) area code numbers in error.
It would have been nice if the NY Public Service Commission reclaimed all of Global NAPS numbers as punitive damages, but that's just wishful thinking on my part. |
|
josephf
join:2009-04-26 | 540 and 550 (and 976) numbers (in NY and many other areas) are premium rate numbers, similar to 900 area number. |
|
burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA
·voip.ms
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by josephf :540 and 550 (and 976) numbers (in NY and many other areas) are premium rate numbers, similar to 900 area number. I noticed that after reading the whole decision thoroughly. All the more reason Global NAPS was hoarding these numbers. It also mentioned that Global NAPS may have already assigned some numbers to cable modem subscribers. But since these are special purpose numbers, that shouldn't have been done. Global NAPS showed their stupidity by mentioning this, since they would have to reverse what they did. |
|
djmram
join:2005-06-02
New York, NY
1 edit | reply to bmcent1
said by bmcent1 :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... I have a friend with a Albany, NY number that is in the same situation with Voice Pulse and Global NAPs. Any new updates on porting away from Global NAPs with Verizon? If not, did you lose your number yet? Thanks! |
|
