djmram
join:2005-06-02
New York, NY
1 edit | reply to bmcent1
Re: Voice Pulse Dropping My Phone Number ... Global NAPS?
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! |
|
burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA
 ·voip.ms
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to josephf
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. |
|
josephf
join:2009-04-26 | reply to burgerwars
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
1 edit | reply to PX Eliezer
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. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
| reply to RockyBB
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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey | reply to burgerwars
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. |
|
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
·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. |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey | reply to music4praise
The number of new phone numbers (DID) available from VoicePulse does seem to have dropped significantly, as far as I can tell. |
|
music4praise
join:2006-02-22
Big Rapids, MI
·QuantumVoice
·VoicePulse
| reply to Seeley
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. |
|
Seeley
join:2009-01-31
Eatontown, NJ
1 edit | reply to csudsu11
Re: Voice Pulse Dropping My Phone Number ... Global NAPS?
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? |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to ropeguru
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. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs: | reply to RockyBB
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
| reply to Seeley
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. |
|
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. |
|
