Ages ago I had a full NXX in each rate center within about a hundred miles of us. I think there were about 52 of them. I could use many, but many ended up requiring us to get a T1 from that rate center to our CLLI to use. As a result, maybe 20 something of them never got used. At that time we were doing a lot of creative things with our paging system so we didn't have to pay anything other than OCN management and 502 reporting for all that.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > Many VoIP providers interface with Neutral Tandem, Peerless, or similar > networks, so your call path doesn't touch that local switch. For anyone > else (say the incumbent), the call path *WILL* involve that local tandem. > Most providers aren't willing (or allowed) to half-ass it by having a > number in that town and then just not connecting to the local tandem, > effectively isolating from anyone that *IS* on that local tandem. > > The local and long distance tandems are switches of last resort. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > *To: *af@af.afmug.com > *Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:45:54 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it.... > > Ok, so I'm a ported voip number calling another ported voip number (and > that's more common today than any actual PSTN termination). What does the > local tandem have to do with it anymore? > > > On 4/16/2020 1:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as > Inteliquent's Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a > termination provider of some kind, through a variety of sold and resold > long distance services, finally arriving at an area's long distance tandem > switch. From there, CLECs attach their switches (whether local or over > some kind of DS1 transport) to that switch. Calls are then completed to the > customer. I don't know of any bypass requirements on this switch. > > If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch > (generally if not always at the same location) that just serves the > ratecenters in that LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town > served by this tandem, you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often. > The tandem switch operator will then make the two parties (you and the > other operator you have more than 24 calls to) arrange your own direct > DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, but it could very well be the > cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the market. If that ILEC > switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty cheap. If that > ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, you may > have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you > hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because > there are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between > major ILEC in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high > cost scenario, you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to > the point where you don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of > traffic there (usually same ratecenter). > > > That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed > up) no matter what. > > LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a > carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used > for PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on > the actual dialed number. > > BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to > the carrier. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > *To: *af@af.afmug.com > *Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it.... > > Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number. I've heard a > similar explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that area), > but I'm wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to achieve. Then > I wonder: Isn't there a central LNP database? (Used to be Neustar, but > it's another company now). The LNP database tells a caller where to send > the call....why would they need a physical connection to any particular > place to make that happen? > > > .....and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped > caring. But I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar. If so, check > Voip Innovations and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the number in. > > > > > On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that > area's tandem switch(es). > > Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a > tandem (in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't > connect to. It could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with > that particular CO and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO > is prohibitive. If you have over a certain volume to a particular switch, > the tandem operator will often make you connect directly to that switch, > reserving tandem switch capacity. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> <dmmoff...@gmail.com> > *To: *af@af.afmug.com > *Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it.... > > I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they > can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that > was an issue. > > I don't think it's been an issue recently. > > > On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: > > We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without > success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to > get that done? > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: > >> On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: >> > So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing >> > ever happened? >> >> >> Contracts are only held against the little guys. >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- Lewis Bergman 325-439-0533 Cell
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
