I agree, but unfortunately our customer has chosen to not fight it. Since this would likely involve them, I have to respect that.
-- Sent from my iPad > On Mar 23, 2023, at 6:25 AM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> <[email protected]> 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 >>>> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Peter Beckman >>>>> via VoiceOps >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 9:30 PM >>>>> To: Carlos Alvarez <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: VoiceOps <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.angryox.com/ >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Peter Beckman Internet Guy >>> [email protected] https://www.angryox.com/ >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ >>> VoiceOps mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >>> _______________________________________________ >>> VoiceOps mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
