Why does Vonage show AZ phone numbers as not portable?

Posts: 7 · New Forum Member Joined: Feb 12, 2005 Posts: 7

If these questions are inappropriate for this forum, or if someone knows how to submit these questions directly to Vonage, or if there is a better way to get an answer to these questions, please advise.

I tried several AZ prefixes (in Area Code 520) on the Vonage website checker, to see if they are portable. I tried both landline and cell phone prefixes. All came back as non transferrable.

According to Qwest (the major local phone provider in AZ), all the switches in AZ were converted to Local Number Portability (LNP) back in 2000. See the following which was cut and pasted from Qwest.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To determine LNP availability for Qwest wireline switches, refer to Network Disclosure #414.

http://www.qwest.com/disclosures/netdisclosure414/az.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to that URL and you will find that all the switches are LNP capable as of 2000. So my question is why does Vonage report AZ phone numbers as non portable? If they are truely not portable, why is this the case almost 5 years after implementation of LNP?

GZ

Posts: 2251 · Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:14 pm Post subject:

Because the underlying CLEC that Vonage is using for numbers in those areas does not currently have an agreement in place for LNP with Qwest

Posts: 7 · New Forum Member Joined: Feb 12, 2005 Posts: 7

Thanks Dan.

I can understand that explanation. My next question would be "Why wouldn't Vonage's CLEC's for all areas of the country, have service agreements with all the major carriers?". Is this a matter of $'s, and do the carriers charge a fee for LNP? Is there some other reason why these agreements are not in place?

Your thoughts?

GZ

Posts: 2251 · Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:24 am Post subject:

My experience with this is actually extensive. I once had a rather large ($25M+) carrier agreement with Qwest, they can be very hard to deal with if they wish to be.

See, Qwest really does not want to provide LNP to a CLEC.

Prior to being given the ok to sell LD by the PUC's, Qwest (all RBOC's) had to open their network to local resale. But nothing said they had to make it easy on the CLEC's to do business with them.
They could require massive bonds, 10,000 page applications, delay the paperwork for years...

The reason you hear reports in this forum coming from the greater Denver metro area of speedy LNP's is due to Denver being the capital of Colorado and home to Qwest corporate. All eyes are on Qwest in Denver.

In other Qwest regions, Qwest can make it very difficult for a CLEC to obtain an agreement.

You can not blame Vonage for this problem. I hope the power of Vonage along with complaints to your PUC from people like you will put an end to this practice by the RBOC's.

Posts: 86 · Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:40 am Post subject:

Could not have said it better.

Some of our CLEC's are great. Some not so helpful...But really depends on individual situation.

Look at it this way, CLEC doesn't need us, but we need them.

Posts: 28 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Feb 04, 2005 Posts: 28

dconnor wrote:

The reason you hear reports in this forum coming from the greater Denver metro area of speedy LNP's is due to Denver being the capital of Colorado and home to Qwest corporate. All eyes are on Qwest in Denver.

In other Qwest regions, Qwest can make it very difficult for a CLEC to obtain an agreement.

You can not blame Vonage for this problem. I hope the power of Vonage along with complaints to your PUC from people like you will put an end to this practice by the RBOC's.

I am wondering how to go about complaining about this, here in Southern Arizona.

I'm not sure I can understand enough of it to word my comments sufficiently well to the PUC.

Unfortunately, I am thinking of trying packet8 because, somehow (how?) they were able to ovecome this problem and do offer LNP near Nogales, AZ. I wonder if they had users who complained to the PUC? Or maybe they found some other way to get it done?

Posts: 20 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Jun 24, 2005 Posts: 20

Quote:

Some of our CLEC's are great. Some not so helpful...But really depends on individual situation.

Look at it this way, CLEC doesn't need us, but we need them.

Interesting comment! Shows how confused people are about PSTN and Voip telco issues... even this Vonage employee's got it wrong.

CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) is what Vonage is.

ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier) is what the local telco (i.e. Qwest) is.

The problem with LNP porting for certain area code and prefix (it must be a combination of both) is not that the ILEC refuses to LNP. They can't do that. It's illegal. They can slow the process to a crawl, but they can't stop it. . .

They reason why a CLEC such as Vonage can't port LNP for a certain area is they don't have the VoIP-PSTN gateway at the ILEC's CO (Central Office) for that area code-prefix. That's not the ILECs fault, it is Vonage. Likely they didn't have enough customers vs. cost for that area code. It costs a LOT of money to put in a gateway and Vonage uses a third party for them anyway, from what I understand.

Try checking with other Voip CLECs. You may get lucky!

Posts: 20 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Jun 24, 2005 Posts: 20

Quote:

CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) is what Vonage is.

ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier) is what the local telco (i.e. Qwest) is.

Actually I should revise that part of the last post, It's incorrect:

CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) - what Vonage might be in some area codes/prefixes, but thats probably giving 'em too much credit. It is highly unlikely since they are just a pure Voip provider with no fixed assets except (maybe) their desks and servers. Lol

So that leaves the more accurate description:

CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) - the entity that leases space in the ILECs CO for the PSTN gateway. This is a third party carrier that Vonage uses to access the local PSTN numbers in that area code-prefix.

Posts: 86 · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:19 am Post subject: gnexus

Thank you for your insightfulness.

I will pass on the bashing though.

I am sure next you will say you are a system engineer?

Posts: 20 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Jun 24, 2005 Posts: 20

Quote:

I will pass on the bashing though.

No bashing intended. Lol

Sorry if you felt that way.

I don't think there's many Voip providers out there that actually have collocated equipment. They use third-party CLECs. That's not a bad thing.

If a provider does have CLEC gateways it's not neccesarily a good thing. It prevents flexibility on costs and the services provided and doesn't really improve the LNP process.

I was simply pointing out the specifics so people don't get confused and blame the wrong party for problems. There's way too many technical terms and abbreviations in Voip. People tend to blame LNP problems on the companies they are dealing with. I was trying to be accurate and point out there's a third-party carrier involved. Calling the ILEC a CLEC is not fair to them and is decepetive to customers if coming from a company rep. I would go so far as to say it would be local telco bashing if it was done intentionally. I know it was just a mistake, but the local telco shouldn't be blamed if it's not their fault .