🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: chi.internet
Article #284

Re: how's sprint these days

#284
From: Adam H. Kerman
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 05:13
51 lines
3574 bytes
smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 5/28/2013 6:14 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>>On 5/28/2013 4:05 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>>>>Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>>>>bje@ripco.com says...

>>>>>>Sprint seems to cater to the high-end, where unlimited everything is more
>>>>>>important than competitive pricing. Even their "family plans" are hard to
>>>>>>swallow.

>>>>>Pagepluscellular.com has unlimited pricing plans that seem reasonable
>>>>>and no contract.  I have been using them for almost 4 years now.  Since
>>>>>I hate talking on the telephone I keep to the pay as you go minutes and

>>>>I'm going to guess you have nobody to talk to in the first place.

>>>>I don't want to try to port my number which I like over to rats&rodents
>>>>cellullar.biz

>>>>Has anybody ported a cell number to google voice and then back again, if
>>>>this is even possible?

>>>>I do have a work phone, which sucks, but is free.

>>>Porting is law. You can port your number whichever and whenever the fuck
>>>many times you want to, assuming the accounts you're porting away from
>>>are in good standing.

>>>I have ported numbers to and fro Google Voice without issue.

>>Mandatory participation in porting is required in some instances, but
>>not others. Porting participation is definitely NOT mandatory with VoIP.
>>VoIP isn't even regulated by FCC in most instances, although it is
>>with cable.

>>Google Voice might indeed choose to drop out of porting without regulatory
>>consequence.

>Sort of; VoIP carriers _are_ now covered by the FCC regulations for LNP. 
>The problem is that Google refuses to acknowledge that they are one as 
>such. So you're correct that they could opt to not honor a port-out 
>request, but I think it would be somewhat suicidal of them to do so. 
>There are no examples of them refusing to do so "just because" to date.

Google Voice may not be a carrier at all. The numbers themselves are
from bandwidth.com, which is the CLEC, not Google Voice (from the
traffic routing lists).

I admit I'm not familiar with this. Which FCC order requires VoIP to
participate in LNP generally?
Technical Details
Message-ID: <ko42pl$ipr$1@news.albasani.net>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bp1ni24632pbd.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
References: <ko16ho$mdu$3@reader1.panix.com> <ko38qb$bb1$1@ftupet.ftupet.com> <ko3doo$mjd$1@news.albasani.net> <ko3k5o$mvr$1@ftupet.ftupet.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 10d5fa,8260ba37813bee0b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gid837b0c45a0,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.68.191.36 with SMTP id gv4mr98499pbc.8.1369804406354;
        Tue, 28 May 2013 22:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bp1ni24632pbd.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: chi.internet
Subject: Re: how's sprint these days
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 05:13:25 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <ko42pl$ipr$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <ko16ho$mdu$3@reader1.panix.com> <ko38qb$bb1$1@ftupet.ftupet.com> <ko3doo$mjd$1@news.albasani.net> <ko3k5o$mvr$1@ftupet.ftupet.com>
X-Trace: news.albasani.net vjV51A7YG18fCM43ChC1QJ98ZjnI48b5Tu10v8EpoBR7hMT2jo1vk+nqMUQs8kmgs+OQGJ2LrPHhEOOIlo6YNDXPgaEbcXUCCiuB6enttzINVhXgxYV9O3HSjKjyVAbI
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 05:13:25 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="dCluP2fs5UFGLtphYOVk8aFiVQsZVVFiQ/ylFW9OjJqucyYFT0xasG3gKMTqGFmePYoJKSaiU3zmkbwygAPcoBUXb4o73t+mitKtw2S8KmHXJuAVAN+uCUa0UKV3lrZl"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C6a4d0GrBOk/xL5/MME3olxsOIc=