🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5/29/2013 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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?

FCC 07-188 and 09-41, from 2007 and 2009, respectively. The key wording 
is from the '09 ruling:

�Thus, we require all entities subject to our LNP rules, including 
interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners, to complete 
port requests for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal 
ports within one Business Day, unless a longer period is requested by 
the new provider or the customer elects otherwise.�

Google argues that they're not even an interconnected carrier, and, 
depending on how you read the rules, they actually don't meet at least 
two of the four criteria the FCC itself proposes for that definition. 
That said, their underlying CLEC is absolutely under the FCC LNP regs 
and it would be really, REALLY fuckin' dumb for either organization to 
decide "Welp, we're not honoring port-outs anymore!".

In practice, I've ported a large # of numbers to and from GV on various 
projects and they've responded as any LEC would. I do not expect that to 
change anytime soon.

-- 
smr