Possible delay after Landline -> T-Mobile port before I can then port to GV?
RFord:
I think this is the issue the OP is running into. GV numbers are held/issued by Bandwidth.com (not "broadband.com"). Bandwidth.com might not have any presence in that rate center and if so, will not be able to port the number into GV. If the number is not portable to GV, your best bet would be to port to Anveo (or Callcentric) and also setup E911 with them for $0.80 per month. Of course, all outgoing calls via GV will be showing a different number than your old PSTN number and this might be confusing for the people your In-Laws will be calling. Maybe they can over time, have people call them on the new GV number and eventually get rid of the old PSTN number. You will have to pay for CNAM info for each call via Anveo (if enabled), so this might be something to consider. To get around this charge, you could program most of their incoming CNAM as Phonebook entries on Anveo and have the CNAM data pulled from the Phonebook.
Quote from: dircom on April 10, 2013, 01:09:18 am
While you may be able to port an old landline # to a cell #, you can run into the problem of some Phone numbers from some local switches are not portable.
facesnorth:
Yes, Bandwidth.com is what I meant. I was going by memory when I said broadband.com. I've read about that, and people often will cite localcallingguide or telcodata.us to support it, but I doubt that anyone actually sees "Bandwidth.com" when they look up their # using those websites. I wonder if there is a real way to verify if they have the necessary presence to allow the port to happen.
Today I am again getting the error: "Ooops! We currently don't support porting from your carrier. We apologize and are working on adding support for more carriers"
This is unfortunate because I was hoping by today everything would be cleared up. At this point I am thinking perhaps I need to go either the Anveo route or one of the "v***'s". Callcentric looks to be way more expensive. I think just getting incoming calls would be sufficient. I will look into the cheapest option for this alone. It would be nice if there was simply a cheap call forwarding service.
dircom:
you say you doubt this info:
see if bandwith.com is listed using
http://www.localcallingguide.com/lca_prefix.php
I don't think anyone can give you any more info than that
perhaps you can knock on the door of the local switch and ask them ;)
facesnorth:
Well that's exactly what I'm talking about. Most of the discussion regarding porting landlines to GV on the internet would lead one to believe that it's something that most people have been able to do successfully, with certain unusual exceptions.
EDIT: By this I refer to those who in following Obihai's tutorial, receive the 2nd error message during the initial sanity check: "Ooops! We currently don't support porting from your carrier. We apologize and are working on adding support for more carriers." The tutorial is even written in such a way that suggests it's practically guaranteed to work after receiving this particular error. While we obviously know that not to be true at this point, it certainly seems to work for most by reading people's experiences on the web.
But for any given area code (NPA) that I've entered into that website, it has shown less than 5% of the central office exchanges (NXX) listed as connected to Bandwidth.com. So it would seem to me that very few of the people who have been able to successfully port a landline to GV actually had a central office exchange that was covered by bandwidth.com.
facesnorth:
Strange that when I call the number it still sometimes (but not always) rings the old landline. The port was initiated around 52 hours ago, and was completed around 32 hours ago.
Anyway I think I'm going to give it till the end of the week (or at least until it completely stops ringing the old landline), and if I still can't port it by then, we are going to choose the lowest cost VOIP provider that meets their needs.
Still unsure of the actual costs between some of these guys to get what they need, in terms of what's included/not included or features that I may not be considering that are included in one vs the other.
I think at a minimum they'd like incoming/outgoing caller ID, e911, ability to send/receive traditional faxes (using an old fax machine), and probably between 30 - 90 minutes per day combined incoming / outgoing to #'s within the 48 inland U.S. Is there a clear winner here pricewise? Any other features I didn't mention that they may find useful that I'm not considering?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page