May 27, 2018, 07:58:12 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
News:
 
   Forum Home   Search Login Register OBiTALK  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Possible delay after Landline -> T-Mobile port before I can then port to GV?  (Read 5215 times)
facesnorth
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


« on: April 09, 2013, 05:30:12 pm »

I have set up an OBi110 at my in-laws.  I created a temporary GV # for them to use it as a trial, and routed all outgoing calls through this #.  The existing landline was connected to the FXO port on the OBi110 so they could still receive incoming calls over that #.  They decided they were satisfied with the quality of the GV service and so we followed the instructions here to port their landline # to a T-Mobile prepaid cellphone.

That port has now completed, and yet I am still getting the error from GV: "Ooops! We currently don't support porting from your carrier. We apologize and are working on adding support for more carriers."

I've been researching this and have found many other people that have had this issue, but I am first wondering if it simply takes some time before GV recognizes the # now as a T-Mobile # rather than still with my landline carrier (Blue Ridge Communications).  I've read posts that it doesn't.  But I called T-Mobile and they said that while the port is complete, it may take another 24 hours before all the info gets transitioned.  Currently when I ring the # I believe it is calling both locations.  For sure it still dials the old landline.  I don't actually get T-Mobile coverage where I am, so I can't confirm that it rings the cellphone, but I am receiving text messages from T-Mobile that indicate the # works.

It's a 570-629 # and appears to be owned by Verizon.  Some have said only "broadband.com" #'s are portable, but this clearly isn't true - I think 99% of the people who port their #'s successfully didn't show their #'s as being connected in any way to "broadband.com" either through localcallingguide or through telcodata.us.  So I'm not sure where that bit of info originated from.  EDIT:  I meant to say "BANDWIDTH.COM", the point remains the same.

1. Is it possible that even after a successful port to T-Mobile, that it may take additional time for the needed info to transition so that GV port will stop giving the above error message?

2. If the error continues, is it possible a landline flag of some sort is still mistakenly set, and is there someone I can now contact at T-Mobile to correct this?  I know this has been suggested in other posts, but there's always speculation in these types of threads - I'm wondering if anyone has anything more substantial.

3. If there ends up being no way to port the number from T-Mo to GV, is there another intermediary I can port it to which would then make it portable to GV?  I suppose it would have to be another mobile provider, as these are the only #'s that can port to GV.

4. If not, then is there a free or cheap "forwarding" service which I can port the number into, which would simply forward all incoming calls from that # to a new GV #?  This ringshuffle.com looks like it would be great if I was able to port a number into them.  Wouldn't help with outgoing CID, but at least then they could still receive all their calls.

5. I see that the number can be successfully ported to Callcentric.  Presumably it could also be ported to Anveo, voip.ms, voipo, vitelity, etc.  If there ends up being no way to port to GV, and we decide to simply use one of these other providers, then can someone comment on which would likely end up being cheapest annually, for an average senior couple who makes and receives a dozen calls per day, perhaps spending 30-60 minutes per day on the phone, although often significantly less.  99% of all calls are made to/from the 48 inland U.S.  I've tried to put together cost comparisons for each of these, and it's not as easy to determine as I thought it might be.

Anveo appears that it could offer the cheapest rates for their purposes if they limit outgoing calls.  From what I gather, I could get a free port, and then it would cost $2 per month for unlimited incoming calls, and $.01/minute for outgoing calls in the 48 inland U.S.  e911 for an additional $.80/month.

Voipo appears to be $6.21 per month for incoming/outgoing if I pay 2 years in advance.  Their site doesn't seem to indicate any pricing options besides this.  This may be best without worrying about limiting outgoing calls.

Voip.ms lists their outgoing rates by country, they'd end up paying .0105 per minute outgoing in the U.S.  Incoming calls appear to cost about the same, although there also appears to be some plan available for between $4.95 to $6.95 per month.  Incoming costs are not as clear as outgoing costs on their website.

Vitelity is $7.95 per month for unlimited in/out in U.S.

Callcentric looks like it would be the most expensive just glancing quickly at their site.

Anyway, I'm hoping that tomorrow the GV port goes through, but I need to explore the alternatives so they can keep their # which they've had for over 20 years (yes, I've found and read posts which suggested older numbers are less likely to be portable.  But this just seems like more speculation).
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 09:38:19 pm by facesnorth » Logged
facesnorth
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2013, 08:05:58 pm »

Update: Just tried checking the number again and I am now getting this message "Sorry. Your mobile number can not be ported at this time."

This isn't one of the options presented for the sanity check in the obi tutorial.  I googled the error and found others have received it as well, and I read Vincent Pacquet's response.  I'm still not sure what that means for my prospects of porting to GV.  It's interesting that the error changed over the course of the day.  Perhaps that indicates by the morning it will be different yet again (hopefully for the better).

« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 09:56:32 pm by facesnorth » Logged
Shale
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1061


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2013, 08:50:09 pm »

I suspect your thought that it takes a while for databases to get updated is right. Your experience will be helpful to others.
Logged
facesnorth
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2013, 09:55:32 pm »

I will keep the thread updated with any further info as it comes.
Logged
dircom
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 445


« Reply #4 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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 01:11:05 am by dircom » Logged
RFord
Full Member
***
Posts: 218


« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2013, 04:04:27 am »

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.

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.
Logged
facesnorth
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2013, 10:39:46 am »

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.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 10:41:32 am by facesnorth » Logged
dircom
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 445


« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2013, 11:41:12 am »

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   Wink
Logged
facesnorth
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2013, 01:04:19 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 09:36:59 pm by facesnorth » Logged
facesnorth
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2013, 02:55:02 pm »

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?
Logged
facesnorth
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2013, 12:43:23 pm »

This will likely be my final update to this thread, but I think this thread overall will prove useful to people in the future who have a similar problem.

Today I called my # to see "which" voicemail answered - i.e. if it had finally been disconnected from calling the old landline, and was now only calling the cellphone.  Mind you, this is now 3.5 days after the port was initiated, and 2.5 days after it has been officially completed.

Finally this time, the voicemail I got was the cellphone's and not the landlines.  I went home and tried to port the #, and voila, it worked.  # has now been ported to Google Voice.

Note that there was no mention of "bandwidth.com" on any of my searches for their NXX with either localcallingguide or telcodata.us.  It simply took a lot longer than it takes for most people out there.  Just happy it worked out.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC