why call local 587-xxxx, every time promot balance

[wantsoft@gmail.com]

587 is local area code of edmonton

why every time promote balance insufficent?

[dibsmft]

It probably means that this particular area code is not free. Some codes even in the normally free calling cities are sometimes not free. One reason might be that it is a very new prefix that has only been recently released.

[Jake]

Edmonton is listed in the free calling areas, but I can see that a lot of those numbers are showing up as not free.

Wantsoft, you will want to post the first 6 digits of the phone number for a member of staff to look at (???-???-XXXX)

[TheHardy]

587 is local area code of edmonton

why every time promote balance insufficent?

Some new exchanges (NPA-NXX combos) may not have been loaded correctly into the tariff (the thing that checks if it is a free call or not). Can you please post the first 6 digits of the number that is a problem so that us forum members and hopefully STEVE can look into it??

587-___ ???

Thanks!

[TheHardy]

Edmonton is listed in the free calling areas, but I can see that a lot of those numbers are showing up as not free.

There's a WHOLE pile of numbers that have recently been added in many area codes that are part of the free calling city list that HAVE NOT been picked up by the auto-tariff updater ... granted some of them are only "assigned" according to CNAC website, but they are already IN SERVICE in reality (and after having emailed and called CNAC, I found out that this is because THOSE carriers are NOT properly doing their followup paperwork with CNAC when they actually put those numbers IN SERVICE...)

[lheathl]

Well it's june 2012 and this still seems to be an issue that a number in an advertised free calling area that is actually not free. For some reason the Edmonton 587 area code is still not covered in the freephone tariff, 587-521-xxxx. I fail to see why this continues to still be an issue when this was reported to freephoneline staff at least 10 months ago, probably even before that. Here is a quote from a freephoneline staff sent to me...
"Good morning dear client, thank you very much for sending to us the screen shoots, I was investigating in the data base, 587521xxxx is not covered in our free zone, we are aware there are cities in our website saying you can call for free, however there are some numbers not listed as free. Our company is working in a search telephone tool, in which clients can input a phone and the system will let them know if this is a free or charge number.

Sorry for the inconvenient and feel free to make any particular request or question.


Winston Santos
Lv2 Tech Support"

What this tells me is that Edmonton (and probably many other cities) have numbers that aren't free calling and freephoneline is false advertising.

In another post I read that there is a database that all phone providers have access to and should be adhering to as to free calling areas...http://www.cnac.ca/data/ac587.htm. Again why is this continuing to be an issue after year (or so)?


I hope that this gets resolved soon for all of us with this ongoing issue.

[dom]

I'm going to take a look into this to see why it isn't part of the Tarrif Plan, and if we can add it. No promises, though

[dom]

What this tells me is that Edmonton (and probably many other cities) have numbers that aren't free calling and freephoneline is false advertising.

In another post I read that there is a database that all phone providers have access to and should be adhering to as to free calling areas...http://www.cnac.ca/data/ac587.htm. Again why is this continuing to be an issue after year (or so)?

I apologize that this has been an issue for so long. I can say without a doubt, however, that it is not false advertising as this was a one off issue. It is difficult to keep track of all the new NPA-NXXs that are coming out and adding them to our network.
This issue will be resolved in the next 24-48 hours.
Thanks

[TheHardy]

Hey Dom ... 587-521 is Edmonton (proper) and is Shaw Telecom ... Same as 587-523 which shares the same problem, fyi.

I am assuming it will be corrected sooner than the 24 ... however, I know that is the safe bet.

More to the point, and this takes into account all the new NPA/NXX prefixes -- Steve a long time ago mentioned that there was an automated procedure in place now to catch all of them .. and this has turned out NOT to be the case. Perhaps it is time to revisit this??

Neil mentioned that he was perhaps the person in the more correct department regarding these tariff issues? Is that correct?

[Jake]

Dom, this is not really a one off. There has been MANY postings about numbers not being billed correctly. Mainly from people who find they can't call a certain number. I can probably come up with a good list of numbers that are still not billed correctly, either in your favour or ours. I have sent a similar list to mods before, but as I don't come across any numbers I can't dial I don't push it too hard.

I obviously don't know how Fongo's backend works, but I'm not that sure that it would be that difficult to keep track of new numbers. You must have more information that I can get from cnac and localcallingguide, and it's not too hard to automate a 'notifier' script when numbers change just from those sites. To have access to your sort of information would make it much more accurate and simple I am sure.

But as I say, I don't get problems with calling the numbers I do, and if I did I would just use nettalk or GV, so I don't complain

[TheHardy]

I obviously don't know how Fongo's backend works, but I'm not that sure that it would be that difficult to keep track of new numbers. You must have more information that I can get from cnac and localcallingguide, and it's not too hard to automate a 'notifier' script when numbers change just from those sites. To have access to your sort of information would make it much more accurate and simple I am sure.

I know you had a list of mis-tariff's before Jake ...

Steve confirmed ones that they do use CNAC, but there is also the "industry" tool from Telcordia, which publishes MONTHLY for a subscription, which lists all changes, additions, deletions within the entire +1 region (North America and those other countries that share +1 as a national code).

pm coming your way ....

[dom]

Neil mentioned that he was perhaps the person in the more correct department regarding these tariff issues? Is that correct?

Yes, this is correct. I am working with Neil on this.

As far as revisiting the Auto Tarrifs, I will have to speak to Steve in regards to that.

Jake, if you have a list, would you be able to send it to me and Neil so that we can take a look at it please?

[Jake]

Jake, if you have a list, would you be able to send it to me and Neil so that we can take a look at it please?

I'll run the data again in the next day or so and send you what I find. It could be that it is all cleaned up now

[TheHardy]

Yes, this is correct. I am working with Neil on this.

As far as revisiting the Auto Tarrifs, I will have to speak to Steve in regards to that.

Okay, I was trying to do the SPOC on that to keep things simple and from crossing wires, but if it is a team effort ...

I know that the "actual" tariff that governs the calls is tied to the RateLookUp tool (not the SHOW ALL RATES FOR COUNTRY), so it is pretty easy to verify or check if a tariff is broken ...

That said, without a script (Hi Jake) to plug individual #'s into the RateLookUp tool, the COMPLETE list would be handy -- but it is very out of date and does not seem to be maintained AUTOMATICALLY either. As has been suggested, perhaps it should AUTO update at least weekly to reflect the actual tariff, or even better as part of the daily maint cycle.

As far as free calling cities/ratecentres, I have already said a mouthful about LCAs around major centres ... (and that is an entire different topic).

There are, however, many additional cities other than those listed (at least in BC) that are FREE to call according to the tariff ... I will PM you this list later on tonight, to check and see if they should be ... I will try to note those also that do NOT have the traditional wireline LCA associated with them ... (you will note that I am BC-centric, as that is home ...)