Localphone VoIP disadvantages

px_eliezer_

Localphone is a VoIP service with home office in Sheffield, England.

They are a sister company to Voxbeam.

They provide good service and have some very good prices.

Some disadvantages at least in regard to USA customers:

1) If you use Localphone to make an outbound call, and if you have not purchased a phone number (DID) from them, then your caller ID number will show up to the other party as 44114319xxxx which is designated as Sheffield, England.

2) If you use Localphone to make an outbound call, and if you HAVE purchased a phone number (DID) from them, the caller ID number will show up to the other party. However many of these calls may be labelled as Spam because these phone numbers may have STIR/SHAKEN attestations of B or C, rather than A. This seems to have happened after they started using numbers from Onvoy.

3) USA customers may be dinged by their credit card company for an International Transaction fee when paying Localphone.

They are a solid company but these issues may be relevant to some customers.

Samot

px_eliezer_ However many of these calls may be labelled as Spam because these phone numbers may have STIR/SHAKEN attestations of B or C, rather than A. This seems to have happened after they started using numbers from Onvoy.

It doesn't matter what the attestation is in relation to the content of the call. SPAM calls can have an A attestation and non-SPAM calls could be A, B or C. I will reiterate this again, STIR/SHAKEN has nothing to do with whether a call is SPAM or not. It is about the relationship of the carrier and the originator of the caller.

As of now all VoIP providers in the US must participate in STIR/SHAKEN. This means they must give an attestation level and sign outbound calls from their customers. Their upstreams cannot sign calls on their behalf anymore, those days are over.

So if Localphone is getting US DIDs from Onvoy but using another US carrier for their termination and not signing calls it means that the termination carrier must follow the rules. Those rules are any unsigned IP call coming into their network must be signed by the terminating carrier and since the terminating carrier doesn't own the DID used in CallerID the best attestation level will be B and in some cases C.

For clarification (again) here are the three things that must be met to have an A attestation:

The VoIP provider the call originates from (going out to PSTN) controls the DID being used for CallerID.
The VoIP provider is participating in STIR/SHAKEN and signing their own calls
The VoIP provider has a direct relationship with the subscriber (end user) making the call. A direct relation is means the VoIP provider is billing the end user for the service.

None of these requirements have anything to do with SPAM. The mobile carriers have been marking incoming calls as SPAM or Possible SPAM well before STIR/SHAKEN and attestation levels were even introduced. There are numerous services that track CallerID activity.

I was testing one of these services and I was able to make a perfectly clean DID end up being marked as SPAM for a short period of time (there are cool down timers) because I made over 6 API calls to check the number in under 30 seconds. It went from clean to possible spam to definitely spam in that time period.

cb0324

px_eliezer_
I have been using Localphone for about 15 years.

Here are the problems not mentioned

For holders of U.S. DIDs the lack of any IVR or similar filtering scam/spam. Unless you have your own PBS you will be flooded with scam/spam calls, which is especially annoying for people in overseas time zones having U.S. DIDs because they might be woken up regularly in the middle of the night.
I had to block all area codes from outside of our metro area and block all number blocks belonging to certain notorious providers. that drastically reduced the usefulness of my U.S. DIDs.
If your account is in US dollars, calls to many European destinations will be very expensive, even if you set an EU DID as your caller ID. prices are significantly lower if you open an account in Euro currency.
BTW a number of U.S. credit cards does not charge international transaction fees.
There is indeed an issue with calls with U.S. DIDs to U.S. destinations marked as scam/spam , My T mobile scam blocker blocked calls from my own Localphone account.

On the plus side.

Some very inexpensive and good quality international DIDs in a number of European countries- unbeatable on retail level.
Low cost calling in the U.S. and some international destinations ( with the above-mentioned caveat.
Low cost U.S. DIDs ( again, abovementioned caveat )

px_eliezer_

Samot

I know that we've discussed these sorts of issues before.

It does seem that there is not total correlation between paper and real life.

I have to go by this:

Under STIR/SHAKEN, each voice call is assigned one of three attestation levels: A, B or C. An ‘A’ attestation indicates the lowest level of risk and the call has been verified and can be trusted. For enterprises, achieving an A attestation helps increase call answer rates as these levels add another layer of trust to branded calling for businesses solutions like Branded Call Display (BCD). If a call receives lower than an A attestation, it’s at risk of being marked as spam or even blocked by the terminating service provider. For this reason, it’s important for businesses to ensure their calls are being properly assigned the full ‘A’ attestation, and they’re not being mistakenly blocked or marked as spam.

https://www.transunion.com/blog/what-are-the-attestation-levels-for-stir-shaken

The terminating service provider can then apply call handling policies based on the attestation level. For example, calls with A-level attestation can be allowed to go through without any restrictions, while calls with B-level or C-level attestation may be subject to additional scrutiny, such as being labeled as potential spam or blocked altogether.

https://qualityvoicedata.com/company-news/understanding-stir-shaken

I'm not the only person who in real life has encountered some issues with B or C ratings despite the new rules.

The old DSLR forum that was yanked from our midst had some similar postings.

Samot

px_eliezer_ It does seem that there is not total correlation between paper and real life.

Except in the exact link you provided it says what I've said before.

Following are explanations of the three different STIR/SHAKEN attestation levels:

A. Full attestation
Service provider A to service provider B: This is my customer. I gave them this telephone number. This call originated on my network.”

The signing provider:

Is responsible for the origination of the call onto the IP-based service provider voice network

Has a direct authenticated relationship with the customer and can identify the customer

Has established a verified association with the telephone number used for the call

B. Partial attestation
Service provider A to service provider B: This is my customer. This call originated on my network; however, I did not give them this telephone number.”

The signing provider:

Is responsible for the origination of the call onto the IP-based service provider voice network

Has a direct authenticated relationship with the customer and can identify the customer

Has NOT established a verified association with the telephone number used for the call

C. Gateway attestation
Service provider A to service provider B: “This call originated outside my network.”

The signing provider:

Has no relationship to the initiator of the call (e.g., international gateways)

david3

I use Localphone as a failover for AnveoDirect, if the call is rejected or the rate is too high.

There is a procedure in Localphone's account area to register a non-localphone phone number to be used as caller ID, which is what I've done, and it works.

The calls do get tagged with a B attestation, though.

cb0324

david3
That's correct. Sometimes is better to have non Localphone number as a caller ID, because at least in my area Onvoy bought up the DIDs Localphone uses and an Onvoy DID screams SCAM.

Samot

In other words, if a SPAM/fraud entity is using Onvoy for termination and is using an Onvoy provided DID as the CallerID then Onvoy is signing that "auto warranty" call with an A attestation. The call is still SPAM and a fraud attempt but now as Provider B in the above scenario, I can submit a report with Onvoy's Origination ID (also in the STIR/SHAKEN headers) and Onvoy has 24 hours to comply with providing information about that call to the FCC or risk a block order.

px_eliezer_

cb0324

Good analysis of the pros and cons of Localphone.

There is indeed an issue with calls with U.S. DIDs to U.S. destinations marked as scam/spam , My T mobile scam blocker blocked calls from my own Localphone account.

That's what I was trying to demonstrate to Samot.

It's a fact on the ground, regardless of the technicalities.

Samot

px_eliezer_ That's what I was trying to demonstrate to Samot.

It's a fact on the ground, regardless of the technicalities.

I never said STIR/SHAKEN wasn't used as part of the formula to determine if the call is SPAM or not. I am saying it's not the ruling or only factor. I am a provider, we forward calls to T-Mobile for our customers and we always sign them with a B, not a single customer since we implemented it in 2022 has complained about any of the forwarded calls being marked as any level of SPAM by T-Mobile. Kills the whole "B = SPAM for T-Mobile" logic.

In 2017 T-Mobile introduced their Caller Verification, two years before the first draft of STIR/SHAKEN was even pushed out.
In 2019 T-Mobile introduced a paid tier of this service so users could have better control.
Dec 2019 the TRACED Act was approved and signed into law. STIR/SHAKEN was required as part of the TRACED Act.
March 2020 the FCC adopted the STIR/SHAKEN mandate.
- All large carriers, those with over 150K subscribers had to have STIR/SHAKEN implemented by Aug 2021
- All small and rural carriers had to implement it by Aug 2022
Dec 2022 the FCC definitely defines what a VoIP Service Provider is. This ruling required any VoIP Service Provider to be part of RMDB and STIR/SHAKEN. This gave the newly defined VoIP Providers who weren't doing STIR/SHAKEN (letting their upstreams do it) until Aug 2023 to comply.
As of right now STIR/SHAKEN for TDM and non-IP networks is still a work in progress. Standards have been approved but implementation is still not done.

Localphone, as far as I can tell, does not have a US presence. They are not originating their calls from with in the US. These two factors alone are negatives for Localphone. Based on what has been said, they are using Onvoy for their US DIDs and Onvoy is considered high risk as it already is. Onvoy DIDs are known to have bad reputations.

Since T-Mobile has been marking calls as SPAM/Possible SPAM for 4 years before the first major carrier implementation of STIR/SHAKEN and 6 years before the final deadline it may show that STIR/SHAKEN is not the driving factor of their methodology of considering a call SPAM of any level or not. It definitely plays a part but probably not as big as you may believe.

px_eliezer_

Samot
I never said STIR/SHAKEN wasn't used as part of the formula to determine if the call is SPAM or not. I am saying it's not the ruling or only factor.....

Agree with your main points, and thank you for the detailed insights.

cb0324

Samot

Interestingly, T mobile scam filter does not block all Onvoy scam calls, only about 2/3. A best protection for a consumer would be the ability to block all calls from certain provider DIDs. I would perfectly well live without calls from DIDs belonging to Onvoy, Peerless, Horizon, Airus and many others. I would have missed over the years maybe two legitimate phone calls( and those were unimportant),

cb0324

Samot
"Localphone, as far as I can tell, does not have a US presence."
I think they have U.S. presence through their wholesale subsidiary Voxbeam

Samot

Here's a little more as Transnexus provides reporting on STIR/SHAKEN activity. This is their "Prolific Robocall Signers" chart. This would be carriers who do STIR/SHAKEN but allow robocalling (mostly spam) over their networks and how they sign known robocalls.

In November, the robocall percentage for calls signed with A-level attestation by the top 10 prolific robocallers was 81.5%, up from 78.1% in October. Prolific robocalls for calls signed with B-level attestation was 60.0%, up from 58.7% in October. These signers authenticate very few calls with C-level attestation.

Figure 7 shows the percentages of calls signed by the top 10 robocall signers by authentication level. In November, they signed 89.9% of their calls with A-level attestation, 7.0% with B-level attestation, and 3.1% with C-level attestation.

Full Report here for Nov 2024 as December's report isn't published yet. https://transnexus.com/blog/2024/shaken-statistics-november/

HardlyWorthit

cb0324 Interestingly, T mobile scam filter does not block all Onvoy scam calls, only about 2/3. A best protection for a consumer would be the ability to block all calls from certain provider DIDs. I would perfectly well live without calls from DIDs belonging to Onvoy, Peerless, Horizon, Airus and many others. I would have missed over the years maybe two legitimate phone calls( and those were unimportant),

I know that I'm an edge case, I have three long time numbers originally sourced from Vitelity that are now owned by Onvoy. One is serviced by a voip provider, and the other two are serviced by VZW and TMo.
I'll try to remember not to phone you. /s

cb0324

HardlyWorthit
Onvoy numbers serviced by VZW and TMO ? You would have to explain. When I ported my magic jack number to VZW prepaid way back, VZW became the owner of the number and shows as such. Similarly to other ports. With the VoIP provider that's possible, they sometimes do not own the numbers. But if you call me from your VZW or TMO cell phones, it should not cause problems.
Sure, if you do blocking based on original assignment ,it could cause problems, but your numbers were not Onvoy originally, you said it was Vitelity.

HardlyWorthit

cb0324
If you are blocking by area code/exchange npa-nxx you would block me.
I'll still try to remember not to phone you. /s

px_eliezer_

cb0324 Sure, if you do blocking based on original assignment ,it could cause problems, but your numbers were not Onvoy originally, you said it was Vitelity.

Vitelity is now owned by Onvoy.

Actually to make it more confusing, Vitelity, Onvoy, Neutral Tandem, Inteliquent, and some others (eg former brands Voyant, Sixtel), all are now owned by Sinch AB of Sweden.

cb0324

HardlyWorthit
I block indeed by area code/exchange but it still puzzles me that your VZV/TMO numbers would show on Telcodata as a part of a number block originally assigned to Onvoy rather than to Vitelity. You can still call me on Signal or my Callcentric number LoL

px_eliezer_

cb0324

I've seen many such discrepancies over the years when the companies are part of the same bigger company and/or from buyouts.

For example, the [same] number may show up as Onvoy, Neutral Tandem, or Sinch Voice, on 3 databases. But it's the same people.

HardlyWorthit

cb0324
Telcodata lists by thousands block npa-nxx.
The attached thousands block originally showed Vitelity, and changed to Onvoy sometime after they bought Vitelity. My number in that block is currently served by VZW.