“fraudulent enticement” : is the phrase for those pitching class action suits to such law firms.
Part 2, draft 1
verizon staff, even senior tech staff [not network], cannot seem to understand that “private:public” is ONE distinction of ip addresses and that “dynamic:static” is another distinction. Several people now have approached verizon wireless with the problem that their handset, the phone itself, is receiving a private ip address instead as before a public ip address (internet ip address, or public routable, or insert colloquialism here) on the 3g ppp0 interface. The joy for “smart” phone users is Port Restricted Cone NAT. It is a great way to break voip and vpn functionality of the device. NAT per se is not the issue; user non-configurable “feature” is the problem. Additional complexity is introduced by VZW denying addressing scheme.
Not sure you and your mobile station are in this private address space wan facing boat? IF android: Grab “STUN client” application, pick any functional STUN server from the drop down, and perform the test. At the bottom of the results will be the name of your 3g interface, in my case ppp0, and the associated ip address, in my case 10.n.155.n
STUN client: appbrain: http://www.appbrain.com/app/stun-client/com.kodholken.stunclient I can provide the apk if you have opted to disable google “features” by not adding a gmail address to your handset.
The comical troubleshooting one must initially endure is the assertion that if the web browser is working the data network is working perfectly. Out of order packets don’t noticeably affect web browsers; out of order packets are very bad for voip. Lost packets aren’t bad for TCP web browsers; Lost packets are very bad for UDP voip conversations.
“The [3g] ip address on the phone is ONLY for talking to our towers”
Oh really? ** Wait it gets better:
“[3g ip addresses are] not for talking to third party services on the internet”
yes, verizon really made that delightful claim.
“are you saying I’m stupid?” No, based on the call recording I heard this guy is clearly grossly ignorant and not suited to a network support department.
“If the data isn’t working it’s the third party software you’re using”
‘software can control your side of the network? please walk me through how I access that manually’
‘if web pages are timing out is it the fault of the web browser?’ .. “no” .. distinction failure continues
Various analogies are drawn to soho nat…
“you have to understand your ip address is dynamic” ..
uh huh. what’s that to do with it now being private address space and the evil of network address translation whereas recently the 3g interface was _dynamically_ issued from a public address space?
Let’s compare the dhcp class of this handset with the dhcp class of another handset. Awkward silence. Even their unassailable network people don’t have access to this information. Scary.
“you might need to create a new rule in your corporate firewall”
How does that effect my phone? There is nothing I control between my handset and the tower. I’m not even using a rooted phone with a software firewall with this issue.
We all commiserate there is little point pushing this issue up the food chain by voice with non-business class accounts… especially with the appalling terminology dearth and concept fail.
Stuck with a private ip address? Too bad. Suffer but please continue to pay us.
All silly suggestions to contact the manufacturer of the phone, or the developer of VoIP product x or y ought be ignored. The manufacturer of a handset that speaks CDMA (or lte), for verizon wireless, will direct all questions pertaining to the network back to verizon. The software is not relevant to this issue — it merely MANIFESTS (or indicates) that there is an issue, and if you are voip familiar you recognize quickly the flavor of NAT involved.
“Perhaps you should contact google”
Yeah, that’ll work out so well. Sadly no longer employed by a multinational, multibillion dollar venture group I don’t wield that kind of power any more, so no thanks I’ll try bashing your head against the wall instead. It’s nice to have memories of seeing microsoft, [phone co], and intel dance to make me happy.. I mean work to find a solution to a problem with stuff.
Expect VoIP to FAIL and FAIL BADLY. There’s a reasonable chance of VPN pain in your near future. But at least your browser works, right?
It may be a secret top down plan to sell static ip addresses as that has been repeatedly suggested as a ‘solution’.
Please share your verizon wireless fun [pain]. I have several phone conversations from several people in my allegedly small boat in WAV — VoIP allows call recording for claim consistency purposes. Consider capturing all your CS phone calls; it’s easy with viatalk (roll your own asterisk people have a few buttons to mash).
See post on “google port-OUT .. revisionist history” for voip/itsp recommendations. Also consider PIAF vitelity endorsement. Additionally try TLS nightlies of CSIPsimple. Howardforums has luminaries worth consulting.
* VoIP : udp sip
** Although it could be an unqualified reference to pg 5 of VZW document b2b.vzw.com/assets/files/PrivateNetwork_WP.pdf [Verizon Wireless Private Network whitepaper] — section 3.1 grasps the public:private and dynamic:static distinctions. A static IP address is available without having a business account. Section 3.8: “static IP — verizon wireless hosted” as opposed to “static IP — verizon business hosted” makes further distinctions. Dynamic Mobile Network Routing exchanges tower-calls for voip calls. Any claim by Verizon Wireless that a static IP address [on non-business account] would cost $500 reveals gross ineptitude by the agent. It is obvious that the agent is phrase searching and landed on section 3.8 “verizon wireless private network setup fee”. There are a number of circumventions to verizon wireless [tortial interference] ranging from irksome to vexatious.. but VZW provoked Proof of Concept circumvention necessity.
*** upselling: CradlePoint CBA250, CadlePont CTR500, CadlePont PHS300 : opennetwork.verizonwireless.com/devicesShowcase.aspx
addendum: verizon 5+ gb throttling easily circumvented without modifying system files.. hahaha delightfully simple change to system! (requires SuperUser)