Number portability is here!

[tino]

Got the word today that ATT starting Sun February 9th, 2003....you can now bring your old # from cingular,sprint,tmobile etc and activate in on service with ATT wireless! this is huge, its going to get real interesting from here.....

[DandyDon]

The third deadline is now November 2003, I think you got the wrong word.

[tino]

I work for ATT and i got internal documentation for inplementing Sun. ,the deadline must have changed..supposedly was last nov... This will be called "Thousand Block Number Pooling" look to hear more about this on this forum next week..this info is not available as of yet to the public, but it will be next week

[tylerdurden]

Even if AT&T will let you "bring your own" phone number, your old provider has to release it, which they don't legally have to do (yet).

I'll believe it when I see it!

[SPRINTPCSGUY2002]

Number Pooling was completed Nov 23 2002... Number poribilty isnt sceduled untill Nov 23 2003.. and with some lawsuites going around because of the changes this has caused wireline service redistibuting the "Rate Centers" and making it LD for most Wireline phone to call cell phones, when it previously wasnt, it will PROBABLY be postponed again.

[tino]

hey cant have everything i guess, step in the right direction though at least att if given the # can do something with it...ill find out more on Tues and post back

[jayc]

Down with number portability/pooling.

I don't know about you but I like to be able to recognize a cell phone prefix and know what company it's from. With number portability there will be nothing but mass cells calls on cell phones as long as crazy LD charges.

This will not go well in my area.

[jmccrane]

I don't see a big problem with portability. I don't really care if I know which carrier owns what prefix. It's nice, but I have so rarely used any such knowledge that I'd much rather have the freedom to take my number with me. I'm not sure what jayc meant with the crazy LD charges and mass cell calls? As far as LD, well, many landline to cell calls are charged toll fees now anyway because the prefixed usually stem from onyl one or two cities in each area code (sometimes more). That's why you get cell phones anyway though: so you don't pay toll/LD fees [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Number portability is fine by me. I have no problem with it. Sprint has been implementing it as well as AT&T, as we've heard. When it becomes legal, it's a go (except the FCC keeps delaying everything when it comes to wireless policies).

[ockidd15]

I agree, number protability will be a good thing for the wireless industry. I remember I had so many people ask me in the past if they can keep thier number when changing wireless providers. They were so distraught when I told them no.

My friends would always complain about me changing my numbers too. I also think the biggest impact this will have will be on business associates who have business cards. I would have these people come in complaining because they've ordered boxes of business cards with a cell phone number on it, and now they'll have to change it again.

Its a good idea and should've been implemented a while ago...

[bobolito]

Number portability is good for customers only because if it wasn't for it, many people will stay with the same carrier just because they dont want to change number. Carriers obviously don't like to facilitate (or give you any reason) to switch to another carrier.

[ZaphodB]

Thousands-block pooling does not mean you can take your number with you. Thousands-block pooling means that when a carrier runs out of numbers, rather than being assigned a whole prefix (say, 310-222-XXXX), which is ten thousand numbers, they will be assigned a part of the prefix (say, 310-222-3XXX), which is a thousand numbers. That way, Joe's Tiny Paging Company, which wants numbers in each rate centre but might only use 200 of the numbers in each rate centre, won't 'contaminate' an entire prefix of 10,000 numbers.

Thousands-block pooling has been in place in California for years. We were the first to do it, due to the insane rate of new area codes, especially in Southern California.

What you're thinking of, which would let you change your number from one carrier to another, is called Wireless Number Portability (WNP). It is the wireless equivalent to Local Number Portability (LNP), which has been around two years or so, which allows you to move your number from one company to another within the same rate area.

Now, for the reality. LNP doesn't work very well. Most of the people I know who have said 'bye-bye' to Verizon or Qwest or whoever have had terrible trouble getting their number to transfer, and in most cases just decided to choose a different number anyway. I see no reason for WNP to work any better.

LNP and WNP only work within a rate centre. Now, let's say you have a wireless number in the Van Nuys rate centre and want to switch to another company and keep that number. If the new company doesn't have any assignments in the Van Nuys rate centre, which is entirely possible, they can deny your number transfer and still be totally within the law. I expect this to happen, especially if people switch to T-Mobile or AT&T.

To the person who complained about the loss of knowledge of which carrier the number is - yes, that's true, but the fact is that 818-634 will still be assigned to Cingular Wireless (actually to Pacific Bell Wireless LLC)... your specific number may be 'ported' to T-Mobile or Verizon or AT&T, but 818-634-XXXX is still Pacific Bell Wireless.

Finally, it's not free to do WNP. They can charge you a transfer fee.

I predict that a lot of people will switch right when it starts (when eventually it does) and discover how badly designed the system is, and then the churn rate will subside very quickly.

[xtoddler2]

Couldnt have said it better myself...

So, this long distance thing.....

I mean, I KNOW my number is in Portland, and Portland is a pretty big town, and it technically USED to cost to call one side to the other, and cost to call the outside communities as well. But then the local phone company said.."Hey, I know! Lets get smart, and charge everyone an additional $2.95 so they can call not the normal 12 miles, but 20 miles of a radius. That way, ALL calls in the area are included in the local landline phone rates." And so they did.... they COULD have been like Pacific Bell, or whats the name of it now...SBC...who thought of it like this....
"Hmm...lets rip people off. Lets shorten the calling area from 20 miles, to 16, and now down to 12, but lets concider making it 10, JUST IN CASE, and then if people want to call further, offer them 60 minutes for $8, and 120 minutes for $15, and 1000 minutes for $25. "
They used trickery!!!

Anyway, my point...oh, what is my point....oh yeah...my point is...

My phone number, I know is a Portland number, and that since our phone company covers a larger area for a local calling area, I seriously doubt that anyone calling me from here will be charged long distance, or a local toll. God forbid they do get charged a local toll, its like 14 cents a minute. I heard that when it happens in selected areas, certain carriers (wireless....Sprint is one of them) will notify you if you requested a LOCAL number, and one is available. If one is not, then you are dealing with a local toll number.

Funny thing, I see this similar to Calling Party Pays in Europe and the Caribbean, except, we still pay for incoming minutes....RUUUU HUUUUDDD

[Texas]

Number portability is not iminent in the wireless marketplace. Each provider can ask for an extension and each provider will. It could be 2005 before it is implemented industry wide.

It is going to be a logistical nightmare and the consumer is going to pay through the nose for this.

[jmccrane]

Originally posted by: Texas Number portability is not iminent in the wireless marketplace. Each provider can ask for an extension and each provider will. It could be 2005 before it is implemented industry wide. It is going to be a logistical nightmare and the consumer is going to pay through the nose for this.

Just like we're paying for E911 (if anything, some people are paying $1 a month max)? I don't know, but a lot of companies who like to protect their monopolies use this argument about changes being expensive for the consumer. AT&T did it with long distance. Verizon, SBC, and others are fighting to basically reclaim their monopolies by charging higher fees to other competitors who use their lines. Bottom line is that the expense argument is a scare tactic that a company uses to scare away competition, and I don't buy it. In this age of technology they can work number portability out and do it pretty cheaply if they want to.

[DCinSEA]

Tino- Be sure you only post about things you really know about. Get back and sell the phones, k?

AT&T Wireless did recently turn on the ability to do thousand number block porting. This does not allow for changing wireless providers (maybe in October, but I doubt it!). This really has no effect on subscribers, it only makes things a little more complicated for the network and those that program the phones. The MIN just may not match the subscriber's number (MDN).

If you want any more detail, email me.

(yes, I work for AT&T Network support)

[tino]

Dcinsea ,I simply passed on info i recieved on a company voicemail, i also made it clear i wasnt sure as to particulars as of yet....AS far as phones go yes im currently selling phones due to recent layoff , but i can asure you my background is not.. give me a break, i used to train guys like you in Data products solutions, smart ___... oh and that i really do know .......Nice Quote why not try using it yourself...

[tino]

O.k. heres the document on # portability i recieved....
This release is mandated by the FCC. The program actually called Thousand block Number pooling(TBNP)...This mandate must go into effect for all wireless carriers within the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas. The purpose of this is to aid in the national conservation of numbers. In todays environment blocks of 10,000 numbers are assigned to a single carrier. The FCC mandate changed the assignment to blocks 0f 1,000 to carriers. By sharing the codes (NXX) among multiple carriers within the same local telphone company rate, thousand block number pooling helps delay in the depletion of aea codes.
After reading this intirely it really looks like a pain for reps.....and is not what i thought it was......

[Ignaurus13]

How is messageing going to work from a pc? If you go to most providers websites, you can send a message to their customers. Now that exchanges will all be mixed up, where would you go? For example...if you want to send a message to a friend with a Cingular exchange, where would you go to send the message via PC??? How would you be sure the person is Cingular? What if they are now TMobile or something else? Would all providers be forced to allow messaging to all phones no matter who the client uses as a provider? I dont ever see that level of cooperation in competing vendors.
My 2 cents,
Jim

[TheSPCSGuy]

TBNP.....

Verizon May have: (347) 238-0000-2999
Sprint may have: (347) 238-3000-5999
AT&T may have: (347) 238-6000-7999
TMobile may have: (347) 238-8000-9999

[ockidd15]

Haha, Tino I see we have the same icon....

[tino]

Yea, i liked yours so i copied it , good color, i can change it if it bothers you... where did you get that icon anyway?

[ockidd15]

No problem. Its just as I browse through the fourms, soemtimes I see this icon and its not me, so I get confused a bit. Its all good.

This V60i is actually a Chinese/Taiwanese phone. Over there, they sell the V60i with this "mist blue" covers. I found out by browsing the web.

[WirelessBeachBum]

One other side effect of number pooling is the restrictions on choosing Vanity numbers...You generally cannot pick and choose your own numbers as in the past with most carriers....This is really irritating some business customers who are used to getting the best pick of numbers.

[Gonz]

When a person roams on a carrier, doesent the roaming carrier identify which carrier to bill by the area code / exchange? I know from personal experience that when I dial 611 when roaming, I sometimes get my own carrier...Especially in rural areas...Imagine roaming with a sprint number and verizon service. If you had a problem with your phone, you would dial 611, and get sprint customer service. Well now, wouldn't they be helpful...?
I personaly am against number portability. I think it's a very stupid idea, which everyone will know about eventually...

[ZaphodB]

Oops, let's fix a few things here.

DCinSEA - it's "thousand block number pooling", not "porting". You are otherwise correct.

Ignaurus13 - It will work the same way it always does. If your friend has Verizon, you will still go to Verizon's website. If your friend has Sprint, you will still go to Sprint's website - even if the number is part of a block originally assigned to T-Mobile. T-Mobile clients, for example, can text message any provider except Sprint (and even that may have changed), as can Cingular, Verizon, and AT&T clients.

Gonz - It doesn't matter. Your phone's PRL (or IRdB) will still mandate which carrier's signal you pick up while roaming and which carrier will answer when you dial 611. It will work essentially the same way, and it doesn't matter which phone number you have.

[bobolito]

Gonz, it would be better to state your reasons for not liking number portability. If you analyze it, it has far more benefits than disadvantages. Primarily, number portability brings personalization to a phone number, meaning that since you can always keep your number, you can move from one carrier to the other and not have to announce everyone your number change. Basically, your number becomes "your number." This has a great number of benefits especially for businesses because there's less chance clients lose contact with vendors and vendors don't have to change their business cards all the time, which in turn saves them a lot of money. The benefits don't end there. Just think that right now many people can go through 3 or even more numbers in a few years and this an indirect indication of personal instability which may potentially harm delicate social relationships. People who change location or phone numbers frequently are known to be socially unstable. God only knows how many times I have to update my phonebook because people keep changing their number. As an alternative, people would just keep the same carrier all the time, but what if they don't like the service? They would have to change the number just because their carrier had bad service. This is why carriers are against number portability. In most cases, this is undesirable, and number portability would be the perfect solution to these problems. Finally, number portability will force carriers to offer better services and to compete harder, because customers will find it easier to change carriers, and the FCC loves competition.

[Laaate]

Originally posted by: ZaphodB . . . LNP and WNP only work within a rate centre. Now, let's say you have a wireless number in the Van Nuys rate centre and want to switch to another company and keep that number. If the new company doesn't have any assignments in the Van Nuys rate centre, which is entirely possible, they can deny your number transfer and still be totally within the law. I expect this to happen, especially if people switch to T-Mobile or AT&T. . . .

Zap, just curious, why especially if people switch to T-Mobile or AT&T Wireless?

[ZaphodB]

Originally posted by: Laaate Zap, just curious, why especially if people switch to T-Mobile or AT&T Wireless?

Because they don't have numbers in every rate centre, at least here in California. T-Mobile have numbers, for example, in the Santa Monica and Gardena rate centres in the 310 area code. Well, my Cingular phone had a number in the Mar Vista rate centre (split a few years ago from the Santa Monica rate centre), and my AT&T phone had a number in the West Los Angeles rate centre. AT&T have the same problem - they went for making sure the phone would be a local call, not necessarily in the same rate centre in which you lived. Hence, my WLA phone number was certainly a local call from my Santa Monica home telephone, but if I wanted to "port" my number to Cingular, I couldn't, because Cingular do not have any WLA numbers - the northern part of the 310 area code for Cingular is served by the Mar Vista rate centre and the southern part of the 310 area code (soon to be the 424 area code) is served by the Gardena rate centre.

I can only assume this must be a terrible problem in, say, rural Iowa, where more or less every town with more than 25 inhabitants has its own rate centre, and many towns' local calling area includes only that one prefix. Unfortunately, cellular companies do NOT have numbers in every rate centre in Iowa, and thus I lived in Masonville and Independence but had to make do with an Oelwein telephone number, which was long distance.

[DCinSEA]

To answer a couple questions-

SMS will be done on the MDN, so really no change for anybody that wants to send them a message via a PC. (it is a little more complicated within the network, however)

Billing for roamer carriers is based on MIN, not MDN. So billing will be sent back via the MIN to the home carrier. Networks mainly care about MIN, it is what identifies you in the network (akin to an IMSI in GSM land). IMHO, carriers should have gone IMSI a couple years ago when they were kicking the idea around, would make life much easier today for sales reps and tech support, since MIN and MDN both are dialable, it is just bound to cause confusion. An IMSI is not confusing because it is not dialable.

ZaphodB - I did say porting, my bad. But all numbers in TNBP are ported, get an LRN, and reported to NPAC. So just got caught up in my semantics.

[bobolito]

Now you got caught up on acronyms! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]