Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cell Phones Companies Fight Number Portability

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the shocker dept.

andy1307 writes "The Washington Post is reporting that wireless companies are opposing mobile number portability. According to the law as it is being written, customers would be able to transfer wired phone numbers to a wireless service. Not surprisingly, Verizon is the wireless company opposing the law."

13 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. The US Again... by Woxbert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not only am I going to try for first post, I'm also going to try and point out that us Europeans have had this for years...

    If only global companies would look outside of national markets for best practice, consumers would have a much better life.

    1. Re:The US Again... by 1nhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just ported my wifes number from a T-mobile pre-paid card to a Vodafone subscription. It took 3 days to complete. I was pretty amazed myself.

      We (Europeans) also use SIM-cards in our phones and if I'm not mistaken Americans still have there "number" programmed in the phone itself. Maybe the SIM-card system is easier to port, although come to think of it, I don't see any reason why.

      --
      The glass is half-full. With poison. And there are cracks in the glass. The dirty, dirty glass.
    2. Re:The US Again... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We've had it for a few years in Holland, and it works wonderfully well. All you need is to sign a release form with your new provider, and (provided all your bills with the previous provider are settled), the number is transferred within 10 days. This is one of the few actual successes of our Competitive Practices Watchdog.

      I had the dubious pleasure of working on the NP project for corporate customers of one of our telco's. The telcos' claim that NP is an expensive requirement that will bring zero ROI is true... this was not a simple project to do, and the marketing guys explained that NP allows you to steal customers from competitors but that it does little for your bottom line, as you'll have to lower prices.

      We are already working on the next step: number portability for bank accounts!! Oh yes, finally I can go to my bank and tell them to get stuffed, while keeping my bank account nr. Switching bank accounts is an even bigger pain than switching telephone numbers, especially in the Netherlands where people tend to use lots of direct debit invoicing. The banks know this, and banking service in Holland is generally dismal compared to other countries.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:The US Again... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I live in Portugal too. A friend did change operators while keeping his phone number. Apparently, he cannot get reliable service, his phone numbers gets disconnected for days with no explanation other than "technical difficulties" and when he asks what a permanent solution would be, they say (yes, you guessed it) that he should have a number in the block allocated to his current operator...

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    4. Re:The US Again... by _Spirit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Eehm I don't know what Holland you live in but having been exposed to banking all around the world I am grateful that I live in Holland. I can transfer money now from my account to yours (or anyone else in Holland) within a few hours at no cost (or instantly for a small fee) with only a name, a number and a few clicks. If you think this works in the same painless way in other countries I would suggest living abroad for a while. I don't think you would ever complain about Dutch banks again.

      Oh and by the way we don't have number portability between wired and cell phones, just between cell phone providers (that's what the article is about)

      --

      beauty is only a light switch away

  2. What I'd rather have than portability... by aquarian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is a national area code not tied to area. This makes sense because if you're calling a Verizon customer, for example, you're connecting with their network locally anyway. From there it's all within Verizon's network, so the area code shouldn't make any difference. The only real use cell phone providers have for geographic area codes, is for marketing purposes.

    The problem now is that while I have a national calling plan where calls anywhere in the US and Canada are the same price, people calling me from the next street may have to pay long distance charges. This is absurd -- though I live on the east coast, people calling me locally have to dial a California number. And keeping my number is important -- it's my established business and personal number, wherever I happen to be.

    So, why can't we just have national area codes for cell phone users with national plans?

  3. Hong Kong by yehim1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Hong Kong, they have had it since the beginning.

    The country code is +852, and mobile phone numbers always start with either 9 or 6. All the numbers are governed centrally in a pool by a regulatory body.

    When you subscribe to a network, you would pay a surchange to the regulatory body for the "number", and then it belongs to the network you are subscribed to. When you change networks, you keep your old number but you have to pay about US$10 to the regulatory body to change your information.

    In this way, there is better competition between operators (there are 7 in this small country!!), and the users are not bound in anyway to an operator that offers shitty service.

    There is a flip-side, however. Here SMS'es between networks are charged at about USD 0.20, but SMS'es in the same network are charged USD 0.10. There is no way of determining whether your receipient is in the same network! Even if you know, they might have changed their mobile network...

    Also, with MMS coming up, it gives additional problems if you do not know which network your receipient is in. But the networks are opening their MMS services for inter-network sending soon, so it would be solved (just like SMS'es).

  4. Re:I work for a Telco by amcguinn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is consistent with my experience working for a small telco in the UK when portability was coming in for non-geographic numbers (0800 etc)

    We were strongly in favour of it, as it made it easier for us to take business from competitors, but it was a lot of work -- I was working on the issue for more than 6 months, plus a lot of bedding in afterwards, and that was just the billing and inter-company charging infrastructure. If exchange upgrades are needed, that's a very large delay and expense.

    Obviously that's not much excuse for opposing it, and consumers need to keep pushing for it, but it's worth hanging on to a reasonable amount of patience...

  5. For once the US is going a step further by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not quite the same in the UK. As I understand it, in the UK you can transfer wireless numbers to other wireless providers and wired numbers to other wires (within an area). This means that area codes always give the area and 07.. numbers always give wireless. This fits broadly with the fact that in the UK, the caller picks up the extra cost for making a call to reach a wireless number rather than it being picked up by the call receiver (whether as a direct charge or bundled with the plan)

    --
    VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
  6. Re:Why not as the same way on the 'net? by radish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have that concept in the UK = called "personal numbers". You pay a company for a number (starting 0700 I think) and they route the call to wherever you have configured. You can set up timed redirects, so during the day it goes to work, at night to home etc.

    These have largely gone unnoticed and unused, simply because the majority of people in the UK have mobiles, and with mobile number portability there's no reason to change your number. I've had the same mobile number for 8 years now - I see no reason why I would need to change it. Landlines are dying (I only have one to run DSL over).

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  7. I for one could do without it. by Deal-a-Neil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have to pay an additional $1.75 per MONTH for this new "number portability". Listen, at the end of the day, I don't feel bound to my cell phone number. Hell, it helps me weed out the people that I don't want to have it. I think this should be an option for each consumer -- you make the decision when you sign up, as to whether or not you want to keep that number, not some mandate across the board. And, as a whamy, if you want to keep your number when you change providers, you pay $1.75 x [number-of-months-you-have-had-that-number-in-serv ice].

    Think about it -- it's another $21.00 a year. It's really not worth it. So now, we have another new law and new tax -- how convenient.

  8. Becareful what you ask for by iceT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember, it's the prefixes that tell tele-marketers that they can't call your cell phone... If you can take your wired prefix to your cell phone, then you will loose a valuable tool in combating them...!

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  9. Voice over IP by dotslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you know what really pisses me off? For the last two years I have been paying $3 a month on my phone bill for "Number Portability Charge". Whenever I have actually tried to "port" my number there is always a reason why it can't be done.

    I'm sick and tired of telcos. This month I am moving to a new home so I did some research into VoIP. I found a service from Vonage which allows me to setup a VoIP connection to a POTS system over broadband. It is SIP and H323 compatible. It costs only $39.99 a month and gives me unlimited free calls everywhere in the US and Canada, anytime. Not only that, but because it isn't classified as a communications service there are no surcharges. Just for comparison, Verizon offers a similar flat fee package for $64.99. The taxes and surcharges that they conveniently separate from the price add another $40 per month.

    Good riddance...