More specifically, UMTS uses W-CDMA as an underlying technology. Its structure is very similar to GSM and has also been refered to as "3GSM," hence the evolution to UMTS instead of CDMA2000, which is the 3G progression of CDMA.
Verizon very obviously employs 3G technology, as do the others mentioned in the original story.
Actually, There are 3 forms of number portability: (1) Service Provider Portability, which allows you to change providers and keep your number, (2) Geographic Portability, which allows you to do the same across rate centers and large geographic areas, and (3) Service Portability, which allows you to change service (like Centrex to POTS) and keep your number with the same provider. That 3rd version may not be of any importance to the standard residential user, but it will be very important in the near future to small business owners and corporations.
You are absolutely right. It's easy to start mixing up some of the more common acronymns when it's part of your daily grind.
Thanx for pointing that out. I don't want or mean to mislead.
All local phone companies are LECs of some sort, baby bell or not (though baby bells are the most recognizable). You rarely see LEC by itself in the industry. It's usually preceded by either an I (for Incumbent) or C (for Competitive). So if you ever wondered what a "CLEC" (pronounced "see-lek") was, now you know. It's the "new" service provider competing with whoever seemed to have the monopoly in your area before. CLECs were the driving force behind portability when the service was brand new.
You need to contact your state's Public Service Commission. This will get it done-- Period.
Outside of that, if your home phone number has been disconnected, your new provider for that phone number is most likely the holdup. Your wireline provider will not disconnect your dialtone unless they have already sent confirmation of the request from your new provider to port your number. That's the last part of the "port-out" process.
Stay on your new provider for that phone number and call your state Public Service (sometimes "Utilities") Commission.
The FCC, In it's original mandates to wireline LECs to implement LNP (Local Number Portability) limits portability to a wireline rate center. That is, the area you can call locally on your phone without toll charges or extended area agreements (referred to in the industry as EAS). The reason for this is extreme difficulty in automated billing systems and the technological limitations with "querying" every single call to every ported number in the United States. Respecting these logical and proven limitations, the FCC has retained the same limitation (portable withing the rate center, only) in their mandate on wireless number portability. In other words-- It has never been expected, nor demanded by the FCC or the industry to try to make numbers portable across large geographic regions. There is no "theory" on this matter. LNP has been tested and implemented throughout the United States. It's been working since 1997, when the original mandate came out to wireline LEC (LEC, by the way, stands for Line Exchange Carrier or "service provider"). Wireless rate centers are much larger than wirline rate centers and can overlap several wireline rate centers, but they can only port numbers to the limitation of their presence in the rate center of the carrier they are porting from. So, the wireless carrier cannot port a number to anywhere in their rate center-- They can only port a number to anywhere in the DONOR's rate center. This is how it is supposed to work, and this is how it DOES work. The technology required by service providers nationwide to port numbers over large geographic regions (often referred to in the industry as "geographic portability") is not yet available, and what is available is far too expensive to justify the charges to customers like yourself to recover the cost. Keep tabs on the FCC to find out when it WILL be available.
The FCC, In it's original mandates to wireline LECs to implement LNP (Local Number Portability) limits portability to a wireline rate center. That is, the area you can call locally on your phone without toll charges or extended area agreements (referred to in the industry as EAS).
The reason for this is extreme difficulty in automated billing systems and the technological limitations with "querying" every single call to every ported number in the United States.
Respecting these logical and proven limitations, the FCC has retained the same limitation (portable withing the rate center, only) in their mandate on wireless number portability. In other words-- It has never been expected, nor demanded by the FCC or the industry to try to make numbers portable across large geographic regions.
There is no "theory" on this matter. LNP has been tested and implemented throughout the United States. It's been working since 1997, when the original mandate came out to wireline LEC (LEC, by the way, stands for Line Exchange Carrier or "service provider"). Wireless rate centers are much larger than wirline rate centers and can overlap several wireline rate centers, but they can only port numbers to the limitation of their presence in the rate center of the carrier they are porting from. So, the wireless carrier cannot port a number to anywhere in their rate center-- They can only port a number to anywhere in the DONOR's rate center.
This is how it is supposed to work, and this is how it DOES work. The technology required by service providers nationwide to port numbers over large geographic regions (often referred to in the industry as "geographic portability") is not yet available, and what is available is far too expensive to justify the charges to customers like yourself to recover the cost. Keep tabs on the FCC to find out when it WILL be available.
Sorry... But here is testament to the fact that who you are, not what you have, qualifies your article for post on slashdot.
So many other good articles by this author, and they're all slashdot worthy... Why this substandard one, too, instead of a truly newsworthy article by someone else?
Oh, there's plenty of data. The questions are: Does the data actually support the assumed origin of the universe? Is it even relative to the big bang theory of origin?
This is another example fitting evidence into a model supporting a pre-determined conclusion. A dangerous and predictable method of developing theories. The scientist already has the "big bang," and now he's fitting this cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) to fit that theory. This is called circular reasoning, and cosmology is riddled with it.
Ironically, CMB poses some problems to the current big bang theory. The total mass density of the universe inferred observationally does not agree with the mass calculated from big bang theory. NASA's observations lead them to conclude that the stars formed earlier (by their own dating methods) than previously predicted. Then there is the fact that the CMB is very smooth (resulting in the assumed "hum" from the original article), contrary to big bang predictions, and so on.
There are more problems with the big bang theory, all of which relate to problems inherent to circular reasoning, but I don't want to stray too far off topic so I'll leave it at this. These problems do not give me reason to question my own beliefs. But if you believe in the big bang theory of origin, I think it is important to consider everything the evidence proposes. Not just what's supportive, but what's disruptive, as well, and what's missing.
Of course, you may feel free to check my post for errors in spelling or grammar... but it may make more sense to challenge my ideas rather than my english.
Are you sure this isn't old news? I mean, CALEA was mandated to be implemented by wireless carriers over a year ago. It's software in the wireless switch that allows approved government agencies to track an individual to within a city block from any cell tower, plus access any live conversation on the target phone. This is nothing new.
http://www.askcalea.net/
Slashdot Mirror
More specifically, UMTS uses W-CDMA as an underlying technology. Its structure is very similar to GSM and has also been refered to as "3GSM," hence the evolution to UMTS instead of CDMA2000, which is the 3G progression of CDMA. Verizon very obviously employs 3G technology, as do the others mentioned in the original story.
Actually, There are 3 forms of number portability: (1) Service Provider Portability, which allows you to change providers and keep your number, (2) Geographic Portability, which allows you to do the same across rate centers and large geographic areas, and (3) Service Portability, which allows you to change service (like Centrex to POTS) and keep your number with the same provider. That 3rd version may not be of any importance to the standard residential user, but it will be very important in the near future to small business owners and corporations.
You are absolutely right. It's easy to start mixing up some of the more common acronymns when it's part of your daily grind. Thanx for pointing that out. I don't want or mean to mislead. All local phone companies are LECs of some sort, baby bell or not (though baby bells are the most recognizable). You rarely see LEC by itself in the industry. It's usually preceded by either an I (for Incumbent) or C (for Competitive). So if you ever wondered what a "CLEC" (pronounced "see-lek") was, now you know. It's the "new" service provider competing with whoever seemed to have the monopoly in your area before. CLECs were the driving force behind portability when the service was brand new.
You need to contact your state's Public Service Commission. This will get it done-- Period. Outside of that, if your home phone number has been disconnected, your new provider for that phone number is most likely the holdup. Your wireline provider will not disconnect your dialtone unless they have already sent confirmation of the request from your new provider to port your number. That's the last part of the "port-out" process. Stay on your new provider for that phone number and call your state Public Service (sometimes "Utilities") Commission.
The FCC, In it's original mandates to wireline LECs to implement LNP (Local Number Portability) limits portability to a wireline rate center. That is, the area you can call locally on your phone without toll charges or extended area agreements (referred to in the industry as EAS). The reason for this is extreme difficulty in automated billing systems and the technological limitations with "querying" every single call to every ported number in the United States. Respecting these logical and proven limitations, the FCC has retained the same limitation (portable withing the rate center, only) in their mandate on wireless number portability. In other words-- It has never been expected, nor demanded by the FCC or the industry to try to make numbers portable across large geographic regions. There is no "theory" on this matter. LNP has been tested and implemented throughout the United States. It's been working since 1997, when the original mandate came out to wireline LEC (LEC, by the way, stands for Line Exchange Carrier or "service provider"). Wireless rate centers are much larger than wirline rate centers and can overlap several wireline rate centers, but they can only port numbers to the limitation of their presence in the rate center of the carrier they are porting from. So, the wireless carrier cannot port a number to anywhere in their rate center-- They can only port a number to anywhere in the DONOR's rate center. This is how it is supposed to work, and this is how it DOES work. The technology required by service providers nationwide to port numbers over large geographic regions (often referred to in the industry as "geographic portability") is not yet available, and what is available is far too expensive to justify the charges to customers like yourself to recover the cost. Keep tabs on the FCC to find out when it WILL be available.
The FCC, In it's original mandates to wireline LECs to implement LNP (Local Number Portability) limits portability to a wireline rate center. That is, the area you can call locally on your phone without toll charges or extended area agreements (referred to in the industry as EAS). The reason for this is extreme difficulty in automated billing systems and the technological limitations with "querying" every single call to every ported number in the United States. Respecting these logical and proven limitations, the FCC has retained the same limitation (portable withing the rate center, only) in their mandate on wireless number portability. In other words-- It has never been expected, nor demanded by the FCC or the industry to try to make numbers portable across large geographic regions. There is no "theory" on this matter. LNP has been tested and implemented throughout the United States. It's been working since 1997, when the original mandate came out to wireline LEC (LEC, by the way, stands for Line Exchange Carrier or "service provider"). Wireless rate centers are much larger than wirline rate centers and can overlap several wireline rate centers, but they can only port numbers to the limitation of their presence in the rate center of the carrier they are porting from. So, the wireless carrier cannot port a number to anywhere in their rate center-- They can only port a number to anywhere in the DONOR's rate center. This is how it is supposed to work, and this is how it DOES work. The technology required by service providers nationwide to port numbers over large geographic regions (often referred to in the industry as "geographic portability") is not yet available, and what is available is far too expensive to justify the charges to customers like yourself to recover the cost. Keep tabs on the FCC to find out when it WILL be available.
Sorry... But here is testament to the fact that who you are, not what you have, qualifies your article for post on slashdot. So many other good articles by this author, and they're all slashdot worthy... Why this substandard one, too, instead of a truly newsworthy article by someone else?
Oh, there's plenty of data. The questions are: Does the data actually support the assumed origin of the universe? Is it even relative to the big bang theory of origin? This is another example fitting evidence into a model supporting a pre-determined conclusion. A dangerous and predictable method of developing theories. The scientist already has the "big bang," and now he's fitting this cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) to fit that theory. This is called circular reasoning, and cosmology is riddled with it. Ironically, CMB poses some problems to the current big bang theory. The total mass density of the universe inferred observationally does not agree with the mass calculated from big bang theory. NASA's observations lead them to conclude that the stars formed earlier (by their own dating methods) than previously predicted. Then there is the fact that the CMB is very smooth (resulting in the assumed "hum" from the original article), contrary to big bang predictions, and so on. There are more problems with the big bang theory, all of which relate to problems inherent to circular reasoning, but I don't want to stray too far off topic so I'll leave it at this. These problems do not give me reason to question my own beliefs. But if you believe in the big bang theory of origin, I think it is important to consider everything the evidence proposes. Not just what's supportive, but what's disruptive, as well, and what's missing. Of course, you may feel free to check my post for errors in spelling or grammar... but it may make more sense to challenge my ideas rather than my english.
Are you sure this isn't old news? I mean, CALEA was mandated to be implemented by wireless carriers over a year ago. It's software in the wireless switch that allows approved government agencies to track an individual to within a city block from any cell tower, plus access any live conversation on the target phone. This is nothing new. http://www.askcalea.net/