 NY Tel
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY | LNP Turbo Mode I think it is an excellent idea.
Gives the consumer control over their numbers that they have a right to port so why should they have to wait an excessive period of time for it?
I support it. | |
|
 | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Re: LNP Turbo Mode As long as it applies to VoIP as well as landline, I am fine with it. I have read a few horror stories about VoIP delaying porting on the various forums. | |
|
| | 
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
| Re: LNP Turbo Mode said by Austinloop  :As long as it applies to VoIP as well as landline, I am fine with it. I have read a few horror stories about VoIP delaying porting on the various forums. VoIP LNP is a different ball of wax from your local telco or cableco. You actually have to wait for two companies to process and release the number for the phone number - your VoIP carrier and then the carrier from which they purchase voice transport. So the expectation that a VoIP port away should be as quick as a traditional POTS port away is problematic.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
| Re: LNP Turbo Mode I am sure with the right motivation the companies involved with LNP in the VoIP arena could process the request in about 96 hours (twice that of the telco), since there are two companies involved. By the right motivation, I mean fines. If it is good for the goose, it should be just as good for the gander. | |
|
| | | |
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
| Re: LNP Turbo Mode VoIP is not even close to being regulated the same way as traditional POTS service, for good reasons, so the FCC would first have to put them on the same regulatory playing field as Verizon and ATT. And that isn't very likely.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | | | | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Re: LNP Turbo Mode And that is a real shame. | |
|
| | | | | |
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
| Re: LNP Turbo Mode said by Austinloop :And that is a real shame. No, it is a good thing. POTS and VOIP service, as they are now, are two vastly different types services. Some of the regulatory requirements placed on POTS are impossible to deliver with VOIP.
I would urge you to first understand why they are regulated differently before you blindly state that it "is a real shame" they are regulated differently.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | | | | | | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Re: LNP Turbo Mode What requirements, precisely, placed on pots are impossible to deliver?
I have seen ads for one of the VoIP companies saying they are your internet phone company. How are they different if they claim to provide phone service? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
| Re: LNP Turbo Mode said by Austinloop :What requirements, precisely, placed on pots are impossible to deliver? The obvious one - guaranteed uptime.
said by Austinloop :I have seen ads for one of the VoIP companies saying they are your internet phone company. How are they different if they claim to provide phone service? They are a phone company, they provide you with a voice line. that you can use to talk to others on the POTS network.
Phone service comes in different flavors and VoIP is one of several different flavors of phone service. Other phone companies provide you with phone service, but are exempt from the same rules as POTS providers - cell carriers, satellite phone careers, etc.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
| Re: LNP Turbo Mode Well, unfortunately, if some none technical type older person decides to swallow all that the company I referring to doesn't know that there is no guaranteed up time, possible delays with emergency calls, etc., then maybe, just maybe, the rules should be the same.
But I am sure that the VoIP companies fully explain the downside of their service, including no guaranteed up time fully to new customers.
To the vast majority of people, present forum excepted, phone service is phone service. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | nitzan
join:2008-02-27 | Re: LNP Turbo Mode You mean, the same non-technical older person who's never upgraded from dialup? the one who can't use VoIP anyway because they don't have a broadband connection? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Re: LNP Turbo Mode No, someone who has a broadband connection. I know some folks that have broadband connections who are totally lost on the technical end of things. | |
|
| | | AVonGauss
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | No, its not. VoIP is no different than a traditional telco, wireless or cable provider as far as LNP is concerned and should be treated no differently. | |
|
| | | |
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
| Re: LNP Turbo Mode said by AVonGauss :No, its not. VoIP is no different than a traditional telco, wireless or cable provider as far as LNP is concerned and should be treated no differently. With normal port requests with say Verizon or ATT, you only have to deal with a single party. With a VoIP port request, you have to deal with two parties - the VoIP provider and their upstream provider. So, despite what you believe, it is different.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | | | | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Re: LNP Turbo Mode I had suggested, above, that VoIP ports be given 96 hours, instead of the 48 hours that a telco is given, since there are two parties involved. | |
|
| | | | | 
porting xpert
@spcsdns.net
| How is a VoIP provider's upstream in anyway involved in the porting process?
Granted, if the company didn't have their own switch and simply resold services, that's one thing. As long as the switch has its own LRN, porting can happen between the VoIP provider and the winning carrier. | |
|
| | | | | 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
edit:
July 21st, @11:22AM
| said by NetAdmin :said by AVonGauss :No, its not. VoIP is no different than a traditional telco, wireless or cable provider as far as LNP is concerned and should be treated no differently. With normal port requests with say Verizon or ATT, you only have to deal with a single party. With a VoIP port request, you have to deal with two parties - the VoIP provider and their upstream provider. So, despite what you believe, it is different. Umm, Bellsouth took over 2 weeks to port a number to Cox. I'd call that ridiculous since cell companies can do it 24 hrs.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| VOIP companies are proud of saying how advanced their technology is -- the entire industry was built on being nimble and adaptive.
Time to put up or shut down. 48 hours is plenty of time to make a change whether it's an ILEC or CLEC or wholesale provider. | |
|
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| Porting Law The Porting laws signed into effect a couple years has to be one of the laws I followed closely and one of my most favorite ones in recent years (next to Smoke-Free Illinois).
I have had my number ported twice, and both cases it went really smooth. One took a day or too before I could receive incoming calls but otherwise had no problems.
--
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. | |
|
wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| It's not as easy as it looks... Porting between wireless carriers and wireline providers within 48 hours can only be accomplished if the ILECs and smaller providers (meaning Embarq and smaller) willingly agree to provide automated interfaces to their systems (no hands, or better yet, eyes, required). This already exists with the larger Bell companies. The smaller carriers should not be allowed an exemption (which in the case of CLECs is a net win anyway as they have a lot of people monitoring orders), but instead be mandatory with an option that is cost based (maybe through an LNP provider like Neustar). This, plus the recent Verizon ruling about porting prior to the competitor has an opportunity to complete the installation process, gets closer. The "freezing" of local numbers (originally done in the name of preventing Long Distance "slamming" but now put in place simply to make the local number porting process more cumbersome) is the other issue the Congress should look at - it's the next roadblock the incumbents will put up to prevent competition. | |
|
|
MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| As long as this applies to all, not just telcos When I left Verizon a couple of years ago, it was ported in a day or two. When I left Comcast earlier this year, it took about a week, and caused a tremendous hassle here. Totally unnecessary.
To make this fair, I hope it applies to cablecos as well as telcos. | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: As long as this applies to all, not just telcos But we want to foster "competition", which means competing providers should be given a bias over incumbent providers so that people will leave the incumbent. | |
|
Springbokke
join:2002-09-13
Colleyville, TX
| The technology exists The Air transport industry has e-tickets. The basic concept is you buy a ticket online on American Airlines and you can go check in for a British Airways flight at the kiosk in Heathrow with no paper ticker, just your passport.
Wallmart suppliers must be able to receive electonic orders or they are cut out from doing business with the giant.
The technology and standards had been around for years that enable companies to exchange sophisticated and complicated e-commerce data about customers and goods.
If the telcos are at all serious they would come together and implement these same ideas for number portibality. But they won’t, unless forced, and that’s not going to happen with the Bush administration. | |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| There should also be a ban on holding up the number move Right now in many cases the attempt to port a number triggers an automatic hold on the move by the "losing" company so their retention department has time/a-chance to convince the customer to stay with the company. My view is that if I wanted a better deal, I would have contacted the retention department BEFORE I initiated the move to see what they would offer me to stay. Once I contact the "winning" company and start the move, the other company is out of luck and should wait until the move is done before trying to "win me back". | |
|
nitzan
join:2008-02-27
·Comcast
·ViaTalk
| Sounds like a great idea to me. I just hope it gets extended to numbers ported to VoIP too. Currently it takes weeks and sometimes even more which is absolutely ridiculous. 99% of that time is pure wait on the carrier side (ILECs). As a VoIP provider I would LOVE to be able to port customers in within a few days, we don't really have a choice right now.
--
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation | |
|
bigcellshop
@tuoiyeuthuong.net | Hope the rule approved soon That's really a good rule! The right of customer is protected.
I absolutely agree with it.  | |
|
Lorne
Premium
join:2002-02-10
Fort Worth, TX
| LNP sucks Insight:
I would never port my number. When you call a number the switch knows where to route the call. But, first it launches an LNP query to an STP if the code is marked as portable in the switch. If that number is in the STP database as being ported, the STP sends your local switch information back about where to route the call.
Guess what? If someone forgot to put an LNP trigger on a code (because not all codes are ported), the LNP query will never be launched and the switch will mis-route the call.
We're not just talking major phone companies who's landline switches are messy as hell. Let's say your grandma' lives in a rural area with some CO-OP Telco or a minor CLEC. If they didn't add the trigger in their switch, grandma aint going to get through to you. And there's several other issues which could prevent a ported call from routing correctly.
LNP is a serious overcomplicated mess. I would rather tell 100 people my new number than risk one of not being able to get through to me.
It's like the federal govermnet mandating that every car in america have a wheel chair lift and 5 mufflers. I'm amazed it works as well as it does. | |
|
| jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: LNP sucks So just because a small percentage of people have porting issues (which are eventually sorted out) and a miniscule percentage of those aren't resolved in a timely fashion, we shouldn't port numbers? How very neo-Luddite of you.
Yet major companies with thousands of DIDs manage to port their numbers and stay in business each year, and millions of customers move their numbers around every year with no problems. | |
|
| DaveRb
join:2005-02-12
Allen, TX | Actually that is an SCP not an STP. Signal Transfer Points do not originate or terminate SS7 messages they merely pass them through from SSP to SSP or SCPs. | |
|
axgupta1
join:2005-02-13
Mechanicsburg, PA
·Comcast
| I totally like this idea LNP is great. I can switch providers and still retain the same phone number. However, the LNP request currently goes into a black hole and the customer does not know at what stage the process is or why a LNP request was denied or why it is taking long. The telephone companies use third parties to process LNP requests.
Several years ago I lost my phone number to Vonage because they did not initiate request to port my number for close to 10 months at which time I decided to cancel service since I was tired of paying to Vonage and Verizon. All this time they kept lying to me that the request had been initiated several times. I complained against Verizon to the FCC and Verizon confirmed to me that no request to port my number had been received by them
After I cancelled the service, within two days Vonage ported my number. Since I had cancelled from Vonage and LNP caused my Verizon account to be cancelled, I lost my phone number. It took me 2 years to communicate my new number to everyone.
I would very much like to see this process made more accountable to the customer especially since we pay for it. I just hope that the phone companies do not take this as an excuse to start charging more for LNP. | |
|
| dynamis
join:2008-09-04
Houston, TX
| Re: I totally like this idea I'm having that same problem right now moving a number to a Voip provider. It's been dragging on over a month now. I haven't cancelled service with either provider. There definitely needs to be a time limit, fines for not resolving it within the time limit, and much clearer communication with the consumer about the status of the transfer. The company receiving the number says "it takes 2 to 4 weeks" which means in my case I had to wait an entire month to find out it didn't go through the first time. The excuse was "wrong address" but I verified with the company holding the number that the address was correct and it should have gone through. It appears the company holding the number is holding my number using any excuse they can. Their latest excuse is "too many requests" even though there have been no requests for any changes to the account in over a year. | |
|
|
|
|
FCC May Require Telcos to Speed Up LNP
