Phone Number Portability Coming Soon to US

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/891025.asp?0cv=TB10' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.com/news/891025.asp?0cv=TB10</a><br /><br /></div>"Life is about to get a little simpler for mobile phone users, who may soon avoid the hassle of changing phone numbers when switching wireless service providers, making it easier to take advantage of discount calling plans. Sure, it’s not quite the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it’s a change that will make it easier for people to keep in touch, no matter who manages the calls."<br /><br />In a crucial move, Michael Powell, the chairman of the FCC, declined to extend the deadline for wireless carriers to implement number portability. Assuming no legal barriers hold up, we will be able to switch carriers without losing our number starting November 24 this year. Europeans, of course, have had this functionality for a while. ;)

[thanos255]

Very nice....I hope this actually goes through
Probably will be a fee to change and a fee to cancel....may not be even worth it :)



Thanks
Thanos

[kagayaki1]

Hell yeah, it's about damn time. Amazing how we preach capitalism, but things like this remind us we don't necessarily live in a completely "free market."

-Jason

[ricksfiona]

Hell yeah, it's about damn time. Amazing how we preach capitalism, but things like this remind us we don't necessarily live in a completely "free market."

-Jason
Like Democracy, a free market only works great when enough people speak up and take action.

But THANK GOD we FINALLY have phone number portability. I don't think we'll have to pay a fee. Maybe initially, but not in the long haul.

Cell phone carriers want your business and will do just about anything to get it. Heck, they will throw in a $200($100 their cost) just so you can pay them $40 a month in service. So I think there will be a tiny fee if any to change carriers.

Customer service may become better and prices will probably go down on top of this.... Because what will differentiate one carrier from another? There are two groups of consumers:

1) Cost sensitive.
2) Quality/Customer Service/Performance.

Since about 80%+ of U.S. are in group 1, I think we'll see cost come down some more. A lot of people don't like to change carriers cause their phone number will change. If that barrier is gone, then people will look for the best deal. For them, they are looking for high-minute plans for as little cost. As long as they can make their phone calls and they are relatively clear, everything else doesn't matter much.

I'm in group 2 and represent a small percentage of people. Probably most upper-end business as well. So we'll see companies in that group deliver features for buisness like conferencing, data services and bill management etc...

[st63z]

Glory be! The exact reason why I stayed through my CDMA->TDMA->GSM forced march, so I could keep the same number...

[Wasp]

Me too! I have a nice phone number (ends with 00) and don't wish to lose it. Also, I have given my number to several people and would find it almost impossible to give them an updated number.

[SoylentK]

Me too! I have a nice phone number (ends with 00) and don't wish to lose it. Also, I have given my number to several people and would find it almost impossible to give them an updated number.

A good phone number can go a long way
(ends with 3456789 )
Thankfully I’ve had a great service with Orange but I have no problems with :scatter: if it doesn’t stay that way.

[dMores]

well i wonder what it's going to be like when someone sees a t-mobile number, and thinks it'll be cheap because he has t-mobile as well, but then the t-mobile number is actually from another provider, which will be more expensive.

i live in europe, and i have not yet seen a solution to this problem.

[Rob Alexander]

well i wonder what it's going to be like when someone sees a t-mobile number, and thinks it'll be cheap because he has t-mobile as well, but then the t-mobile number is actually from another provider, which will be more expensive.

i live in europe, and i have not yet seen a solution to this problem.

I'm pretty sure the US still charges the receiver of the mobile call rather than the caller, so this wouldn't be a problem for them. It's something of a backward system, relative to the rest of the world, but prices per minute are so cheap that there doesn't seem to be any pressure to change it.

[dud]

Its really interesting to see how you guys over the pond are just talking about phone number potability, as in the UK we've had this option for years.

About 3 i think! As i changed from BT Cellnet [as it was called then: O2 now] to that of orange about 2.5 years ago.

Amazing when you think about it!!!

A warm welcom anyway as it forces service providers to be more competetive as there is very little holding people back from moving.

I hope this was enlightfull....

All the best and keep up the great work....

Guy

[Mr. Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure the US still charges the receiver of the mobile call rather than the caller, so this wouldn't be a problem for them. It's something of a backward system, relative to the rest of the world, but prices per minute are so cheap that there doesn't seem to be any pressure to change it.

Actually, both parties get charged. If person A calls person B for 10 minutes and both are on cell phones, both A & B will have 10 minutes deducted from the monthly minutes.

Off course, all this assumes neither party is using any kind of special promotion (free weekend minutes, mobile-to-mobile minutes, etc.).

[Janak Parekh]

well i wonder what it's going to be like when someone sees a t-mobile number, and thinks it'll be cheap because he has t-mobile as well, but then the t-mobile number is actually from another provider, which will be more expensive.

i live in europe, and i have not yet seen a solution to this problem.
That's because, as Mr. Anonymous implies, there is no solution. You have to assume people are going to be expensive. Long-term, you'll see mobile-to-mobile minutes get less popular as a result (except, perhaps, for family calling).

--janak

[Programmer]

Me too! I have a nice phone number (ends with 00) and don't wish to lose it. Also, I have given my number to several people and would find it almost impossible to give them an updated number.

A good phone number can go a long way
(ends with 3456789 )
Thankfully I’ve had a great service with Orange but I have no problems with :scatter: if it doesn’t stay that way.

I kinda like my number too. 345 5000 8)

Robert

[anthonymoody]

Ummm, not sure what you guys are talking about re: charges in this case, at least not in the US. I get charged the same number of minutes no matter who is calling me. Minutes are minutes, at least on TMobile in the US. It doesnt matter if the caller is a TMobile user, a Verizon user, a land line, or an international caller. We don't have to practice incoming call discrimination based on the source of the call. Not sure what you guys are talking about, US wise. The only time a certain caller would be cheaper are on specific family plans where certain numbers can call one another for free.

As for number portability, this is huge, and the industry has been fighting it tooth and nail for years. No wonder - as we all know, switching numbers, even without a fee, is a major hassle. Bravo to Mr. Powell for drawing the line in the sand and keeping it there.

As for potential fees, to my knowledge the guideline will mandate that outside of the standard fees charged to end a 12 month contract early, the carriers cannot impose another 'hostage' fee.

TM

[Janak Parekh]

Ummm, not sure what you guys are talking about re: charges in this case, at least not in the US.
Not true -- T-Mobile does have plans with unlimited "T-Mobile-to-T-Mobile" minutes. That said, I'd rather have number portability and assume my regular minutes are used, and keep track of individual people who happen to have the same service (in the case I have such a promotion on my plan). It's not like you can tell, anyway, in NYC, since the exchanges are all over the place.

Number portability is indeed key to making the carriers "honest", and I hope it happens this November.

--janak

[SoylentK]

For years in the UK we had it so you could call any one on your network or any land line for free (as part of the inclusive time of your contract) but not someone on a different network (and no one was ever on the same network). Then one2one (now called T-Mobile) said that they were going to let you phone what ever network you liked as part of your inclusive time. Then as far I know the others did the same thing. So phone companies might charge in the beginning but once one of them starts to treat customers how they wish to be treated then the others my follow.




P.S. if they are gong to be liberated from GSM why not go for 3G?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8598

[axe]

I wish this would be the case in Canada. I would like to switch to Bell from Rogers, but I've had my Rogers phone for ages.

AXE

[trachy]

Very nice....I hope this actually goes through
Probably will be a fee to change and a fee to cancel....may not be even worth it :)

Actually, you will be assessed a monthly fee just for the option to move your number. It doesn't even matter if you ever use it. The FCC has been allowing local wireline companies to do this since 1998.

Check this:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/numbport.html

- Drew

[PetiteFlower]

I think that if number portability becomes mandatory, then there will just be a fee tacked on to the "other fees" on your bill every month--but because it will increase competition, general rates will decrease. And the fee will be the same for everyone. But, you'll still have to sign a contract with your carrier and have to pay a fee to break it early, just like now.

Now how could you POSSIBLY tell even now what carrier someone has just by their phone number?

[Janak Parekh]

Now how could you POSSIBLY tell even now what carrier someone has just by their phone number?
At one point, if someone had the same exchange (i.e. the y's in xxx-yyy-zzzz), you could be reasonably sure they had the same carrier. Nowadays, with the shortage of numbers, it's not really a useful thing; and in urban areas like New York, with numbers all over the place, it was never really a useful thing. :)

--janak

[Steven Cedrone]

Looking back, I wonder why Pagers (and later, Cell Phones) were not just given their own area codes within a state. Instead of using all of the landline numbers up within an area code, they could have just created new "wireless" area codes as the need arose...

If that had happened, you would still be able to move to NYC and get a 212 area code...

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

Looking back, I wonder why Pagers (and later, Cell Phones) were not just given their own area codes within a state. Instead of using all of the landline numbers up within an area code, they could have just created new "wireless" area codes as the need arose...
They did in NYC - 917. 917's full now :D, and now they're assigning 646 and 347 numbers.

--janak

[Steven Cedrone]

They did in NYC - 917. 917's full now :D, and now they're assigning 646 and 347 numbers.

But that was done later. In the beginning, the pagers had a 212 area code didn't they (I know my father had one)? And I'm sure it was the same with Cell Phones as well...

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

But that was done later. In the beginning, the pagers had a 212 area code didn't they (I know my father had one)? And I'm sure it was the same with Cell Phones as well...
True -- no one ever realized how prolific they would become back then. My point is that it wouldn't have mattered anyway...

--janak

[Steven Cedrone]

True -- no one ever realized how prolific they would become back then. My point is that it wouldn't have mattered anyway...

Well, my area code has changed twice in the past 7 years. I would imagine I would still be in my original area code if they were assigning pagers and cell phones to their own area code. Now I know eventually they would be forced to "split" an area code based upon population, it just would have taken alot longer...

So yes, I guess in the ling run it wouldn't have mattered anyway... :wink:

Steve

[PetiteFlower]

They've done it in the Philly area too, there is now FOUR different area codes. First they split it to 2 based on geographic area(215 and 610) and then a few years later they added in a wireless-device only area code in each area(267 and 484). You can still get cell phones with 215 and 610 numbers, but you can't get a land line with a 267 or 484 number. I think this means that wireless devices are increasing a heck of a lot faster then land lines. I don't think land lines will ever completely go away, but I know that I'm getting rid of mine now that I have broadband(or will in just a few more days!), because living with 2 roommates, the last thing we want to have to do is keep track of each other's phone messages, and we all already have cell phones, so why pay another bill? Living in a house with a family I think I would get a land line, but I think a lot of young people like me are making the same decision. Plus, with a cell phone, no telemarketers!