|
Posted by Anthony Bellanga on March 1, 2008, 7:29 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Danny Burstein wrote:
> Bill Ranck wrote:
>> Lisa Hancock wrote:
>>> I think number portability is between cell phones only,
>>> not between a cell phone and a land line. I think all
>>> cell phones still remain in certain designated exchanges.
>>> Anyone know of examples where cellphones share an exchange
>>> with a conventional landline?
>> Nope, number portability is required between landlines and
>> cell phones now. I have a cell phone in my pocket right
>> now that has the number from my now non-existent landline.
> There are, however, various technical and tariff issues that
> often make the transfer from competing service types difficult.
> And, let's not forget, there are plenty of players who don't
> follow the rules or make things overly difficult.
>
> The key issue is that of "rate center". In most cases,
> the new number has to be "homed" in the same rate center
> as the original one.
snip
> In reality it gets even more confusing. Many area codes have
> multiple rate centers in them, even though all calls in that
> area might be considered "local". For example, NYC has, umm,
> something like 15 of them, so a phone number that's "homed"
> in South Brooklyn, for example, can NOT be transferred to
> an upper Manhattan location.
And just to clarify fo those who don't know, or might be under
typical misconceptions...
"Rate Center" is not the same as "Wire Center".
A Rate Center is a "legal" item, something defined by tariff
indicating a region where everything (usually) has the same
BILLING or RATING criteria. It is NOT (necessarily) the same
thing as a "switch coverage" area, i.e., the region covered
by a central office *SWITCH* aka "Wire Center", these latter
terms being more "technical" or "network", rather than "legal"
or "regulatory" (billing and rating).
> What's really confusing is that while you can kind-of figure
> out where a landline number is homed, you've got to have
> access to the double super secret internal charts to know
> the similar location for a cellular phone. Or, for that
> matter, a VOIP one.
>
> Just try taking a VOIP number and moving it to a landline...
>
> It used to be worse, with the NNXs based on the actual central
> office, meaning there were dozens and dozens of discrete
> little pockets.
Something else to remember or consider...
IIRC, the FCC/etc. only requires that (intra-landline)
portability be provided if you want to change telcos/carriers,
while still remaining in the same rate center.
(BTW, a central office switch or wire center can can serve
customers in multiple rate center areas. Most CLECs are set up
like this even in dense metro areas. There have to be dedicated
(NPA)NXX office codes for each rate center though, even though
all customers could be served off the same switch).
Most telcos will allow (or are "supposed" to allow) you to port
your service including number between each other as long as the
same rate center is involved. While there is no "technical" or
"network" problem involved (in most cases), if you want to port
your number because of a physical move, BETWEEN central office
*switches* in the same community, and stay with the same incumbent
local telco as well (the "Bell" or "independent"), if you are in
a large city (and sometimes smaller town in some cases) where
there are MULTIPLE central office switches...
SOME telcos *DO* allow this, OTHER telcos (normally) either do NOT
allow this, or else put up roadblocks to discourage you from
doing this. In the long run, it would be to that ILEC's advantage
to PERMIT this type of port, but some telcos just don't allow this
(unless you probably threaten to go to regulatory, or else go
higher-up within the telco complaining to the right people in the
right department/etc).
Bell Canada and BellSouth (now at&t) are known to usually NOT allow
such intra-company geographic ports which, while still in the same
rate center, would be a physical move between serving central office
switches.
Qwest (formerly US West) Embarq (formerly Sprint, at least Centel in
Las Vegas) have been known to allow such intra-company geograhic
ports within the rate center between central offices due to a physical
move.
One *COULD* migrate from the ILEC to some CLEC such as the cable-TV
company's telco, prior to the geographic move. Then, when moving
their household across town, tell Cable-TV's phone company about
the move. Most CLECs have only ONE switch serving huge geographic
territries, even in large metro areas. As long as one doesn't cross
rate center boundaries with their physical move, the CLEC will
allow one to keep the same telephone number. After a year or two
following the move, the incumbent telco will have already started
sending mail-outs and maybe even "telemarketing", as part of a
"win-back" -- where they want you to "port back" to them!
And since you did NOT move/port across rate center boundaries, they
will HAVE to allow you to return to them with your original number
that you ported-out when changing to the CLEC, even though you are
now living in a different ILEC's central office switching region
than you were prior to your move! And you will be served from that
"new" (different) ILEC's switching office as well in your new
neighberhood if you do agree to "port back".
If that's the case, WHY couldn't that ILEC simply allow you to
port your number between their switches (still within the same
rate center), when you had to make that geogaphic move a year
earlier!? It would have meant better customer relations/impressions,
and it would have been easier/simpler for telco in the short and
long runs! IMO, the FCC and CRTC should have REQUIRED such ports
as well, from the very beginning!
One known reason for NOT allowing such ports, and not so much a
"technical" issue, but rather a "jurisdictional" or "numbering"
issue, happened to US West (now Qwest) in "Twin Cities Metro" MN,
and in the Phoenix AZ Metro areas, in the later 1990s.
Remember that Qwest (US West) usually DOES allow intra-company,
inter-switch, still intra rate center ports, unlike Bell Canada
and BellSouth. However, the Minn/St.Paul area code splits of the
later 1990s, as well as the Phoenix AZ area code split of 1999,
were based on poliiical jurisdictional boundaries, and NOT on
telco rate center boundaries (there were other similar area code
splits of the later 1990s as well).
With such splits in those two US West metro areas, if one ported
their number, they might have ported across the new area code
boundary. And state regulatory did not want this happening!
US West had to prevent such ports. However, CLECs (and wireless)
existed with the same NXX office codes (and single switch)
regardless of geography (although within the same rate center).
There was somewhat of a nightmare in both cities as to determining
which area code certain CLEC and wireless customers fell in due to
the split. The splits in both places (and other cities where such
political jurisdictional splits happened which did not follow
telco rate center boundaries) were rather MESSY area code splits!
Also, in both cases, Minneapolis/St.Paul and Phoenix Metro, US West
requested an overlay, but regulatory ordered the splits, and those
rather messy splits as well.
- a.b.
|
 
| |
Posted by on March 3, 2008, 9:10 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Mar 1, 7:29 am, "Anthony Bellanga"
> (BTW, a central office switch or wire center can can serve
> customers in multiple rate center areas. Most CLECs are set up
> like this even in dense metro areas. There have to be dedicated
> (NPA)NXX office codes for each rate center though, even though
> all customers could be served off the same switch).
As it happened, I passed a CO building today that serves multiple rate
centers.
The building is near the city line. It serves both city exchanges and
suburban exchanges. Although everything comes out of one building,
the rates for the two sets are very different; one is suburban, one is
city.
The city customers can call anywhere in the city untimed at level 1.
The suburban customers may call only adjacenet city areas at level 1,
everything else is level 2 or above. If the suburban customers want a
city phone number (as many do to avoid message unit charges), they
have to pay FX charges. (Level 1 is one untimed unit for msg rate
customers, free for others).
Now, the message unit charges have been significantly reduced in
recent years, but the basic arrangement remains to this day. Indeed,
there are other buildings in the city that also have that arrangement
with a nearby suburb.
We must remember that these kinds of rates and tarrifs were set up
many years ago by the PUC as they saw best for 'universal service',
not necessarily to match rates with costs, indeed, PUCs often didn't
want to do that. City customers got a break, partly because high
density meant greater efficiency, and partly because it was perceived
that suburbanites were more affluent and could pay more (which was
generally true.)
As an aside, the city post office did likewise with some suburban
places--giving their mail out of a nearby city post office, and using
the same city zip code. In recent years, many suburbanites objected
to having a city zip code and pressured the post office to give them
their own zip code. This was because ratables are done by zip code
and suburbanites didn't like lower ratings from a city zip. I can't
blame for that.
|
|
Posted by Adam H. Kerman on March 5, 2008, 7:20 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>And just to clarify fo those who don't know, or might be under
>typical misconceptions...
>"Rate Center" is not the same as "Wire Center".
Does "exchange" mean rate center or wire center?
I know the difference, but when I complained to my state's public utility
commission about lies from SBC/AT&T, I got more lies about why my number
couldn't be moved to a different RATE center.
My story: I requested local number portability from one location to
another, both within the Chicago metropolitan area. The initial lie I
was given was that the FCC portability regulations PROHIBIT SBC/AT&T
from letting me keep my telephone number.
When I mentioned that the portability database is nothing more than a
database dip and could easily be used to redirect where the number
terminates, that's when they told me the lie.
When I asked about alternatives, they offered to let me have voice mail
without a land line but for merely 180 days. When I asked for other
alternatives, they offered none. I even knew to ask about foreign
exchange service, which they claimed was no longer offered. I even knew
to request to be transferred to the milage clerk who is trained to write
up such an order; they claimed they no longer existed.
For amusement, I passed the lie along to my state PUC which got a laugh
out of it. The "executive callback center" finally called me back today,
but the clerks hadn't bothered to look into the situation at all. I then
asked for a callback from someone familiar with number portability, but
instead got a supervisor who gave me the "different rate center" excuse.
Two different clerks claimed that land line to cell portability is
possible because "cell phones use towers". While cell phones really
don't have a central office concept, they still have some machine
analogous to a switch that interfaces with the telephone network. All
the telephone company is doing when porting a number to cell is sending
calls to that interface point.
Then two different clerks claimed that cell telephone numbers could NOT
be ported to land line with this excuse: because cell numbers don't have
rating points! Actually, that's not true. The concept has almost no use
when rating a call originating on a cell phone since so many cell phone
plans charge long distance as plan minutes, the same as local calls, but
a call into the cell phone may be rated according to the cell phone's
rate center.
If a subscriber has a cell phone whose rate center is near the billing
address, that's merely coincidence since so few subscribers would even
know to ask for such a number and fewer still would care.
>Most telcos will allow (or are "supposed" to allow) you to port
>your service including number between each other as long as the
>same rate center is involved. While there is no "technical" or
>"network" problem involved (in most cases), if you want to port
>your number because of a physical move, BETWEEN central office
>*switches* in the same community, and stay with the same incumbent
>local telco as well (the "Bell" or "independent"), if you are in
>a large city (and sometimes smaller town in some cases) where
>there are MULTIPLE central office switches...
>SOME telcos *DO* allow this, OTHER telcos (normally) either do NOT
>allow this, or else put up roadblocks to discourage you from
>doing this.
Oh yeah.
>In the long run, it would be to that ILEC's advantage to PERMIT
>this type of port, but some telcos just don't allow this (unless you
>probably threaten to go to regulatory, or else go higher-up within
>the telco complaining to the right people in the right department/etc).
Name names. Whom do I request this from? I've already gone to the state
PUC and that still didn't get me a truthful answer.
>One *COULD* migrate from the ILEC to some CLEC such as the cable-TV
>company's telco, prior to the geographic move. Then, when moving
>their household across town, tell Cable-TV's phone company about
>the move. Most CLECs have only ONE switch serving huge geographic
>territries, even in large metro areas. As long as one doesn't cross
>rate center boundaries with their physical move, the CLEC will
>allow one to keep the same telephone number. After a year or two
>following the move, the incumbent telco will have already started
>sending mail-outs and maybe even "telemarketing", as part of a
>"win-back" -- where they want you to "port back" to them!
I'd do something along those lines if I could get a straight answer from
someone at the phone company that they'd do it, without insisting on
putting the original phone number back into its original geographic area.
You make an interesting point about cable companies have only one "wire
center", but do they not split it up into rate centers? Does cable phone
service have to file for a tariff to establish rate center boundaries
with the state public utility commission?
>And since you did NOT move/port across rate center boundaries, they
>will HAVE to allow you to return to them with your original number
>that you ported-out when changing to the CLEC, even though you are
>now living in a different ILEC's central office switching region
>than you were prior to your move! And you will be served from that
>"new" (different) ILEC's switching office as well in your new
>neighberhood if you do agree to "port back".
That has been my assumption all along, but I can't get anyone at
AT&T/SBC to admit that it's the case.
>If that's the case, WHY couldn't that ILEC simply allow you to
>port your number between their switches (still within the same
>rate center), when you had to make that geogaphic move a year
>earlier!?
I've attempted to point this out too.
|
|
Posted by on March 6, 2008, 10:46 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Does "exchange" mean rate center or wire center?
One, the other, or both. Depends on context.
> I know the difference, but when I complained to my state's public utility
> commission about lies from SBC/AT&T, I got more lies about why my number
> couldn't be moved to a different RATE center.
How do you know it was a "lie"? Where does it say landline numbers
CAN be moved to _different_ rate centers?
AFAIK (as far as I know) and from what others have said, you cannot
move a landline phone number to a _ different_ rate center. With
good reason, as it could give you and people who call you an unfair
rate discount.
If someone believe landlines are freely portable to different
locations, could you provide a citation?
> My story: I requested local number portability from one location to
> another, both within the Chicago metropolitan area. The initial lie I
> was given was that the FCC portability regulations PROHIBIT SBC/AT&T
> from letting me keep my telephone number.
I believe Chicago, both city and suburbs, consists of multiple rate
centers.
> When I mentioned that the portability database is nothing more than a
> database dip and could easily be used to redirect where the number
> terminates, that's when they told me the lie.
AFAIK, it is not "easily redirect the number" for landlines. If
someone were to call 311-555-2368, the network switches the call to
the 311-555 exchange, and the network is done. The remaining routing
is done by the local exchange.
> When I asked about alternatives, they offered to let me have voice mail
> without a land line but for merely 180 days. When I asked for other
> alternatives, they offered none. I even knew to ask about foreign
> exchange service, which they claimed was no longer offered. I even knew
> to request to be transferred to the milage clerk who is trained to write
> up such an order; they claimed they no longer existed.
I'm surprised FX service is no longer offered since I know of many
people who have it elsewhere. There is also a remote call forwarding
service that many people have. With that, you get a listed local
number in an area, and all calls are automatically forwarded to where
you actually are (you of course pay for toll or message unit charges,
if any.)
> Two different clerks claimed that land line to cell portability is
> possible because "cell phones use towers". While cell phones really
> don't have a central office concept, they still have some machine
> analogous to a switch that interfaces with the telephone network. All
> the telephone company is doing when porting a number to cell is sending
> calls to that interface point.
It's more complicated than that. Cell phones by definition are
portable--you do not have to be in your 'home' exchange to get a cell
phone call; you can be anywhere and the system will find you. That
makes portability simpler.
|
|
Posted by Adam H. Kerman on March 7, 2008, 9:05 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>>I know the difference, but when I complained to my state's public utility
>>commission about lies from SBC/AT&T, I got more lies about why my number
>>couldn't be moved to a different RATE center.
>How do you know it was a "lie"?
You know, if you'd read all the way to the next paragraph, which you
even quoted below, I summarized the lie I was told.
>AFAIK (as far as I know) and from what others have said, you cannot
>move a landline phone number to a _ different_ rate center.
We've all been discussing that it's policy, not technical.
>With good reason, as it could give you and people who call you an unfair
>rate discount.
That doesn't make sense.
>If someone believe landlines are freely portable to different
>locations, could you provide a citation?
Someone doesn't believe that. Someone asked his phone company a straight
question but failed to receive a straight answer.
>>My story: I requested local number portability from one location to
>>another, both within the Chicago metropolitan area. The initial lie I
>>was given was that the FCC portability regulations PROHIBIT SBC/AT&T
>>from letting me keep my telephone number.
>I believe Chicago, both city and suburbs, consists of multiple rate
>centers.
Thanks for telling me about my own situation that I'd already described.
>AFAIK, it is not "easily redirect the number" for landlines. If
>someone were to call 311-555-2368, the network switches the call to
>the 311-555 exchange, and the network is done. The remaining routing
>is done by the local exchange.
In this day of electronic switching and routing? Of course not.
>>When I asked about alternatives, they offered to let me have voice mail
>>without a land line but for merely 180 days. When I asked for other
>>alternatives, they offered none. I even knew to ask about foreign
>>exchange service, which they claimed was no longer offered. I even knew
>>to request to be transferred to the milage clerk who is trained to write
>>up such an order; they claimed they no longer existed.
>I'm surprised FX service is no longer offered since I know of many
>people who have it elsewhere.
I don't actually believe that it's not offered. When I follow up with
the state public utility commission, I'll ask.
>There is also a remote call forwarding service that many people have.
They refused to sell something like that to me as well.
>>Two different clerks claimed that land line to cell portability is
>>possible because "cell phones use towers". While cell phones really
>>don't have a central office concept, they still have some machine
>>analogous to a switch that interfaces with the telephone network. All
>>the telephone company is doing when porting a number to cell is sending
>>calls to that interface point.
>It's more complicated than that. Cell phones by definition are
>portable--you do not have to be in your 'home' exchange to get a cell
>phone call; you can be anywhere and the system will find you.
These comments are irrelevant to how the cell phone network interfaces
with the land line network.
>That makes portability simpler.
Not really. They still use the largely inapplicable concept of rate
centers, I guess by tariff, which as the OP discussed in a different
followup, could give a landline phone company an excuse not to port a
number from cell to landline.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Portability Issues (was: cell phones & do not call) [telecom] | March 2, 2008, 10:10 am |
| Cell Phones and the "do not call" list [TELECOM] | February 27, 2008, 8:40 am |
| [telecom] 3 in 10 get all or most calls on cell phones | May 15, 2008, 12:30 pm |
| Uses for old analog cell phones? [Telecom] | June 30, 2008, 8:29 pm |
| comp.dcom.telecom security issues | May 22, 2008, 1:00 pm |
| comp.dcom.telecom security issues | May 22, 2008, 6:25 pm |
| Airliens use cell phones as boarding pass [Telecom] | March 19, 2008, 12:01 pm |
| Re: [telecom] Re: Telecom Re: Analog Cell Phones | September 30, 2007, 10:23 am |
| BWA Licensing Issues: Auction or Beauty Contest [Telecom] | May 31, 2008, 3:15 pm |
| Re: BWA Licensing Issues: Auction or Beauty Contest [telecom] | June 5, 2008, 6:34 am |
|
|
![Re: Portability Issues (was: cell phones & do not call) [telecom]](/images/header.jpg)
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map