Cell Phone Number Portability Finally A Reality?

graphicartist82 writes "MSNBC is running an article about the upcoming deadline for cell phone companies to let customers keep their numbers when switching companies. FCC Chairman Michael Powell has already extended the deadline once, but plans to stay with the Nov 24th, 2003 deadline. Companies like Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile have committed to meeting the deadline. I, for one, would love this. I've had the same cell phone number for years now -- it's where everybody knows how to get a hold of me. Other companies are now offering better services in my area where they weren't before. If I can keep my number and get a better service, I'm all for it! (Even if I have to pay a fee like the article suggests)."

Cell phone / home phone

[M.C. Hampster]

Is anyone aware of any regulations allowing you to transfer your home phone number to your cell phone if you were to disconnect your home phone number? I think I remember reading about rules stating you could keep your home phone number if you switched land carriers, and now you'll be able to keep your cell phone number when you switch cell carriers, but what about if you are ditching your land line altogether?

Why do we need it?

[floppy ears]

"I'm not sure why we need it, as 30 some odd percent of the customers in this country switch carriers every year without this grand and glorious number portability opportunity," said Richard Lynch, Verizon Wireless chief technology officer.

Gee, maybe it's because your service sucks so badly, that people are willing to change *despite* the horrible inconvenience?

Why a fee?

[91degrees]

Shouldn't the company you're moving to cover this fee? It's in their interests to make sure that new customers don't feel they have to pay anything to switch.

Free at last!

[div_2n]

This is a huge win for consumers. This levels the playing field for true competition. It gives us more power to leverage against our carriers.

Feel like you are getting terrible service? Call customer support and say "I am very unhappy with my service. Can you fix it? No? Ok, I will switch carriers tomorrow. So will my entire family and anyone I know that I can pursuade." That is the benefit.

I fully expect to see more competitive pricing plans because the entry/exit barrier for carriers have gone down. Of course I also expect to see stiffer penalties in ending contracts early to offset this.

The UK implemented this a few years ago

[doogieb]

In the fledgling days of GSM, UK providers allowed you to port your analogue mobile number over to a GSM phone, but only while staying with the same provider. A few years back they implemented the cross migration of GSM mobile numbers between providers. You are issued with a new temporary mobile number when you buy your new phone on your new provider, and you fill in various paperwork. The new provider then applies to your current provider for permission to release the number - if you haven't paid your bills up to date etc then they wont release it! If all goes well the transfer happens and you can start receiving calls with your old number on your new phone within a month or so.

Re:Finally?

[RocketScientist]

No kidding.

I have a friend who is a project manager at a "Major Wireless Carrier" who said that the reason it's not here yet is that it's "really hard".

OK, every country in the entire friggin WORLD has this except for the US. The only reason we DON'T have it is that the carriers didn't want to make it easy to switch over. It can't be that hard if most of Europe has it, because y'all in Europe have more cell phones than we do. Japan's got number portability, and they've got assloads more phones than we do. This isn't a matter of expense or difficulty, it's a matter of protecting wireless carrier's bottom lines at the expense of consumer expense.

For example, another friend of mine was really ticked at SprintPCS. But in order to change carriers, he'd have to get his business cards and stationery reprinted, at a fairly high expense. So he's locked in until this number portability thing happens, at which point I'm thinking he'll probably kick their sorry asses out.

You think they're going to lie down and take this?

[telstar]

While this is a great change in policy regarding number portability, I imagine that what this will also do is increase the obligation of phone customers to sign longer contracts. It's the only thing that will protect a carrier from users infinitely hopping to the best current deal.

ignorance is bliss

[unborracho]

From the Article:

They argue that nearly a third of consumers already change carriers on a regular basis, and the new rule will only cause the provider-switching phenomenon to grow and, in turn, lead to more loss of customers and more damage to their bottom lines.

How ignorant can they possibly be? It just means that competition within cell phone companies will be growing, and prices and deals on cell phones/air time will be drastically decreasing because of this. It's only helping to create perfect competition in the cell phone industry. To the consumer, this is a good thing. To the company, not so much. This is a very company-oriented point of view, and is ignorant of the consumer.

Re:Finally?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to do with number portability to be honest. GSM gives you the advantages of roaming across different networks, and the ability to change your handset easily (Pop the SIM out of the old phone and into the new one. Easy!)

Changing your carrier but keeping your number is a different kettle of fish, although its really only a little bit of administration of database manipulation.

Get ready to pay for this...

[Rai]

I know some people who work for a wireless provider who say that wireless companies will be charging ALL customers with a flat service fee to facilitate number portability.

Why are they objecting this rule?

[uwbbjai]

That is precisely the reason why wireless operators are fiercely objecting to this rule.

If a provider lives up to its promises and offers decent services, the clients are unlikely to change providers. Only those who know they have bad services would want to object. I say this rule is precisely what we need to make the providers do something to improve on their services.

actually this sucks more than it brings advantages

[harrylackapants]

First of all, in the past you were able to tell which network you are calling by the phone number. If people will keep their numbers while switching back and forth, it will result that I will never ever call a cellphone again. And if they mix also the fixed phone numbers with the cell ones, I might as well terminate my phone contracts. The costs are huge for calls outside your network. Now you won't be able to tell when you are being scalped untill blood fills your eyes...

Loss of customers?

[dimension6]

"They argue that nearly a third of consumers already change carriers on a regular basis, and the new rule will only cause the provider-switching phenomenon to grow and, in turn, lead to more loss of customers and more damage to their bottom lines."

Uhhh .... where does this 30 percent switch to? Other cell phone companies. If they merely switch providers, that means that the industry isn't losing any customers. If people completely stop using cell phones, then the industry loses customers. Also, if the cancellation fee applies for ending the contract, they end up with $200-$250 (I'm not sure exactly where it stands with every provider) anyway. The companies that will lose money are the providers that provide the poorer service, so they do have reason to worry.