Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Hardware

Yet More on Cellular Number Portability 214

Posted by michael from the churn dept.
RadBlock writes "The Wireless Supersite has posted an interesting column analyzing number portability. Wireless carriers have been stalling on the availablity of number portability for years now. The final deadline is supposed to be in November, and it will allow you to keep your wireless phone number when you change carriers (one number for life... the ultimate!)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yet More on Cellular Number Portability More

Yet More on Cellular Number Portability

Comments Filter:

  • Does it really matter? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Blaine Hilton ( 626259 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:39PM (#5761354) Homepage
    It seems like this is a moot point when you consider how you can use 800# services that will forward your calls whereever you go. If these services became more popular then it wouldn't matter what your cell phone number is.

    Go Calculate Something [webcalc.net]

  • well, to each their own (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:40PM (#5761358)
    one number for life... the ultimate!

    I would say sex with twins is the ultimate, but hey, we all have priorities.

  • And yet, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by llamalicious ( 448215 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:41PM (#5761366) Journal
    sometimes I look forward to leaving certain phone numbers behind.

    Once someone knows your number, changing it's the only way get it away from them. Can't really block any single person from fucking with your phone number, they can always call from a different place.

    Sounds like just another way to add a surcharge to our phone bills. Like we need another.

    Wow, must be Friday, I'm bitter and sarcastic... time for beer and wings!

    • Re:And yet, (Score:3, Informative)

      by ckuhtz ( 87644 )
      LNP is an option for those who want it, not something that will get forced on you.

      If you want to keep your number, cool.. LNP provides for that. If not, cool, here's your new number and your old one goes back to the pool.

      Get the facts straight. Oh, wait, this > is a thread /.

    • But I suppose that you could always just give people a code that would allow them to talk to you for that phone number. No matter where they call from they always use that code, and the code you give them is unique for each friend. This way, you could just blacklist one particular code, or all but one and nobody needs caller id. (Maybe I should patent that?)
    • Wow, must be Friday, I'm bitter and sarcastic... time for beer and wings!

      It's irresponsible to drink and fly, my friend.

  • I just got a new cell phone number, now all the people I don't want calling me anymore can't. ;-)
    • Yeah but neither can the people that you DO want to talk to, but forget to tell. I recently landed a project with a former employer because I've had the same cell number for 5+ years, despite moving several times. That one phone call generated more money than I will spend on phone fees in my lifetime, and if I had switched its very unlikely they would have bothered to (or been able to) track me down.

      Also, aren't telemarketers prohibited by law from calling cell phones? In the rare event they do call me

  • Sweet (Score:2, Funny)

    by g(zerofunk.org) ( 596290 )
    Now I can get my 555-FARK phone number.
    Er, wait. Wrong website.
    g

  • Why is LNP such a big deal for cellular? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ckuhtz ( 87644 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:44PM (#5761383) Homepage
    LNP resistance in the U.S. is marketing FUD.

    Other countries are already doing this for a year or two now. Take Germany. The carrier is allowed to charge you a fee (something like 25-50 euros), which often gets comp'ed by the new carrier.

    This has nothing to do with technology. It's solved. It's carriers trying to keep customers hostage. Nothing more.

    • Well not FUD really. The carriers never said that they CAN'T do it, they just said that it would be expensive (prohibitively they claim) to do. And this may be true, I don't know as I've never seen any actual #'s for how much retrofitting systems would cost, only vague arm waving on both sides.
    • Yeah, it's actually quite trivial when you consider that oppressive contracts are really what hold cellular customers hostage.

      Cell providers should know that people are already bailing out because they're getting screwed. Keeping one's number is merely the proverbial common courtesy reach-around.

    • Isn't this less of an issue there because you can just move your sims chip to a different phone?

      I seem to recall a German roommate of mine doing this... and it was commical because he was looking to do SMS and his new phone did not have an ö.

  • The Ultimate? (Score:5, Funny)

    by slagdogg ( 549983 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:46PM (#5761399)
    one number for life... the ultimate!

    It's only the ultimate if you get a cool number ... like (663) 244-7467 ... aka (ONE) BIG-PIMP

    • Re:The Ultimate? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:55PM (#5761910) Homepage Journal
      I swear to God, I'm not making this up:

      My old data line was 833-8258 - 83FUCKU. When my wife and I got married, she called our telco to see if we could keep the number, but we were moving to a different part of the city and get to get a different prefix. She told the operator that was too bad, because we had this really great number that spelled...

      The operator panicked. She called her supervisor, who also panicked. The pulled all numbers containing "38258" from national (well, regional, I guess) circulation, which they apparently do for all numbers known to spell something bad.

      I felt kind of bad for causing that to happen. It was a good number.

      • I felt kind of bad for causing that to happen. It was a good number.

        I was calling the operator on the phone, and it was like beep beep beep beep beep. And then, like, my number was gone. And I like... hnnng? They devoured my number. It was a really good number. And then we had to get a number in a different prefix and it wasn't as good. It's kind of a..... bummer.

        1-987-LN-FEISS

  • That's exactly why cell companies don't want it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:47PM (#5761409)
    One of the big reasons to not switch your cell phone company is that you lose your number, and have to deal with changing over to a new number.

    If I could keep my number, my incentive to stay with RipOff Cellular goes down, and I'm more likely to switch to UselessMinutes Wireless Inc.

    In the end, there's probably just as many people who want to switch from A to B as want to switch from B to A. But even though the numbers of subscribers might remain fairly steady, it is more expensive to lose one customer and gain another than to just keep one.

    • One of the big reasons to not switch your cell phone company is that you lose your number, and have to deal with changing over to a new number.

      Exactly, not having number portability is anti-competitive. They're trying to protect their cartels.

    • Exactly, but what I think we'd see is that a "free number switch" would be included in the promotional offers from cell phone companies (just as LD companies pay your switching fees to get you as their customer.)

      Like many others, keeping my old number is the reason I haven't given up my carrier yet. Carriers know this, and fight the FCC to keep portability out of the wireless system.

    • Corollary: Every cell phone company beleives that they have more disatisfied customers than their competitors do.

      See, it works both ways. In theory, taking this barrier out should make it just as easy for customers to flock to you as away from you. One thing keeping me from walking away from T-Mobile and to a more data-friendly service and never looking back is the fact that I like my number. I've had it for two years, it's a combination of only 3 numbers, and I think it's good. OK, so T-Mobile should be a

  • One number (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nikkos ( 544004 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:48PM (#5761414)
    "(one number for life... the ultimate!)"

    One number to find you.
    One number for life.
    One number for the world to call
    And in the darkness (and light, and evening, and morning) bind you.

    Nikkos

  • WHAT AM I PAYING FOR, THEN? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:50PM (#5761429)
    For the past four or five years, an increasing number of nickel-and-time charges have been appearing on my phone bill... every time I'd ask Verizon about it they would say basically "The FCC made me do it."

    Well, one of those numbers was supposed to be specifically to provide phone number portability if I change carriers.

    So if I'm not getting phone number portability, why am being charged for it?

  • perhaps a good idea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fozzy(pro) ( 267441 )
    I think having a number would be cool, but there are other implications. Imagine the privacy concerns of not changing your number, I understand you could get a new number if you really wanted one, but the issue still exists. Another issues is routing of the call and how much more work this would add for the phone company that they would be willing to charge you more for. In my opinion they charge to much already.

    • Re:perhaps a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ckuhtz ( 87644 )
      I think having a number would be cool, but there are other implications. Imagine the privacy concerns of not changing your number

      What the heck does a number have to do with privacy?!.. Put down the crackpipe.

      Another issues is routing of the call and how much more work this would add for the phone company that they would be willing to charge you more for. In my opinion they charge to much already. It's already solved. Has been for years. Called LNP. It's not technology, it's fear and anti-competitive

      • Re:perhaps a good idea (Score:5, Informative)

        by laymil ( 14940 ) <laymil@obsolescence.net> on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:41PM (#5761800) Homepage
        you're a very confused person when it comes to wireless tech.

        of the list of wireless standars you list, at least 3 of them are made up, or bastardizations of ones already on the list.

        Why do you think providers love the heavily fragment market of CDMA, TDMA, CDMA PCS, TDMA PCS, Sprint PCS, iDEN & GSM in the U.S.? Switching is hell.

        Lets see. PCS stands for Personal Communications Services. CDMA PCS==CDMA TDMA PCS==TDMA Sprint PCS==CDMA. iDEN works over TDMA. So, you list 7 different cellular network types. I'm telling you there are really only 3 in the US. Unless you want to count plain old analog cellular.

        Thanks for playing.

  • Number portability won't give the consumer much really. If you are displeased with the service of one company and decide to change carriers, you also have to acquire a new phone as well as a new number. Sure, that's not a problem when phones are free or only $0.01. But, when you start throwing in these unlimited local services that don't give away their phones, it can be costly to change carriers just because of the equipment change.
    • decide to change carriers, you also have to acquire a new phone as well as a new number.

      You mean 'phone portability like that which has been available in the UK and Europe for years? I've been using GSM 'phones for seven years at least in the UK, and NEVER had a locked 'phone? Want to change carriers? Just swap the SIM card (note: this has not always been true for all carriers, but *I* personally have never had a locked 'phone). My 'phones that I now use in the US have all been bought in the UK, and che
  • I would really hate it if we got this in my country... i mean, if you cant instantly tell the network when you look at the number, how will i know the price of the phone call in advance?
    Not everyone is rich enough not to worry about such things you know. I can call my girlfriend for 5 cents, but calling people on other networks would cost me 30 cents per minute!
    And that's at the discounted rate for people in my "top 10" list... most people can only afford 10 or 20 euros per month of cell phone usage and if

    • Uhhh.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:14PM (#5761618)
      ...the European cell network is great because of this kind of crap?

      I don't care how cool your GSM network tech is or how easy it is to roam from Spain to Syria, if you have to put up with this kind of BS billing game it's not worth it...
      • Well, we (in the US) sort of have it too, in the form of discounts for calls within the same carrier (e.g., Sprint's PCS-to-PCS call discounts) that some plans offer.

  • More Options Are ALWAYS a "Good Thing" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SUB7IME ( 604466 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @02:54PM (#5761466)
    I have noticed that some people are complaining, "But if I always have the same phone number, then I can't avoid all those pesky telemarketers/ex-girlfriends/stalkers/parents/lawy ers/etc."

    What these people are ignoring is that you merely have the choice to keep the same number - not an obligation. If it behooves you to keep the same number, you may do so; if not, you can drop the number just like you do now.

    Giving the public more options is a "Good Thing."
    • This is a good point, but if I choose that I don't want a "portable number", will I still be paying monthly surcharges for it?
    • yes, but there are two concerns:

      1) having a mandated monthly portability surcharge -- if it's a charge at the time you transfer carriers, then it's very reasonable (which, i understand, is how it's done in parts (all?) of europe

      2) as it stands now, telemarketers cannot call my cell #. if portability makes it such that cell vs. landline is no longer easily identifyable and they can start calling me, i'm going to be one VERY unhappy camper. i dumped a landline in favor of a cell phone only awhile ago. an
    • The ability to decide when to drop a number, and when to take it to a new carrier is pretty important.

      If you want a new number I think you can call up your current carrier and ask for one. But if you want to switch carriers and keep your existing number, you should be able to. I don't want to be held hostage by a carrier either. It makes competition more accessible to more people.

      I wonder if the FCC can revoke licences or start fining companies over this. I think the carriers should get slapped around

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • No! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by itallushrt ( 148885 )
    Damn, this could allow all those revengeful ex-girlfriends and one night stands to potentially track me down!

    On a serious note though. Say someone totally bails on a large bill that has accumulate with one carrier and moves to another carrier for new service. Would you have the ability to keep the same number still?

  • Would it help stem the need for more numbers? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:05PM (#5761542)
    We've gone through two area code splits here in Minneapolis -- 612/651 first, and then 768/612/952 later.

    Would cell number portability slow this kind of thing down? I can't help but think that each cell provider switch ties up two numbers for at least a month or so as one number gradually expires and gets put back into the re-use bin.

    With this there'd be more slack in the system as providers wouldn't need as much of a supply of numbers for new customers, as some (high?) percentage could be expected to keep their numbers.

  • One Number For Life? (Score:5, Funny)

    by handy_vandal ( 606174 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:08PM (#5761558) Homepage Journal
    "... (one number for life... the ultimate!)"

    Not good enough. The true ultimate number would last into the afterlife. That way, we could call dead people, and not have to remember a special post-mortem phone number.

    Much superior to the old postal method of contacting dead people, via the dead-letter office ....

  • The holy grail? ERr not necessarily.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:11PM (#5761582) Homepage Journal
    " (one number for life... the ultimate!)"

    Err I'm not sure that's the 'ultimate'. The nice thing about having everybody rotate numbers is that telemarketer records have to be updated. Then, there's the whole problem of having to have much longer phone numbers. I don't mean to poo-poo it, just that I kind of like having to rotate once in a while.

    One thing I would like, though, is the ability to alias my phone number. I had an idea a few years ago where your e-mail address (or domain name maybe? I dunno...) could be registerred with a central service. This service would store your phone # and mailing address. If somebody dialed your email address on the phone, it would lookt it up in this database and then route the call. As long as you kept your info up to date, then people would only have to remember your email address to talk to you or send you stuff.

    Of course there are privacy concerns and other problems I haven't thought of. It's just that on the surface, it seems like a neat idea. Imagine being able to block individuals this way!

    Hmm okay I'm rambling. I just think the digital world has the potential to really make things different for the better. I daydream about it sometimes.
    • The nice thing about having everybody rotate numbers is that telemarketer records have to be updated.

      In the US it's illegal for a telemarker to call a cell phone, since it costs you money. (Boy, that sounds like spam...)

      I ditched my land line years ago and haven't looked back. Some people say they don't like using a cell phone because they don't want to be reached. If you buy one with a 'power' button or a 'ringer volume' button, I don't see how it's a problem.

      I'm just looking forward to being able to s
      • "I ditched my land line years ago and haven't looked back. Some people say they don't like using a cell phone because they don't want to be reached. If you buy one with a 'power' button or a 'ringer volume' button, I don't see how it's a problem."

        Yep, I'm a cell-lubber too. That's all I've had for the last 6 years. It's on silent. It's been on slient for ages. If I'm near it, I can hear it whirrrrr. If I'm not near it, it doesn't disturb anybody.

        I'm glad my pavlovian 'panic because the phone is ring
  • This'll be REALLY useful when we can finally halt the flood of telemarketers calling constantly.

    • Re:Telemarketers (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stubob ( 204064 )
      Especially for those of us in states with No-Call lists (or possibly the National No-Call list if it ever comes to pass). Opt-out once and you're off the list for good. Oh, wait. These two ideas are probably opposed for the same reason by the telemarketing industy's lobby.

  • That's easy (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Why not just use your SSN/SIN number? It's not like we have any privacy anyway. This would just be facing the music.
    • The slashdot crowd is always railing over privacy issues, how bad it would be if you had a single national ID card/number rather than the haphazard system of SSN#s, Licenses, work IDs, etc. And now they're buzzing over how great it would be to have one (phone) number for life!

      If everyone really did have one phone number for life, it would quickly be come a de facto identifier. Why not go all the way? Have one unique lifetime number that works for your phone, email, instant messenging, snail mail (via a

  • Keeping your number (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Musashi Miyamoto ( 662091 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:18PM (#5761644)
    I suppose the cellular providers are worried that customers will jump ship to competitors if they were able to keep their phone numbers. But, when the customers switch, they switch to OTHER cellular providers.... which means that non-customers are just as able to switch TO thier company.

    The only valid concern I can think of is that preventing users from keeping their number is that they keep their revenues consistent. If users switched all the time, they wouldn't be as able to dependably predict the next quarter's revenues. Though, I doubt it would fluctuate that much. It leaves them open to being overtaken by better competitors, but it equally allows them to steal away the other guy's users. (I guess they don't have much self-confidence)

    That is like saying "buying" is bad and "selling" is good, when they are just two sides of the same transaction.

  • Welcome to routing problems with your phone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by asmithmd1 ( 239950 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:21PM (#5761660) Homepage Journal
    Recently the company I work for changed from the ILEC to a CLEC that only provided service within our LATA, of course we wanted to keep our existing number. Certain other people were not able to call in, we could call out but they couldn't call us, it turns out companies that used MCI as their IXC were the ones who couldn't call us. MCI had a problem with their LIDB. You are going to need to know this stuff [npac.com] to diagnose these problems. And you think service is bad now

    • Re:Welcome to routing problems with your phone (Score:4, Informative)

      by Phroggy ( 441 ) <slashdot3@@@phroggy...com> on Friday April 18, 2003 @05:40PM (#5762497) Homepage
      For those of you who don't like acronyms:

      His company used to get their phone service from the normal big bad evil Baby Bell phone company (ILEC). Then they switched to a smaller local carrier (CLEC) that was able to give them cheaper phone service, and stopped dealing with the ILEC (the CLEC still has to deal with the ILEC because the ILEC owns the phone lines, unless the CLEC can get permission from the city to dig up the streets and run their own lines, or whatever, but that's really expensive).

      However, MCI's phone number database (LIDB) didn't have the correct information for the CLEC, so people that were using MCI as their long distance provider (IXC) couldn't call them. Calling from his company to the other people worked fine, since that doesn't rely on MCI's LIDB.
      • Baby Bell phone company (ILEC)


        the Bells are Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Well, the C might stand for Carrier, but I think it stands for Company. An ILEC is an Independet Local Exchange Carrier, and would potentially compete with an RBOC.

  • Equipment Cost (Score:3, Informative)

    by RWarrior(fobw) ( 448405 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:24PM (#5761683)
    With landline LECs (local exchange carriers), the necessary equipment and programming issues can be resolved at the switch level, where it's invisible to the customers and therefore cheaper to deal with.

    I have a relative who works at a large cell phone company [sprintpcs.com]. At this company, they not only have to install back-end programming at the switch and call routing level, but they also have to install software in customers' handsets.

    Why is that a big deal?

    Older phones that customers have come to rely on, and that they understand how to operate, must be replaced. While this only affects handsets that have to have their number changed (your old handset works great until you switch numbers), it's still a hassle for both the company and the customer:

    • The company must trade a new phone to the customer at no charge. Since the phones are subsidized already, this only raises the loss the company takes on each handset it sells.
    • Since the handset must be replaced, the customer has to go to a local store and actually physically trade the handset back. A typical trip to a store at this company can take three hours. Customers don't like that.
    • The customer must also remember to copy each item in their built-in phone book because there's no mechanism to move it from one handset to another. If they forget, their phone book is gone.
    • The customer must then learn how to add numbers to the phone book and operate the new handset. Some of the handsets, like the Samsung N100, have unresolved ideosyncratic problems with them (like, sometimes when you terminate a call, the handset hard-locks such that only removing and replacing the battery will resolve it, which isn't a fun operation when you use a leather case like most folks do). The customers get confused and then call customer service for help.
    • The incoming customer service calls place a larger load on their support infrastructure. The company I'm talking about is apparently looking at going back to mandatory overtime. While they pay well for it, being required to work 50 or 60 hours a week or being threatened with losing your job gets old after several weeks, because it seriously cuts into family time.
    • Each incoming call to the customer service center costs an average of something like $10 to service, even if it's a 10-second call. Since the company has already replaced the handset, a money-loser, and pissed off the customer by having to do so, also a Bad Thing, increasing call volumes also cost the company money without any compensating new revenue.

    While it's true that it will benefit the customer to have number portability in place, even without the lock of the number on the customer that's now gone over the number, there is no real benefit to the company. Everybody will be doing it so there's not even any competative advantage.

    Cell phone companies are simply looking out for their revenue streams (as good public companies should) because number portability is nothing but a money loser for them. In a business that's still mostly in the red anyway, it's no wonder.

    rw

    • Older phones that customers have come to rely on, and that they understand how to operate, must be replaced. While this only affects handsets that have to have their number changed (your old handset works great until you switch numbers), it's still a hassle for both the company and the customer:

      So if a customer has an old phone, and wants to switch to a new number, isn't that the problem of the new carrier?

      The company must trade a new phone to the customer at no charge. Since the phones are subsidized

  • ease of snooping (Score:2, Interesting)

    by helo ( 128311 )
    perhaps i'm just paranoid, but wouldn't this make trcking people by a single number (by the government, the people pushing for this initiative) much more easily automated?

    i assume this eternal number would be optional, but the number of people who would do it for convenience alone would save a lot of time for info trackers.

    eh?

  • Now THAT is competition (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Coplan ( 13643 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:25PM (#5761689) Homepage Journal
    It seems silly...but having number portability really will allow more competition among companies. And competition is always good -- it keeps companies honest.

    As I said, it seems like a silly concept. But think back. If you havn't said it yourself, I'm sure you might know someone that said "I'd change carriers...but then I'll have to track everyone down and tell them my new number". The same sorta holds true for e-mail/ISPs as well. It's a big pain in the ass to change phone numbers...if we didn't have to worry about it, we wouldn't have any problem switching carriers if their service sucked.

    • And competition is always good -- it keeps companies honest.

      I wish. Fierce competition among long distance carriers resulted in a completely lopsided rate system, where new customers get the best breaks (remember getting $50 or $100 off if you switch?), while old customers get little or nothing for their loyalty. The rates probably did come down in the end, but I wish they'd compete without concentrating entirely on signing new customers and take care of existing customers some more.

  • I foresee a scapegoat... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rai ( 524476 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @03:28PM (#5761718) Homepage
    Say you were using AT&T Wireless then you switch to Verizon and keep your number. You number is probably still going thru some piece of AT&T since, technically, they control the number range into which your number falls.

    So you have a problem such as you can't receive calls. You call your current carrier, Verizon who says the problem is with AT&T since your number falls into their range. You call AT&T who says they are not your carrier so they can't help you. And back and forth you go...

    I think I'd rather deal with a number change.
  • This is just a US problem, we've had cross operator number portability in the UK for years in the UK and I think most other European countries have it too.
  • If You Love Your Wireless Customers, Set Them Free
    ByRoss Rubin

    That reminds me of a great saying:

    "If you truly love something, set it free. And if it doesn't come back: hunt it down and kill it."
  • I wouldn't count on it.

    I recently went into my local AT&T store to invest in GSM technology and found out that my phone number would have to change. Why? Well, apparently at one time, AT&T leased phone numbers from the telco. The lease is now up and SWBell is reclaiming their numbers. So now I get to change my number if I want a new phone.

    Would something like this happen again in the future? Who knows, but I'm a little disheartened at losing the phone number that I have had for the past 4 yea

  • One number for life? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Aviancer ( 645528 )
    Just glancing at the text of the message, I was struck that I can't even keep ONE EMAIL ADDRESS for a few years -- how am I supposed to keep one phone number?
  • Verizon already started [com.com] doing this couple of months ago. It's funny - even though Verizon was the one most opposed to this FCC regulation, they started implementing it first. Others, I am guessing will stretch out to November until the deadline.
  • of a /. article stating "a wireless phone number for life!", and in the next article: "throw away your ID cards!"
  • > (one number for life... the ultimate!)"

    But the next story on /. is about privacy - NOT having one number...

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close