




Cell Phone Number Portability Ruling 224
Ken@WearableTech writes "Checking the Court's Opinion site every day has paid off. Verizon's action on the FCC's number portability ruling was dismissed by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The court found that Verizon had waited far too long to bring the challenge and it also sided with the FCC's interpretation of the Law rather than Verizon. Barring any other action we may see number portability this year. Unfortunately, Verizon is already lobbying to have the law changed. But it was also nice to see Cingular was on the FCC's side of the case."
This is easy for Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me, why are you telling me that Hell is hot? Why should I care?
PS: fist post fools
Re:This is easy for Verizon (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
"Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, said he opposes another delay because wireless companies already collect customer surcharges for both the number portability and 911 efforts."
All of their arguments seem very disingenuous.
It seems to me that they are afraid that when a customer calls in with a problem, they might actually have to fix now that it will be less painful for the customer to switch.
Re:This is easy for Verizon (Score:3)
Just a big business' resistance to change. They do it because they can, pretty much like Microsoft's antics.
All it means is that the US is going to have to catch up with the rest of the world re number portability. Most civilised countries have had it for years.
Re:This is easy for Verizon (Score:5, Informative)
My new mLife plan and cell phone have the following âoefeaturesâ:
- Blocks my ability to make a standard RAS connection with my cell phone "modem" (built in feature of the phone) mandating that I use the outrageously priced mLife GPRS data carrier (about $40.00 for 20MB of transfers per month).
- Blocks my ability to restrict dialing of numbers (built into most SIMs at no extra charge but disabled on my AT&T phone)
- Blocks my ability to use the "call costs" feature of my Nokia cell phone so I know how much my calls are actually costing me
Now all of those features were built into the phone (and disabled by AT&T), but what about features that need to be provided on the carrier side?
- There's no carrier provided cost of call during the call (mandatory on German phones)
- Thereâ(TM)s no ability to meter usage (unless you buy the massively expensive "pay as you go" plans)
- Thereâ(TM)s no ability to restrict usage to only a few incoming/outgoing numbers for your kids' phones (the cell phone provided features don't work properly if caller ID is turned off) so itâ(TM)s painfully easy for your kids to go over their monthly minutes.
If these people wonâ(TM)t provide us service that serves us then they need laws to force it out of them. The number portability rule is not only a good one, but long overdue. The fact that theyâ(TM)re lobbying to screw us out of this feature for the sole purpose of lining their pockets at our inconvenience should be swatted down faster than fast.
TW
Re:This is easy for Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're forgetting that the only reason that We The People even allow them to exist is to provide a benefit to us. I think you might have drunk way too much of the kool-aid they're pumping out and forgotten that simple fact.
We rule them. They have no right to tell us what we can or cannot do. If there were less roll over and bare your belly people like you around this shit would not be happenning.
Re:This is easy for Verizon (Score:2)
They tell the government what to do w/what used to be our money and the government then tells us what to do.
We live in a world with fake freedom.
Re:This is easy for Verizon (Score:2)
It is because the government is corrupt. To take a look at how legislation is made read this [washingtonpost.com] story in the Washington Post.
Bascially DeLay and three cronies charged a company $56,000 to Republican campaign funds in return for exceptions from regulations. The company saw the payments as bribes - "we have a p
Associated Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
10% Tecnical Implementation
90% Lost Business
In other words, "our business model is threatened by new technology, lets lobby to have our business model mandated by law."
Prior Art:
MPAA [mpaa.org]
RIAA [riaa.org]
Microsoft [microsoft.com]
"Or maybe we should sue someone."
Prior Art:
SCO [sco.com]
Anyone see a trend in the corporate culture?
Re:Associated Cost (Score:2, Insightful)
It's about time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Interesting)
ever notice on your bill how your account number is your phone number?
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
delete * from all_the_tables where phone_number=123-456-7890
or you come to verizon with your own phone number and all they have to do is
insert new_user_info into customer_tables
so my guess is that they'd rather not have the added c
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
ever notice on your bill how your account number is your phone number?
I'm with Verizon and my account number is not my phone number...in fact it is not any number I recognize. It's 9 digits plus a dash plus another 5 digits (which are 00001 so I suspect that part is for multiple phones in the same family or something)
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Informative)
within a provider, they have legacy systems that restricts phone number by "exchange" or the 3 digits past "area code". they used to signify geographic domains about 30 years ago. cellulars are out of this realm, but the same code applies at some point - with a nice hack i'd like to see.
blocks are constantly bought and sold. their systems now, i'm guessing, rarely sell blocks back. but now they'll have to build a list of "numbers for transfer" and the destination provider when a number has to leave the pool for delivery not the government authority, but another provider.
addionally, these transfers are probably batch legacy jobs, and the schedules of those jobs has to be examined to help a customer's switch with a day or so.
overall, they'll probably get out of most of these backflips by explaining there's some outrageous surcharge and a messy wait (like "5-10 business days"). customers would rather just call mom and say "ma, i have a new phone number"
mug
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
Yeah, huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Thank god you checked it every day, otherwise this would never have happened.
Re:Yeah, huh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, huh. (Score:2)
SPAM (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SPAM (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy to solve (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing is, it is illegal to make telemarketing calls to cell phones (since it costs the recipient money). My theory is that the telemarketers have a "block list" of area code/exchanges that are used by the cell companies.
I'm confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon is a public corporation. It answers to its shareholders, who's only concern is profit.
If you think they have any interest in "protecting the rights of consumers", boy do I have deal for you on some Packard-Bell desktops.
bad ethics is bad business. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a poor excuse for unethical behavior and it does not lead to profits. When you see reasoning like that, sell out, quit and don't buy what they are selling. Someone else will do it better eventually.
A company has obligations to it's shareholders, it's customers and it's employees. Any company that decides to screw one of those three interests for the others will get around to screwing everyone. When you think it's OK to screw people, you screw everyone.
Anti competitive behavior screws all three interests at the same time. It screws the share holder by driving out other legitimate investments. It screws the customer by monopoly rents. It screws the employees by destroying competitive employers. Anti competitive behavior also leads to stagnation, which screws all three intersts again by blocking legitimate industry growth.
Re:bad ethics is bad business. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most public corps are owened by thousands upon thousands of different people. The only thing that these owners have in common is the desire to see their investment earn a profit. They are not part of the company culture and do not consider
Bad ethics is often great business. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, a company has obligations to it's shareholders, period. You can say they should have obligations to the others, and that it may ultimately hurt them to disregard the others, but bottom-line, a corporation's job is to make money and obey the law.
Re:bad ethics is bad business. (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
That's Nothing Compared to the FCC (Score:2)
Are lobbyists cheap? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, it's not _truly_ a technology problem?
--D
Odd. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, they're also much more expensive, but...
Re:Odd. (Score:2)
If two companies are competing with each other, anything that creates a percentage of people to switch favors the smaller company.
For example, if Cingular loses 5% of their audience to Verizon, and Verizon loses 5% of their audience to Cingular, who comes out ahead?
Re:Odd. (Score:2)
Re:Odd. (Score:2)
Google groups can give you an overview [google.com] but if you have some time to kill, it does not hurt to frequent alt.cellular.verizon and alt.cellular.sprintpcs on a regular basis.
charge for it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:charge for it (Score:2)
That makes me pretty unhappy.
Re:charge for it (Score:3, Interesting)
You wanna know what really happened? (Score:5, Funny)
James (in signature voice): What's up bud?
Me: Big Jimbo, you know this mess w/ Verizon trying to stop Cell Number portability? Is there anything ya can do about that?
James: oh ho ho ho, Let me see what I can do my friend.
Me: Well since we're on the subject, see what you can do about that "can you hear me now?" dude will ya?
James: I'm only one man guy. One very famous, very well-respected, Toni Award-winning man *pauses* On second thought, let me see what I can do about that guy too, I just saw him on a commercial for the 132nd time today. I'll get back to ya.
One down, one to go! Jimbo's clutch :)
While you have him on the phone... (Score:2)
Number Hogging (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Number Hogging (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Number Hogging (Score:3, Insightful)
I am so looking forward to getting a decent phone and decent service when I return to europe.
-steve
Re:Number Hogging (Score:2)
In addition, cell phone numbers do have a "handoff" location associated with the first 6 digits of their number (area code + exchange code) and landline carriers bill callers a toll charge to reach a distant handoff point even if the cell phone itself is next to the caller. What this means is t
some problems (Score:2, Informative)
People worry too much. (Score:5, Informative)
Two things to note, which I have said before:
Local Number Portability (LNP - the wireline equivalent to WNP) has about a 30% failure rate according to agencies such as PUCO (Ohio's regulatory body) and the CPUC (California's regulatory body). Essentially, what happens is that the port does not work, and in most cases, rather than wait for the local telcos to get their ducksinaro, people just accept a new telephone number, one from the pool of numbers assigned to their new telco. I don't foresee this ratio being any better with WNP.
Local Exchanges - Surely you have noticed by now that a carrier normally does not have numbers in each rate centre in an area code. T-Mobile, for example, have numbers in the 310 area code only in Gardena and Santa Monica. If WNP follows the lead of LNP, the only requirement is that they port your existing number IF YOU ARE IN THE SAME RATE CENTRE. If you have a Cingular telephone in the Mar Vista rate centre, or an AT&T phone in the Beverly Hills rate centre, and you skip to T-Mobile, I assume your old provider would not be required to port your old number.
Finally, nowhere does it say that WNP is required to be a FREE service. I could see them charging your new company a fee for the service, and there is no doubt in my mind that the cost will be passed directly to the consumer.
Re:People worry too much. (Score:2)
That's the rational thing to believe -- unless of course you believe you are the worst of all the wireless carriers.
Maybe even more than one of the wireless carriers believes this. But of course, only one of them is right.
Re:People worry too much. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People worry too much. (Score:2)
Within the 310 area code there are (I believe) twelve rate centres, e.g., Malibu, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Compton, Gardena, West Los Angeles.
Let's say I live in Marina del Rey. Marina del Rey is not a rate centre - people who live in Marina del Rey normally have Culver City telephone numbers. If I live in MdR and I get a T-Mobile telephone, my choices are Santa Monica or Gardena (either of which is a local call), and I pick Santa Monica. Now let's say I get sick of T-Mob
Such persistence in getting a story accepted... (Score:2)
I'd like for my story submissions to be accepted as much as the next guy, but checking every day for almost two months seems a little excessive...
Re:Such persistence in getting a story accepted... (Score:2)
A little excessive, well I'm sure you don't ever visit the same website once a day.
Verizon is always complaining. (Score:5, Interesting)
Its time someone bitch slapped Verizon. They are only fighting for their own survival, and still raking in the money for poor services.
Re:Verizon is always complaining. (Score:4, Insightful)
information about the law (Score:5, Interesting)
Another important point is that the cell phone companies have been adding fees for a couple of years now with the excuse to the FCC being "upgrading their systems" to support portability. They can't have it both ways, asking us to pay fees to support portability and then not give us portability.
Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2)
Sorry, I dont think that idea would work. Too many mixups possible. Besides, have you ever had to change your number to prevent people from calling you? Admit it, its nice when you change your number and the "undesirables" somehow don't end up with your new number. This would seem to be a circumvention for that. (remember accordign to the above idea, the number can change, just not the name)
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2, Interesting)
DNS works by using hierarchical mnemonic names with uniqueness enforced by a registry. It allows you to map these UNIQUE names to IP addresses. I don't know about you, but when I try to visit a website, I don't type into my browser "I'd like to visit the website of Bill's Soda Company in Wilmington", I type www.billsodaco.com. It works pretty well.
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or at least, that's my trivial understanding of enum.
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2)
How about a system where the phone number is "technically" a lot longer. Like, 100 digits. The first 90 digits define the company code, the last 10 are your phone number. You don't ever actually have to dial 10 numbers, but the phone switches pre-pend your 90 digit company code to every call you make. Incoming calls would ask a switch for "*2065551212" and route the call to the result.
(Doesn't have to be 100 digits, just threw that number out there..)
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2)
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2)
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2)
At least that was how I set it up when working on htis kind of thing at my old dot bomb
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:3, Interesting)
Foo-Bar@NY.NY#verizon.phone
Personally, I think the idea has the same problems that cause most people to not list their phone #. AND the problems that DNS has [collisions]. AND it would require the phone companies to admin a DNS-esque server; Verizon can't even keep a T1 working for more than a month.
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2)
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2)
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:2)
Because of the system in place right now switching equipment is supposed to consult a table (adminstered by our friends at Telecordia) to find out if a dialed number is in an NPA-NXX subject to
Re:Portable numbers? How about a DNS-like system? (Score:3, Informative)
The database required already exists, local number portability has been in effect for landlines for years.
The calls handled by the telephone system are a small fraction of the number of Internet accesses. The DNS chugs along without major problems even though it is continuously under attack from hacker
No wonder Cingular is happy (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because they're the underdogs. No kidding they're thrilled- now all those Verizon, AT&T, etc customers have the capability to switch to them. It's already pretty easy to switch off Cingular- they don't lock you into a contract. I would imagine that Nextel stands to loose quite a bit here too, with a large # of business customers(my thought being that business people are less likely to switch #'s) and rather high pricing(though more reasonable recently.)
Frankly, I just wish Cingular would pick a name. They've switched names more than I've switched carriers- Omnipoint->Voicestream->Cingular...arrg.
Re:No wonder Cingular is happy (Score:3, Informative)
1. Cingular have contracts, except on KiC (Keep in Contact) prepaid. Prepaid wireless NEVER has a contract.
2. Omnipoint -> Voicestream -> T-Mobile.
3. Nextel are immensely popular amoung businesses. They cater almost exclusively to businesses (their prepaid Boost Mobile division notwithstanding). Most people who have Nextels, though I hate to admit it because I loathe that "chirp" sound, are soundly in love with their push-to-talk Direct Connect figure.
Come to http://www.wir
Re:No wonder Cingular is happy (Score:2)
Dunno where you live, but in this country, Voicestream became T-Mobile.
Glad to see rationality won! (Score:5, Insightful)
Glad to see that rationality won out here! All we are talking about is having the facility to deactivate a number on one network and forward it to another network. We are talking about being able to perform a database update, had a packet to another system, and perform another database update. This isn't rocket science. Yes, it is work and will be critical to get it right, but the overall investment should be relatively small. That plus that fact we have been paying for it (check your cell phone bill).
The judge was right, the carriers waited way too long to protest. Now they have to do it or face penalities. I am waiting for November and then it is goodbye Cingular and hello T-Mobile for my Treo (can you say GPRS, world-wide coverage that will let me easily and cheaply use my phone in India and Germany?)! I was waiting for this to happen, because I couldn't/wouldn't give up my number. But every month I cursed Cingular under my breath. I will be first in line to move!
Re:Glad to see rationality won! (Score:2)
Reason Why (Score:3, Insightful)
But the fact that most people hate changing numbers; and Verizon has 1/3 of all the cell phone customers out there. Basicly they have a huge customer base that would like to try out one of the other carriers, but It is too much hassle.
Plus most of the remaining 2/3's don't have good enough credit for verizon.
For all the other carriers it would be great if they could try and take business away from verizon.
Who Cares... Just Cut The Tax (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who Cares... Just Cut The Tax (Score:2)
It's not a tax, it is a *fee.* You do know what the difference is, right?
-BrentRights (Score:4, Insightful)
People keep thinking they're entitled to more and more when they're only entitled to three basic fundamental things: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Rights (Score:2)
Without any laws, you have the right to do whatever you want. Laws are created to restrict your rights. The Constitution and it's ammendments purpose is to draw a line in the sand that the law cannot cross.
Re:Rights (Score:3, Informative)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Re:Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Where in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights are corporations guaranteed the rights to keeping contiguous chunks of mobile telephone numbers forever?
Generally, I see two issues... (Score:5, Interesting)
The two issues I think are number portability as well as the fundamental fact that you still pay for incoming calls. The wireless industry has claimed essentially we don't want it, which is quite silly. I'm glad the FCC won this time, because I'm somewhat unhappy with my current carrier. Since switching to digital at the beginning of '99, I have kept the same number. I want to move to another carrier but, like many, I have an established number that I want to keep. Use an online voicemail service as my home number and it's great not getting solicitors waking me up at 7am. Switching to a provider with better coverage in my area will make my life so much easier- and I keep my number!
easy number portability (Score:5, Insightful)
If we had an equivalent to DNS for phones, you could have some character string represent your phone, the equivalent of an IP address represent the service contract you have with your provider, and the hardware address represent that particular piece of hardware.
Switching providers while retaining your number (and even your phone if they use the same protocols) would be as easy as switching slashdot.org's internet provider.
In the meantime... (Score:3, Informative)
It's fairly new, i think, but some of my friends have listed in it.
(thought I'd put this again at the top)
We can do something to stop this... (Score:4, Informative)
Representative Fred Upton
2161 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202 225-3761
202 225-2986 fax
John Shimkus
513 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5271
Fax: (202) 225-5880
Dear Representative Upton,
I read with dismay and considerable disbelief your comments regarding the possibility of extending, yet again, cellular number portability. As you know, this has been mandated since 1996 and extended three times since 1999. To even consider another extension as sought by the largest cellular providers is simply ludicrous. Your constituents have been waiting, and waiting and waiting for years as the cellular companies have trotted out increasingly creative excuses to maintain this anti-competitive and illegitimate hold on consumers. Granting another extension on top of all the others goes against the interest of voting consumers and does not pass even the most basic âoesmellâ test.
Implementing number portability will not divert funds from other projects as claimed because the cellular companies can charge for this new service. In fact, they will make money by offering portability, just not as much as they are now making by extracting over-market prices from customers who are having their phone number held hostage. Everyone from the FCC, the courts, the media, analysts and even Congress itself, agree that consumers will get better value and service in a frictionless free market. To perpetuate this sitation, is to artificially prevent a cellular company that provides better value and service from gaining the customers it deserves. This has the effect of sheltering the larger players from competition while removing incentives for investment, innovation and excellence. It is interesting that some cellular companies want further extensions and some do not. Now that the FCC and courts will no longer entertain their increasingly fantastic arguments, they are seeking to legislate the unfair competitive advantage they cannot maintain any other way. The massive funds already spent by the celcos lobbying to continue holding consumers hostage would be more wisely invested in better service so their customers won't be so desperate to escape.
This issue has grown increasingly high profile. Each extension has focused more eyes on the actions of everyone involved. It is now a common topic of discussion among your constituents, who are expecting to finally enjoy the relief that has been promised yet delayed for so long.
Re:We can do something to stop this... (Score:4, Informative)
Lies, lies, lies, yeah!! (Score:5, Interesting)
They are stalling because they're worried they'll lose customers due to bad service. Hmm, wonder why that is???
If your like me.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mandatory Statement (Score:2)
Re:Mandatory Statement (Score:2)
Re:US Europe (Score:5, Funny)
1. We call them cell phones, yes. That is because our contracts put us into a state not unlike that of a turkish prison, with our phones being our "cell." Therefore, "Cell Phones".
2. We pay for incoming calls because it is worth it to make it appear as if people want to talk to us. Remember, this is America, where status is much easier to buy.
3. We don't use SMS because it costs a shitload more here than it does there. No joke here, just the fucked up truth.
Once again, as an American, I would be disgusted to look at your awful semi-continent on a map, that is, if I could find it.
Re:US Europe (Score:2)
Re:US Europe (Score:2)
That's one way to look at it, I suppose. But also consider that one of the reasons that telemarketers aren't allowed to call your cell phone is because, under the current model, that would be cost shifting -- i.e., you're paying for the vast majority of the cost of receiving an unsolicited (and generally unwanted) phone call.
I'm current
Did I hurt someone's feelings? (Score:2)
Racism? I wasn't aware that Europeans had become so repulsive as to form a separate race of foul-smelling people with crooked teeth. At least I was giving them the benefit of belonging to one of Earth's three major races (and the same as that which I belong to, incidently). So it seems to me as you're the greater racist - listening to you, I'd expect full speciation is right around the corner!
For what it's worth, where were you wh
Re:the text (Score:2)
*shrug*
Re:the text (Score:4, Funny)
That you're a karma whore?
Re:Now what do (Score:2)
Switch.
If the have better coverage, then they have better coverage. You pay them, they give you a service. As long as you are happy with that relationship, everything should be fine.
Ok, you might not agree with *all* of their business decisions. That's fine. I don't agree with all the business decisions that companies make that I do business with. And perhaps sometimes you should ba
Go with verizon (Score:2, Interesting)
You definately dont want to pay the national roaming network.
Re:Don't count on your phone numbers. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't count on your phone numbers. (Score:2)
Making you change your phone number when you move from phone company to phone company is like making you change your name when you move from city to city.
Re:Ten dollar cell phone bills (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong