History
Though it was introduced as a tool to promote competition in the heavily monopolized wireline telecommunications industry, number portability became popular with the advent of mobile telephones, since in most countries different mobile operators are provided with different area codes and, without portability, changing one's operator would require changing one's number. Some operators, especially incumbent operators with large existing subscriber bases, have argued against portability on the grounds that providing this service incurs considerable overhead, while others argue that it prevents vendor lock-in and allows them to compete fairly on price and service. Due to this conflict of interest, number portability is usually mandated for all operators by telecommunications regulatory authorities. In the US, LNP was mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1996. The mandate required all carriers in the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to be "LNP-capable" and port numbers to any carriers sending a BFR (bona fide request). The ability to keep a number while switching providers is thought to be attractive to consumers. It was also a major point made by CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) preventing customers from leaving ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers), thus hindering competition. Details regarding the reasons for LNP and how it is to be implemented can be found in the First Report and Order referenced above.
In the US, the FCC has mandated this in order to increase competition among providers. As of late November 2003, LNP was required for all landline and wireless common carriers, so long as the number is being ported to the same geographical area or telephone exchange. This latest mandate included carriers outside the top 100 MSAs that previously enjoyed a rural carrier exemption.
Read more about this topic: Local Number Portability
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“The principle office of history I take to be this: to prevent virtuous actions from being forgotten, and that evil words and deeds should fear an infamous reputation with posterity.”
—Tacitus (c. 55–117)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)
“Systematic philosophical and practical anti-intellectualism such as we are witnessing appears to be something truly novel in the history of human culture.”
—Johan Huizinga (1872–1945)