Number Portability Not So Smooth For Everyone

from the it's-all-about-appearances dept

Mon, Dec 1st 2003 6:47am — Mike Masnick

While the initial stories about number portability suggested everything was going much smoother than expected, you knew it couldn't be perfect for everyone. In our own comments, we received one story of porting hell that sounds somewhat similar to the problems experienced by someone at the NY Times. In both cases, it appeared that whoever did the porting wasn't entirely sure how the process worked, and the transfers did not go through properly - or if they did, they took much longer than the two and a half hours the FCC said should be the maximum amount of time. I'm sure there are plenty of other stories like this one. Considering that (for the most part) the carriers have some incentive to make the process appear to be as painful as possible, I'm almost surprised we haven't been seeing many more stories like this yet.

3 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2003 @ 9:00am

No Subject Given
Two and a half hours?
I don't know where that came from.
We've been testing ports for months with a minimum of 3 hours. We were told in production it would usually be a 24 hour turnaround period.

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 1 Dec 2003 @ 9:09am
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  The FCC's official guidelines to the carriers, given in October, said that porting should take no more than 2.5 hours.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - armando, 1 Dec 2003 @ 9:14am
    
    Re: porting times
    i just called ATTWireless yesterday to port my number from SprintPCS and was told i would get a text message telling me the porting was complete in about 3 or 4 days.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]