What is the technology behind WLNP?

Does that also mean that if your old carrier goes out of business,
you will stop getting calls? Or is there some back chapter of the FCC
rules that covers that?


Isaiah Beard wrote:
> CK wrote:
>
>> (I am crossposting this to several wireless groups in hope that I can
>> get a
>> correct answer)
>>
>> I have been trying without luck to find out the technology/process behind
>> WLNP. I have recently heard that all WLNP does is create somewhat of an
>> "autoforward" from carrier A to carrier B. If this is correct, it seems
>> that people who port their number are still at the mercy of their old
>> carriers and could possibly suffer from degraded service more frequently.
>
>
>
> Absolutely, they are at the mercy of their old carriers. Despite all
> the wonderful features that SS7 networks provide that makes everything
> seem so transparent to us, the end users, the network is still bound by
> rules that have been in effect since the old wireline network was first
> started. Namely, exchanges are still bound in some way to a physical
> location, a switching center that governs a particular exchange. If you
> port your number, all long distance, wireless, and cell phone companies
> will still try to route the call through your old wireless company,
> because that's how the network was designed. Only once the call reaches
> your old exchange, the switching center says "no, no, the call must be
> routed here now..." and sends the call along to your new carrier.
>
> Porting does not transfer "ownership" of that number to the new company
> you're with. In fact, if you port, the network STILL sees your new
> wireless phone as having a different number than the one you're porting.
> It's kind of like getting a new e-mail address on another ISP, but
> setting a permanent forward on your old e-mail address. You can modify
> your "From: header to reflect the old address, and people can still send
> to the old address and it'll show up in your new inbox, but there's
> still an underlying new e-mail address where all of your mail is being
> sent. And if your old mail server goes down, then you will not receive
> e-mail addressed to it at your new inbox.
>
> Likewise, if the switching center at your old cell company gets wiped
> out, people will not be able to reach you on your new cell phone, even
> if your current cell company's switching center is up and running.
>
>
> If you get into the field service mode of most new phones, you'll see
> two numbers. The first is your "MDN" or Mobile Directory Number. This
> is the number you have ported. The second number is your "MobileID," a
> 15-digit number (In Sprint's case, anyway) that uniquely identifies your
> phone to the public network. The MobileID is different from your
> phone's ESN, and if you have NOT ported your number to another carrier,
> you'll find that the last 10 digits of your MobileID will match your
> MDN, or cell phone number. If you HAVE ported your number, then the MDN
> and MobileID will not match up, and the MobileID will instead have a
> phone number belonging to the new cell company that is assigned to your
> cell, but you ever use.
>
>
>> Example: Number 777-111-1111 belongs to an original Nextel customer.
>> That
>> customer decides that he wants to go to Verizon and submits a WLNP
>> request.
>> After it goes to the third party and the transfer is complete, he now
>> gets
>> in incoming call on new providers phone. Since the old number is
>> assigned
>> by the NPA to original carrier, would it not still go through their
>> switch?
>
>
> Yes, it will.
>
>
>> If this is the case, it seems it would create latency.
>
>
> Yes, it would.
>
> It's also going to be interesting to see what happens when (not if, but
> when):
>
> 1. The industry runs into "serial disloyalists" who change their carrier
> EVERY time their contract expires to in order to get a free shiny new
> phone each year or two, and continually ports their original number.
> Will there be communication with the original cell company to change its
> routing? Or will call to the ported number bounce from the first
> carrier, to the second carrier, to the third, and so on? I would hope
> the former, but I wouldn't be surprised if the latter happened, and it
> would be amusing to see how service would degrade once calls have to go
> through so many hoops.
>
> 2. What happens if you port your number from carrier A to carrier B but
> then later, carrier B goes bankrupt Excite@Home style, liquidates
> *everything* and just shuts down? Who will administer the ported
> numbers then? Will someone buying the assets of the old company be
> required (or if not required, willing) to accept that liability?
>
>
>
>> Also, what happens
>> in several years when millions of numbers are ported? Could it not bog
>> down
>> the PSTN?
>
>
> It probably could. What's more, the way I understand all of this,
> the new cell phone company must STILL assign you a phone number on their
> network even if you never intend on using it, because the network must
> still have some sort of number to forward your calls to. Given the
> impending scarcity of phone numbers (we're running a little low on area
> codes in North America), this mess is a bit irksome to someone like me
> who realize that a lot of perfectly good phone numbers will be occupied
> by people who will never give out those numbers, never dial them, and
> neither knows nor could care less that the number is even assigned to them.
>
> I have a feeling a lot of these factors have not been truly thought out.
> But, we will see. Personally, I would still make a clean break from
> any carrier I'm with if I felt that compelled to have to switch. If I
> ever switch carriers, then I'm switching phone numbers too. The LNP
> mess just isn't worth it.
>
>

---

› See More: What is the technology behind WLNP?

The VLR is always involved, roaming or not.

> setup request to T-Mo's HLR (I am not roaming at home, so no VLR is
> involved; if I were the usual HLR<->VLR communications would occur.)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:34:40 -0500, "CK" <[email protected]> wrote:

>(I am crossposting this to several wireless groups in hope that I can get a
>correct answer)
>
>I have been trying without luck to find out the technology/process behind
>WLNP.

See if this is of help:

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/1124wnp.html

[email protected]lid (CharlesH) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Did some research into MDN/MIN
>
> MDN = Mobile Directory Number = your dialable phone number - what you port
> MIN = Mobile Identification Number = identifies your carrier and your phone
>
<snip>
For example,
> the wireless providers used to send the MIN to the 911 emergency
> center; now, they have to be sure to send the MDN. Caller ID shows
> the MDN. The MIN is used between the roaming and home system.
> And older phones which do not have separate MDN and MIN
> registers cannot be ported; although since you probably have to get
> a new phone anyway which works with the new provider's technology, that
> is probably not much of an issue.
>
> The MIN is only used inside the wireless network; the MDN is used when
> talking to the PSTN (landline phone system). When a ported number is
> called from a landline phone it is routed directly to the new provider,
> like any ported landline number. Recall that the number could have
> originally been associated with a landline provider, not just between
> wireless providers. The wireless provider then looks up the MIN
> from the MDN in its database, and routes the call to your phone.

I have a regular TDMA account on AT&T and a pre-pay account. My
"regular" account has identical MDN and MIN's. My pre-pay number has
seperate ones.

On my Pre-Pay account i can program an old nokia to work with it by
programing my MIN into the system. Nowhere in the phone does the
phone number exist, which is kinda confusing, but nonetheless it
works, and caller ID seems to work just fine.

The only problem is on other sytems when you roam you might have to
manually input your MDN (Phone number) when making an outbound call.

I believe the Nokia 8260 was the most recent nokia phone for AT&T that
did NOT have a designated space for the MIN. The 6360, 3360, 8265,
6560 all have places for them.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:57:31 GMT, Stanley Cline <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>FWIW, I can count the number of wireless carriers that have actually
>shut down their network on one finger -- Carolina Phone in South
>Carolina, which shut down their network and sold their spectrum in a
>three-way split to SunCom, VZW, and T-Mo (CP's bean counters figured
>they could get more money from selling licenses than selling service)
>is the only one I know of that has.

Marked Tree, Arkansas, but we're going back to the days of MTS.

Al Klein wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:57:31 GMT, Stanley Cline <[email protected]>
> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>
>>FWIW, I can count the number of wireless carriers that have actually
>>shut down their network on one finger -- Carolina Phone in South
>>Carolina, which shut down their network and sold their spectrum in a
>>three-way split to SunCom, VZW, and T-Mo (CP's bean counters figured
>>they could get more money from selling licenses than selling service)
>>is the only one I know of that has.
>
>
> Marked Tree, Arkansas, but we're going back to the days of MTS.

What does MTS stand for in this instance?

==AD

"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Al Klein wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:57:31 GMT, Stanley Cline <[email protected]>
> > posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
> >
> >
> >>FWIW, I can count the number of wireless carriers that have actually
> >>shut down their network on one finger -- Carolina Phone in South
> >>Carolina, which shut down their network and sold their spectrum in a
> >>three-way split to SunCom, VZW, and T-Mo (CP's bean counters figured
> >>they could get more money from selling licenses than selling service)
> >>is the only one I know of that has.
> >
> >
> > Marked Tree, Arkansas, but we're going back to the days of MTS.
>
> What does MTS stand for in this instance?
>
> ==AD

Mobile Telephone Service. It was followed by Improved Mobile Telephone
Service, and Advanced Mobile Phone Service (IMTS and AMPS).

MTS worked by going off-hook and hearing, "Number, please."
The improvement of IMTS was adding a rotary dial to the control head
of the trunk mount radio. I installed several GEs and Motorolas when
I worked at a two-way radio shop while a high school junior and
senior, 1971-2.

John C.

Aboutdakota wrote:

>>
>> Marked Tree, Arkansas, but we're going back to the days of MTS.
>
>
> What does MTS stand for in this instance?

Mobile Telephone Service. If AMPS (analog) cell service was the "start"
of cellular telephone service as we know it today, then MTS and IMTS
(the "I" stood for "Improved") were the "prehistoric" versions. With
(I)MTS, there were no such thing as "cell sites," rather, it was just
one transmitter per channel placed high up around the general center of
the city, and the hope was to cover the entire area with that one site.
MTS started with 9 channels in the 35-45Mhz range, and later expanded
to 11 channels in the 150Mhz band, analog of course. IMTS had 12
channels in the 450 MHz range. Most small cities only used 1 to 3
channels, though.

Oh yeah, and the phones weren't exactly the pocketable wonders we have
today. MTS versions were the car mounted variety that used vacuum tubes
and could output 30 watts of transmit power. Early models didn't
automatically select the first available channel; you had to do that
yourself.

Oh, and they didn't dial, either. With MTS, you picked up the phone and
gave the number you wanted to reach to an operator, who would put the
call in for you.

IMTS kind of improved on this. It was similar to MTS, but you *could*
dial the number yourself, and some models did automatic channel
selection. Much later versions were transistorized and some even used
IC chips. For info on a later version, see:

http://www.privateline.com/IMTS/briefcasephotos.htm

And if you think cell service isn't the best today, consider the IMTS
user. If you wanted mobile phone service prior to 1982, you could end
up on a four year long (!) waiting list. The subscriber equipment
costed thousands of dollars, and the service itself wasn't cheap either.
In the early '80s, just before AMPS cellular finally came online,
plans usually had a base fee around $17-$25 a month which included ZERO
(0) minutes. That's around $30 to $45 in 2003 money. And airtime costs
were around $.50 for the first 1 to 4 minutes of a call, and up to $1.00
for each additional minute.... in 1982 dollars, that is. Today that
would be around $.90 and $2.00, respectively... more than we pay today
to roam on analog.

The idea behind this type of rate structure was to get people to make
the quickest calls possible, and to not linger on the phone. Why?
Because 12 channels in even the largest cities for just a few hundred
users meant LOTS of "network busy" signals. Needless to say, there was
no such thing as unlimited off-peak minutes, or unlimited "IMTS-to-IMTS"
minutes, no matter how much you were willing to pay for such a luxury.
And if you asked for nationwide long distance to be included in your
plan price, I'm sure you'd be laughed at.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:08:54 -0600, Aboutdakota
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:57:31 GMT, Stanley Cline <[email protected]>
>> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>>>FWIW, I can count the number of wireless carriers that have actually
>>>shut down their network on one finger -- Carolina Phone in South
>>>Carolina, which shut down their network and sold their spectrum in a
>>>three-way split to SunCom, VZW, and T-Mo (CP's bean counters figured
>>>they could get more money from selling licenses than selling service)
>>>is the only one I know of that has.

>> Marked Tree, Arkansas, but we're going back to the days of MTS.

>What does MTS stand for in this instance?

Mobile Telephone Service. You keyed the mic, said "mobile operator?"
and waited for a response, or until you got tired of waiting and tried
again. I seem to recall that it went to duplex before IMTS (Improved
Mobile Telephone Service - a dial on the control head so you could
dial your own calls - came out, but the memory's a bit hazy.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:27:45 -0600, "John Cummings"
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>MTS worked by going off-hook and hearing, "Number, please."

What telephone company were YOU working with? In NYC, if you got the
operator on the first try you might as well bet on a horse at random -
it would probably win at 50:1 odds. But just keying up and getting a
response? I can't recall that happening more than once or twice.

The marine operators were a little better - boats could have
emergencies with no help around.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:23:09 -0500, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Oh yeah, and the phones weren't exactly the pocketable wonders we have
>today. MTS versions were the car mounted variety that used vacuum tubes
>and could output 30 watts of transmit power.

I don't remember the manufacturer, but there was an all-transistor MTS
box (I don't remember whether the final was tube or transistor) that I
had in my car during the late 60s or early 70s. Put 30 watts into the
duplexer, and it was small enough to mount under the dash, if you
didn't mind reducing the seating to 2 in the front. (We had bench
seats in those days, remember.)

>And if you think cell service isn't the best today, consider the IMTS
>user. If you wanted mobile phone service prior to 1982, you could end
>up on a four year long (!) waiting list.

Which is why a lot of NYC MTS phones were Marked Tree, Arkansas
registry.

>The subscriber equipment
>costed thousands of dollars, and the service itself wasn't cheap either.
> In the early '80s, just before AMPS cellular finally came online,
>plans usually had a base fee around $17-$25 a month which included ZERO
>(0) minutes. That's around $30 to $45 in 2003 money. And airtime costs
>were around $.50 for the first 1 to 4 minutes of a call, and up to $1.00
>for each additional minute.... in 1982 dollars, that is. Today that
>would be around $.90 and $2.00, respectively... more than we pay today
>to roam on analog.

And that's in the 80s. The prices were about the same in the 60s, but
money was worth a lot more, so the prices, relative to earnings, were
much higher. ($10,000 was a great annual salary through the 60s.
Most people didn't come close to that.)

Al Klein wrote:


> Mobile Telephone Service. You keyed the mic, said "mobile operator?"
> and waited for a response, or until you got tired of waiting and tried
> again. I seem to recall that it went to duplex before IMTS (Improved
> Mobile Telephone Service - a dial on the control head so you could
> dial your own calls - came out, but the memory's a bit hazy.


Sure, full duplex was available on the Moto TLD-1100. I had two, the
UHF-IMTS one on Bell and the VHF-MTS on cheap-ass RCC.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur