On Cell Phone Forums - help with your mobile device
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    dirt dibbler
    Guest
    On 3 Apr, 13:45, "Usenet User" <usenetu...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
    > On Apr 3, 9:14 am, "dirt dibbler" <dirt.dibb...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Today i'm scheduled to take my '3' PAYG mobile number onto an Orange
    > > contract.

    >
    > > This morning both my '3' phone and my orange phone are using the No. I
    > > want to keep, but all incoming calls / SMS go to my existing '3' PAYG
    > > phone.

    >
    > > Is this normal and the '3' PAYG SIM will become unusable later and
    > > everything transfer to my orange contract or has something gone wrong?

    >
    > > Thanks
    > > DD

    >
    > The recipient network (Orange here) has to renumber your SIM to give
    > it the ported number, and configure their network to accept your
    > ported number.
    >
    > The donor network (Three) has to set-up your number so that incoming
    > calls/SMS get 'diverted' to the recipient network (Orange).
    >
    > Both steps are done independantly of one another, and your service
    > will not function 100% correctly until both steps are complete; I
    > believe they have until 4pm to complete the steps.


    thanks, it was all sorted by mid morning.

    does a 'diversion' remain in place now or is my number with orange?
    i'm thinking of future ports, do numerous diversions stack up?

    DD




    See More: day of porting question



  2. #2
    Usenet User
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    On Apr 3, 8:20 pm, "dirt dibbler" <dirt.dibb...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On 3 Apr, 13:45, "Usenet User" <usenetu...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 3, 9:14 am, "dirt dibbler" <dirt.dibb...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >
    > > > Today i'm scheduled to take my '3' PAYG mobile number onto an Orange
    > > > contract.

    >
    > > > This morning both my '3' phone and my orange phone are using the No. I
    > > > want to keep, but all incoming calls / SMS go to my existing '3' PAYG
    > > > phone.

    >
    > > > Is this normal and the '3' PAYG SIM will become unusable later and
    > > > everything transfer to my orange contract or has something gone wrong?

    >
    > > > Thanks
    > > > DD

    >
    > > The recipient network (Orange here) has to renumber your SIM to give
    > > it the ported number, and configure their network to accept your
    > > ported number.

    >
    > > The donor network (Three) has to set-up your number so that incoming
    > > calls/SMS get 'diverted' to the recipient network (Orange).

    >
    > > Both steps are done independantly of one another, and your service
    > > will not function 100% correctly until both steps are complete; I
    > > believe they have until 4pm to complete the steps.

    >
    > thanks, it was all sorted by mid morning.
    >
    > does a 'diversion' remain in place now or is my number with orange?
    > i'm thinking of future ports, do numerous diversions stack up?
    >
    > DD- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Three 'marks' your number as being with Orange. In the future, if you
    port, say to Vodafone, although Orange issue your PAC, Three are the
    ones that move your number over to Vodafone.




  3. #3
    Sam Nelson
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    In article <1175630448.840288.249000@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
    "Usenet User" <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
    > On Apr 3, 8:20 pm, "dirt dibbler" <dirt.dibb...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > thanks, it was all sorted by mid morning.
    > >
    > > does a 'diversion' remain in place now or is my number with orange?
    > > i'm thinking of future ports, do numerous diversions stack up?

    >
    > Three 'marks' your number as being with Orange. In the future, if you
    > port, say to Vodafone, although Orange issue your PAC, Three are the
    > ones that move your number over to Vodafone.


    Good grief. This is what you get, I guess, when you let competing
    commercial organisations set up networks.

    [Cue endless flames from people saying we'd never have had mobile phones at
    all if it had been left to BT...]

    Yes, I know that's probably true, but the above is still a stupid mess.
    What, it never occurred to anyone when the numbering schemes were set up
    that porting would be necessary? These, though, are the same people that
    thought text messages were never going to be significant.
    --
    SAm.



  4. #4
    Jon
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    sam@ssrl.org.uk declared for all the world to hear...
    > Good grief. This is what you get, I guess, when you let competing
    > commercial organisations set up networks.


    It's the only way to achieve number porting.

    > Yes, I know that's probably true, but the above is still a stupid mess.
    > What, it never occurred to anyone when the numbering schemes were set up
    > that porting would be necessary?


    So how would you do it, given your in-depth technical knowledge of GSM
    networks?
    --
    Regards
    Jon



  5. #5
    Jon
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    sam@ssrl.org.uk declared for all the world to hear...
    > It's about ownership of number spaces. There ought to be a central agency
    > (that owns the numbers) to do the marking.


    Ofcom issue number prefixes but (quote rightly) have no technical
    interface to each networks systems.

    > It isn't a question of having in-depth technical knowledge, it's a question
    > of having some common sense and thinking ahead.


    Whoever put the GSM spec together already did that. You just happen to
    disagree.

    Number porting in it's current state works very well and as far as the
    end user is concerned is a very simple process. Why change it? Who cares
    how calls are routed as long as it works (which it does)?
    --
    Regards
    Jon



  6. #6
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    On 2007-04-04, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:
    > sam@ssrl.org.uk declared for all the world to hear...
    >> Good grief. This is what you get, I guess, when you let competing
    >> commercial organisations set up networks.

    >
    > It's the only way to achieve number porting.


    Hardly. In North America number ports don't depend on the original
    owner of the block the number is from doing a divert, in fact you
    don't depend on the original carrier for anything.

    >> Yes, I know that's probably true, but the above is still a stupid mess.
    >> What, it never occurred to anyone when the numbering schemes were set up
    >> that porting would be necessary?

    >
    > So how would you do it, given your in-depth technical knowledge of GSM
    > networks?


    I'm not sure what "GSM networks" has to do with it. In the US there are
    GSM, CDMA, iDEN and landline networks, and you can port numbers between
    all of them. What is it about GSM networks in particular that you think
    requires the UK's awkward procedure?

    Dennis Ferguson



  7. #7
    Jon
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    dcferguson@pacbell.net declared for all the world to hear...
    > I'm not sure what "GSM networks" has to do with it. In the US there are
    > GSM, CDMA, iDEN and landline networks, and you can port numbers between
    > all of them. What is it about GSM networks in particular that you think
    > requires the UK's awkward procedure?


    There's nothing awkward about it! What's awkward about asking for a bit
    of information from your current provider and giving that information to
    your new provider?
    --
    Regards
    Jon



  8. #8
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    On 2007-04-04, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:
    > dcferguson@pacbell.net declared for all the world to hear...
    >> I'm not sure what "GSM networks" has to do with it. In the US there are
    >> GSM, CDMA, iDEN and landline networks, and you can port numbers between
    >> all of them. What is it about GSM networks in particular that you think
    >> requires the UK's awkward procedure?

    >
    > There's nothing awkward about it! What's awkward about asking for a bit
    > of information from your current provider and giving that information to
    > your new provider?


    That's not quite the topic I was addressing but, now that you mention
    it, that bit of interaction with the carrier you are trying to take your
    business from is definitely more awkward than just skipping that part,
    going directly to the carrier you are taking your business to and having
    them do the whole thing for you. And, to tell the truth, I can't imagine
    what the PAC requirement has to do with GSM networks since other places
    have GSM networks but don't make you talk to your old carrier about porting
    a number out.

    The technical bit I find awkward is having your call routing depend on
    the resources of a provider with whom you no longer have a business
    relationship. That doesn't seem desirable for anyone involved, and
    there are existance proofs that you don't have to do number porting
    this way so, again, I'm wondering what it is about GSM networks that
    you think requires this?

    Dennis Ferguson



  9. #9
    Jon
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    dcferguson@pacbell.net declared for all the world to hear...
    > The technical bit I find awkward is having your call routing depend on
    > the resources of a provider with whom you no longer have a business
    > relationship. That doesn't seem desirable for anyone involved, and
    > there are existance proofs that you don't have to do number porting
    > this way so, again, I'm wondering what it is about GSM networks that
    > you think requires this?


    Maybe it's to do with the fact that each network is allocated a block of
    numbers? The only way to port is to set up permanent diverts.

    Since all networks (in the UK) are required to keep this up and running
    (which they manage quite well) then I don't see what the issue is.
    --
    Regards
    Jon



  10. #10
    David Hearn
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    > On 2007-04-04, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:
    >> dcferguson@pacbell.net declared for all the world to hear...
    >>> I'm not sure what "GSM networks" has to do with it. In the US there are
    >>> GSM, CDMA, iDEN and landline networks, and you can port numbers between
    >>> all of them. What is it about GSM networks in particular that you think
    >>> requires the UK's awkward procedure?

    >> There's nothing awkward about it! What's awkward about asking for a bit
    >> of information from your current provider and giving that information to
    >> your new provider?

    >
    > That's not quite the topic I was addressing but, now that you mention
    > it, that bit of interaction with the carrier you are trying to take your
    > business from is definitely more awkward than just skipping that part,
    > going directly to the carrier you are taking your business to and having
    > them do the whole thing for you. And, to tell the truth, I can't imagine
    > what the PAC requirement has to do with GSM networks since other places
    > have GSM networks but don't make you talk to your old carrier about porting
    > a number out.


    Considering the number of complaints about people having their gas and
    electricity suppliers switched without their permission - I kinda like
    the idea that you cannot transfer a number without actually contacting
    your existing 'supplier' first. The whole "just put a signature here
    and we'll do the rest" method of switching gas/electricity suppliers
    seems open to abuse (which evidence proves).

    > The technical bit I find awkward is having your call routing depend on
    > the resources of a provider with whom you no longer have a business
    > relationship. That doesn't seem desirable for anyone involved, and
    > there are existance proofs that you don't have to do number porting
    > this way so, again, I'm wondering what it is about GSM networks that
    > you think requires this?


    In the UK each network is issued a number range. This range determines
    the charge of each call. Each range is routed into the relevant network.

    The way UK porting works is that the number range never actually leaves
    the original network - so 07974 is always Orange. If that number gets
    ported to T-Mobile, then Orange needs to set up something in their
    number routing tables to say that number is now off-network.

    At first thoughts, it does seem strange that you may port a number of
    times, never returning to Orange, but each time you port, Orange - your
    original provider - has to update their routing tables.

    Unless you have a system where networks are not in charge of their
    number ranges (so a central system - owned by who?) and does the divert
    there, it's not going to be any different. And even then, the only
    difference is to do with who is responsible for updating the
    divert/routing tables. So far, the existing system of the originating
    network seems to work, and in all probability, evens out between all the
    networks pretty well.

    D



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast



    Tags for this Thread