Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    dirt dibbler
    Guest
    On 3 Apr, 13:45, "Usenet User" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Apr 3, 9:14 am, "dirt dibbler" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 3 Apr, 13:45, "Usenet User" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 3, 9:14 am, "dirt dibbler" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>,
    "Usenet User" <[email protected]> writes:
    > On Apr 3, 8:20 pm, "dirt dibbler" <[email protected]> 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

    [email protected] 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

    [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] 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

    [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] 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

    [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> [email protected] 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



  11. #11
    Usenet User
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    On Apr 5, 8:54 am, David Hearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    > > On 2007-04-04, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> [email protected] 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).


    This requirement to get a Porting Code from your current supplier is
    also there to protect the supplier you are potentially in a
    contractual relationship with. If you could just call up a new
    provider and take your number with you, you're making it easy to get
    out of (or at least side-step) your contractual obligations to a
    minimum term.

    That said, the telcos are also obliged to provide you with a Porting
    Code should you request one, providing that a) your number hasn't been
    disconnected, b) you don't owe them money and c) you're out of the
    minimum term of your contract. So there is no suggestion that they
    could keep hold of the number you want to port just to be awkward.

    > > 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?


    GSM networks don't require a porting code -- the UK GSM market,
    regulated by Ofcom, have deemed this is that way it will work.

    Aside from the porting code -- when you port your landline number from
    BT to, say, NTL -- the principal is the same. Your local BT exchange
    will receive the call, realise it is now allocated to NTL and send the
    call over a circuit from the BT exchange to the NTL exchange.

    The argument that you don't want "your call routing depend on the
    resources of a provider with whom you no longer have a business
    relationship" just doesn't make sense. I may want to call my friend
    Fred, who happens to be an NTL customer -- from my BT line -- my call
    may be routed across many networks with which I don't have a
    contractual relationship with; all I care is that my call connects.

    >
    > 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.


    This isn't quite 100% true. There is the option within the porting
    regulations that allows a number range to switch from one provider to
    another should the other provider end up with more than 50% of the
    number range now allocated to them. For example, if Vodafone was the
    final destination for 51% of the numbers in the Orange 07974 range,
    they could request Ofcom reallocate that block to them.

    > 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.


    Exactly. The only option here then would be to have some government
    entity manage the call routing -- and we can all imagine what a
    useless system that would be.

    > D- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -






  12. #12

    Re: day of porting question

    On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:02:28 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
    <[email protected]> wrote:


    >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.


    It's an interesting issue. For domain name transfers, uk domains are
    moved by releasing the 'tag' to the new host, but for .com domains,it
    is recipient-triggered. This led to so many domain thefts that there
    is now a complex and difficult locking system.

    If the new company could just grab a number, what's to stop someone
    stealing your phone number and calls?

    The UK porting system works very well indeed. I can't see a better way
    to do it, technically or administratively.

    --

    Iain
    the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
    http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
    Browse now while stocks last!



  13. #13
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    On 2007-04-05, David Hearn <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    >> On 2007-04-04, Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> 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).


    I should note that in the two places I've ported numbers through the
    receiving carrier (USA and Hong Kong) the requirement was that the
    account holder at the old and new carrier be the same person. The
    information they matched up at port time to establish this is essentially
    the same information required for the credit check for a contract phone.
    If it doesn't match (it didn't in Hong Kong) you need to go to the
    old carrier to fix that.

    If someone knew enough to pretend to be me for the purpose of stealing
    my number they'd hence also know enough about me to open a line of
    service in my name and then spend the next month making calls to Burma.
    This being the case, stealing my phone number would be the very, very
    least of my concerns (I'd prefer that they did take the number since
    I'd at least find out about it sooner).

    To turn the argument around, if there was money to be made stealing your
    number I'm pretty sure you'd see those scams in the countries where
    porting works this way. In the two countries I'm familiar with this
    just doesn't happen; if someone could do it they could also do even
    more profitable scams. In the US you can lock your account to prevent
    porting (requiring a call to the old carrier to unlock it), but I
    don't bother and I'm not sure anyone else does either.

    >> 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.


    This is the same as the US and Hong Kong. In the US, of course, most
    numbering is geographic, so a carrier will have lots of number blocks
    (usually 10,000 numbers, though more often 1,000 numbers lately).
    All number blocks remain assigned to the original 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.


    This is the difference. If only your original provider updates its
    routing tables with new routing then you are forever dependent on
    the original carrier's equipment to signal your new location for
    every call you ever receive. If everyone's routing tables are updated
    with your individual number and new provider, however, then those calls
    are never delivered to your original provider's switches in the first
    place, even though the original provider remains in full control of
    the (remainder of) its number block's routing. You can eliminate
    the extra signalling (forever) by updating everyone's routing table
    (just once), at the cost of a bigger global routing data base. It
    is a tradeoff; both ways work but have different costs and benefits.

    In the US, and in Hong Kong (as I understand it), number porting is
    accomplished by adding the number to global routing. Once this
    is done you depend on your original provider for nothing. If you
    give up the number it goes back to the original carrier, and if
    you port back to your original carrier they obviously get to
    remove the number from global routing and just follow the block
    route, but otherwise the original carrier is nothing special.

    > 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.


    There is no need for a divert from the original carrier if the
    individual number is added to global routing.

    I'm having trouble believing you could do without a central administrator
    tracking the routing of number blocks (though lack of such might
    explain why numbers seem to be incompletely routed so often by various
    networks in the UK); even if the mobile companies only consume a single
    prefix each, there are lots and lots of geographic and special number
    blocks and operators need to learn how to route these from somewhere.
    Whatever the mechanism is for distributing the global routing of
    number blocks, the same mechanism would work for distributing routing
    for individual numbers (with the exception that there are likely to
    be a lot more of them). In Hong Kong I think a government department
    does it. In the USA and (I think) Canada there's a contractor (NeuStar)
    which is paid to perform that service. In the USA in particular the
    porting process is really efficient. If you, on a whim, go to a store
    you're passing and buy new service, the new phone will usually work
    within an hour or so of leaving the store. I think the comparison
    of account information to ensure you are you takes most of this
    time; the actual rerouting is done by computers talking to computers.

    > So far, the existing system of the originating
    > network seems to work, and in all probability, evens out between all the
    > networks pretty well.


    I actually didn't mean to imply there was a better way to do this
    in the UK. Porting through global routing may work in Hong Kong
    because it is small, and while the USA is huge the use of geographic
    numbering (and the constraint against porting numbers out of their
    geographic area) means that the number of switches which need to be
    updated with your ported number's routing is actually fairly small
    as well. I only wanted to object to the notion that the divert from
    the provider which owns the number block is the only way to do number
    porting. There's an alternative.

    Dennis Ferguson



  14. #14
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: day of porting question

    On 2007-04-05, Usenet User <[email protected]> wrote:
    > This requirement to get a Porting Code from your current supplier is
    > also there to protect the supplier you are potentially in a
    > contractual relationship with. If you could just call up a new
    > provider and take your number with you, you're making it easy to get
    > out of (or at least side-step) your contractual obligations to a
    > minimum term.


    In the USA your contract is solely a financial obligation. If you
    hate them enough that you are willing to pay for early contract
    termination to be rid of them, they don't get to hold your number
    hostage to keep you. If you don't pay them (whether you take your
    number or not) they have your credit report and debt collectors to
    punish you with. This seems sufficient.

    > Exactly. The only option here then would be to have some government
    > entity manage the call routing -- and we can all imagine what a
    > useless system that would be.


    Are you sure? In the USA a private contractor maintains and distributes
    call routing data. When you buy new mobile service it usually takes
    an hour or two to complete the number port, after which your relationship
    with the old carrier is terminated. I was surprised when a friend
    told me it took (I think) a week of overlapping service to move a
    number over in the UK. Could it really be worse?

    Dennis Ferguson



  • Similar Threads