decxPremium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | reply to QuantumPimp
Re: [Grandfathered Plans] Bell cut my Internet said by QuantumPimp:It appears that Rogers has a much better process than VoIP.ms when porting from Bell.
Why is that? What a losing provider does after a port out is up to the losing provider. All the receiving provider does is submits the port request. |
|
|
|
| said by decx:Why is that? What a losing provider does after a port out is up to the losing provider. All the receiving provider does is submits the port request.
Quite easy to understand actually. There must be an about equal number of Bell->Rogers ports than Rogers->Bell ports. If Bell gives Rogers a hard time, Rogers can give a hard time to Bell in return. Voip.ms does not have that kind of leverage. |
|
Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| said by despe666:said by decx:Why is that? What a losing provider does after a port out is up to the losing provider. All the receiving provider does is submits the port request.
Quite easy to understand actually. There must be an about equal number of Bell->Rogers ports than Rogers->Bell ports. If Bell gives Rogers a hard time, Rogers can give a hard time to Bell in return. Voip.ms does not have that kind of leverage. Agreed. A while back I worked on VoIP provisioning systems for Tier 1 - Tier 3 service providers world wide. The actual provisioning steps for LNP activations were exclusively a business-to-business agreement. The legal requirement did not specify how to make the process seamless, only the minimum required elements to make LNP functional.
Bell and Rogers, as mid-sized Tier 2 providers in the same market, have probably worked out some of the kinks between themselves.
I'm still confused why Bell doesn't handle the process more gracefully for their own suite of services. |
|
