dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
10
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs

Re: TSI Marc - Please Amend Your Home Phone Offering

said by MaynardKrebs:

Bingo.

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

Bell can only refuse to port a number OUT from their network in some very specific circumstances (suspended service, disconnected line).

Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Bingo.

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

Bell can only refuse to port a number OUT from their network in some very specific circumstances (suspended service, disconnected line).

Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.

I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition. This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition. This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.

"Porting" in the terms of the Local Competition decision (97-8) specifically means Local Number Portability, not change of billing responsibility.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by HeadSpinning:

....Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.

 
I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition.

This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.

 
I agree that it belongs there, but quick, hurry up and drop it, as Blais' bucket runneth over any time now !

But Mister Dreidel-Head is quite correct - We should not be calling this exercise 'Porting', as it is only an 'Accounting Reassignment' of a Bell number's billing.

If, OTOH, TSI asked for same said Bell number to be moved to their TekTalk (VoIP) service, that WOULD constitute Porting, as I understand things.

So everyone, Please PLEASE PLEASE stop referring to moving your number to TSI's Home Phone service as Porting, unless the number in question was ORIGINALLY issued by a phone provider other than Bell.