dc2323
join:2012-06-17
Saint-Laurent, QC | reply to freejazz_RdJ
Re: [Homephone] Bell won't accept 30 day notice of porting numbe said by freejazz_RdJ:They are not bullshitting. If there is a pending order, the LNP request will get rejected by most carrier IT systems. The solution to the 30 day notice problem is to call the carrier you want to port to and have them issue the port order immediately with a due date 30 days out. Most providers cannot grasp this when you ask, so it may take some work and several calls.
Basically, it makes your new provider send the port notice to the old provider 30 days out. That gives the 30 day notice on your behalf. It should suffice, but you may have to fight anyways.
I personally would prefer that the new provider would handle everything as I do not enjoy losing my time arguing with the dishonest people at Bell. However I do not favour this approach for these reasons:
1. The Terms of Service (ie. the binding legal document that I agreed to with Bell) requires the customer to give 30 day notice when terminating the service or porting my number out to another provider. The terms of service CANNOT require the new provider to give 30 day notice because the new provider DIDN'T SIGN any legal document with Bell. This is why if I fail to give notice they charge ME, not the new provider. If it actually was the responsibility of the new provider to give the 30 days notice why would they charge ME, for something that is not my reponsibility and I have no control over? It is obvious it is the customer who has the legal responsibility to notify Bell of the transfer.
2. Since the new provider doesn't have to pay if they screw up, they have no incentive for doing it right. Most likely they don't care about this, they could forget or simply port the number when it is most convenient for them as any charge would not be coming out of their wallet.
3. Maybe like you say, Bell's IT system does not accept a notice to port out the number but this is just a reflection of some internal policy to screw the customer over. If they really required a notice from the customer but the system doesn't allow it, wouldn't they have called their IT guy long ago to implement this feature on their system? |
|
| said by dc2323:2. Since the new provider doesn't have to pay if they screw up, they have no incentive for doing it right. Most likely they don't care about this, they could forget or simply port the number when it is most convenient for them as any charge would not be coming out of their wallet.
At least in our case, we care. We don't want the customer to be out of pocket, or have ANY reason for Bell to entice the customer back.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net |
|
| reply to dc2323
The LSR issued by your new service provider should constitute notice. If it doesn't for Bell, then someone should raise this issue on the regulatory side. To my knowledge, the LSR does constitute notice because the whole point of the LNP process is that the customer doesn't have to contact their old service provider.
As for the pending order issue, it isn't really a policy decision. All of the legacy billing/ordering systems for telcos have limitations surrounding pending orders. For most, you can't have 2 orders queued up; only 1 order at a time can be pending or in progress. Even if there isn't that IT limitation, a pending order is a conflict for porting because the order action could contradict the port request. What if there is already a port, a move or a disconnection in the system; should whatever port request comes in simply cancel whatever the pending order is? |
|
| You can have multiple orders pending against a line except for an out order. Once there is an out order pending, nothing else can be issued unless it is cancelled.
The only exception is a subsequently authorized port out request, which will cancel the out order associated with the pending (older) port out request, and trigger a a new PL Version of the LSC to the first provider stating that the original port out was cancelled due to more recent authorization.
The whole port out process gets messy when for example Bell is re-selling service to another provider (Teksavvy, Primus, Allstream, etc.), and doesn't inform them of the port out. The customer is left having to argue it, and the reseller is left not knowing what's going on.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net |
|
| I see the Canadian way of working is different. For some carriers, multiple port attempts for a single TN will lock all the ports requests and puts them in conflict or rejected status. And everyone has to start fresh. But each carrier is different: the logic on handling request (conflict management, slamming detection, etc) can be fully customized in the LNP software I worked with (LSMS-SOA by SAIC). |
|
