| reply to HiVolt
Re: TSI Marc - Please Amend Your Home Phone Offering 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? |
|
| 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.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net |
|
 Teddy Boomk kudos Received
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:7
1 edit | reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs: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 has no obligation to offer POTs service to Teksavvy at all. Teksavvy and Bell have come to a business to business agreement. Since there is currently no government regulation controlling what that agreement can contain, Bell is able to require whatever they want in it. It is all subject to interpretation and practices on the ground of course. That's how Teksavvy was able to exceed the agreement and sign up more number ports than they were supposed to for a while.
Last time I was involved in this discussion at DSLR I suggested a waiting list:
»Re: Teksavvy - Please Stop Telling Us That POTS is Available
The result of that suggestion (or at least the next development) was that wholesalers and resellers were told they couldn't sell POTs service at all any more 
Edit: here's the latest official word:
»Re: C'mon TekSavvy - Bring back your POTS offering
--
electronicsguru.ca |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply 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. |
|
