Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Paul Timmins]

"Formal" process is that your CLEC looks at your LOA, tucks it in a drawer 
after a cursory glance (hopefully they at least look at it), then submits a LSR 
(electronically or via excel spreadsheet) to the losing carrier. The losing 
carrier gives an FOC within 24 hours for usually within 3 days (or whenever 
they request the due date to be). Your CLEC builds the NPAC subscriptions, the 
losing carrier might or might not concur them (concurrence timers in the NPAC 
are out of scope for this question).

On the due date, the new carrier clicks activate in LTI (or sends an EDI 
message into the LSMS using their mechanized interfaces) and the national 
databases update within a few seconds (some may take a minute or two, ugh, 
unless they're disconnected and your number could be stuck in that LSMS for up 
to 24 hours). The losing carrier pulls out the routes/translations/whatever 
from their switch and issues a final bill.

Technically and legally, nothing stops your new carrier from calling a buddy at 
the old carrier, saying:
Winning: "hey john can we port this #, we have an LOA"
Losing: "sure, let me get into NPAC. create the subscription for now and i'll 
concur it"
Both carriers: *tap tap tap*
Losing: "okay i granted concurrence"
Winning: "thanks buddy, I just activated it, you can clean up your routes now"
Losing: "no problem great to hear from you!"
Winning: "lunch tomorrow?"
Losing: "sure!"

That actually meets FCC requirements. It doesn't meet ATIS recommendations but 
they're only recommendations (mostly put in place by people who really like the 
status quo).

-Paul

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 08:14, Colton Conor  wrote:
> 
> So what is the best case senario under todays rules for wireline carriers? 
> Lets assume we are talking about a CLEC with their own switch and number pool 
> porting away from the incumbend ILEC (Verizon or AT wireline). Assume the 
> CLEC has access to NPAC.
> 
> How does this process even work? Today we just have our customer sign an loa, 
> and then upload the LOA to our wholesaler. They take it from there, but I 
> would like to know the process and what is involved. Does each carrier have 
> their own system to verifying that the number and account number belongs to 
> the said provider?
> 
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Paul Timmins  > wrote:
> A lot of it also comes down to cellular portability being required by the FCC 
> to process ports in 4 hours or less from the day it was started as well. The 
> FCC saw how wireline worked and said they weren't going to have that on 
> wireless. Shortly after they cleaned up wireline (it used to be much worse!), 
> and then introduced rules for intermodal ports.
> 
> On Feb 9, 2016 20:43, Carlos Alcantar  > wrote:
> >
> >
> > A lot of it goes into literally 4 companies working together to have 
> > automation.  I don't know that process would scale if it was hundreds of 
> > companies trying to accomplish the same thing without a clearinghouse in 
> > the middle and everyone talking the same language.
> >
> > ​
> > Carlos Alcantar
> > Race Communications / Race Team Member
> > 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
> > Phone: +1 415 376 3314  / car...@race.com 
> >  / http://www.race.com 
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: VoiceOps  > > on behalf of Alex Balashov 
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 3:02 PM
> > To: Alexander Lopez; voiceops@voiceops.org 
> > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
> >
> > One would think that the incentives would diverge depending on whether
> > the given wireless operator expects to be a net beneficiary of porting
> > in or a net loser to porting out -- a function of their market position,
> > which is not equal.
> >
> > --
> > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
> > 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
> > Atlanta, GA 30346
> > United States
> >
> > Tel: +1-800-250-5920  (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 
> >  (direct)
> > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ , 
> > http://www.csrpswitch.com/ 
> > ___
> > VoiceOps mailing list
> > VoiceOps@voiceops.org 
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops 
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > VoiceOps mailing list
> > VoiceOps@voiceops.org 
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops 
> > 
> 

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Peter Rad.]

Some of that may have to do with Syniverse being the porting engine for 
those 3.


On 2/10/2016 9:57 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:

Exactly this.
I actually ported my personal cell number to Verizon from ATT yesterday.
Gave the rep my ATT account number, He 30 seconds later asked me for 
the PIN I set on my ATT account. I provided and my number was working 
before I hit the door on the way out. Total port time was <5 Min.
I questioned the Rep if this was always the case and he said only if 
porting from Sprint/ATT/T-Mobile. And that basically any other carrier 
(Not including MVNO's of the above) took 3-5 Business days. Which is 
about in-line with my current wireline porting.
I figure they all exchange so many numbers a day it was in all of 
their best interest to work together.
Not to mention, By automating the process. They don't have to keep an 
entire call center worth of LNP personnel to handle their volume.


Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED  x106


*From*: "Alexander Lopez" 
*Sent*: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:00 PM
*To*: "Alex Balashov" , 
"voiceops@voiceops.org" 

*Subject*: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
I think the incentive is to cooperate because it is a relatively small 
group of wireless carriers compared to wireline.
The main reason being that they don't want their ports held up, so 
they work well with others.
Also since there is a small group they could automate the back office 
processes between them and submit the request and aknowledgment 
quickly and without human interaction.



 Original message 
From: Alex Balashov 
Date: 2/9/2016 4:32 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: voiceops@voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
This does raise, in light of the OP, the question of what economic or
political incentive wireless carriers have to cooperate in relatively
seamless porting to/from each other.

--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States

Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ 


___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops


___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Nick Olsen]

Exactly this.
  
 I actually ported my personal cell number to Verizon from ATT yesterday.
  
 Gave the rep my ATT account number, He 30 seconds later asked me for the 
PIN I set on my ATT account. I provided and my number was working before I 
hit the door on the way out. Total port time was <5 Min.
  
 I questioned the Rep if this was always the case and he said only if 
porting from Sprint/ATT/T-Mobile. And that basically any other carrier (Not 
including MVNO's of the above) took 3-5 Business days. Which is about 
in-line with my current wireline porting.
  
 I figure they all exchange so many numbers a day it was in all of their 
best interest to work together.
  
 Not to mention, By automating the process. They don't have to keep an 
entire call center worth of LNP personnel to handle their volume.

Nick Olsen
Network Operations  (855) FLSPEED  x106

  


 From: "Alexander Lopez" 
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:00 PM
To: "Alex Balashov" , "voiceops@voiceops.org" 

Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting   
  I think the incentive is to cooperate because it is a relatively small 
group of wireless carriers compared to wireline.   
 The main reason being that they don't want their ports held up, so they 
work well with others.
  
 Also since there is a small group they could automate the back office 
processes between them and submit the request and aknowledgment quickly and 
without human interaction.

 Original message 
From: Alex Balashov 
Date: 2/9/2016 4:32 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: voiceops@voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
 
This does raise, in light of the OP, the question of what economic or
political incentive wireless carriers have to cooperate in relatively
seamless porting to/from each other.

--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States

Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/,  http://www.csrpswitch.com/
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops 


___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Anthony Orlando via VoiceOps]

That's why I hired your firm ML!!!  You know how to deal with these issues and 
get it done. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Mary Lou Carey  
> wrote:
> 
> I couldn't pull up the WPR, but obviously their WPR is nothing like an LSR, 
> which is all written in code and requires a bunch of fields that verify way 
> more than just the TN/PIN/Address/ZIP accuracy.
>  
> My guess is that it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone how to 
> fill out a WPRs because they're in English and to the point. Unlike LSRs that 
> you need an LSOG guide to understand what it's asking for, hours of training 
> to know which fields to populate, and the patience of a saint to fight your 
> way through the process! Sounds like WPRs is the form that all carriers 
> should use to simplify the process, but then iconectiv would be out of 
> business and it would make it way easier for carriers to port numbers away 
> from the ILECs so I don't see that happening without a fight. I guess I 
> should be thankful because it gives people like me a job, but the whole 
> ASR/LSR process just seems stupid to me - like reading the bible in Latin to 
> a group of people who only speak English! 
>  
> Mary Lou Carey
> BackUP Telecom Consulting
> 615-791-9969 
>  
>> On February 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins  wrote:
>> 
>> My understanding is that the winning carrier submits the subscription, 
>> issues an electronic WPR 
>> (https://www.syniverse.com/files/Single_Line_WPR.pdf) - similar to an LSR. 
>> The losing carrier verifies the WPR's accuracy (TN/PIN/Address/Zip) and 
>> issues a confirmation and concurrence, and then the winning carrier 
>> electronically activates in SOA.
>> 
>> Given this is 100% electronic (and all the majors use Syniverse for their 
>> SOA) it's immediate. Wireless carriers don't really have to worry about 
>> things like "do they have complex services like DSL, FTTH with bundle 
>> packaging, etc". They just drop the customer's subscriber information out of 
>> the switch and send a final bill.
>> 
>> -Paul
>> 
>>> On 02/10/2016 11:50 AM, Mary Lou Carey wrote:
>>> I really wonder if the big wireless carriers follow the same process that 
>>> wireline carriers do because the typical wireline process takes more than 5 
>>> minutes to complete. The whole process is:
>>>  
>>> 1. Issue an LSR order to the losing carrier requesting the port.
>>> 2. When you get confirmation, submit the port request in NPAC (or a SOA 
>>> system connected to NPAC)
>>> 3. Losing carrier confirms the port
>>> 4. Winning carrier accepts the port
>>>  
>>> The greatest portion of time is spent on getting the losing carrier to 
>>> accept the LSR and give confirmation, so I'm thinking these wireless 
>>> carriers must have agreements set up between them that allows them to 
>>> bypass the LSR process and just complete the NPAC work!
>>>  
>>> Mary Lou Carey
>>> BackUP Telecom Consulting
>>> 615-791-9969 
>>>  
 On February 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM Nick Olsen  wrote:
 
 Exactly this.
  
 I actually ported my personal cell number to Verizon from ATT yesterday.
  
 Gave the rep my ATT account number, He 30 seconds later asked me for the 
 PIN I set on my ATT account. I provided and my number was working before I 
 hit the door on the way out. Total port time was <5 Min.
  
 I questioned the Rep if this was always the case and he said only if 
 porting from Sprint/ATT/T-Mobile. And that basically any other carrier 
 (Not including MVNO's of the above) took 3-5 Business days. Which is about 
 in-line with my current wireline porting.
  
 I figure they all exchange so many numbers a day it was in all of their 
 best interest to work together.
  
 Not to mention, By automating the process. They don't have to keep an 
 entire call center worth of LNP personnel to handle their volume.
 
 Nick Olsen
 Network Operations
 (855) FLSPEED  x106
 
 
  
 From: "Alexander Lopez" 
 Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:00 PM
 To: "Alex Balashov" , "voiceops@voiceops.org" 
 
 Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
  
 I think the incentive is to cooperate because it is a relatively small 
 group of wireless carriers compared to wireline. 
  
 The main reason being that they don't want their ports held up, so they 
 work well with others.
  
 Also since there is a small group they could automate the back office 
 processes between them and submit the request and aknowledgment quickly 
 and without human interaction.
 
 
  Original message 
 From: Alex Balashov 
 Date: 2/9/2016 4:32 PM (GMT-05:00)
 To: voiceops@voiceops.org
 Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Mary Lou Carey]

Thanks Anthony!
 
I'm quite sure my parents didn't have as much of an appreciation for my stubborn
"I'm going to find a way to make this happen" attitude as my CLEC clients do!
LOL!
 
Mary Lou

> On February 10, 2016 at 12:22 PM Anthony Orlando  wrote:
> 
>  That's why I hired your firm ML!!!  You know how to deal with these issues
> and get it done. 
> 
>  Sent from my iPhone
> 
>  On Feb 10, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Mary Lou Carey   > wrote:
> 
> 
>  > >  I couldn't pull up the WPR, but obviously their WPR is nothing
>  > > like an LSR, which is all written in code and requires a bunch of
>  > > fields that verify way more than just the TN/PIN/Address/ZIP
>  > > accuracy.
> >   
> >  My guess is that it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone
> > how to fill out a WPRs because they're in English and to the point. Unlike
> > LSRs that you need an LSOG guide to understand what it's asking for, hours
> > of training to know which fields to populate, and the patience of a saint to
> > fight your way through the process! Sounds like WPRs is the form that all
> > carriers should use to simplify the process, but then iconectiv would be out
> > of business and it would make it way easier for carriers to port numbers
> > away from the ILECs so I don't see that happening without a fight. I guess I
> > should be thankful because it gives people like me a job, but the whole
> > ASR/LSR process just seems stupid to me - like reading the bible in Latin to
> > a group of people who only speak English! 
> >   
> >  Mary Lou Carey
> >  BackUP Telecom Consulting
> >  615-791-9969 
> >   
> > 
> >   > > > On February 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins  >   > > >  > wrote:
> > > 
> > >   My understanding is that the winning carrier submits the
> > > subscription, issues an electronic WPR
> > > (https://www.syniverse.com/files/Single_Line_WPR
> > >  .pdf
> > >  ) - similar to an
> > > LSR. The losing carrier verifies the WPR's accuracy (TN/PIN/Address/Zip)
> > > and issues a confirmation and concurrence, and then the winning carrier
> > > electronically activates in SOA.
> > > 
> > >  > > 
> >   > > > 
> > >   Given this is 100% electronic (and all the majors use Syniverse for
> > > their SOA) it's immediate. Wireless carriers don't really have to worry
> > > about things like "do they have complex services like DSL, FTTH with
> > > bundle packaging, etc". They just drop the customer's subscriber
> > > information out of the switch and send a final bill.
> > > 
> > >   -Paul
> > > 
> > >   On 02/10/2016 11:50 AM, Mary Lou Carey wrote:
> > > 
> > >   > > > >   I really wonder if the big wireless carriers
> > >   > > > > follow the same process that wireline carriers do
> > >   > > > > because the typical wireline process takes more than 5
> > >   > > > > minutes to complete. The whole process is:
> > > >
> > > >   1. Issue an LSR order to the losing carrier requesting the
> > > > port.
> > > >   2. When you get confirmation, submit the port request in NPAC
> > > > (or a SOA system connected to NPAC)
> > > >   3. Losing carrier confirms the port
> > > >   4. Winning carrier accepts the port
> > > >
> > > >   The greatest portion of time is spent on getting the losing
> > > > carrier to accept the LSR and give confirmation, so I'm thinking these
> > > > wireless carriers must have agreements set up between them that allows
> > > > them to bypass the LSR process and just complete the NPAC work!
> > > >
> > > >   Mary Lou Carey
> > > >   BackUP Telecom Consulting
> > > >   615-791-9969 
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >> > > > > On February 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM Nick Olsen
> > > >> > > > >   wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >Exactly this.
> > > > > 
> > > > >I actually ported my personal cell number to Verizon from
> > > > > ATT yesterday.
> > > > > 
> > > > >Gave the rep my ATT account number, He 30 seconds later
> > > > > asked me for the PIN I set on my ATT account. I provided and my number
> > > > > was working before I hit the door on the way out. Total port time was
> > > > > <5 Min.
> > > > > 
> > > > >I questioned the Rep if this was always the case and he
> > > > > said only if porting from Sprint/ATT/T-Mobile. And that basically any
> > > > > other carrier (Not including MVNO's of the above) took 3-5 Business
> > > > > days. Which is about in-line with my current wireline porting.
> > > > > 
> > > > >I figure 

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Paul Timmins]

My understanding is that the winning carrier submits the subscription, 
issues an electronic WPR 
(https://www.syniverse.com/files/Single_Line_WPR.pdf) - similar to an 
LSR. The losing carrier verifies the WPR's accuracy (TN/PIN/Address/Zip) 
and issues a confirmation and concurrence, and then the winning carrier 
electronically activates in SOA.


Given this is 100% electronic (and all the majors use Syniverse for 
their SOA) it's immediate. Wireless carriers don't really have to worry 
about things like "do they have complex services like DSL, FTTH with 
bundle packaging, etc". They just drop the customer's subscriber 
information out of the switch and send a final bill.


-Paul

On 02/10/2016 11:50 AM, Mary Lou Carey wrote:
I really wonder if the big wireless carriers follow the same process 
that wireline carriers do because the typical wireline process takes 
more than 5 minutes to complete. The whole process is:

1. Issue an LSR order to the losing carrier requesting the port.
2. When you get confirmation, submit the port request in NPAC (or a 
SOA system connected to NPAC)

3. Losing carrier confirms the port
4. Winning carrier accepts the port
The greatest portion of time is spent on getting the losing carrier to 
accept the LSR and give confirmation, so I'm thinking these wireless 
carriers must have agreements set up between them that allows them to 
bypass the LSR process and just complete the NPAC work!

Mary Lou Carey
BackUP Telecom Consulting
615-791-9969

On February 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM Nick Olsen  wrote:

Exactly this.
I actually ported my personal cell number to Verizon from ATT yesterday.
Gave the rep my ATT account number, He 30 seconds later asked me for 
the PIN I set on my ATT account. I provided and my number was working 
before I hit the door on the way out. Total port time was <5 Min.
I questioned the Rep if this was always the case and he said only if 
porting from Sprint/ATT/T-Mobile. And that basically any other 
carrier (Not including MVNO's of the above) took 3-5 Business days. 
Which is about in-line with my current wireline porting.
I figure they all exchange so many numbers a day it was in all of 
their best interest to work together.
Not to mention, By automating the process. They don't have to keep an 
entire call center worth of LNP personnel to handle their volume.


Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED  x106


*From*: "Alexander Lopez" 
*Sent*: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:00 PM
*To*: "Alex Balashov" , 
"voiceops@voiceops.org" 

*Subject*: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
I think the incentive is to cooperate because it is a relatively 
small group of wireless carriers compared to wireline.
The main reason being that they don't want their ports held up, so 
they work well with others.
Also since there is a small group they could automate the back office 
processes between them and submit the request and aknowledgment 
quickly and without human interaction.



 Original message 
From: Alex Balashov 
Date: 2/9/2016 4:32 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: voiceops@voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
This does raise, in light of the OP, the question of what economic or
political incentive wireless carriers have to cooperate in relatively
seamless porting to/from each other.

--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States

Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ 


___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops


Mary Lou Carey
BackUP Telecom Consulting
mary...@backuptelecom.com
Office: 615-791-9969
Cell: 615-796-


___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops


___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Mary Lou Carey]

I couldn't pull up the WPR, but obviously their WPR is nothing like an LSR,
which is all written in code and requires a bunch of fields that verify way more
than just the TN/PIN/Address/ZIP accuracy.
 
My guess is that it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone how to
fill out a WPRs because they're in English and to the point. Unlike LSRs that
you need an LSOG guide to understand what it's asking for, hours of training to
know which fields to populate, and the patience of a saint to fight your way
through the process! Sounds like WPRs is the form that all carriers should use
to simplify the process, but then iconectiv would be out of business and it
would make it way easier for carriers to port numbers away from the ILECs so I
don't see that happening without a fight. I guess I should be thankful because
it gives people like me a job, but the whole ASR/LSR process just seems stupid
to me - like reading the bible in Latin to a group of people who only speak
English! 
 
Mary Lou Carey
BackUP Telecom Consulting
615-791-9969 
 

> On February 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins  wrote:
> 
>  My understanding is that the winning carrier submits the subscription, issues
> an electronic WPR (https://www.syniverse.com/files/Single_Line_WPR
>  .pdf
>  ) - similar to an LSR.
> The losing carrier verifies the WPR's accuracy (TN/PIN/Address/Zip) and issues
> a confirmation and concurrence, and then the winning carrier electronically
> activates in SOA.
> 

> 
>  Given this is 100% electronic (and all the majors use Syniverse for their
> SOA) it's immediate. Wireless carriers don't really have to worry about things
> like "do they have complex services like DSL, FTTH with bundle packaging,
> etc". They just drop the customer's subscriber information out of the switch
> and send a final bill.
> 
>  -Paul
> 
>  On 02/10/2016 11:50 AM, Mary Lou Carey wrote:
> 
>  > >  I really wonder if the big wireless carriers follow the same
>  > > process that wireline carriers do because the typical wireline
>  > > process takes more than 5 minutes to complete. The whole process is:
> >   
> >  1. Issue an LSR order to the losing carrier requesting the port.
> >  2. When you get confirmation, submit the port request in NPAC (or a SOA
> > system connected to NPAC)
> >  3. Losing carrier confirms the port
> >  4. Winning carrier accepts the port
> >   
> >  The greatest portion of time is spent on getting the losing carrier to
> > accept the LSR and give confirmation, so I'm thinking these wireless
> > carriers must have agreements set up between them that allows them to bypass
> > the LSR process and just complete the NPAC work!
> >   
> >  Mary Lou Carey
> >  BackUP Telecom Consulting
> >  615-791-9969 
> >   
> > 
> >   > > > On February 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM Nick Olsen 
> >   > > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > >   Exactly this.
> > >
> > >   I actually ported my personal cell number to Verizon from ATT
> > > yesterday.
> > >
> > >   Gave the rep my ATT account number, He 30 seconds later asked me for
> > > the PIN I set on my ATT account. I provided and my number was working
> > > before I hit the door on the way out. Total port time was <5 Min.
> > >
> > >   I questioned the Rep if this was always the case and he said only if
> > > porting from Sprint/ATT/T-Mobile. And that basically any other carrier
> > > (Not including MVNO's of the above) took 3-5 Business days. Which is about
> > > in-line with my current wireline porting.
> > >
> > >   I figure they all exchange so many numbers a day it was in all of
> > > their best interest to work together.
> > >
> > >   Not to mention, By automating the process. They don't have to keep
> > > an entire call center worth of LNP personnel to handle their volume.
> > > 
> > >   Nick Olsen
> > >   Network Operations
> > >   (855) FLSPEED  x106
> > > 
> > >
> > > 
> > >   -
> > >   From: "Alexander Lopez" 
> > > 
> > >   Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:00 PM
> > >   To: "Alex Balashov" 
> > >  , "voiceops@voiceops.org"
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
> > >
> > >   I think the incentive is to cooperate because it is a relatively
> > > small group of wireless carriers compared to wireline. 
> > >
> > >   The main reason being that they don't want their ports held up, so
> > > they work well with others.
> > >
> > >   Also since there is a small group they could 

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Paul Timmins]

How about a Vatican II for LNP processes, eh?

On Wed, 02/10/2016 12:20 PM, Mary Lou Carey  wrote:
> 



 .mceResizeHandle {position: absolute;border: 1px solid black;background: 
#FFF;width: 5px;height: 5px;z-index: 1}.mceResizeHandle:hover {background: 
#000}img[data-mce-selected] {outline: 1px solid black}img.mceClonedResizable, 
table.mceClonedResizable {position: absolute;outline: 1px dashed black;opacity: 
.5;z-index: 1}
.mceResizeHandle {position: absolute;border: 1px solid black;background: 
#FFF;width: 5px;height: 5px;}
.mceResizeHandle:hover {background: #000;}
img[data-mce-selected] {}
img.mceClonedResizable, table.mceClonedResizable {position: absolute;}
 
I couldn't pull up the WPR, but obviously their WPR is nothing like an LSR, 
which is all written in code and requires a bunch of fields that verify way 
more than just the TN/PIN/Address/ZIP accuracy.
 
My guess is that it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone how to 
fill out a WPRs because they're in English and to the point. Unlike LSRs that 
you need an LSOG guide to understand what it's asking for, hours of training to 
know which fields to populate, and the patience of a saint to fight your way 
through the process! Sounds like WPRs is the form that all carriers should use 
to simplify the process, but then iconectiv would be out of business and it 
would make it way easier for carriers to port numbers away from the ILECs so I 
don't see that happening without a fight. I guess I should be thankful because 
it gives people like me a job, but the whole ASR/LSR process just seems stupid 
to me - like reading the bible in Latin to a group of people who only speak 
English! 
 
Mary Lou Carey
BackUP Telecom Consulting
615-791-9969 
 
> On February 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins  wrote:
> 
> 
My understanding is that the winning carrier submits the subscription, issues 
an electronic WPR (https://www.syniverse.com/files/Single_Line_WPR.pdf) - 
similar to an LSR. The losing carrier verifies the WPR's accuracy 
(TN/PIN/Address/Zip) and issues a confirmation and concurrence, and then the 
winning carrier electronically activates in SOA.

> 

>  Given this is 100% electronic (and all the majors use Syniverse for their 
> SOA) it's immediate. Wireless carriers don't really have to worry about 
> things like "do they have complex services like DSL, FTTH with bundle 
> packaging, etc". They just drop the customer's subscriber information out of 
> the switch and send a final bill.
>  
>  -Paul
>  
>  On 02/10/2016 11:50 AM, Mary Lou Carey wrote:
> 
I really wonder if the big wireless carriers follow the same process that 
wireline carriers do because the typical wireline process takes more than 5 
minutes to complete. The whole process is:
 
1. Issue an LSR order to the losing carrier requesting the port.
2. When you get confirmation, submit the port request in NPAC (or a SOA system 
connected to NPAC)
3. Losing carrier confirms the port
4. Winning carrier accepts the port
 
The greatest portion of time is spent on getting the losing carrier to accept 
the LSR and give confirmation, so I'm thinking these wireless carriers must 
have agreements set up between them that allows them to bypass the LSR process 
and just complete the NPAC work!
 
Mary Lou Carey
BackUP Telecom Consulting
615-791-9969 
 
> On February 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM Nick Olsen  wrote:
>  
> 
Exactly this.
 
I actually ported my personal cell number to Verizon from ATT yesterday.
 
Gave the rep my ATT account number, He 30 seconds later asked me for the PIN I 
set on my ATT account. I provided and my number was working before I hit the 
door on the way out. Total port time was <5 Min.
 
I questioned the Rep if this was always the case and he said only if porting 
from Sprint/ATT/T-Mobile. And that basically any other carrier (Not including 
MVNO's of the above) took 3-5 Business days. Which is about in-line with my 
current wireline porting.
 
I figure they all exchange so many numbers a day it was in all of their best 
interest to work together.
 
Not to mention, By automating the process. They don't have to keep an entire 
call center worth of LNP personnel to handle their volume.

>  Nick Olsen
>  Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED  x106
>  
>  

 

From: "Alexander Lopez" 
>  Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:00 PM
>  To: "Alex Balashov" , "voiceops@voiceops.org" 
> 
>  Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
 

I think the incentive is to cooperate because it is a relatively small group of 
wireless carriers compared to wireline. 
 
The main reason being that they don't want their ports held up, so they work 
well with others.
 
Also since there is a small group they could automate the back office processes 
between them and submit the request and aknowledgment quickly and without human 
interaction.

>  
>   

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Mary Lou Carey]

That's funny!
 

> On February 10, 2016 at 2:17 PM Paul Timmins  wrote:
> 
>  How about a Vatican II for LNP processes, eh?
> 
>  On Wed, 02/10/2016 12:20 PM, Mary Lou Carey 
> wrote:
> 
> > > I couldn't pull up the WPR, but obviously their WPR is nothing
> > > like an LSR, which is all written in code and requires a bunch of
> > > fields that verify way more than just the TN/PIN/Address/ZIP accuracy.
> >  
> > My guess is that it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone
> > how to fill out a WPRs because they're in English and to the point. Unlike
> > LSRs that you need an LSOG guide to understand what it's asking for, hours
> > of training to know which fields to populate, and the patience of a saint to
> > fight your way through the process! Sounds like WPRs is the form that all
> > carriers should use to simplify the process, but then iconectiv would be out
> > of business and it would make it way easier for carriers to port numbers
> > away from the ILECs so I don't see that happening without a fight. I guess I
> > should be thankful because it gives people like me a job, but the whole
> > ASR/LSR process just seems stupid to me - like reading the bible in Latin to
> > a group of people who only speak English! 
> >  
> > Mary Lou Carey
> > BackUP Telecom Consulting
> > 615-791-9969 
> >  
> > 
> >  > > > On February 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins 
> >  > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > >  My understanding is that the winning carrier submits the
> > > subscription, issues an electronic WPR
> > > (https://www.syniverse.com/files/Single_Line_WPR
> > >  .pdf
> > >  ) - similar to an
> > > LSR. The losing carrier verifies the WPR's accuracy (TN/PIN/Address/Zip)
> > > and issues a confirmation and concurrence, and then the winning carrier
> > > electronically activates in SOA.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> >  > > > 
> > >  Given this is 100% electronic (and all the majors use Syniverse for
> > > their SOA) it's immediate. Wireless carriers don't really have to worry
> > > about things like "do they have complex services like DSL, FTTH with
> > > bundle packaging, etc". They just drop the customer's subscriber
> > > information out of the switch and send a final bill.
> > > 
> > >  -Paul
> > > 
> > >  On 02/10/2016 11:50 AM, Mary Lou Carey wrote:
> > > 
> > >  > > > >  I really wonder if the big wireless carriers
> > >  > > > > follow the same process that wireline carriers do because
> > >  > > > > the typical wireline process takes more than 5 minutes to
> > >  > > > > complete. The whole process is:
> > > >   
> > > >  1. Issue an LSR order to the losing carrier requesting the
> > > > port.
> > > >  2. When you get confirmation, submit the port request in NPAC
> > > > (or a SOA system connected to NPAC)
> > > >  3. Losing carrier confirms the port
> > > >  4. Winning carrier accepts the port
> > > >   
> > > >  The greatest portion of time is spent on getting the losing
> > > > carrier to accept the LSR and give confirmation, so I'm thinking these
> > > > wireless carriers must have agreements set up between them that allows
> > > > them to bypass the LSR process and just complete the NPAC work!
> > > >   
> > > >  Mary Lou Carey
> > > >  BackUP Telecom Consulting
> > > >  615-791-9969 
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > >   > > > > > On February 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM Nick Olsen
> > > >   > > > > >   wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Exactly this.
> > > > >
> > > > >   I actually ported my personal cell number to Verizon from
> > > > > ATT yesterday.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Gave the rep my ATT account number, He 30 seconds later
> > > > > asked me for the PIN I set on my ATT account. I provided and my number
> > > > > was working before I hit the door on the way out. Total port time was
> > > > > <5 Min.
> > > > >
> > > > >   I questioned the Rep if this was always the case and he said
> > > > > only if porting from Sprint/ATT/T-Mobile. And that basically any other
> > > > > carrier (Not including MVNO's of the above) took 3-5 Business days.
> > > > > Which is about in-line with my current wireline porting.
> > > > >
> > > > >   I figure they all exchange so many numbers a day it was in
> > > > > all of their best interest to work together.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Not to mention, By automating the process. They don't have
> > > > > to keep an entire call center worth of LNP personnel to handle their
> > > > > volume.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Nick Olsen
> > > > >   Network Operations

Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting

[Colton Conor]

So what is the best case senario under todays rules for wireline carriers?
Lets assume we are talking about a CLEC with their own switch and number
pool porting away from the incumbend ILEC (Verizon or AT wireline).
Assume the CLEC has access to NPAC.

How does this process even work? Today we just have our customer sign an
loa, and then upload the LOA to our wholesaler. They take it from there,
but I would like to know the process and what is involved. Does each
carrier have their own system to verifying that the number and account
number belongs to the said provider?

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Paul Timmins  wrote:

> A lot of it also comes down to cellular portability being required by the
> FCC to process ports in 4 hours or less from the day it was started as
> well. The FCC saw how wireline worked and said they weren't going to have
> that on wireless. Shortly after they cleaned up wireline (it used to be
> much worse!), and then introduced rules for intermodal ports.
>
> On Feb 9, 2016 20:43, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:
> >
> >
> > A lot of it goes into literally 4 companies working together to have
> automation.  I don't know that process would scale if it was hundreds of
> companies trying to accomplish the same thing without a clearinghouse in
> the middle and everyone talking the same language.
> >
> > ​
> > Carlos Alcantar
> > Race Communications / Race Team Member
> > 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
> > Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: VoiceOps  on behalf of Alex
> Balashov 
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 3:02 PM
> > To: Alexander Lopez; voiceops@voiceops.org
> > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Instant Porting
> >
> > One would think that the incentives would diverge depending on whether
> > the given wireless operator expects to be a net beneficiary of porting
> > in or a net loser to porting out -- a function of their market position,
> > which is not equal.
> >
> > --
> > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
> > 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
> > Atlanta, GA 30346
> > United States
> >
> > Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
> > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
> > ___
> > VoiceOps mailing list
> > VoiceOps@voiceops.org
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> >
> > ___
> > VoiceOps mailing list
> > VoiceOps@voiceops.org
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> ___
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps@voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops