What I was actually thinking. There is currently .8p (or .x or .0x p) per minute (every minute) of traffic flowing to ported numbers from the current dis-functional service.
What is the going rate for other number dip services in other countries?. Something like CNAM ($0.006) and LRN ($0.0003)would be competitive. So the money is definitely built in with gold plating for UK to support portability a better way. Christian Neil J. McRae wrote: > I understand the issue but I really don't think the current situation exists > because of the ported number transit charge... > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 13 Jun 2013, at 13:23, "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The problem is that users like Nigel and myself are disadvantaged as >> they want to retain numbers but find they cannot control the quality of >> service in doing so. >> >> I don't know what the rates are today but in 2007 Magnus Kelly gave a >> very clueful presentation at UKNOF8 that shows the carrier holding the >> number range of a ported number retains .8p per min (I think he was >> being specific to mobile numbers) >> >> See slide 7 http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof8/Kelly-Mobile_portability.pdf >> >> That is architecturally significant ;-) >> >> >> Christian >> >> >> >> Neil J. McRae wrote: >>> I have no idea about those rates, what I can tell you is that unless this >>> is addressed in the architecture (as done in other countries) then any >>> other solutions will have significant pitfalls and a unit cost explosion - >>> given the margin direction on voice generically I don't think that's in >>> anyone's interest. >>> >>> That probably means a different set of winners and losers that the prior >>> proposal would have but ( personally speaking I agree with some but not all >>> of voda's points) it would mean a sustainable platform in the medium term. >>> >>> Regards >>> Neil >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 13 Jun 2013, at 09:24, "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Can you remind me the termination rate fee the originating carrier >>>> receives for these "ported" redirections to the new carrier? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> Neil J. McRae wrote: >>>>> You can't just "fix" this without addressing other issues in the PSTN >>>>> architecture. >>>>> >>>>> Neil >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On 12 Jun 2013, at 18:41, "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The spineless attitude in Ofcom to porting is seriously inadequate in my >>>>>> humble opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> There should be a national porting service that ENUM like would manage >>>>>> the routing without having to ingress into a legacy supply chain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other countries manage it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian >>>>>> >>>>>> Nigel Titley wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 14:34, Gavin Henry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The ITSPA members list is a good place to start >>>>>>>>>> http://www.itspa.org.uk/members.shtml Some people on here are more >>>>>>>>>> wholesale. >>>>>>>> Hi Nigel, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also check out those with the QMA symbol as that will shorten your >>>>>>>> list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some things to check before moving away: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Your phone numbers; will you be porting them away? >>>>>>> It would be less hassle than informing several thousand customers... so >>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>> 2. If yes, were they ported to Gradwell or are they brand new? >>>>>>> They were brand new and assigned to to us by Gradwell >>>>>>>> 3. If new, then the Ofcom range holder is probably Telephony Services >>>>>>>> which means legally when you move away the calls still come into >>>>>>>> Telephony Services/Gradwell/AQL and then bounce back out with a >>>>>>>> special prefix for the new provider. That's how porting works. >>>>>>> Hmm.... >>>>>>>> Therefore, if they have network issues or downtime in the core then >>>>>>>> the calls won't get sent back out to the new provider even though >>>>>>>> you've moved on. >>>>>>> That's more than a little annoying... but I can see why it would be the >>>>>>> case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the information >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nigel > >
