Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Local number portability

Local number portability (LNP) is a telecommunications capability that allows end users to retain their existing telephone numbers when changing local service providers within the same geographic rate area or local calling region, without requiring changes to the numbering plan or impairment of service quality.^[1]^[2] Mandated in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to dismantle barriers to competition in local exchange markets, LNP addressed the prior lock-in effect where subscribers faced the cost and inconvenience of obtaining new numbers upon switching carriers, thereby enabling easier market entry for competitive providers.^[3] The FCC ordered phased implementation starting in 1996, with wireline carriers required to support portability by specific regional deadlines in 1997 and 1998, though extensions were granted for full compliance amid technical hurdles.^[3]^[4] Wireless LNP followed later, becoming available in the 100 largest metropolitan areas in November 2003 and nationwide by May 2004, marking a key expansion to mobile services.^[5] By reducing switching frictions, LNP has fostered greater carrier competition, efficient allocation of numbering resources, and consumer benefits such as expanded service options and potential cost savings, though its rollout and operation have encountered persistent issues including porting delays, validation errors, and administrative complexities that the FCC has addressed through rules standardizing one-business-day intervals for simple ports by 2010.^[6]^[7]^[5]

Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Local number portability (LNP) is defined as the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same physical location, their existing telephone numbers without any degradation in the quality, reliability, or convenience of service when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.^[1] This portability applies specifically to local service areas, distinguishing it from broader forms of number portability such as geographic or service provider portability across regions.^[8] The scope of LNP is geographically constrained to the same local serving area or rate center, typically defined by the North American Numbering Plan's NPA-NXX codes, ensuring that the ported number remains associated with the original calling area for routing and billing purposes.^[9] It encompasses wireline, wireless (via wireless LNP), and interconnected VoIP services, allowing subscribers to switch providers—such as from an incumbent local exchange carrier to a competitive carrier—provided the new provider offers service in that specific locality.^[5]^[2] However, LNP does not extend to inter-regional moves or changes in service type that alter the number's geographic attribution, as such scenarios would require new numbering resources to maintain network efficiency.^[1] In regulatory contexts like the United States, LNP implementation is mandated under Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requiring all local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers to support it within their coverage overlaps.^[1] Internationally, similar location-based portability principles are outlined in ITU recommendations, though adoption varies by national regulatory frameworks, focusing on fixed and mobile local services to foster competition without disrupting numbering plans.^[10]

Purpose and Regulatory Foundations

Local number portability (LNP) enables telecommunications subscribers to retain their existing telephone numbers when switching between service providers while remaining in the same geographic location, thereby minimizing disruption to personal and business communications.^[11] This mechanism addresses a key barrier to competition in telephony markets, where the inconvenience of number changes historically locked customers into incumbent providers, allowing dominant carriers to maintain market share without performance improvements.^[12] By facilitating seamless provider switches, LNP promotes consumer choice, incentivizes service innovation, and exerts downward pressure on prices through increased rivalry, as evidenced by post-implementation studies showing heightened churn rates among local exchange carriers. The primary regulatory impetus for LNP stems from efforts to dismantle telecommunications monopolies and enforce competitive obligations on legacy providers. In the United States, the foundation is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law on February 8, 1996, which amended the Communications Act of 1934 to mandate that local exchange carriers provide number portability "to the extent technically feasible" under Section 251(b)(2).^[13] ^[14] The Act explicitly defines number portability as "the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers regardless of the provider of such telecommunications services," aiming to enable new entrants to compete in local markets previously insulated by the post-1984 AT&T divestiture structure.^[1] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) operationalized these provisions through its First Report and Order on Implementation of Local Competition Provisions, adopted December 20, 1996, which required initial deployment in the 100 largest metropolitan areas by January 1, 1998, with nationwide rollout by June 30, 1999, subject to technical and cost-recovery conditions.^[15] This framework extended to wireless and VoIP services via subsequent FCC rulings, such as those under 47 CFR Part 52, Subpart C, ensuring portability across wireline, wireless, and interconnected platforms without unreasonable delays.^[1] Internationally, analogous regulations emerged in jurisdictions like Canada (via the 1997 Telecommunications Act amendments) and the European Union (under the 1997 regulatory framework for electronic communications), prioritizing competition policy over carrier convenience, though implementation timelines and scopes vary based on national infrastructure maturity.^[11]

Historical Development

Origins in Deregulation Efforts

Local number portability emerged as a critical mechanism amid broader efforts to deregulate the telecommunications industry, which had long been characterized by regional monopolies for local exchange services following the 1982 Modified Final Judgment that divested AT&T and opened long-distance markets but left local telephony largely insulated from competition.^[16] Incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) controlled telephone numbers as a core asset, creating a barrier to entry for new entrants, as customers faced the high cost of changing numbers to switch providers, thereby stifling potential competition despite technological feasibility demonstrated in trials.^[17] The Telecommunications Act of 1996, enacted on February 8, 1996, marked the pivotal deregulation milestone by amending the Communications Act of 1934 to explicitly prohibit state-sanctioned monopolies in local telephone service and mandate interconnection obligations, including number portability, to facilitate market entry by competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs).^[18] Section 251(b)(2) imposed a duty on all local exchange carriers to provide number portability "to the extent technically feasible" as prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), aiming to reduce customer lock-in and promote rivalry in local markets previously dominated by ILECs.^[14] This requirement stemmed from congressional recognition that without portability, deregulation would fail to deliver consumer choice, as evidenced by pre-Act analyses showing numbers as a de facto property right reinforcing incumbency advantages.^[17] In response, the FCC initiated proceedings in CC Docket No. 95-116, culminating in its First Report and Order adopted on August 1, 1996, which established technical standards, deployment timelines (initially targeting major markets by 1997-1998), and cost-recovery mechanisms to implement location and service provider portability, thereby operationalizing the Act's pro-competitive intent.^[17] These origins reflected a causal shift from regulated monopoly to competitive dynamics, where portability addressed the network effects and switching costs inherent in telephony, enabling deregulation to yield empirical benefits like lower prices and innovation, though implementation faced delays due to technical complexities and incumbent resistance.^[11] Subsequent FCC orders refined these rules, but the 1996 framework underscored portability's role in dismantling artificial barriers to ensure deregulation's efficacy.^[1]

Implementation Milestones in Key Markets

In the United Kingdom, fixed geographic number portability was first introduced in 1997 using an indirect routing method known as indirect access or call forwarding, enabling subscribers to retain their local numbers when switching fixed-line providers.^[19] This predated broader European mandates and facilitated early competition in the deregulated telecom sector following the 1990s privatization of British Telecom. In the United States, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandated local number portability to promote competition, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requiring implementation in the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas by December 31, 1998.^[20] Wireline LNP became operational on that date through regional Number Portability Administration Centers (NPACs), initially supporting portability for approximately 54 million wireline numbers by mid-2003.^[21] Wireless LNP followed later, becoming available in the top 100 markets in November 2003 and nationwide by May 2004, after extensive industry coordination to address technical challenges in mobile routing.^[5] Canada established its NPAC system in 1996, enabling fixed LNP shortly thereafter as part of North American alignment with U.S. standards, though specific rollout dates for fixed services emphasized regional database synchronization by the late 1990s.^[22] Wireless number portability was mandated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and implemented nationwide on March 14, 2007, following delays due to interoperability requirements among carriers.^[23] Australia achieved full local number portability for fixed services on January 1, 2000, as stipulated by industry codes developed under the Australian Communications Authority, building on limited interim measures post-1997 deregulation to ensure peer-to-peer number transfers between carriers.^[24] Within the European Union, implementation varied by member state, with early adopters like the UK leading in 1997; however, the 1998 Directive 98/61/EC encouraged prompt rollout of operator portability for fixed lines, while the 2002 Universal Service Directive (2002/22/EC) imposed binding requirements for geographic number portability, leading to widespread compliance by 2003 across most states through national regulatory enforcement.^[25] ^[26] Delays in some markets stemmed from harmonizing technical standards, but the framework prioritized consumer choice in liberalized markets.

Recent Evolutions and Market Growth

In recent years, the global mobile number portability market, a key component of local number portability (LNP) services, has exhibited steady expansion, valued at $2.14 billion in 2024 and projected to reach $2.27 billion in 2025, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.8%.^[27] This growth is attributed to increasing consumer demand for flexible switching between providers amid rising competition in telecommunications, particularly in regions with robust regulatory frameworks mandating portability. Broader number portability services, encompassing LNP, were estimated at $6.8 billion globally in 2024, with forecasts indicating expansion to $13.2 billion by 2033, driven by digital transformation and the integration of portability into IP-based networks.^[28] Regulatory reviews have shaped LNP evolution, as seen in New Zealand's October 2025 Commerce Commission decision to assess whether mandatory wholesale LNP access remains necessary, citing technological advancements that reduce reliance on regulated services.^[29] In Europe, Poland reported 60,170 fixed-line numbers ported in the third quarter of 2025, a slight decline of over 1,200 from the prior quarter, signaling maturing markets where portability volumes stabilize as consumers exercise options less frequently post-initial adoption waves.^[30] These trends underscore a shift toward voluntary, efficient portability, with over 54 countries implementing LNP as a marker of open telecom markets.^[31] Operational enhancements include leveraging porting data for fraud mitigation, enabling telecom operators to integrate LNP records into risk assessment strategies as of 2025 updates by the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC).^[32] For businesses, streamlined porting processes in 2025 emphasize rapid transitions to VoIP and cloud providers, minimizing downtime and supporting hybrid work models without number changes.^[33] Such developments align with global LNP's role in fostering competition, though growth rates vary by region, with stronger momentum in emerging markets adopting 5G and digital services.^[34]

Technical Mechanisms

Core Portability Schemes

Service provider portability and location portability constitute the foundational schemes for local number portability (LNP). Service provider portability permits subscribers to retain their directory number (DN) when switching local exchange carriers within the same rate center, without altering the physical location of service. Location portability extends this capability to scenarios where the subscriber relocates physically but remains within the same rate center boundaries, ensuring continuity of the DN for routing and billing purposes. These schemes adhere to standards outlined in Telcordia GR-2982-CORE, which defines the use of geographic units of billing (GUBB) for accurate carrier selection and rating in ported scenarios.^[35] The LRN architecture underpins both schemes, assigning a unique 10-digit location routing number (LRN) to each switch, where the first six digits correspond to the switch's NPA-NXX for identification. Upon porting, the DN is dissociated from the donor carrier's LRN and associated with the recipient carrier's LRN in a centralized database, facilitating query-based routing. For ported calls, the originating switch queries the number portability database (NPDB) via SS7 TCAP or IP protocols using the dialed DN; the response provides the new LRN and GUBB, which is inserted into the initial address message (IAM) as the carrier identification, with the called party number (CdPN) preserved as the original dialed digits for delivery. Non-ported calls typically bypass detailed LNP queries, routing directly via the donor switch using local exchange routing guide (LERG) data, though switches may provision queries for potentially portable NPA-NXX prefixes to handle mixed portability status.^[35]^[36]^[37] This look-aside query mechanism—distinct from all-call query approaches—optimizes network efficiency by invoking database lookups only when necessary, minimizing signaling load while enabling compatibility with existing time-division multiplexing (TDM) infrastructure. In the United States, implementation of these schemes was mandated by the Federal Communications Commission in its 1996 First Report and Order, with deployment in the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas completed by December 1997 and nationwide rollout by 1998, relying on regional NPACs for data administration across seven regions. For inter-technology ports, such as wireline-to-wireless, the schemes integrate with home location register (HLR) lookups post-LRN routing to resolve mobile subscriber details. Extensions like nationwide LRN (NLRN) support cross-LATA portability by assigning LRNs from the recipient's location, while non-geographic LRNs (NGLRNs) enable IP-based routing via session initiation protocol (SIP) URIs for voice over IP (VoIP) interconnections.^[36]^[35]

Database and Routing Architectures

The database architecture supporting local number portability (LNP) in North America relies on regional Number Portability Administration Centers (NPACs), each maintaining a centralized Service Management System (SMS) as the authoritative repository for ported telephone number (TN) data. These systems store detailed subscription version records, encompassing the TN, Location Routing Number (LRN), Service Provider Identifier (SPID), service provider type, and SS7 point codes required for accurate call handling and delivery.^[38]^[39] Porting transactions initiate when the gaining carrier's Local Service Management System (LSMS)—a carrier-specific database interface—submits a service order to the NPAC SMS, which validates, activates, and propagates the updated records to all regional carriers' LSMS via standardized interoperable interfaces. Carriers subsequently synchronize this data to their internal network elements (INEs), including Service Control Points (SCPs) or LNP application processors, populating distributed queryable databases that mirror NPAC content for real-time access.^[40]^[41]^[42] Routing architecture employs the LRN scheme, where the LRN functions as a 10-digit network address uniquely assigned to each central office switch, incorporating the switch's NPA (area code) and NXX (central office code) followed by a four-digit suffix. During call setup in the public switched telephone network (PSTN), originating switches or signaling systems issue database queries—typically via SS7 Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP) protocols—to local LNP databases, which return the serving LRN and SPID if the dialed TN has been ported.^[38]^[43] This query-response mechanism redirects the call from the original TN-based routing (derived from NPA-NXX) to the LRN of the current provider's switch, ensuring delivery to the ported subscriber without altering the dialed number. Non-ported calls bypass portability checks and route directly via inherent TN hierarchies, minimizing query overhead.^[38]^[43] The design accommodates high query volumes, with NPACs processing data for over 100 million ported numbers across six U.S. and Canadian regions as of recent implementations.^[39] Globally, variations exist; for instance, some jurisdictions deploy intelligent network (IN)-based architectures with shared centralized databases or decentralized on-net/off-net query models, but North American LNP predominantly standardizes on the NPAC-LRN framework to comply with regulatory mandates like the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996.^[43] Data synchronization protocols ensure consistency, with LSMS systems retaining historical versions for audit and recovery while provisioning active records to INEs.^[42]^[40]

Operational Aspects

Standard Porting Procedures

The standard porting procedure for local number portability (LNP) in the United States commences with the end-user submitting a porting request to the gaining carrier, also known as the new service provider (NSP).^[2] The NSP must validate the request by collecting essential customer information, including the telephone number to be ported, the customer's account number with the losing carrier (old service provider, OSP), billing name and address, and any assigned passcode if applicable.^[7] Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit the OSP from refusing a port solely due to unpaid balances, though legitimate grounds for rejection include inaccurate data, pending service orders, or customer-initiated disconnects.^[44] Upon validation, the NSP submits a Local Service Request (LSR) containing at least 14 standardized mandatory data fields—such as the ported telephone number, account number, ZIP code, company code, desired due date, and purchase order number—to the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC), which serves as the central database for disseminating porting information across regional service areas.^[7] The NPAC then notifies the OSP, which must respond with a Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) approving the port and specifying the due date, or a rejection with a reason code, typically within hours of receipt.^[7] For simple ports—defined as those involving a single line without complex switching adjustments or multiple features—LSRs received by the OSP between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. local time on a business day must activate at midnight of that day, ensuring completion within one business day.^[44] ^[7] Non-simple ports allow up to four business days.^[44] On the established due date, the NSP signals readiness to the NPAC, triggering the OSP to release the number; the NPAC updates its database, and both carriers query it to route calls to the new location via location routing numbers (LRNs) or other database methods.^[1] This database-driven approach, mandated for long-term portability since 1999 in major markets, ensures minimal service disruption by emulating the original number's routing while directing traffic to the NSP's network.^[45] Carriers must support these procedures across wireline, wireless, and interconnected VoIP services, with the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) and industry groups like the North American Numbering Council (NANC) overseeing standardized flows to minimize errors. If issues arise, such as data mismatches, the OSP may request a Customer Service Record (CSR) from itself for further verification, which must be provided within 24 clock hours excluding weekends and holidays.^[7] These procedures prioritize efficiency to facilitate competition, but carriers remain obligated to handle intermodal ports (e.g., wireline to wireless) under the same timelines where feasible, though practical delays may occur due to technical variances.^[2] ^[44]

Special Cases for Fax, Paging, and Legacy Services

Fax numbers, typically associated with wireline telephone service, are subject to local number portability (LNP) as geographic telephone numbers under U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, allowing retention when switching providers.^[5] However, porting often incurs a one-time fee of $20–$25 and requires submission of a Letter of Authorization (LOA) verifying account details with the current carrier, with processing times averaging 3–10 business days depending on provider coordination.^[46] ^[47] Complications arise if the fax line is bundled with digital subscriber line (DSL) internet or other services, necessitating disconnection of those features prior to porting to avoid service interruptions.^[47] Post-porting to VoIP or online fax platforms, compatibility issues may emerge due to differences in signaling protocols, potentially requiring modem adjustments for reliable transmission.^[48] Paging services, which operate on dedicated one-way radio frequencies and infrastructure distinct from standard telephony networks, generally do not support LNP. Pager numbers are controlled exclusively by paging carriers and cannot be transferred to cellular, landline, or VoIP systems, limiting consumer options as these services decline in usage.^[49] This restriction stems from technical incompatibilities in routing and signaling, with no regulatory mandate for portability in most jurisdictions, effectively exempting paging from standard LNP obligations.^[5] Legacy services such as Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) and Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) present porting challenges amid carrier decommissioning efforts, with major U.S. providers phasing out these analog and digital copper-based systems as of August 2, 2022, to transition to IP-based alternatives.^[50] LNP enables retention of associated telephone numbers during migration to VoIP or fiber equivalents, but feature preservation—such as guaranteed analog tones, multi-line hunting, or ISDN's dedicated bandwidth for fax and data—often requires specialized provisioning or emulation by the new carrier, potentially leading to service degradation if not addressed.^[50] These transitions demand coordination via the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) databases, where legacy port types must be accurately flagged to ensure proper routing, though operational delays can occur due to outdated infrastructure documentation.^[39]

Benefits and Achievements

Enhancement of Market Competition

Local number portability (LNP) facilitates market competition in telecommunications by substantially lowering consumer switching costs, as subscribers can retain their established telephone numbers when changing local service providers, thereby eliminating a primary barrier to entry for competitors.^[51] This mechanism encourages higher rates of intercarrier churn, compelling incumbent carriers to vie more aggressively on pricing, service quality, and innovation to retain customers, rather than relying on number lock-in effects.^[52] In principle, such portability undermines monopolistic advantages in local exchange markets, where fixed infrastructure historically favored dominant providers, promoting a more dynamic environment akin to contestable markets where potential entry disciplines incumbents.^[53] In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated LNP implementation to advance local competition following the 1996 Telecommunications Act, requiring wireline portability in the 100 largest markets by December 1997 and nationwide by year-end 1998, with wireless LNP following by November 2003 in major areas.^[5] The FCC explicitly aimed for LNP to bolster rivalry among local exchange carriers, including competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), and between wireline and wireless providers, anticipating reduced market power for incumbents.^[54] Post-implementation data reflect stimulated competitive pressures, with FCC reports noting that wireless LNP introduction heightened incentives for carriers to enhance service reliability and offerings amid rising portability requests.^[55] For instance, the policy enabled easier migration to CLECs, which by the early 2000s captured segments of business and residential lines, though overall wireline market shares for non-incumbents remained constrained by infrastructure bottlenecks.^[56] Empirical studies corroborate LNP's pro-competitive effects, particularly in reducing prices and elevating consumer welfare through intensified rivalry. Analysis of wireless portability, integrated with local schemes, shows policy-induced drops in switching frictions led to lower effective costs for high-volume users and broader market contestability.^[57] In contexts with efficient porting (e.g., under five days), average mobile prices declined post-portability rollout, a dynamic extending to local services where rapid number transfers similarly erode incumbent pricing power.^[58] However, evidence indicates that implementation delays or procedural frictions can mute these gains, underscoring the causal link between seamless LNP execution and realized competition; slower regimes show negligible price impacts, highlighting the need for streamlined processes to fully harness portability's benefits.^[58] Overall, LNP has empirically shifted telecom markets toward greater fluidity, with U.S. wireless churn rates elevating post-2003 to levels exceeding 2% monthly in competitive segments, pressuring carriers to innovate amid portability-enabled subscriber mobility.^[59]

Consumer and Business Advantages

Local number portability (LNP) empowers consumers to retain their established telephone numbers when switching local service providers, thereby eliminating a significant barrier to changing carriers and enabling selection of offerings based on competitive pricing, service quality, or innovative features.^[5] ^[60] This mechanism, mandated under the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996, promotes market competition by allowing subscribers to respond to provider performance without the disruption of number reassignment, which historically deterred switching due to the inconvenience of updating contacts and directories.^[61] Empirical assessments indicate that such portability yields net consumer benefits when implementation costs are outweighed by enhanced choice and efficiency gains, as evidenced in regulatory analyses of mobile and fixed-line regimes.^[62] For businesses, LNP facilitates seamless transitions to alternative providers—such as from traditional wireline to IP-based systems—while maintaining continuity in customer-facing numbers, which preserves established communication channels and mitigates risks of lost inbound calls or client confusion during provider changes.^[61] This retention supports operational stability, as firms avoid the substantial administrative and financial burdens of reprinting business cards, updating websites, advertising new numbers, or retraining staff, costs that can escalate in direct proportion to a company's scale and customer base.^[52] By enabling businesses to leverage competitive pressures for better terms or technologies without service interruptions, LNP indirectly bolsters enterprise efficiency and adaptability, aligning with broader regulatory goals of uniform numbering resource administration that benefit commercial users alongside residential ones.^[6]

Challenges and Criticisms

Technical and Reliability Issues

The implementation of local number portability (LNP) introduces significant technical complexity due to the need for real-time database queries during call setup, primarily using the Location Routing Number (LRN) method in systems like the U.S., where switches query centralized databases such as the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) to determine the correct routing carrier for potentially ported numbers.^[63] This query process, often performed via Signaling System No. 7 (SS7) networks, adds latency to call establishment and increases signaling traffic substantially, as a majority of inter-carrier calls may require such lookups, straining network capacity and potentially leading to congestion during peak loads.^[64] Failure to execute these queries properly—such as when the originating carrier omits the database dip—results in calls being misrouted to the original carrier or dropped entirely, undermining service continuity.^[65] Reliability issues arise from dependencies on database synchronization across regional NPACs and carriers' internal systems, where delays in propagating porting updates can cause temporary routing discrepancies, manifesting as failed calls or one-way service loss for affected numbers.^[66] Hardware failures, software stops, or overloads in service control points (SCPs) necessitate manual or automated resynchronization procedures, which, if not resolved promptly, extend outages; for example, default routing mechanisms may activate during query failures but risk further errors like snap-back to disconnected numbers.^[67]^[68] Planned maintenance on porting infrastructure requires advance notifications to mitigate widespread disruptions, as unaddressed outages in NPAC access can halt new port requests and affect query responses.^[69] During early rollouts, such as the U.S. wireless LNP deployment mandated by the FCC effective November 24, 2003, in major markets, consumers encountered operational difficulties including porting delays, incomplete activations, and intermittent service interruptions due to interoperability gaps between wireline and wireless systems.^[5] These challenges highlight broader reliability vulnerabilities in hybrid environments, where mismatched protocols or incomplete database updates exacerbate fraud risks and port-out restrictions, though regulatory forbearance has aimed to balance implementation burdens with consumer protections.^[70] Ongoing advancements, like SIP-based LNP signaling, address some SS7 limitations but introduce new troubleshooting needs for query verification in IP domains.^[71]

Economic Costs and Implementation Burdens

The implementation of local number portability (LNP) imposes substantial capital and operational expenditures on telecommunications operators, primarily involving network upgrades, database integrations, and query systems. In the United States, carrier-specific costs for accessing the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) range from $10,000 to $90,000 per network for originating service providers, with additional expenses for service order administration and legacy system modifications often exceeding $10 million for wireline providers adapting to location routing number (LRN)-based rating.^[9] Regional databases and shared infrastructure costs are recovered through mandatory contributions from all carriers and interconnected VoIP providers, allocated based on end-user revenues, which can strain smaller operators with limited scale.^[72] Ongoing operational burdens include per-query fees, such as approximately $0.0026 for tandem-level lookups, amplifying expenses as porting volumes increase.^[73] These costs create asymmetric burdens, particularly for incumbent and smaller carriers, who must retrofit signaling systems like SS7 for real-time portability while competing entrants benefit from lower baseline infrastructure needs. Federal regulations permit recovery of direct LNP costs through customer surcharges, capped at actual expenses and often implemented as monthly fees around $0.33, but this mechanism has faced criticism for potentially inflating consumer bills without proportional benefits in low-porting markets.^[74] ^[75] Wireless LNP rollout, mandated by the FCC with a 2.5-hour porting deadline, delayed implementation until November 24, 2003, due to technical complexities and estimated resource diversion from service enhancements, leading to projected first-year churn of up to 18 million subscribers and revenue volatility for affected carriers.^[54] Economic analyses indicate that while LNP reduces consumer switching costs, it elevates providers' marginal production costs through database lookups and routing changes, potentially diminishing net social welfare if implementation expenses outweigh competition gains—especially in mature markets where fixed costs for intelligent network architectures dominate.^[76] Smaller providers encounter disproportionate impacts from advanced querying methods like All Call Query, incurring third-party hosting fees and infrastructure upgrades that larger incumbents absorb more readily, sometimes prompting consolidation or reduced innovation investment.^[9] Recovery models, including cost-sharing via neutral third-party administrators, mitigate some burdens but introduce administrative overhead, with international examples like European CEPT frameworks categorizing costs into fixed setup, variable per-port, and shared recovery to balance equities.^[77]

Fraud, Security, and Porting Delays

Port-out fraud, a subset of SIM swapping schemes, exploits local number portability (LNP) by allowing unauthorized actors to transfer a victim's phone number to a new carrier under their control, often to intercept two-factor authentication codes and access linked financial or personal accounts.^[78] This typically involves scammers impersonating the victim to initiate a port-out request, leveraging weak verification processes at the gaining carrier.^[79] In response, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules in November 2023 requiring wireless providers to implement secure authentication for porting requests, notify customers immediately of any SIM change or port-out attempt, and offer options like account locks to prevent such fraud.^[80] These measures aim to address rising incidents, with enforcement advisories issued in December 2023 highlighting carriers' obligations under Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) and LNP rules to mitigate risks from data breaches and social engineering.^[81] Security vulnerabilities in LNP stem from reliance on outdated or insufficient customer verification during the porting process, including potential exploits in databases like the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) and signaling protocols such as SS7, which can enable interception or unauthorized transfers.^[82] A 2014 assessment of LNP systems identified risks of penetration into analytic platforms, potentially disrupting service or enabling broader network attacks, though implementation of enhanced safeguards like multi-factor authentication has been uneven.^[82] The FCC's 2023 order mandates transparent reporting processes for fraud incidents and prompt investigations, extending CPNI protections to cover port-out scenarios, but critics note that voluntary industry standards prior to regulation often failed to curb exploits due to competitive pressures minimizing friction in customer acquisition.^[83] Porting delays frequently arise from discrepancies in customer records, such as mismatched addresses, incorrect account numbers, or missing authorization details, leading to rejections and iterative corrections between losing and gaining carriers.^[84] In the U.S., while FCC rules target one business day for wireless ports, actual timelines average 7-10 days due to documentation errors or service gaps, exacerbating consumer frustration and enabling temporary disruptions exploited by fraudsters.^[85] Common rejection causes include invalid PINs, inactive numbers, or unresolved contract obligations, with loops in carrier communication prolonging resolution; for instance, inter-carrier mismatches in billing telephone numbers (BTNs) can trigger multiple review cycles.^[86] Regulatory reports emphasize that while LNP databases support efficient routing via Location Routing Numbers (LRNs), human and procedural bottlenecks persist, undermining portability's competitive benefits.^[35]

Debates on Effectiveness and Regulatory Overreach

Proponents of local number portability (LNP) argue that it effectively fosters competition by lowering switching costs, enabling consumers to retain numbers without fear of disruption, which empirical analyses link to reduced prices and heightened churn rates. A study examining U.S. wireless markets post-2003 LNP implementation found average prices declined, though unevenly across plans, with higher-volume subscribers gaining the most from policy-induced cost reductions.^[87] Similarly, cross-country evidence from Europe and Asia indicates LNP correlates with lower mobile tariffs and intensified competitive dynamics, as portability diminishes incumbents' lock-in advantages.^[88] In rapid-process scenarios, such as Ireland's mobile implementation, LNP spurred measurable price drops and switching when completion times stayed under five days.^[89] Critics, however, question LNP's net effectiveness, citing persistent high perceived switching barriers beyond number retention, including contracts and service perceptions, which limit actual churn despite the policy.^[51] In Japan, while portability intensified subscriber growth over time, initial uptake was muted, suggesting implementation frictions and operator resistance dilute benefits.^[90] Low porting volumes in some mature markets further fuel debate, with analysts arguing that other factors like network quality dominate consumer choices, rendering LNP a marginal tool at best. Ongoing technical complexities, such as database synchronization, also undermine reliability, potentially eroding trust without proportionally boosting competition.^[58] Regulatory overreach concerns center on the 1996 Telecommunications Act's mandate forcing carriers to bear substantial upfront and recurring costs—estimated at over $1 billion initially for U.S. wireless LNP alone—without clear evidence that voluntary market mechanisms would fail to achieve similar outcomes.^[91] Verizon Wireless petitioned the FCC in 2001 to rescind the requirement, contending it imposed undue technical burdens on emerging wireless networks, especially when layered with number pooling obligations, potentially harming smaller entrants more than aiding consumers.^[92] Lawmakers echoed industry views, warning against simultaneous mandates that could stifle innovation by dictating infrastructure rather than allowing competitive evolution.^[93] Detractors frame this as government micromanagement, arguing that in sufficiently competitive sectors, carriers might independently offer portability or alternatives like incentives, avoiding centralized databases prone to fraud and administrative overhead.^[62] While regulators counter that without compulsion, dominant firms retain de facto monopolies via inertia, the policy's persistence amid rising port-out scams underscores tensions between interventionist aims and unintended systemic vulnerabilities.^[5]

Regional Implementations

Africa

In Africa, local number portability (LNP) for fixed-line numbers has seen limited implementation, largely owing to the continent's low fixed-line penetration rates—often below 1% in many countries—and the overwhelming dominance of mobile subscriptions, which exceeded 1.2 billion by 2023.^[94] Regulatory focus has prioritized mobile number portability (MNP) to foster competition in the mobile sector, with fixed LNP trailing due to sparse infrastructure and higher implementation costs for legacy systems.^[95] South Africa stands out as the primary exception, where LNP for geographic fixed numbers has been mandated and operational since the mid-2000s, enabling customers to retain local numbers when switching fixed-line providers. The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) requires portability for both mobile and geographic numbers, with approved transactions completing within a maximum of seven working days.^[96] In 2022, regulations expanded to include non-geographic fixed numbers (e.g., 086x series), allowing porting to any licensed provider without service disruption, though full interoperability between fixed and mobile networks remains technically constrained and criticized for incompleteness despite formal availability.^[97]^[98] As of 2024, ITU data confirms South Africa's requirement for fixed operator portability, distinguishing it from most African peers.^[99] Elsewhere, fixed LNP adoption is negligible; for instance, major markets like Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, and Ghana have implemented MNP—Nigeria in 2013, Kenya and Ghana in 2011, and Egypt in 2008—but lack widespread fixed-line portability due to minimal fixed infrastructure and regulatory emphasis on mobile competition.^[100]^[95] In these countries, fixed-line services represent under 2% of total connections, reducing incentives for LNP investment amid challenges like fragmented numbering plans and interoperability hurdles.^[94] Overall, African LNP progress lags global standards, with ITU surveys indicating requirements for fixed portability in fewer than 10% of responding nations, hindering fixed-market competition where it exists.^[94]

Americas

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated local number portability (LNP) under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to foster competition among telecommunications providers by allowing subscribers to retain their telephone numbers when switching carriers. Wireline LNP was initially implemented on December 31, 1998, coordinated through regional Number Portability Administration Centers (NPACs) that manage database queries for routing ported numbers via Location Routing Numbers (LRNs). Wireless LNP (WLNP) followed, becoming available in the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in November 2003 and nationwide by May 2004, enabling seamless transitions between wireline and wireless services within the same geographic rate area.^[5]^[21] Canada's LNP system, overseen by the Canadian Local Number Portability Consortium (CLNPC), permits subscribers to port numbers between service providers within defined Local Interconnection Regions (LIRs), supporting both fixed and mobile services. Wireless number portability was rolled out on March 14, 2007, across most regions, with ongoing expansions such as the May 2025 activation in certain Northwest Territories exchanges. The shared North American NPAC infrastructure facilitates cross-border consistency between the U.S. and Canada, though ports remain geographically restricted to avoid inter-regional numbering conflicts.^[101]^[102] In Latin America, LNP adoption has been uneven, with Mexico pioneering regional implementation as the first country to operationalize both mobile and fixed portability, establishing a framework that later reduced processing times to 24 hours by November 2014. Brazil launched number portability in September 2008 for fixed and mobile lines, achieving nationwide coverage by February 2009, with a capped user fee of R$4 (approximately $0.70 USD) and cumulative ports exceeding 25 million by 2014. Fixed LNP is also available in Argentina, Chile, and Peru, though not in all countries, such as Colombia and Costa Rica, reflecting regulatory priorities focused more on mobile than local fixed-line competition.^[103]^[104]^[105]^[106]

Asia

Hong Kong implemented fixed-line number portability on July 1, 1995, aligning with the liberalization of its fixed telephone market, making it the first Asian jurisdiction to offer such service. Mobile number portability followed on March 1, 1999, managed by the Office of the Communications Authority through a centralized system that has since handled porting requests within two working days at no cost to consumers.^[107]^[108] Singapore introduced mobile number portability on June 13, 2008, after years of preparation including a 2003 working group and a 2006 request for proposals for a centralized database, enabling one-day porting across operators. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) oversees fixed number portability through guidelines requiring porting within specified timelines, with operators mandated to complete fixed-line transfers in five working days as of 2019.^[109]^[110]^[111] Japan launched mobile number portability on October 24, 2006, permitting subscribers to switch carriers while retaining numbers, though uptake remained limited due to high switching costs including SIM locks and procedural delays until reforms in 2023 simplified the process via "MNP One-Stop" for faster transfers. Fixed-line portability has been available but less emphasized amid dominant mobile usage.^[112]^[113] South Korea enabled mobile number portability starting January 1, 2004, with the Korea Telecommunications Operators Association coordinating a system that supports rapid switches, contributing to competitive market dynamics evidenced by high porting volumes, such as over 90,000 transfers in five days following 2025 regulatory changes repealing device subsidies.^[114] In India, mobile number portability rolled out initially in Haryana on November 25, 2010, expanding nationwide by January 20, 2011, under Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulations, with recent 2024 amendments imposing a seven-day wait for unique porting codes to curb fraud while maintaining three-day porting timelines. Fixed-line portability remains limited, focused primarily on intra-circle switches.^[115]^[116] China's mobile number portability faced delays due to operator resistance and technical hurdles, with nationwide implementation on November 10, 2019, following pilots in select provinces from 2010; fixed-line portability operates separately but with lower adoption amid state-dominated markets.^[117] Malaysia activated mobile number portability on October 1, 2008, fostering competition, while fixed-line portability was planned but implemented later, with ongoing efforts as of 2022 to streamline processes similar to mobile. Other nations like Pakistan (2007) and Thailand (2010) have mobile-focused systems, but fixed-line adoption lags regionally, often constrained by infrastructure costs and lower demand for landline retention.^[118]^[119]

Europe

In the European Union, geographic number portability for fixed public telephone services and service portability for mobile services are required under the Universal Service Directive (2002/22/EC), obligating member states to enable end-users to retain national telephone numbers when changing providers without incurring unreasonable costs or delays.^[120] This framework, aimed at promoting competition post-market liberalization, was amended by Directive 2009/136/EC to mandate cost-oriented pricing, prohibition of practices discouraging portability, and completion of the porting process within one working day, with service loss not exceeding one working day.^[120] The European Electronic Communications Code (Directive (EU) 2018/1972, effective from December 2018 and requiring transposition by member states by December 2020) reinforces these requirements, specifying that numbers must be activated on the explicitly agreed date within the shortest possible timeframe, with compensation rules for undue delays.^[121] Implementation of fixed number portability was targeted for completion by January 1, 2000, under earlier EU directives, with early adopters like the United Kingdom introducing it in 1997.^[120] Mobile number portability followed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, starting with the UK and Netherlands in 1999, expanding to Denmark and Sweden in 2001, and reaching later entrants like Estonia in 2005; by mid-decade, all EU member states had deployed it, though with national variations in rollout.^[122] Portability rates differ significantly, influenced by ease of process and market dynamics—for example, Finland recorded 20.8% of mobile subscribers porting numbers by 2005, versus 0.6% in Germany, correlating with faster processing and lower barriers in the former.^[122] Technically, European implementations often utilize advanced methods such as Intelligent Network (IN) solutions or Central Reference Databases (CRDBs) for real-time query-based routing, reducing post-porting variable costs compared to simpler onward-routing approaches.^[120] Porting durations have progressively shortened under regulatory pressure, with many countries achieving same-day activation and downtime limited to 2.5 hours on average (ranging from 10 minutes in Belgium to seven hours elsewhere as of 2011), though pre-EECC times could extend to 5-7 days in cases like the UK or Germany.^[120]^[122] Consumer fees, where applied, are capped (e.g., €9 maximum in the Netherlands, €22.50-€29.95 in Germany circa 2005), but many operators waive them to compete, aligning with EU cost-orientation rules.^[122] The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) supports harmonization through guidelines on switching and portability, emphasizing their role in fostering competition while addressing cross-border inconsistencies.^[123] Despite uniform mandates, national variations persist in enforcement and efficiency, with EECC transposition leading to updated rules in countries like Portugal (one working day standard) and Ireland (compensation for delays).^[124] These measures have demonstrably increased churn rates and market fluidity, though challenges include administrative delays and fraud risks mitigated by validation protocols.^[122] Non-EU European countries, via CEPT recommendations, often align voluntarily with EU standards to extend benefits.^[120]

Middle East and Oceania

In the United Arab Emirates, mobile number portability (MNP) was launched on September 11, 2013, by the Telecommunications and Digital Government Regulatory Authority (TDRA), enabling subscribers to retain numbers prefixed with 050, 055, 052, 054, 058, or 056 when switching operators.^[125] The process is recipient-led, requiring the new operator to handle the request without direct involvement from the donor operator beyond validation.^[126] In Saudi Arabia, MNP has been implemented as a facility allowing mobile customers to retain their numbers upon switching network providers, regulated by the Communications, Space & Technology Commission (CST).^[127] The service supports carrier switches across major operators like STC, Mobily, and Zain, with procedures including documentation submission and a typical timeline of up to seven days for completion as of 2025.^[128] Oman has similarly established number portability, contributing to regional competition in telecommunications services.^[129] In Australia, local number portability (LNP) processes were first standardized in 1999 under the Communications Alliance's ACIF C540 code, facilitating the transfer of geographic numbers (prefixed 02, 03, 07, 08), mobile numbers (04), and freephone/local rate services (13, 1300, 1800) between carriers.^[130] The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) oversees compliance via the Inbound Number Portability Code, ensuring ports occur without service interruption for eligible numbers, including prepaid mobiles.^[131]^[132] New Zealand regulates local and mobile number portability (LMNP) under the Telecommunications Act, with determinations mandating service providers to support number retention during switches, extending previous frameworks that expired in December 2021.^[133] Implementation emphasizes operational procedures for both fixed and wireless services, promoting consumer choice amid a competitive market dominated by providers like Spark, Vodafone, and 2degrees.^[133]

References

[1]
47 CFR Part 52 Subpart C -- Number Portability - eCFR
(k) The term location portability means the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of ...
[2]
Porting: Keeping Your Phone Number When You Change Providers
Nov 17, 2023 · FCC rules require simple ports, which generally do not involve more than one line or more complex adjustments to telephone switching equipment, ...More Consumer Information · Getting The Porting Process... · Porting Is Not Always...<|separator|>
[3]
[DOC] _ - Federal Communications Commission
On June 27, 1996, the FCC ordered the phased implementation of Local Number Portability (LNP). ... This specification was developed primarily from a wireline ...
[4]
Telephone Number Portability - Federal Register
Dec 10, 2003 · In addition, this document examines whether to reduce the duration of the porting interval for ports between wireless and wireline carriers.
[5]
Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP)
Wireless local number portability (WLNP) allows wireless subscribers to change service providers within a given location while retaining the same phone number.Are carriers allowed to charge... · How long will the porting...
[6]
[PDF] Telephone Number Portability
Local number portability also helps ensure efficient use and uniform administration of numbering resources. In this order we take several steps to ensure that ...
[7]
Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements
Jun 22, 2010 · We further clarify that the porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal ports is one business day, while the porting ...<|separator|>
[8]
[PDF] Number Portability - ITU
OPERATION, NUMBERING, ROUTING AND MOBILE SERVICES. INTERNATIONAL OPERATION. Definitions. E.100–E.103. General provisions concerning Administrations.
[9]
[PDF] North American Numbering Council Nationwide Number Portability ...
The FCC currently limits the geographic scope of an LRN to a Local Access and Transport Area (“LATA”), thereby restricting the ability of consumers to port a ...
[10]
[PDF] ITU-T Rec. Series Q Supplement 3 (05/98) Number portability
May 15, 1998 · With Location Portability this means that after a time all number series in the portability domain could exist in all local exchanges serving ...
[11]
What is LNP? - Number Portability Administration Center
Benefits of Local Number Portability Enables a consumer to keep the same telephone number when changing to another service provider. Encourages technology ...
[12]
The Benefits And Uses Of Local Number Portability - Service Objects
Sep 10, 2015 · Local Number Portability (LNP) was introduced to the telecom industry as a means of fighting the monopolistic practices of phone service ...
[13]
[PDF] Telecommunications Act of 1996
`(46) NUMBER PORTABILITY- The term `number portability' means the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing ...
[14]
47 U.S. Code § 251 - Interconnection - Law.Cornell.Edu
The duty to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.
[15]
TELEPHONE NUMBER PORTABILITY.
Description. Adopted rules that will permit both residential and business consumers to retain their telephone numbers when switching from one local service ...Missing: telecommunications | Show results with:telecommunications
[16]
The Telecom Act's Phone-y Deregulation - Brookings Institution
In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress for the first time required states to allow competition in local telephone service. Before 1996 all but a few ...
[17]
[PDF] Federal Communications Commission 96-325
... FIRST REPORT AND ORDER. Adopted: August 1, 1996. Released: August 8, 1996. By the Commission: Chairman Hundt and Commissioners Quello, Ness, and Chong issuing ...
[18]
Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Congress.gov
... telecommunications service. ``(46) Number portability.--The term `number portability' means the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain ...
[19]
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/uncategorised/8520-gc18review/statement/summary-and-annexes/numberportability.pdf
[20]
[PDF] 43 The Crucial Role of Local Number Portability in Today's ...
Implementation of local number portability means that all telecommunications service providers will have to compete with one another on the basis of quality, ...
[21]
[PDF] An Overview of Wireless Number Portability
Feb 5, 2025 · Number Portability for the wireless industry was initially scheduled for June 30, 1999. Responding to issues raised by wireless providers, the ...
[22]
About the NPAC - Number Portability Administration Center
The Canadian NPAC has been administered by CIS-Lockheed Martin, and then Neustar, since its inception in 1996. Read more about the NPAC, including why it exists ...
[23]
Wireless number portability begins today - Canada.ca
Mar 14, 2007 · “The Commission would like to acknowledge the industry's commitment of time and effort to successfully meet the March 14 implementation date.”Missing: fixed | Show results with:fixed
[24]
[PDF] Industry Code ACIF C540:2007 Local Number Portability
an implementation date of 1 January 2000 for the provision of full Local Number. Portability. To support the requirement for industry to meet its obligation to ...
[25]
Directive 98/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ...
Oct 3, 1998 · National regulatory authorities shall encourage the earliest possible introduction of operator number portability whereby subscribers who so ...
[26]
EUR-Lex - 32002L0022 - EN - European Union
(40) Number portability is a key facilitator of consumer choice and effective competition in a competitive telecommunications environment such that end-users ...
[27]
Mobile Number Portability Market Size, Share, And Trends Analysis
May 22, 2025 · Its size is projected to increase from $2.14 billion in 2024 to $2.27 billion in 2025, marking a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.8%. The ...
[28]
Number Portability Market Research Report 2033
As per our latest market intelligence, the Global Number Portability market size was valued at $6.8 billion in 2024, and is forecasted to hit $13.2 billion ...
[29]
[PDF] Local-and-Cellular-Telephone-Number-Portability-Services-Review ...
Oct 9, 2025 · These developments can mean that it may no longer be necessary to mandate access to a regulated wholesale service. 1.4 As such, the Act requires ...
[30]
Number portability statistics for the third quarter of 2025
Oct 7, 2025 · In fixed networks, a total of 60,170 numbers were ported in the third quarter of 2025, which is over 1,200 numbers less than in the previous ...Missing: local developments 2020-2025<|separator|>
[31]
The Canadian NPAC - Number Portability Administration Center
Number portability is a global trend and has been implemented in more than 54 countries and is a symbol of telecom market openness in a country. Number ...
[32]
News | NPAC - Number Portability Administration Center
Companies can now use phone number porting data as part of their fraud mitigation and risk assessment strategies. Who's it for: Telecom operators, large ...
[33]
Number Porting for Business in 2025 - Viirtue
Oct 1, 2025 · Get informed about number porting rules, timelines, and tips to ensure a smooth transition between phone service providers.Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
[34]
Mobile Number Portability Market | Size, Share, Growth, Trends,
Sep 26, 2024 · The demand for Mobile Number Portability continues to grow, driven by both consumer and regulatory forces. Consumers, particularly in ...
[35]
[PDF] Technical Report on a Nationwide Number Portability Study - ATIS
This Technical Report outlines the characteristics of the current U.S. local number portability implementation based on use of the Location Routing Number (LRN) ...
[36]
[PDF] DOC-365873A1.pdf - Federal Communications Commission
Jul 28, 2020 · The LNP architecture relies upon the use of location routing numbers (“LRNs”) which identify the Service Provider's switch that serves the ...
[37]
Local Number Portability - CenturyLink
LNP uses a Location Routing Number (LRN) architecture, where each switch has a unique LRN. The LRN identifies the switch, not the phone number. Ported numbers ...
[38]
How LNP Works - Number Portability Administration Center
**Location (Geographic) Portability: Allows users to change from one geographic area to another while retaining their telephone number.Missing: scope | Show results with:scope
[39]
Number Portability Administration Center | NPAC
NPAC is the country's only authorized source of number portability data, managed by iconectiv, and is the largest system of ported telephone numbers.Register · News · Contact · NPAC LoginMissing: growth statistics
[40]
2 LSMS Overview - Oracle Help Center
The LSMS is a secure and reliable Local Number Portability (LNP) system that enables customers to administer their LNP data in a central place.Missing: INE | Show results with:INE
[41]
3 Oracle Communications LSMS – Licensing Notes
The LSMS provides these functions: Receiving LNP data from NPAC SMS; Distributing data to the Oracle Communications EAGLE LNP Application Processor.Missing: INE | Show results with:INE
[42]
[PDF] NPAC SMS INTEROPERABLE INTERFACE SPECIFICATION NANC ...
versions in their Local SMS database due to the fact that some LSMS implementations may choose to retain old subscription versions in their database.Missing: architecture INE
[43]
[PDF] local number portability administration working group (lnpa wg ...
Jan 17, 2005 · Under the LRN method, a unique ten-digit number is assigned to each central office switch. The routing information for end users who have ported ...
[44]
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-52/subpart-C/section-52.35
[45]
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-52/subpart-C/section-52.23
[46]
Fax Number Porting | Transfer Fax Number | FAXAGE.com
Porting a fax number generally takes 10 business days and there is a $20.00 one-time charge. Porting process notes. If you would like to transfer an existing ...
[47]
Porting Your Number to SRFax
There is a one-time fee of $25.00 to port a local number over to SRFax ... If you previously used this number for a fax machine, DSL service, a point ...
[48]
Port Fax Numbers to eFax with Ease
Port your fax number to eFax and keep your existing fax number. Enjoy online faxing with e-signatures, mobile access, and cloud storage.
[49]
https://pagersdirect.net/pages/can-i-transfer-my-pager-number-to-a-cell-phone-or-landline
[50]
POTS And ISDN Phased Out On August 2, 2022 | Alvarez Tech
Aug 2, 2022 · On August 2, 2022, POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) and ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) ended. POTS was the original phone service ...
[51]
Local number portability and local loop competition. Critical issues
This article describes these three types of portability and then examines the implications for local loop competition of specific LNP issues: implementation ...
[52]
[PDF] WIRELESS LocAL NUMBER PORTABILITY AND ITS EFFECT - CORE
WLNP is expected to lead to greater competition and higher churn rates within the telecommuni- cations industry. In light of these factors, some wireless carri-.
[53]
Nationwide Number Portability; Numbering Policies for Modern ...
Nov 27, 2017 · This local number portability (LNP) benefits consumers and promotes competition. But consumers cannot uniformly keep their traditional ...Missing: global | Show results with:global
[54]
[PDF] Wireless Local Number Portability: New Rules Will Have Broad Effects
This. iBrief provides a summary of the new rules, looks at the history and litigation, and predicts how increasing wireless options will benefit consumers and ...
[55]
[DOC] FCC REPORTS ON STATUS OF LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY...
Mr. Muleta stated that the introduction of wireless LNP has stimulated competition and increased competitive pressure on wireless carriers to provide quality ...
[56]
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLEC) Market: Industry
CLECs are projected to account for 20-25% of all terminated telephone lines in the United States. Currently, there are about 15,000 CLECs in the United States.<|separator|>
[57]
The Economic Impact of Wireless Number Portability - ResearchGate
Aug 10, 2025 · PDF | This paper examines the price response of wireless carriers to the introduction of number portability in the U.S. I find that wireless ...
[58]
[PDF] Research papers Measuring the effects of mobile number portability ...
Mobile number portability (MNP) reduces average prices when switching is rapid (less than five days), but not with slower switching times.
[59]
[PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-216 1
Thus, the advent of wireless LNP has indeed increased ... part because competition among U.S. mobile carriers has resulted in much greater prevalence of bucket.
[60]
[PDF] Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers
I have consistently supported local number portability because it allows consumers to choose a cheaper or more innovative service. I have also consistently ...<|separator|>
[61]
[PDF] In the Matter of Telephone Number Portability ) CC Docket No. 95 ...
7 See First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemnlcinp. CC Docket No. 95-116, FCC. 96-286 at 5 31 (rel. July 2, 1996). 8 See ii at ft 28-30 ...
[62]
[PDF] High level economics of Number portability (NP) - ITU
May 19, 2011 · • In terms of number portability (NP) – the consumer benefits of. NP should outweigh the costs of implementing NP. 19 May 2011, Chisinau.
[63]
[PDF] Technical Report on a Nationwide Number Portability Study
This Technical Report outlines the characteristics of the current U.S. local number portability implementation based on use of the Location Routing Number (LRN) ...
[64]
Local Number Portability - Channel Futures
This service is referred to as local number portability (LNP). Although great for competition, LNP introduces significant technical challenges. ... Even if there ...Missing: reliability | Show results with:reliability<|separator|>
[65]
Local Number Portability And How To Troubleshoot - Teraquant
May 5, 2021 · Local Number Portability (LNP) enables end users to keep their telephone number when switching from one telecommunications service provider to another.Missing: mechanisms | Show results with:mechanisms
[66]
2 LNP Database Synchronization Overview - Oracle Help Center
This chapter presents an overview of the various methods available, depending on the features installed, for synchronizing the LNP database on the network ...
[67]
[PDF] LNP Database Synchronization Manual - LSMS with Eagle STP
• A hardware failure occurs at the system where the network element's LNP database resides. • Software that controls LNP databases has been stopped. When the ...
[68]
[PDF] north american numbering council lnp architecture & administrative ...
On June 27, 1996, the FCC ordered the phased implementation of Local Number Portability (LNP). A subsequent First Memorandum Opinion And Order On ...
[69]
LNP Best Practices / NPIF / Home
Number portability queries should be performed prior to Home Location Register (HLR) queries for call originations on a wireless Mobile Switching Center (MSC).Missing: core schemes
[70]
[DOC] Carrier Requests for Clarification of Wireless-Wireless Porting Issues...
As the porting framework is tested, it is possible that some customers may experience delays in the porting between carriers and other potential problems may ...
[71]
Local Number Portability Signaled Over SIP And How To Troubleshoot
Nov 8, 2022 · In this No Fluff Tech Tip, we show you how to troubleshoot and verify LNP is working well over SIP.
[72]
TRS, LNP, NANPA, ITSP - Universal Service Administrative Company
The shared costs of long-term number portability attributable to a regional database shall be recovered from all telecommunications carriers and interconnected ...
[73]
Wholesale | Local Number Portability (LNP) Query Service
Jan 30, 2017 · Rates · $0.002581 for default queries performed at the Tandem level* · $0.002972 for default queries performed at the End Office level* · $0.000747 ...
[74]
47 CFR § 52.33 - Recovery of carrier-specific costs directly related to ...
Incumbent local exchange carriers may recover their carrier-specific costs directly related to providing long-term number portability.
[75]
Explanation of Telephone Charges - TeleMedia
The Local Number Portability (LNP) charge is a fixed, monthly charge established by the FCC to allow local companies to recover some of our costs to provide ...
[76]
[PDF] The Economics of Number Portability: Switching Costs and Two-Part ...
The cost of implementing a reduction in S, i.e., greater portability, will be reflected in the marginal costs of production for incumbent and entrant.
[77]
[PDF] final report on number portability for mobile networks
Apr 4, 2000 · This study has been prepared by ETO for ECTRA. The study concerns regulatory issues surrounding the provision of Mobile Number Portability (MNP ...
[78]
[PDF] FCC ADOPTS RULES TO PROTECT CONSUMERS' CELL PHONE ...
Nov 15, 2023 · SIM swapping scams and port-out fraud are serious consumer privacy and data protection threats. In addition, data breaches can increase the risk ...
[79]
Cell Phone Fraud | Federal Communications Commission
Sep 23, 2025 · If successful, the phone number will be ported to a different mobile device controlled by the scammer. A bad actor may also try to physically ...
[80]
[PDF] October 25, 2023 FCC FACT SHEET* Protecting Consumers from ...
Oct 25, 2023 · Adopt rules that will enable customers to act to prevent and address fraudulent SIM changes and number ports, including requiring wireless ...
[81]
[PDF] FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY
Dec 11, 2023 · Risks Associated with SIM Fraud This fraudulent activity primarily occurs through two means. In the first type of scheme, a threat actor ...
[82]
[PDF] A REVIEW OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL NUMBER ...
Sep 29, 2014 · In addition to the potential for disruption, the penetration of the Local Number Portability. Enhanced Analytic Platform (“LEAP”)—an online ...
[83]
[PDF] Protecting Consumers from SIM Swap and
Nov 15, 2023 · Customer Proprietary Network Information (“CPNI”) and Local Number Portability (“LNP”) rules to protect against SIM swap and port-out fraud.
[84]
8 Common Number Porting Issues and How To Solve Them
Rating 5.0 (2) Mar 19, 2024 · Common issues include information mismatch, incorrect PIN/password, missing/incorrect documentation, and a disconnected number.
[85]
Why Does Porting a Phone Number Take So Long?
Feb 5, 2024 · Porting takes 7-10 days on average. Delays can occur if documentation is inaccurate or incomplete, and the process can get caught in a loop.
[86]
7 Most Common Reasons Your Port Order is Rejected - Bandwidth
Nov 17, 2020 · 1. Address mismatch · 2. Incorrect business name · 3. Incorrect authorized name · 4. Incorrect/missing account number · 5. Incorrect Billing ...
[87]
The Economic Impact of Wireless Number Portability - IDEAS/RePEc
My main empirical finding is that wireless prices decreased in response to number portability, but not uniformly across all plans. Average prices for the plans ...
[88]
[PDF] An examination of numerical portability in mobile communication in ...
MNP allows customers to switch mobile providers while retaining their phone number, thereby reducing switching costs and potentially enhancing competition. Our ...
[89]
[PDF] Measuring the Benefits of Mobile Number Portability
Jul 27, 2006 · We find that MNP reduces average prices and encourages churn (a proxy for switching) when the switching process is rapid (e.g. less than 5 days) ...
[90]
[PDF] A simple model to study the Mobile Number Portability (MNP) impact ...
If the gap is considerably positive, then customer is willing to change the operator and the overall churn rate increases. It means that one operator is ...
[91]
[PDF] Number Portability for Consumers: Taking Your Wireless Number ...
Number portability allows consumers to switch wireless carriers within the same area while keeping their existing phone number.
[92]
Carriers Aim to Kill Number Portability - Los Angeles Times
Jan 16, 2002 · In a petition filed in July with the FCC, Verizon Wireless asked federal regulators to scrap the “local number portability” requirement.
[93]
Lawmakers side with industry, oppose wireless local number ...
Feb 21, 2002 · “It is not prudent for the commission to require wireless carriers to comply with thousand-block pooling and number portability simultaneously.
[94]
https://datahub.itu.int/data/?e=AF&i=100097
[95]
Africa's Experience with Mobile Number Portability: Progress and ...
Aug 19, 2025 · The National Communications Authority (NCA) reported 64,657 successful number portings in the first few years, with competition driving lower ...Missing: status | Show results with:status
[96]
Numbering - Independent Communications Authority of South Africa
Currently only mobile and geographic numbers can be ported. An approved porting transaction takes a maximum of seven working days to complete from the day a ...
[97]
South Africa: Number portability regulations come into effect
Mar 8, 2022 · The Number Portability Regulations apply to licensed operators with numbers allocated to them by ICASA in terms of the Numbering Plan Regulations, 2016.
[98]
Full Number Portability Remains a Pipe Dream | ISPA
Dec 15, 2021 · The imminent arrival of 2022 will mark the 16th year since the incomplete introduction of number portability in South Africa.
[99]
https://datahub.itu.int/data/?e=ZAF&i=100097
[100]
[PDF] Assessment of Mobile Number Portability (MNP) in Nigeria
Abstract – Mobile number portability (MNP) introduced by the Nigerian telecommunication commission (NCC) allows a subscriber to change his/her network ...
[101]
CLNPC - Canadian Local Number Portability Consortium‎
Local Number Portability (LNP) enables landline and wireless subscribers to retain their telephone number(s) when they change service providers.
[102]
Local Number Portability, Roll-Out Notification for Northwest Territory
May 8, 2025 · Number portability is opened in the exchanges listed below for both local exchange and wireless services. Telephone Exchanges with Number ...
[103]
[PDF] best practices for number portability success - iconectiv
The European Union (EU) mandated its member states to support number portability (Directive 2002/22/EC, Article 30) in July 2003, although many EU countries ...
[104]
Number Portability - teleco.com.br
Number Portability for Fixed Telephones and Cellulars was implemented from Sep/08 to Feb/09. Since Mar/09, portability is available in the whole country.
[105]
Mexico: Country Regulation Overview – 2025 - Omdia - Informa
May 19, 2025 · In November 2014, the IFT approved a new framework, reducing the time frame for portability to 24 hours. Number portability in Mexico is a ...
[106]
Mobile number portability is widely implemented in the Americas ...
May 25, 2023 · Fixed number portability is available in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and the United States. Chile and Canada implemented a ...
[107]
Mobile Number Portability in Hong Kong
Jul 21, 2023 · B. When will MNP service be available? All mobile network operators in Hong Kong have been provided the MNP service from 1 March 1999 onwards.Missing: implementation | Show results with:implementation
[108]
Mobile Number Portability - Office of the Communications Authority
Aug 8, 2025 · Mobile Number Portability · 6G Global Summit 2025 Successfully Concluded · 5G Services · Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership ...
[109]
S'pore to start mobile number portability in June - Reuters
Apr 15, 2008 · Mobile phones users in Singapore will be able to switch service providers without changing their numbers from June 13, the Singapore ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[110]
Fixed Number Portability Guidelines - IMDA
The Fixed Number Portability Guidelines serve as a crucial guide for both telecom service providers and consumers under IMDA regulations.
[111]
MCI's response to PQ on porting of telephone numbers
Apr 1, 2019 · Operators are also required to complete fixed-line number porting for consumers within five working days.
[112]
In brief: telecoms regulation in Japan - Lexology
Aug 5, 2020 · Mobile number portability was introduced on 24 October 2006, and number portability between mobile phones and personal handy-phone systems was ...
[113]
[PDF] Mobile Number Portability to Start on October 24
K.K. will implement mobile number portability on October 24, 2006. ... on 1 October 2006, is a leading mobile operator in Japan with over 15 ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[114]
Mobile Number Portability | Korea Telecommunications Operators ...
MNP is a system that allows mobile phone subscribers to keep their existing phone numbers even if they change operators, preventing customers' inconvenience ...
[115]
Mobile number portability service from November 25 - The Hindu
Nov 1, 2010 · “The launch of MNP services will start from Haryana licensed service area (telecom circle) on November 25, 2010,” the Department of Telecom (DOT) ...
[116]
New Mobile Number Portability rules to come into effect from ...
Jun 29, 2024 · Effective July 1, 2024, the new rules mandate a seven-day waiting period for issuing Unique Porting Codes (UPCs).
[117]
China opens mobile number portability despite carrier resistance
Nov 27, 2019 · China's telecommunications ministry launched Wednesday the country's long-awaited mobile number portability program that allows mobile users ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[118]
Why Malaysia Needs to Improve Its Number Portability Processes
May 10, 2022 · Mobile number portability (MNP) was implemented in Malaysia in 2008, enabling customers to switch mobile service providers while keeping their existing phone ...
[119]
Why is Malaysia taking so long to implement Fixed Number ...
Apr 27, 2022 · It's almost 14 years since Mobile Number Portability (MNP) was implemented in Malaysia and it was seen as a game changer.Missing: date | Show results with:date<|separator|>
[120]
[PDF] Number Portability in Europe - ITU
May 20, 2011 · EU Directives are guidelines to national legislation. – EU Member States must implement these in to their national legislation.Missing: local | Show results with:local
[121]
Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the ...
The porting of numbers and their subsequent activation shall be carried out within the shortest possible time on the date explicitly agreed with the end-user.
[122]
[PDF] Mobile Number Portability in Europe - EconStor
ingdom and the Netherlands first implemented MNP in Europe in 1999. Countries such as pain (2000), Sweden and Denmark (all 2001), Belgium, Italy, Germany and ...
[123]
https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/all-topics/switching-providers
[124]
[PDF] Switching and Number Portability – End-User Compensation
Jan 8, 2024 · ... port a number to a new provider, that number shall be activated within one working day from the date agreed with the end-user. (c) In the ...
[125]
Numbering Resources Management - TDRA
Sep 11, 2025 · The Mobile Number Portability Service was launched in 2013 and applies to all mobile numbers starting with the digits (050,055,052,054,058,056).
[126]
UAE welcomes mobile number portability - Al Tamimi & Company
Porting mobile numbers in the UAE will be a 'recipient-led' process. This means that if a subscriber wants to change to a new operator, all they will need to do ...
[127]
Numbering
Number portability is a facility whereby mobile customers can keep their numbers when changing from one network service provider to another. The Commission aims ...Numbering · Zone Codes · Number Portability
[128]
How to Transfer Your Mobile Number (MNP) in Saudi Arabia - Giraffy
Jul 25, 2025 · Mobile Number Portability (MNP) in Saudi Arabia enables subscribers to maintain their phone numbers while switching between carriers, ...
[129]
[PDF] best practices for number portability success - iconectiv
In Asia, Hong Kong and Singapore were the first to implement number portability, followed by implementations in Japan and Malaysia. Mexico was the first Latin ...Missing: line | Show results with:line
[130]
Anatomy of Local Number Portability in Australia - Tronic
Oct 26, 2023 · The Local Number Portability (LNP) standard was first defined by Comms Alliance in 1999 in ACIF C540 and defines the process of moving numbers between Carriage ...Missing: implementation | Show results with:implementation
[131]
Port a customer's phone number - ACMA
Sep 11, 2025 · The Inbound Number Portability Code sets out the procedures for porting freephone numbers (1800) and local rate numbers (13, 1300) between ...
[132]
Keep or port your phone number - ACMA
Aug 12, 2025 · Numbers you can port · local number (starting with 02, 03, 07 and 08) · mobile number (starting with 04), including for a prepaid service ...
[133]
Local and mobile number portability - Commerce Commission
Local and mobile number portability (LMNP) are both regulated under the Telecommunications Act. The previous December 2016 determination expired in December ...