[arin-ppml] Legacy Space authority

[Owen DeLong]

On May 5, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

>
>> Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 15:20:50 -0500
>> From: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>
>> To: <ppml at arin.net>
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Legacy Space authority
>>
>>>> Ah, but the telephone issue has already been decided, and telco's  
>>>> are
>>
>>>> required to let you keep your number and area code..
>>
>>> FALSE TO FACT.  _Read_ the document you cite.  I quote:
>>>  "If you are moving from one geographic area to another, however,  
>>> you
>> may
>>>   not be able to take your number with you.
>>
>> Yes, this is true.  If you move from one area code to another at  
>> least
>> within the same geographic area you will be able to take the number.
>
> I say again, "FALSE TO FACT".
>
>  a) that 7-digit number may already be in use in the destination NPA.
>
>  b) the porting rules require *LOCAL* number portability only.   
> that's why
>     it is called "Local Number Portability", aka LNP.
>
>  c) "local" is defined as "within the same rate center", which, by  
> definition
>     means it is restricted to a single area-code.  The concept of  
> "rate-
>     centers" was developed -before- 'overlay' area-codes existed,  
> and there
>     is a built-in assumption of a hierarchical structure, where a  
> rate center
>     is part of a single area-code only.  This can result in two rate  
> centers,
>     in different area codes, being 'zero miles' apart.
>
This is not true.  For example, 530 and 916 are the same rate center.

Also, 310, 213, and, I believe a couple of others are in the same rate  
center.

These are what is known as "overlay area codes", and, in those  
locations,
you can have LNP even if all your neighbors have a different area code
so long as you stay within the bounds of the rate center.

>> Also, the statement you included says "you may not be able to", which
>> infers "you may be able to"..  What it says to my reading is that  
>> if it
>> is technically possible to port the number then you will be able to  
>> port
>> the number.
>
> What you read, and how it is interpreted in the real world, by the  
> people
> who do it, is different.  :)
>
> If the 'new' carrier does not have a physical point of presence in the
> same rate center at the C.O. of the 'old' carrier that the number is
> currently served out of, the number is *NOT* transferable to that  
> company.
> Don't take my word for it, ask the FCC.   <grin>
>
True, but, finding a major cellular carrier that doesn't have a physical
presence in your rate center isn't exactly easy in most cases.
Then, once you've moved it from land-line to cellular, you can,  
generally
move it anywhere in the country for all practical purposes.

> In theory, it may be "possible" in some circumstances, but the laws  
> and
> FCC regulations do -not- require it.  Since it is not 'required', it  
> is,
> in virtually all instances 'administratively denied'.  When a thing  
> is _not_
> required, you have no recourse if the other party "chooses not to"  
> do it.
>
See my previous paragraph.  I know a number of people who have used
this as a workaround.

>> People are moving from state to state and taking their cel numbers  
>> with
>> them.  This is even happening across a span of more than one state.
>
> No, they are _NOT_.  They are 'roaming' within the cellular network.  
> The
> physical address for the service (where the call is handed off to  
> the PSTN)
> remains unchanged.  If a person with a (208) area cell-phone moves to
> Washington, D.C., and keeps their old number, when they're at 8th  
> and I,
> and somebody calls them from 4th and K, it is billed as a long  
> distance call
> _to_Idaho_.  In fact, the call is _routed_ to Idaho over the PSTN,  
> and then
> back-hauled to where the cell customer is over the wireless  
> carrier's private
> bandwidth.  (there _may_ be 'special case' handling if the calling  
> party is
> a cellular caller with service from the same provider as the called  
> party uses.
> Repeat, "may" be, not necessarily 'is'.)
>
Who cares.  Long distance within the CONUS is free if you aren't  
voluntarily
paying stupid rates these days, so, what does it matter how much it is
backhauled?  The extra 20ms doesn't really seem to affect call quality.

> It all has to do with how distance-based billing (originally long- 
> distance)
> charges are calculated.
>
Well, had would be a better phrase.  These days, I know very few people
other than on business land-lines who pay for long-distance calls within
the CONUS.  Most business pay low enough rates for them that they simply
don't care about the costs.

It used to be that long distance charges mattered.  Today, they have  
dropped
to a level where they are mostly regarded as noise, and, indeed, I  
think mostly
go to pay for the cost of metering them and producing the bills more  
than
to maintaining the actual network.
>
> You can "port" a phone number only within the rate-center where the  
> number
> is billed.  And then only within the same NPA ("area code" to the  
> average
> person).  The latter restriction prohibits multiple people holding  
> the same
> 7-digit string in different NPAs from moving into a single vicinity  
> and
> fighting about who has to give up 'their' number.
>
Right, but, in rate centers with multiple NPAs, you can move your  
NPANXXSFXX
anywhere within that rate center without changing your NPA.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080505/44b3bc77/attachment.htm>