Number Portability and Telecommunications Liberalization

CANTO 2005

Agenda

Introduction to Number Portability

National Number Portability Design Issues

Case Studies

Tactics for a Successful Roll-out

Introduction to Number Portability

Goals and Design Basics

Number Portability Goals

Enable customer to keep their phone numbers while switching from one service provider to another

Principle #1 – The customer owns the telephone number

Promote competition through unfettered consumer choice Principle #2 – Consumers should have minimal inconvenience in

porting a number

Encourage investment in local telecommunications infrastructure through level competitive playing field

Principle #3 – Regulations should ensure equal opportunity for network operators

Encourage migration to new technologies with consumer-friendly migration paths

Principle #4 – Number portability mechanics should be available for both inter-operator competition, and for intra-operator service migration

National Roll-out Design Basics

Determine call routing mechanics

Predominate method is “Direct Routing”

Terminating network element is determined by the “N-1” operator

Look-up performed in a complete database of all ported numbers

Determine order negotiation method

Consumer must have clear method to indicate intention

Operators must be able to confirm consumer intent

Operator must be able to clearly agree on migration details

Migration data must be executed and published

Originating SwitchTerminating SwitchInterexchange Switch

Centralized Full Number Portability Database

Num

ber

Por

tabi

l ity

Look

up

Orig

inat

e C

all

Traditional Routing Direct Routing

Cal

l Ter

min

atio

n

Donor Switch

Receiving Provider

Acquiring Provider’sOrdering/

Billing System

NP Ordering Gateway

Donor Provider

Losing Provider’sOrdering/

Billing System

NP Ordering Gateway

Receiving Operator

Acquiring Operator’sNetwork

Provisioning System

NP Provisioning

Gateway

Donor OperatorLosing

Operator’sNetwork

Provisioning System

NP Provisioning

Gateway

Central NP Clearinghouse

Other Network Operator

Other Operator’sNetwork

Provisioning System

NP Provisioning Gateway

Original Network Operator

Other Operator’sNetwork

Provisioning System

NP Provisioning Gateway

Other Network Operator

Other Operator’sNetwork

Provisioning System

NP Provisioning Gateway

Porting Timeline

There is a timeline of activities that must occur for each port

Target porting time is a major design consideration

Short times consumer convenience and system complexity

Long times consumer frustration and system simplicity

Short Timeline Activities

Consumer initiates port request with receiving operator

Receiving operator presents port request with credentials to donating operator

Donating operator confirms credentials and proposed timeframe

Receiving operator presents routing transfer parameters and final timeframe

Donating operator confirms routing data and final timeframe

Receiving operator activates the service

Receiving operator broadcasts routing data to all network operators

All within 3 hours!

National Number Portability Design considerations Implementation Issues:

Method used by consumer to initiate a port request

– One Stop or Two Stop– Automated or Manual

Method to Route Calls

– Direct/All Calls Query, Indirect Rerouting, variations Method used to specify routing parameters

– Clearinghouse or Bilateral Method used to broadcast activation information

– Real-time or Batch Method for cost recover

– Porting parties pay or All subscribers pay

Implementations throughout the World

Mobile Number Portability Implementations

Country Implementation Date

Implementation Type

Implementation costs

Ports

1 Hong Kong 1999 Centralized > 19 Million Euros

450000 by June 1999

2 Netherlands 1999 Distributed and Centralized

20 Million Euros 250000 in 2002

3 UK 1999 Centralized N/A N/A

4 Denmark 2001 Centralized N/A 60000 by 1H 2003

5 Italy 2001 Distributed N/A 2.8 Million by Sep 2004

6 Norway 2001 Centralized N/A N/A

7 Germany 2002 Centralized N/A N/A

8 Ireland 2002 Centralized 27 Million Euros N/A

9 France 2003 Centralized N/A N/A

10 USA 2003 Centralized N/A 8 Million in 2004

MNP Case Study 1 - USA

Mobile Number Portability introduced in 2003

Delayed twice to allow operators additional time to prepare

Used a “mature” system for network porting activities

Used a new system for ordering activities

8 Million Customers ported their numbers in the first year

Most customers ported to the largest mobile operator (Verizon Wireless) and one of the smallest mobile operator (T-Mobile)

Local Conclusion: Successful

Key Success Factors

– Automated porting process– Time taken for porting was small (few hours to a couple of days)– Fixed to mobile, mobile to mobile was introduced nationwide at the same

time Outcome: High port counts, high customer satisfaction

MNP Case Study 2 - UK

Mobile Number Portability introduced in 1999

3% of the Mobile subscribers ported their numbers

Local Conclusion: Not Successful

Key Causes

– Longer porting durations (up to 7 days)– Customers were charged to port away (in some cases 30 GBP, eventually

dropped)– Two step porting process impacted customer convenience

Outcome: Low port counts, low adoption rate, little impact on competition

Effect on Service Providers – Revenue Data Source – public financial data for top 100 world-wide telecommunications providers

Conclusion – Number Portability involves investments, but companies in that environment fared better

Normalized Average Annual Revenue Comparison

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Rev

enu

e (c

om

par

ed w

ith

19

97) Porting

Non-Porting

National Preparation Timeline

15 - 18 Months Prior Solidify regulations Organize collaborative organization for evaluating porting model

12 Months Prior Determine porting model

– Geographic/Jurisdictional scope of valid port requests– Evaluate use of US/Canada NPAC system– Evaluate need for multi-jurisdictional centralized processing systems

9 Months Prior Settle on porting standards

6 Months Prior Finish central system(s) preparation, begin acceptance testing

3 Months Prior Finish local system(s) preparation, begin interoperability testing

Go live

Plan on close monitoring for 6 to 12 months after

Number Portability in Caribbean

Will require extensive preparation Plan on 12 to 18 months lead time Clarify regulations Establish a viable implementation model Involve all operators, regulators, and effected vendors

Will require specialized knowledge & technology Operating central clearing house Adapting sub-systems to support portability Processes

Will require investment Infrastructure investment Software investment People investment

Common Market approach will provide best leverage for the investment

Number Portability in Caribbean

Benefits:

Consumer choice

Fair-Playing Field Competition

Improved service levels from operators

Introduction of new, innovative services

Increased motivation for infrastructure investment

Evolving Systems’Number Portability History

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

November 1996Delivered Central Number Portability

Database Administration Application to US NPAC

(Number Portability Administration Center)

Dec 1996Introduced

OrderPath – LNP Ordering GatewayNumberManager – LNP Provisioning Engine

1997Delivered Custom LNP

solution to T-Mobile (UK)

June 1997US Fixed Line Portability Launch

Evolving Systems covers about 60%Of US industry

May 1998Introduced LNP DataServer

1999Delivered Custom LNP

solution to Telewest (UK)

August 2001US Mobile Number Portability Launch Evolving Systems covers about 20%

Of US industry

October 2001Introduced NumeriTrack:

Number Portability-friendly inventory solution

August 2002Launch US Number Portability

Service Bureau partnership

January 2005Announced LsmsXpress:

Low-profile LNP Provisioning Engine

Evolving Systems has an extensive history with Numbering Solutions

Thank you!

Evolving Systems

9777 Pyramid Court

Englewood, Colorado, USA 80112

spf@evolving.com