I never thought that in 2006 I would have number portability problems. Hasn't number portability regulations evolved to the point where it is no longer an issue? Alas, I found out the hard way that number portability is still very much a political game by the phone carriers and even the VoIP service providers to hold their customers hostage.
First, let me state that I've been a happy Vonage customer for many years, and used it in two different home addresses with the same exact phone number, which was ported from AT&T/SBC. Thus, I've had the same phone number for about 10 years, which many friends and family know.
Recently, I decided I would drop Vonage in favor of a triple play offering from Charter, which would give me cable TV, high-speed Internet, and "voice over cable" - all at a very reasonable price. My wife and I encountered too many network or Vonage QoS issues which affected our phone service. It was time to port the number to Charter, which advertised that they could port customer's numbers in a mailer we received. When I called to order, they said they could not port my Vonage number since "That Norwalk number (203-854-XXXX) is not in your rate area" I was told.
I was a bit annoyed Charter couldn't port my number, but I wasn't entirely surprised either. Since my wife and I didn't want to give up our number, we decided to stay with Vonage - held hostage to a phone number that Vonage owned. I should explain that a "rate center" is geographically tied to certain local exchanges. For instance, my current home address in Brookfield has (203-740-XXXX and 203-775-XXXX) as two of its most common local exchanges. Thus, since my current number (203-854-XXXX) wasn't in any of the Brookfield exchanges, they claim they can't port the number.
But here is what I don't understand. Why is it that Vonage was able to port my Norwalk number and yet they didn't have a geographical footprint in Norwalk - namely a rate center located there. Why aren't they bound by these geographical restrictions? Further, I was able to take my Norwalk number ported to Vonage to my new home address in Brookfield. Obviously, IP packets don't care where they originate, so as long as I had broadband, I can take my 203-854-XXXX number anywhere.
I figured maybe SBC might have better luck at porting if I agreed to sign up for SBC DSL and SBC’s voice offering. (Double-play package). They at first said they could port the number and even told me that they would take care of cancelling Vonage for me, which is typical when customers move to another phone service provider. I was feeling the
. But then they called me back 30 minutes later when they realized that they couldn’t port the number since I was outside the rate center. My heart 
. I was already aware that I could port my Vonage phone number to Sunrocket or Lingo if I so desired, but I'm trying to move away from "single play" VoIP providers.
Thus, it would appear that you can port from a phone carrier to a VoIP provider, AND you can port from one VoIP provider to another VoIP provider, BUT you cannot port your number BACK to a traditional phone carrier or a cable company. If my interpretation is true, this clearly gives single play VoIP providers a key 'number porting' advantage over the traditional phone carriers and cable companies. In fact, I may have to update my controversial Pure VoIP vs. Telephone and Cable VoIP article and add this to Single Plays' list of "Pros" (vs. Cons).
Summary of Porting:
- Carrier/cable to VoIP – Good
- VoIP to VoIP – Good (if the number was originally owned by a phone company & ported. If the number was owned by the VoIP service provider when you signed up, most likely you will not be able to port.)
- VoIP to Carrier/cable – Bad
Back in 2004 I wrote about VoIP2Save.com, and how the VoIP service providers were holding their VoIP customer's "hostage" by not allowing them to port their phone numbers. In 2003, a federal law mandated customers of cellular telephone service be allowed to keep their phone number if they decided to switch carriers. Unfortunately, Internet phone companies were not covered by the law.
In that 2004 article, I wrote in part, "For example, if you started with AT&T, then signed up with Vonage, then wanted to switch to Lingo, you can port your number. However, if you originally started with Vonage and used Vonage's allocated phone number, you will have difficulty porting your number (if at all)." So it would appear that it is even more difficult to port your Vonage number if it's a originally-owned Vonage number.
Under the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) "local number portability" (LNP) rules, you can switch telephone service providers within the same geographic area and keep your existing phone number. However, if you are moving from one geographic area to another, you may not be able to take your number with you. In addition to switching from one wireless company to another, in most cases, you will be able to switch from a wireline company to a wireless company, or from a wireless company to a wireline company, and still keep your phone number.
The FCC's decision to "tie" geography to number portability open a huge gaping loophole in the number portability regulations for the phone service providers to exploit. They can now deny to port a defecting customer's number simply based on geography. I should point out that many people move every 3-5 years, which means the phone companies can choose not to port their number. Now, I can certainly see if a person moves to another area code that porting the number should be restricted, but if you are simply moving a few towns over (same area code), why can't the customer keep their phone number? With the advent of VoIP, local exchanges (203-775-XXXX) or the famous 212-XXX-XXXX NYC exchange are no longer tied to customers within a specific geographic region. I recall an article where a Pakistani living in Pakistan (& using VoIP) had a 212-XXX-XXXX number so it could appear he had a New York City address for his business.
In 2004, VoIP2Save.com surveyed many other internet phone companies, including Vonage, Packet8, Voice Glo, Lingo and I-Connect. It found that none of the companies allowed customers to keep a phone number the company assigned to them, if the customer decided to switch to another phone company. I need to confirm whether or not this still holds true for all of them in 2006, but it at least holds true for Vonage, since I tried both Charter and SBC to port my Vonage number.
On KUTV, a SBC affiliate in Salt Lake City, it wrote a recent article (May 2006) stating, that a family couldn't port their Lingo phone number to Vonage and cited the same FCC number portability regulation that I did and pointed out that Voice over Internet companies were not covered by this regulation.
So how is it that VoIP companies can get the traditional phone companies to always port phone numbers for their new VoIP customers? If the traditional phone companies aren't obligated to port any number to any customer "outside" a geographic region, how do the VoIP companies convince the carriers to give up the number?
One theory I have is that since VoIP service providers have no "rate center" (they simply pay/rent the phone numbers from the phone companies), they don't have any geographic limitations. Thus, they can tell the phone company that Customer A wishes to leave and "port" their phone number. If the phone company asks if Customer A is going to be in the same geographic region, the VoIP companies can lie and say "yes" even if the customer has moved. Tracking IP packets to a specific location is difficult - not to mention it requires a court subpoena - so how are the phone companies going to "prove" that their defecting customer is still in the same geographic region? Since they can't the phone companies are forced to give up / port the number to the VoIP service provider. In my "phone shopping scenario" with Charter and SBC - they have an obvious geographic footprint, bound by wherever the coax or copper wire is installed, which limits the local exchange numbers they can provide as well as port. I guess that's the beauty of IP which is location agnostic.
This is just a theory, but it seems to be the most logical conclusion. There may be some other law or regulation I am missing, so feel free to post a comment.
What did I end up doing? I went with SBC's "double play" package (voice & data) for $50/month with unlimited voice calling. $25 for voice and $25 for data. Alas, I lost my old 203-854-XXX number and now have a new one. I also dropped Charter cable and went with DirecTV. My bills as a whole will be cut like $55/month, making it worth losing my old number. So yes, I have dropped VoIP entirely in favor of SBC traditional voice - forgive me for my sin. Well, I do still use Skype and plenty of other VoIP products, so I'm still high on VoIP.
So let me just finish this by saying "number portability my ass!"
(Sorry for the profanity, but it had to be said.)
First, let me state that I've been a happy Vonage customer for many years, and used it in two different home addresses with the same exact phone number, which was ported from AT&T/SBC. Thus, I've had the same phone number for about 10 years, which many friends and family know.
Recently, I decided I would drop Vonage in favor of a triple play offering from Charter, which would give me cable TV, high-speed Internet, and "voice over cable" - all at a very reasonable price. My wife and I encountered too many network or Vonage QoS issues which affected our phone service. It was time to port the number to Charter, which advertised that they could port customer's numbers in a mailer we received. When I called to order, they said they could not port my Vonage number since "That Norwalk number (203-854-XXXX) is not in your rate area" I was told.
I was a bit annoyed Charter couldn't port my number, but I wasn't entirely surprised either. Since my wife and I didn't want to give up our number, we decided to stay with Vonage - held hostage to a phone number that Vonage owned. I should explain that a "rate center" is geographically tied to certain local exchanges. For instance, my current home address in Brookfield has (203-740-XXXX and 203-775-XXXX) as two of its most common local exchanges. Thus, since my current number (203-854-XXXX) wasn't in any of the Brookfield exchanges, they claim they can't port the number.
But here is what I don't understand. Why is it that Vonage was able to port my Norwalk number and yet they didn't have a geographical footprint in Norwalk - namely a rate center located there. Why aren't they bound by these geographical restrictions? Further, I was able to take my Norwalk number ported to Vonage to my new home address in Brookfield. Obviously, IP packets don't care where they originate, so as long as I had broadband, I can take my 203-854-XXXX number anywhere.
I figured maybe SBC might have better luck at porting if I agreed to sign up for SBC DSL and SBC’s voice offering. (Double-play package). They at first said they could port the number and even told me that they would take care of cancelling Vonage for me, which is typical when customers move to another phone service provider. I was feeling the
. But then they called me back 30 minutes later when they realized that they couldn’t port the number since I was outside the rate center. My heart . I was already aware that I could port my Vonage phone number to Sunrocket or Lingo if I so desired, but I'm trying to move away from "single play" VoIP providers.Thus, it would appear that you can port from a phone carrier to a VoIP provider, AND you can port from one VoIP provider to another VoIP provider, BUT you cannot port your number BACK to a traditional phone carrier or a cable company. If my interpretation is true, this clearly gives single play VoIP providers a key 'number porting' advantage over the traditional phone carriers and cable companies. In fact, I may have to update my controversial Pure VoIP vs. Telephone and Cable VoIP article and add this to Single Plays' list of "Pros" (vs. Cons).
Summary of Porting:
- Carrier/cable to VoIP – Good
- VoIP to VoIP – Good (if the number was originally owned by a phone company & ported. If the number was owned by the VoIP service provider when you signed up, most likely you will not be able to port.)
- VoIP to Carrier/cable – Bad
Back in 2004 I wrote about VoIP2Save.com, and how the VoIP service providers were holding their VoIP customer's "hostage" by not allowing them to port their phone numbers. In 2003, a federal law mandated customers of cellular telephone service be allowed to keep their phone number if they decided to switch carriers. Unfortunately, Internet phone companies were not covered by the law.
In that 2004 article, I wrote in part, "For example, if you started with AT&T, then signed up with Vonage, then wanted to switch to Lingo, you can port your number. However, if you originally started with Vonage and used Vonage's allocated phone number, you will have difficulty porting your number (if at all)." So it would appear that it is even more difficult to port your Vonage number if it's a originally-owned Vonage number.
Under the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) "local number portability" (LNP) rules, you can switch telephone service providers within the same geographic area and keep your existing phone number. However, if you are moving from one geographic area to another, you may not be able to take your number with you. In addition to switching from one wireless company to another, in most cases, you will be able to switch from a wireline company to a wireless company, or from a wireless company to a wireline company, and still keep your phone number.
The FCC's decision to "tie" geography to number portability open a huge gaping loophole in the number portability regulations for the phone service providers to exploit. They can now deny to port a defecting customer's number simply based on geography. I should point out that many people move every 3-5 years, which means the phone companies can choose not to port their number. Now, I can certainly see if a person moves to another area code that porting the number should be restricted, but if you are simply moving a few towns over (same area code), why can't the customer keep their phone number? With the advent of VoIP, local exchanges (203-775-XXXX) or the famous 212-XXX-XXXX NYC exchange are no longer tied to customers within a specific geographic region. I recall an article where a Pakistani living in Pakistan (& using VoIP) had a 212-XXX-XXXX number so it could appear he had a New York City address for his business.
In 2004, VoIP2Save.com surveyed many other internet phone companies, including Vonage, Packet8, Voice Glo, Lingo and I-Connect. It found that none of the companies allowed customers to keep a phone number the company assigned to them, if the customer decided to switch to another phone company. I need to confirm whether or not this still holds true for all of them in 2006, but it at least holds true for Vonage, since I tried both Charter and SBC to port my Vonage number.
On KUTV, a SBC affiliate in Salt Lake City, it wrote a recent article (May 2006) stating, that a family couldn't port their Lingo phone number to Vonage and cited the same FCC number portability regulation that I did and pointed out that Voice over Internet companies were not covered by this regulation.
So how is it that VoIP companies can get the traditional phone companies to always port phone numbers for their new VoIP customers? If the traditional phone companies aren't obligated to port any number to any customer "outside" a geographic region, how do the VoIP companies convince the carriers to give up the number?
One theory I have is that since VoIP service providers have no "rate center" (they simply pay/rent the phone numbers from the phone companies), they don't have any geographic limitations. Thus, they can tell the phone company that Customer A wishes to leave and "port" their phone number. If the phone company asks if Customer A is going to be in the same geographic region, the VoIP companies can lie and say "yes" even if the customer has moved. Tracking IP packets to a specific location is difficult - not to mention it requires a court subpoena - so how are the phone companies going to "prove" that their defecting customer is still in the same geographic region? Since they can't the phone companies are forced to give up / port the number to the VoIP service provider. In my "phone shopping scenario" with Charter and SBC - they have an obvious geographic footprint, bound by wherever the coax or copper wire is installed, which limits the local exchange numbers they can provide as well as port. I guess that's the beauty of IP which is location agnostic.
This is just a theory, but it seems to be the most logical conclusion. There may be some other law or regulation I am missing, so feel free to post a comment.
What did I end up doing? I went with SBC's "double play" package (voice & data) for $50/month with unlimited voice calling. $25 for voice and $25 for data. Alas, I lost my old 203-854-XXX number and now have a new one. I also dropped Charter cable and went with DirecTV. My bills as a whole will be cut like $55/month, making it worth losing my old number. So yes, I have dropped VoIP entirely in favor of SBC traditional voice - forgive me for my sin. Well, I do still use Skype and plenty of other VoIP products, so I'm still high on VoIP.
So let me just finish this by saying "number portability my ass!"
(Sorry for the profanity, but it had to be said.)
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
twitter
So, you were able to port the number to SBC?? If yes, is that because SBC provides service to the geographic area of you number, whereas Charter does not?
No, I wasn't able to port my number. I lose my number. I clarified my original post.
Tom:
Your frustration with LNP is obvious, but your ire is misplaced and accusing your former company of lying in order to be able to port your number shows a lack of understanding of the LNP process. You blame the VoIP company for the trouble. It actually isn't Vonage that is the problem, it is the phone company that won't (not can't) port your number back. I am not a Vonage fan. I work for a CLEC. The difficulty is not with Vonage lying to SBC in order to get your number ported. Actually, Vonage technically doesn't port your number because they aren't a phone company; they are an "Enhanced Service Provider" (FCC definition) and aren't covered by many of the regulations that phone companies (including CLECs) are, but that's all a different story. In brief, your number was ported to a CLEC underlying carrier for Vonage. The difficulty came about when you wanted to port to another carrier. When you wanted to go to SBC, that carrier has large databases of various types. SBC and the ILECs are in the phone business, but a large part of the phone business is keeping the database accurate, so that efficiencies can be realized. With millions of customers and seemingly almost as many rate plans and products, it is critical to keep some order to the process. So, when you wanted to port a number that is not in the rate center in which you reside, it raised red flags. One of the problems that would have caused for SBC is: how would SBC determine whether a call is a local call or long distance call when the NPA-NXX don't match the central office from which you are currently served and how would the call be routed correctly? This would require special routing and rating just for you. I am sorry to say that you (and I and the rest of us) are just not that special (to SBC). So, the problem is not with the VoIP providers refusing to port your number back (by the way, a company can't port your number *to* another company, it can only port your number *from* another company to themselves), the problem is that SBC wants to keep their databases clean and easy to manage. This will change over the years, because databases have a way of getting messy, but SBC will do all they can to keep that from happening. Sorry to bust the bubble of conspiracy and lying, but it is simply a question of efficiency and how SBC can do things as simply as possible and create the least amount of problems for themselves. In contrast to the ILECs, the VoIP providers (and CLECs) often do not care about rate centers for phone numbers because the VoIP provider or CLEC often use much simpler methods of routing and rating calls than the ILECs. Even though the plan from SBC may look like a simple plan, the underlying routing of the call within and between central offices and the call rating engine for billing is actually pretty complex. Bottom line is that SBC could have done what you wanted from a technical standpoint, they just wouldn't because it was too much trouble from various aspects including a customer service standpoint. It also shows that SBC does not fear the "single-play" VoIP providers at all, otherwise they would have let you keep your number and ported you over! The only thing SBC fears slightly is the cable companies and Charter is still a newbie at this. IMHO, Charter should have ported your number in order to get your business, but missed the boat.
Thanks for your insights Andy.
Andy wrote: Actually, Vonage technically doesn't port your number because they aren't a phone company; they are an "Enhanced Service Provider" (FCC definition) and aren't covered by many of the regulations that phone companies (including CLECs)...
Yeah, I realize that the phone companes are bound by several regulations that the pure play VoIP players aren't, but that doesn't explain why Charter, which isn't a LEC or CLEC wasn't able to port my number.
Also, you seem to indicate that porting a number from a VoIP provider (i.e. Vonage) to a LEC/CLEC isn't possible. However, my boss, Rich Tehrani ported his Vonage number to AT&T (CallVantage).
Now of course, CallVantage is AT&T's VoIP offering, so maybe they get around the regulations that way. But nevertheless, AT&T was able to find a "workaround" to get Rich's business. Thus, SBC/AT&T should have been able to port my number as well. Perhaps they could have made me a "temporary" AT&T/SBC CallVantage customer and then once they owned the number in their network, they could have easily switched it over to SBC's traditional landline offering.
The pure play VoIP players seem to have an advantage in porting capability over the LECs/CLECs and apparently the cable MSOs. But that doesn't mean it isn't possible
There is way too much confusion and inconsistency as to who is able to port and who can't. Rich Tehrani basically bitched for 4 months to get his number ported. I just didn't think it was worth my time and effort to save my old number.
Interesting blog on LNP. I spent several years of my career in the LNP space, and my wife still works as an analyst for Neustar, who administers the LNP database, and this sort of thing still amazes us.
If fact was I believe happens is that once Vonage, Sunrocket, a wireless carrier, or any other non-geographic player gets a hold of your number, it is considered “contaminated” if it ever goes back into the landline pool. Under the rules for contaminated numbers, it must be aged for something like 90 days. What you didn’t consider is that wireline to wireless, or VoIP to wireless is probably also easy. I think you could keep it, if you’re willing to wait while it ages. My guess is that either the back office systems don’t support aging, or customers won’t wait, so it isn’t done.
Tom:
I agree it wasn't worth your time and effort. You ran into the old "this is the way we've always done things" scenario. I have heard from the big carriers (ILECS) the word "can't" so often when what they really mean is "won't". The rep is probably actually correct in a sense in saying "can't" because he/she typically doesn't have the ability to put your telephone number into their system if it doesn't match the rate center the system is expecting. Envision this: the rep has a green screen terminal, types in your address, and the system fills in the NPA and offers certain choices of NXX's. When you wanted to port in a number that didn't have a matching NXX, oops, there is no match with the choices the system gives, there is no override button and thus, you have the proverbial square peg in round hole scenario. Now, the ILEC could change their systems and offer a porting in option, but they have to put controls in so that the number gets ported in correctly, the CO routing tables get built correctly, the rating tables are built correctly, etc. So, the easy and cheaper way out is for the ILEC to say: "No, we can't port your number from that bad old VoIP provider, but wouldn't you like a nice new number [that fits in with our system]?" (sarcasm probably obvious). Also, in addition to winning a customer, the ILEC can make the VoIP provider look bad, so they get 2 for 1!
I didn't mean to imply that porting the number from a VoIP provider to a CLEC was difficult. Porting is often done, it just takes more work and since the CLEC typically wants your business, they will usually go the extra mile. SBC wants your business according to their rules. Not that that is bad, it is just required in order to maintain the efficiencies of a huge organization. Porting your number in can be done, it just matters to SBC whether or not it fits in with the rate centers that are defined in the central offices. So, if you hadn't moved, I wonder if porting would have worked?
Why Charter wouldn't do it is beyond me. As I mentioned, I think they missed the boat and should have ported your number over. Some possiblities are: 1) maybe they don't have much experience in porting? 2) maybe their system is only set up to port numbers from ILECs and they don't want to hassle with porting numbers from CLECs or VoIP providers? 3) maybe they won't port numbers into their system at all and only give you numbers from their own NPA-NXX? I don't know much about how Charter operates their system. Do they allow porting in another number that isn't/wasn't a Charter number? Perhaps they can only work with their own NPA-NXX's? Just throwing out possibilities, maybe someone else can shed some light on Charter...
To Andy's points, which are all accurate and concise, there is one other possibility why Charter didn't port.
Charter doesn't do the porting, they are relying on a CLEC to provide them with that service. The CLEC switch Charter relies on may not have trunking for the original Vonage/SNET rate center, which would have prevented the port in from working.
203-854 is a SNET Norwalk rate center. The new number 203-740 is Danbury, 203-775 is Brookfield. Both are SNET, but these rate centers are not in the local calling area for Norwalk.
The other consideration for LNP number ports that cross geographic and/or civil boundaries is that these 'foreign' numbers bust the hell out of E-911 systems.
Every system has limits. I'm surprised that no one suggested changed number intercept along somewhere the way. Most states require providers to offer this service at no charge.
>>203-854 is a SNET Norwalk rate center.
Yes, but SBC owns SNET, which also owns AT&T. Therefore SBC owns my original number, so you'd think it would be easy for them to port. Of course, they are bound by tighter regulations than the VoIP service providers. They can't simply give me a traditional landline with a 203-854 (Norwalk rate center #) that is physically located in Brookfield. That would certainly screw up what is considered local calling vs. long-distance. Of course, I do have the unlimited local and long-distance, so it doesn't really matter in terms of their billing or profit - they earn the same amount no matter what my number is.
That's the beauty of these unlimited plans. There is no such thing as national long-distance - only international long-distance.
Perhaps if I went with AT&T CallVantage (a VoIP server) I would have been able to port the number. But I would lose my double-play voice/data special package, plus guaranteed voice quality at a flate monthly rate.
I just read your number portability article “Number Portability Problems”. I’ve lived these problems every day for the past few years, first running the LNP group for a known VoIP hosted services company.
Your account presents a great view of the customer frustration resulting from the archaic rules surrounding number portability. We often run into the problem of why Vonage can seemingly port numbers anywhere and other companies cannot. By the way, our company, a pure VoIP solution, would have provided you the same answer Charter and SBC did. The number is out of rate center and can’t be ported. The fact is that most consumers don’t know the how’s and whys of the North American Number plan so they don’t understand why numbers just can’t move around like cellular.
Many VoIP companies follow the same regulations as traditional phone companies and cable companies, others do not. So your characterization of when porting works and when it doesn’t is not entirely accurate.
The bottom line is that there are a host of sub-issues tied to the geographical link between a number and a subscriber’s address. The biggest are billing for toll vs. local calls, translations and routing, and E911 call management. You could write an entire multi-part article about each of these areas. Let’s just say that the nature of the POTS network (and VoIP providers must do business on the POTS network) is such that geographical independence is not yet possible. The far newer cellular network and the nature of mobile phones created a session registration schema that adapts to number portability. But the POTs and cellular networks are fundamentally different so what works for one, won’t necessarily work for the other.
So how can Vonage and other carriers do it? Your theory is close to correct in some cases. Some carriers do not provide accurate address data, and then they hope that no one has a heart attack at that location. Other companies employ a very inefficient process of assigning “ghost numbers” from the correct rate center to the subscriber’s location, making the arrangement appear as though it is geographically aligned. Monetary settlements over IP based traffic are already a source of contention in the industry and will likely escalate into a full fledged brewha. Traditional phone companies are creating wholesale products for VoIP carriers to try and manage the sharing of revenue. All of this creates the illusion that numbers are being held hostage. In fact, these industry practices are necessary to facilitate the multi-owner/operator network that has evolved with competition. Do I like it? No. I’d rather be able to port numbers anywhere, anytime. I am working on just that for my company, but it’s a little trickier when you try to accomplish that while still complying with the “rules”.
Anyway, I guess my only point is that phone numbers in the landline network are still very much tied to geographical locations. As much as we wish they weren’t, the complexities of moving beyond geography as a limiting factor are significant and not easily overcome.
Thanks for the article; it illustrates what our customers feel every day.
Hey, Tom. Great post.
Power up that PhoneGnome on that SBC line, and come back to the VoIP community again! It seamlessly introduces VoIP apps like Voicemail to email, soft phone, etc. to that SBC line and number!
Use those free SBC minutes from your mobile, or your PC at Starbucks.
:)
Excellent & interesting post. At the moment, I am in the middle of portability hell at the moment trying to port my 203-938-xxxx number from AT&T to any VOIP. None of the VOIP companies say it can be done. Even AT&T CallVantage!
Am I hearing that it truly is a lost cause?
Wondering in Redding,
Tim
I have heard that if you "park" your number with Junction Networks - http://www.junctionnetworks.com/ that you can THEN move it to another VoIP player and sometimes even a regular carrier.
Give that a shot.
I was a At&t customer for 10 years with the same number .But recently changed to cable and had the number ported .I was not happy with the service and wanted to switch back to at &t However at&t say they cant port number from cable companies and that we have to get a new number.Why arent customers told this before and why should this be a problem .I don't understand.
When I made the horrible mistake of switching from CallVantage to Verizon's VoiceWing, my number was quickly ported by AT&T without resistance. But when, after discovering how appalling VoiceWing was, I tried to port back to AT&T, Verizon refused. I had to have the number ported to SBC POTS, and then to CallVantage. Two years with CallVantage and I've had only the rarest problem.
I have had some interesting problems with Vonage myself, although instead of not being able to port a number, I had... well, a different issue altogether.
I was a happy Vonage customer from February 2005 until about January 2006, when I started having serious problems with it. People would try to call and it would ring and ring and my Vonage voicemail would never pick up. The line would continuously cut in and out, to the point that if I was on an automated system that required me to enter something like an account number, it wouldn't even broadcast all of the buttons I was pressing.
After repeated calls to Vonage's customer service, where I was told things such as "Well, we don't see any problems with your line" to "Call your cable provider, it's not our problem," I got fed up and cancelled in March 2006. I didn't have any trouble with the cancellation, but this may have been because my husband was at that time a Best Buy employee and they had a partnership with Vonage which also allowed us a discount on the monthly service plan. I was even able to port my telephone number to my cable company's digital phone service, and this went off without a hitch.
Fast-forward to August 2006, I was at home recovering from surgery when I started getting telephone calls from people who were saying my name and phone number were coming up on their caller ID, as if they had just missed a call from me. These people were generally all from businesses, and many of them got very angry when I tried to explain that I wasn't calling them. This went on all the way until April 2007. I would get anywhere from 10 to 30 calls every day. Some people would leave messages, some would call and just hang up. I tried putting a message on my voicemail explaining that something was wrong with the phone lines. I routinely had people threaten to report me to the police for harassment or to file lawsuits against me. I received no less than three death threats.
At the time, I thought I was the victim of something called caller ID spoofing. Even changing my number to come up as "private" did not stop the calls. My telehpone company told me that they had no control over caller ID; it is controlled by outside caller ID companies, and they claimed they had no idea who to contact if there was a problem. So I changed my voicemail to talk about that and asked anyone who received a call from "me" to play along and get as much information about whatever company was doing it to help me out.
Salvation came one day in June 2007 in the form of a good samaritan who had found out not only the name of the company, but their 800 phone number and location; ironically enough, right in the small Southern California town that I live in. A call placed to them was met with hostility, but after repeatedly explaining that somehow, be it on purpose or not, they had "stolen" my identity, I got put through to the owner.
He let me repeat my story, and then asked what my phone number was. "818-206-XXXX." Silence from the owner, and then, "But that's one of my phone numbers."
Me: "I've had that number since early 2005."
Owner: "Well, I got it when I signed up for Vonage in November 2005."
The owner double checked his online Vonage account with me on the phone, and confirmed his Vonage start date and that my telephone number was, indeed, his telephone number. Then he tried to call the number from his cell phone, and my call waiting went off. We both realized pretty fast that this was good for neither of us, me because I was getting constantly harassed and him because he was losing out on potential business.
He said he would put in a call to Vonage, but when I was still getting a few calls a few days later, I called them myself.
I explained the situation to the customer service rep, who said she didn't think it was possible, but she would look into it. She refused to confirm to me the date that they had issued the telephone number to the business, and instead explained that once a number has been out of their rotation for six months, they place it back into rotation and reissue it. I asked how that was possible, when I had had to confirm with both them and my new phone company that I was porting the number, and they must have that in my records. She evaded the question and changed the subject, instead telling me that the business had, in fact, changed its phone number. She then had the nerve to consider asking me if we'd like to rejoin Vonage.
I told her in no uncertain terms that I never wanted to hear from Vonage by any means ever again. I told her once again about the threats, including the death threats, that I had received. My number and address was listed for a long time; with reverse directory, anyone could have punched that phone number into a directory and come up with my address. I have a small child living in my home, and God forbid the wrong person had gotten annoyed, I could have had my house broken into, items stolen, or my family hurt.
In the end, when I was done with this tirade, she said "Okay, ma'am." and hung up on me.
That was about a week ago now. Since then, I received three calls the day after my Vonage call, and one call the next day. We have now been six straight days without any calls from people saying that my number was on their caller ID.
But it's a warning to everyone else; I would hate to have anyone go through the same experience I did. And for those who say "why didn't you just change your number": Don't think I didn't consider it. But after being harassed for so long, and particularly since I thought we were being caller ID spoofed, I was determined to figure out who was doing this and to get them for it. I had no idea at the time it would be Vonage, and I'm only sad that I don't have some sort of legal recourse for all the hours of my life I wasted hunting and worrying about this problem.
In closing ... Vonage sucks. For multiple reasons. But this is something big to watch out for. Good luck!
There was a previous statement that it should be expected that if you are in the same area code when you move that you should be able to keep you phone number. This would be expecting a lot out of the phone companies, to build into their switches the ability to provide tn's for every prefix in an area code, and while they certainly should have the option to do so, they should not be required to expend the require funds to make all area codes and prefixes available. This would be expensive for the company and probably why it is not a requirement included in the FCC law.
As far as why vonage can provide an out of territory number while other ILEC's and Cable phoen providers cannot, I think that this has to do with the capabilities of the services. Wireline phone and calbe phone works out of central offices that provide services to certain rate centers. VOIP works through an internet connection, any internet connection. they are not limited by rate centers as the other phone types are, and also since voip is not regulated by the fcc, like a phone company is, they can pretty much do whatever they want.