CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you are unsure, please forward this email to the CSE team for review.

I had this happen to me recently.

Customer came in with a number that had very little coverage, but our
carrier had a 1,000 block in the same ratecenter, so we held out some hope.

Once we dug into it, the 1,000 block was designated for a different
"service offering" with the carrier. They were not offering portability in
that Ratecenter, despite having coverage, or even hardware or leased
hardware there.

So we had to send the customer off. There really were only about 5 carriers
serving the Ratecenter, 3 of them wireless, one very local, and our
carrier.

If your carrier decides not to port a number, even when they seem to be
present in the ratecenter in question, they are not required by any law or
rule to port, AFAIK.

If a company will port in, the other carrier must (IMHO) port out. If not,
then you can't port. There may be some subtleties to that, but this is my
understanding.

Fun!

Beckman

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021, Mike Hammett wrote:

> I first asked on a list much more narrow in scope, but failing to get
> sufficient data points, I've expanded my scope.
>
> Assuming the number isn't held by someone exempt from porting, what would
> prevent someone from being able to port a number from a particular rate
> center in a LATA they have coverage in?
>
> We picked up a particular carrier for our out-of-area needs and the first
> thing we throw at them in a LATA we know they have coverage in, they
> can't do. They have a non-useful reason why. It doesn't appear to have
> moved to a state where they contacted the losing provider as the response
> was very fast, so my provider rejected the port, not theirs.
>
> When I started at this company (where we do our own porting), I made sure
> to port a bunch of numbers from all over our LATA to see what would
> happen. All successful. That seems to indicate that it doesn't matter
> which xLEC or tandem currently serves that number, it can move elsewhere.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman Internet Guy
beckman@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------