Quote from: CLTGreg on March 27, 2014, 03:11:02 PM
Quote from: MikeHObi on March 27, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: CLTGreg on March 27, 2014, 11:40:14 AM
I don't know about VL but Anveo reports that they use the same number provider as GV. I don't see this as a good thing because I have two numbers stuck elsewhere because there's never availability in areas I want to port from. This includes an 844 number.
Number portability is less an issue of the specific provider and more an issue of the CLEC the number is assigned to.
Well that could get hyper technical considering "Bandwidth.com CLEC" is apparently a CLEC. But do they own all the numbers available from Anveo and GV or do they sub that out to local CLECs? Doesn't really matter, the restrictions are there no matter what. Go to Anveo's new number finder and put in 843 as an area code. You get back a tiny fraction of what's available through other providers. I'd much rather have a barely used number parked at Anveo and especially the 844 but I can't move either one. But VL and Callcentric and everyone else I looked at could provision numbers.
I think Anveo's point to me was that porting from GV shouldn't be a problem since that is going through Bandwidth.com. That makes sense but it doesn't address why the pool is so empty compared to others.
Here's the background behind what you are seeing: First: all phone numbers belong to the original carrier to which they were issued (which could be an Incumbent LEC like Verizon or CenturyLink, a mobile LEC like Sprint, AT&TWS, etc, or a Competitive LEC like
Bandwidth.com or Level 3). In some cases, LECs may buy other LECs, or merge, or horse-trade blocks of numbers. But, they have finite blocks of numbers available to them. Obviously, some LECs have a lot more numbers (DIDs) to begin with, than others, and some LECs have a higher percentage of their DIDs in use vs. available. All LECs are at the mercy of the North American Number Planning Administration, or NANPA, which decides when and how to issue new blocks of numbers to all LECs.
The problem is: a given telephone service provider (like GV, Anveo, Callcentric, etc) that isn't their own LEC has to lease their numbers from a CLEC. If they only use one CLEC, like bandwidth, then they're limited in their selection of DIDs. GV has
millions of users, and has sucked up a huge percentage of BW's DIDs. So, Anveo is drawing from a more limited pool, just like GV. Callcentric and some other ITSPs work with several national and regional CLECs, so they have more flexibility. It's like shopping for insurance from State Farm or Allstate vs. with an independent agent. *For the sake of completeness, I should note that Google has also obtained DIDs from certain other CLECs, to fill in areas where BW couldn't provide them.
All Local Number Portability (LNP) does is add entries to the NPAC (Number Portability Availability Center) database to let the LECs know how to route the call via the carrier currently using the number (either the original LEC, or the LEC that is "borrowing" the number).
So, porting problems are a separate issue from obtaining new DIDs. Portability does depend on the gaining LEC having presence in the local calling exchange (phone switch) to host the number. Again, carriers that work with multiple LECs have more flexibility in finding a LEC to host their customers' ported-in DIDs.
Anveo's statement that porting from GV shouldn't be a problem because both carriers are customers of BW is misleading. If a GV user's number is actually from another CLEC, then Anveo being a BW customer is moot. I wouldn't judge them negatively for stating it, however, since GV doesn't publicly disclose any details about its service providers.
Sorry for all the jargon, but it's a jargon-rich industry!