Talk:Mobile number portability: Difference between revisions
→provider unavailable: new section |
|||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
If the company provided the contract - then you are highly unlikely to have any rights to the number they provided for you. IANAL though. |
If the company provided the contract - then you are highly unlikely to have any rights to the number they provided for you. IANAL though. |
||
[[User:Paulw1128|Paulw1128]] ([[User talk:Paulw1128|talk]]) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:Paulw1128|Paulw1128]] ([[User talk:Paulw1128|talk]]) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
== provider unavailable == |
|||
If the service provider suddenly goes out of business, ceases to function -- is there any way to port out the trapped phone number?-[[Special:Contributions/71.174.188.32|71.174.188.32]] ([[User talk:71.174.188.32|talk]]) 15:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:38, 24 January 2016
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Sj: Pakistan has launched MNP and will be available to user on 26th March 2007 (Monday)
Suspected Copyright infringement
The additions of Aleksmayer seem to be a copyright infringement, although I have not yet located an online source. The lengthy text is cited as "Extract from Logica CMG’s Operator Manual". I will remove the text until it can be proven free, and then its content should be merged in and not merly copied. jnothman talk 07:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
United States
can someone add this? --76.8.67.2 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan
Pakistan is not in the "Middle East & Africa" region of the world, by far. Middle East ends at Iraq! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.50.73 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
UK / Doner-led porting
The first paragraph (which says basically that Donor-led porting is bad and Recipient-led is good) looks POV to me. Perhaps Recipient-led is better (I wouldn't know), but the wording could be more neutral, or citations could be provided to prove the point that Recipient-led is better. What about the point that Recipient-led porting could lead to unscrupulous providers switching numbers to their network without the customer's consent ("slamming")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.182.134 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- The whole Technical details section is too UK-centric. If the UK uses a different method from the rest of the world (does it? Did it change in 2009, or not?) then the global standard should be described and the UK differences outlined in a separate subsection. Citations are needed, too. 81.136.202.93 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Legal rights when you want to port a number when leaving a company, or made redundant
Does anyone know the law around porting a number when -you leave a company -you are made redundant -you have had the phone number for a set period of time -you have had to pay for any private calls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.91.171 (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If the company provided the contract - then you are highly unlikely to have any rights to the number they provided for you. IANAL though. Paulw1128 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
provider unavailable
If the service provider suddenly goes out of business, ceases to function -- is there any way to port out the trapped phone number?-71.174.188.32 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)