Ofcom's plan to speed up number porting derailed

Daily Newsletters

Sign up to ZDNet UK's daily newsletter.

NEWS

An attempt by communications regulator Ofcom to reduce the amount of time it takes to port a phone number from one mobile network to another has been derailed in court, following an appeal by Vodafone and other operators.

In 2007, Ofcom announced it wanted to see the creation of a "common database" (CDB) of mobile-phone numbers, which it said would help numbers to be ported between networks in as short a time as two hours. Number porting allows a phone user to take their number with them when they decide to switch mobile service provider.

However, Vodafone— backed up by O2, T-Mobile and Orange —  filed an objection to the plan with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), arguing that Ofcom had not given a sufficient technical specification or accurate costing for the proposed database. On Thursday, the CAT handed down a judgement that found in favour of Vodafone. Ofcom's proposals have now been returned to the regulator for further analysis and revision.

The judgement was a "technical and legal decision that has somehow completely forgotten the consumer and is in danger of delaying the current process", Kevin Russell, chief executive of mobile company 3, said in a statement. The company, which is the smallest mobile carrier in the UK, backed Ofcom in the case.

"Ofcom is trying to achieve fast, hassle-free, mobile-number porting to give UK consumers flexibility and choice, but the incumbents have consistently put up roadblocks," Russell said. "This could force the delivery date [for two-hour porting] back from September 2009 into 2010. As with wholesale prices and international roaming charges, the big four operators do everything they can to keep prices high and work to slow down moves by the UK and EC regulators to increase choice and make the market more competitive."

The database proposed by Ofcom would let a customer switch carriers without their subsequent calls having to be routed via the operator they had left. Instead, the calls would simply come straight through via the new carrier, thanks to that company being able to interrogate the common database.

As things currently work, the operator who lost the customer's business gets to levy a small charge to the new carrier for routing such calls. That means there is a cost to the new carrier for each new customer who keeps their number. Ofcom also argued that longer portability times were a dissuading factor for customers contemplating switching networks.

In the tribunal, Vodafone and the other major networks argued that, in the time leading up to Ofcom's 2007 decision, the regulator had not given them a proper technical specification for the database. That meant they were not able to provide accurate advice to Ofcom on costing. Ofcom argued that these networks had been reticent in co-operating with its decision-making process.

The CAT decided that Ofcom had not carried out its consultation transparently and effectively, and therefore set aside the Ofcom 'decision' that the CDB should be created. It did not make a judgement on the issue of two-hour number portability, as this rested on the database's creation.

In his statement, 3's Russell referred to the number-porting process in Ireland, where he said: "Vodafone, 3 and O2 customers… have been able to move their mobile number between operators in around 20 minutes for many years". The CAT judgement addressed this point, noting that characterising the Irish situation this way was a "significant over-simplification… given other delays to the process, prior to the initiation of the electronic porting activity".

Ofcom will "reconsider its decision on 'Telephone number portability for consumers switching suppliers', dated 29 November, 2007", the regulator said in a statement on Friday.

"Ofcom is giving careful consideration to the CAT judgement and is considering next steps," the regulator said. "Ofcom remains committed to delivering improvements to the current fixed and mobile-number portability arrangements and will consider, in co-operation with industry stakeholders, how best to take this policy forward in the light of the CAT judgment."

A Vodafone spokesperson told ZDNet.co.uk on Friday that the operator was "very pleased that CAT agreed… that [Ofcom's] suggestion wasn't properly costed and thought-through".

"The overall benefits for our customers weren't justified by the costs to [the operators]," Vodafone's spokesperson said. "The money we might have spent on this [database's creation] can now go into products and services that will benefit the customers. We don't have a problem with number portability and are supportive, but it needs to be a properly consulted and thought-through solution."

Vodafone's spokesperson added that the operators themselves were currently working towards the creation of such a database.

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

You can also log in with Facebook. Log in or create your ZDNet UK account below

  • Login

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy. Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Community FAQ

Get ZDNet UK's daily newsletter

Enter your email address to sign up

ZDNet UK Live

BrownieBoy

@Jack, > Works really well for thieves.... Nice attempt to deflect the argument by tossing in a point that's totally irrelevant, even it were...

14 hours ago by BrownieBoy on AMD Ultrathins to challenge Intel Ultrabooks
bootlegger

Make that 13 people now - I got refused today at Manchester airport. I thought I was up to date on this legislation - I knew of the EU ruling from...

17 hours ago by bootlegger on UK airport body scans will not be opt out
tinycg

Don't forget to check out apps like GoodReader or SlideShark either, they're indispensible for people on the go in presentation situations. Best...

20 hours ago by tinycg on Four top iPad apps for people on the move
TerryRK

Well it seems there is something a number of us agree on. Why is the Ubuntu Unity launcher so ugly? I thought perhaps it was something to do with...

1 day ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Freebies202

Duplicate comments are not made intentionally. Its very good to know that now you are keeping check on this problem because sometimes a commenter...

1 day ago by Freebies202 on Microsoft fixes blog comments, speeds up blogs with open source
kevinmchapman

"the very significant number of users" and "many (most) of us" - you have no evidence for these statements. It is a fact that most users are saying...

2 days ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Marg Menzies Harrison

Another grammar faux pas is the improper use of "you". When sitting down down in a restaurant, for example, I get cringe when the waitress...

2 days ago by Marg Menzies Harrison via Facebook on 10 flagrant grammar mistakes that make you look stupid
zdnetukuser

And NOW, folks, for Canonical's next trick... Kubuntu is late. Here's a pencil. Draw your own conclusions. cf.:...

2 days ago by zdnetukuser on Linux Minterface
Moley

@kevinmchapman. The discussion here reflects the very significant number of users who really do like the traditional menu system and who wish to...

2 days ago by Moley on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
kevinmchapman

Er, no... It is an efficient means of finding the application/file/setting you need in one place. The icons are a simply a fallback for when you...

2 days ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
TerryRK

Isn't the provision of a text based search an admission by the developers that the mass of icons approach does not work? I don't need to use a...

2 days ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
kevinmchapman

"Unity and GNOME 3 both abandon the old text-based cascading menus in favour of a graphical icon-driven system." Point truly missed. Both use a...

2 days ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
TerryRK

whs001 - Thank you, I'm glad you liked the article. I absolutely agree with you on your first point. I should perhaps have made it clearer that...

2 days ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Dennis Nilsson

If we allow corporate interest to dictate the way our government circumvents due process against foreign entities then we should accept the same...

2 days ago by Dennis Nilsson via Facebook on ACTA stumbles in Germany
GHar123

I totally dislike pirating of works, I fear that artists will be deterred from creating works if they think that they are going to get ripped off....

2 days ago by GHar123 on ACTA stumbles in Germany
JCB33

How dare film makers, artists or anybody that invests in creativity stop us pirating their works for free. I want to be able to walk into my local...

2 days ago by JCB33 on ACTA stumbles in Germany
Moley

@GrueMaster. I prefer horses for courses rather than one size fits all. I, and I suspect most other computer users, do not really wish to have...

3 days ago by Moley on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
greycynic

The product that scares me every time I have to use it is the Office 2007 version of Excel. The first bug that I found was applying the median...

3 days ago by greycynic on Ten flawed products that derail productivity
GrueMaster

Nice review and very informative. One thing I'd like to add (in reply to whs001's 1st question), the main reason to have the same interface from...

3 days ago by GrueMaster on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Frederick Wrigley

I'be been using Mint 12 since the RC came out, and I am far more happy with the Cinnamon, the Mate, and, yes (with extensions), theGnome 3...

3 days ago by Frederick Wrigley via Facebook on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint