lohertz wrote:Robspace1 wrote:
So are you trying to port a MJ number to Ooma or a Vontage number to Ooma? I was told yesterday that MJ numbers can't be ported because MJ owns them and they are not required to port numbers because they are not listed as a phone carrier but as a "multimedia experience" whatever that is but the FCC regulations about them required to port a number for a customer as long as it's in the local area does not apply to MJ. Now, I have not checked this info out so I don't really know if thats true or not. Maybe someone else does. Do you know anyone that has ported a MJ number to another carriewr?
I believe the rule is, if you can port in you can port out. see
wikipedia entry
And
FCC Number Pooling law 1996
In either case you have to make a BONA FIDE Request
Try and see what happens.
Well, that's what I thought too. My handle on the MJ forum is Saxman, (cuz I am)-but this guy is saying that MJ is somehow able to get around the FCC rules by saying they are not a phone company-Here is the post from yesterday if you want to check it out.I may write the FCC and ask them just what the status of MJ is. Are they required to port numbers for their customers or not. There is no reason they should not have to go by FCC rules. They are just as much a phone company as OOMA is-Only difference is OOMA works! hahaha--check this out-
saxman
Dan isn't smart enough to hire me
Joined: 25 Feb 2008
Posts: 372
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it may be against FCC rgulations for a carrier to refuse to port a number to a new carrier I just found an inter esting article regarding LPNs.
Who should consumers contact if they want to port their number to a new carrier?
Consumers should contact their prospective new carrier, who will start the porting process. The new carrier will first confirm the consumer's identity and then make a porting request of the old carrier. When consumers go to their new carrier to port a number, they should bring along a recent bill, which will have their correct name and address as it appears in the carrier’s database. This should aid in making the porting process go smoothly. Once a valid porting request has been made, the old carrier cannot refuse to port a number
Under the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) “local number portability” (LNP) rules, so long as you remain in the same geographic area, you can switch telephone service providers, including interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, and keep your existing phone number. If you are moving from one geographic area to another, however, you may not be able to take your number with you. Therefore, subscribers remaining in the same geographic area can now switch from a wireless, wireline, or VoIP provider to any other wireless, wireline, or VoIP provider and still keep their existing phone numbers.
MB-I got that from the FCC website-there's alot of good info on the subject of porting numbers and the law. I know I read of other MJ users doing it already so I know it's possible and now it seems it's actually on the books as a regulation.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/.
Back to top
mberlant
Dan Should Pay Me
Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Posts: 671
Location: Japan
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be clear about this - MJ is not a telephone carrier. The ToS goes to great pains to specify this. As I explained in this thread, MJ is a "multimedia experience" exempt from carrier regulations.
mberlant wrote:
az2008 wrote:
[F]rom what I've read, it sounds like they (MJ -- ed.) don't have much choice:
Quote:
The right of consumers to keep the same, familiar phone number when switching to a new telephone company was expanded today by the Federal Communications Commission, in an Order that will further ensure consumers’ opportunity to choose a telephone service provider based on quality, price and service.
The FCC made clear that the obligation to provide local number portability extends to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol providers and the telecommunications carriers that obtain numbers for them. This action was, in part, a response to numerous complaints by consumers about their inability to port numbers to or from interconnected VoIP providers. The FCC also initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on additional VoIP numbering issues.
--
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a ... 7752A1.pdf
Mark
Yes, the key phrase in the FCC announcement is "interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol providers", and MJ has specifically positioned themselves so as not to fit this categorization.magicJack_ToS wrote:
The goods and services offered by magicJack provide a multimedia experience which includes a voice over Internet information service feature. It is not a telecommunications service and is subject to different regulatory treatment from telecommunications services.
The bottom line remains. Don't hold your breath waiting for inbound LNP to become a reality, and don't wager your precious phone number that you will be able to port it out later if you manage to port it in.
MJ leases every last one of their phone numbers from YMAX. YMAX is the carrier and MJ is the customer. We are not YMAX's customers. MJ lends us one of their phone numbers for the duration of our relationship with them, but they retain ownership of that number.
This is very similar to the relationship you have with your office telephone if you work for Verizon, as an example. Verizon, the employer, lends you one of the phone numbers they have leased from Verizon, the phone company, for the duration of your employment. Verizon, the employer, is the customer of Verizon, the phone company, with respect to everyone's office phone number. You, the employee, have no right to import your own "office phone number" nor take theirs with you when you leave Verizon's employment.
YMAX is obliged to support LNP, and I suppose that if any direct YMAX customer requested an LNP transaction they would accommodate it. MJ, on the other hand, has no interest in expending the resources to handle LNP, as the incremental expense would far outstrip the incremental revenue, and that would only serve to raise the price that we pay for our MJs. This is very likely why MJ was set up as a separate company in the first place.
Back to top
