This document is offered compliments of BSP Media Group. www.bspmediagroup.com

All rights reserved.

Efficient  and  simple  por1ng  processes    make  one  day  por1ng  a  reality  

   Raymond  Bouwman,  Rabión  Consultancy  

   

Mobile  Number  Portability  Implementa<on  and  Management    -­‐  Dar  es  Salaam,  Tanzania,  15-­‐16  nov  2012  

About  Rabion  Consultancy…  NP  and  Numbering  Management  and  Domain  Naming  projects:  

 TRA    Bahrain,  OUR,  Jamaica,  TRC  Jordan,  TAS  Suriname,  European  

Commission  DG  CNECT,  DTZ  Aruba,    BTP  St.  Maarten,  BTP  Curacao  etc.)    

Operators  (KPN,  T-­‐Mobile,  Orange,  UTS)    

Service  Providers    

Enablers  (  Vodafone  Roaming  Service)    

Suppliers    

AGENDA  1)  The  reality  of  shortening  por<ng  <mes    2)  Stats  3)  What  is  causing  the  customer  experience?  4)  Drivers  behind    5)  Who  need  fast  por<ng  <mes?  6)  Drawbacks  of  fast  por<ng  <mes  7)  Conclusions  8)  Recommenda<ons      

• 6  

Brussels,  23  March  2009  EU  Telecoms  Commissioner  calls  for  consumer  right  to  change    phone  operator  in  1  day  

"Europe  should  be  ambi1ous  when  it  comes  to  empowering  our  consumers,"  says  Commissioner  Reding  in  her  video  message.  "Because  empowered  consumers  are  the  best  recipe  for  strong  compe11on  on  the  market,  investment  into  a=rac1ve  services  and,  at  the  end,  lower  prices  for  all.“  

"I  want  all  Europeans  to  be  able  to  switch  their  phone  operator  –  whether  mobile  or  fixed  –  within  one  single  day,  as  it  is  already  the  case  in  Ireland  and  in  Malta.“    

Why  ‘one  day  por<ng’    has  become  the  standard/benchmark?

Examining  the  por<ng  <mes:  Average  number  of  days  to  port  a  number  (EU)  

MNP   FNP  2011   2,5   3,8  2010   ?   ?  2009   4,1   5,9  2008   8,5   7,5      

             Not  en<rely  clear  what  ‘average’  means  (average  over  countries,  average  over  ported  customer,  or  weighted  average  over  the  total  subscribers  etc.  

na

na

na

na

na

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EU

Number of days needed to port a fixed number, October 2010 - October 2011

2010 2011

EU,  DG  Connect,  Digital  Agenda  Scoreboard  2010-­‐2011  

na

na

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EU

Number of days needed to port a mobile number, October 2010 - October 2011

2010 2011

EU,  DG  Connect,  Digital  Agenda  Scoreboard  2010-­‐2011  

na

na

na

na

na

na

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EU

Fixed number portability transactions, 2010 (Jan-Sept) - 2011 (Jan-Sept)

2010 2011

EU,  DG  Connect,  Digital  Agenda  Scoreboard  2010-­‐2011  

na

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EU

Mobile number portability transactions, 2010 (Jan-Sept) - 2011 (Jan-Sept)

2010 2011

EU,  DG  Connect,  Digital  Agenda  Scoreboard  2010-­‐2011  

Learning  from  case  studies  and  best  prac1ce  examples  of  effec1ve    por1ng  procedures  and  quick  por1ng  1mes..    Less  that  24  hours  :  USA  (2,5h),  Canada  (<3h),  Australia  (3h),  New  Zealand,  Ghana,  Chile  (2h),  Ireland,  Malta  (4h)  …  1  day  :  UK,  Singapore,  Lithuania,  Luxemburg,  Spain,  Denmark,  Poland.  More  than  1  day:  all  the  rest….      In  Ghana  ‘17  minutes  and  19  seconds’,  but  45%  within  5  minutes  (while  wai<ng  in  a  shop)        

Por<ng  process  -­‐  <me  components  

Picture  edited  from  European  Commission  Commijee,  report  2010  

Wai<ng  <me  before  PR  submission  to  donor  

Processing  <me  at  donor  

Wai<ng  Time  before  execu<on  

Execu<on  Time  

EU  Universal  Service  Direc<ve    

Por<ng  of  numbers  and  their  subsequent  ac<va<on  shall  be  carried  out  within  the  shortest  possible  <me.  

         In  any  case,  customers  who  have  concluded  an  agreement  to  port  a  number  to  a  new  undertaking  shall  have  that  number  ac<vated  within  one  working  day.  

Defini<ons  Examples    ’  Por<ng  Time’    1)  Time  between  submission  of  the  Por<ng  Request  by  recipient  

and  the  comple<on  of  the  number  por<ng  execu<on  (including  the  ac<va<on  at  the  new  network)  

2)  Time  between  approval  of  the  Por<ng  Request  by  Donor  and  the  comple<on  of  the  number  por<ng  execu<on  (including  the  ac<va<on  at  the  new  network)  

3)  The  actual  Por<ng  Execu<on  

Defini<ons  Examples    ’  Por<ng  Time’    1)  Time  between  submission  of  the  Por<ng  Request  and  the  

comple<on  of  the  number  por<ng  execu<on  (including  the  ac<va<on  at  the  new  network)  

2)  Time  between  approval  of  the  Por<ng  Request  and  the  comple<on  of  the  number  por<ng  execu<on  (including  the  ac<va<on  at  the  new  network)  

3)  The  actual  Por<ng  Execu<on  

Other  points  of  ajen<on  on  Por<ng  Time  •  Difference  between  Recipient-­‐led  process  and    a  Donor-­‐led  process  

(end-­‐to-­‐end  cycle  is  different)  •   Service  Providers  or  resellers  in  the  chain:  they  may  need  processing  <me  •  What  if  Por<ng  Request  is  rejected,  is  this  part  (Time!)  of  the  process?  •  What  is  a  working  day?  Por<ng  Only  during  Working  Hours/Working  Days,  or  24/7  

por<ng?  What  if  requests  arrive  on  Friday  at  16.55  just  before  closing?    •  Condi<ons  not  allowing    NP  in  due  <me  (within  the  requested  por<ng  <me  frame)?  

Postpaid  in  par<cular  (Contract  binding  period,  terms  of  no<ce,  bad  debt,  suspension)  

•  Groups  of  numbers  •  Physical  Limita<ons  that  need  <me  (PSTN  fixed,  SIM  distribu<on!),    •  Central  Systems  Quota  management    

What  is  causing  the  customer  experience?  

1)  The    por<ng  method  procedure  2)  The  technical  system  implementa<on  4)  Terms  and  Condi<on  for  rejec<ng  the  Por<ng  Request  

1)  Por<ng  Method  •  Simple    Interoperator  Messaging  Processes  •  Effec<ve  valida<on  rules  (but  s<ll  fulfill  security  requirements  

and  prevent  fraud)  •  Only  require    customer/subscrip<on  data  relevant  to  the  

process  •  Electronic  authorisa<on  instead  of    handwrijen  signatures,  no  

exhange  of  paper  forms  

RECIPIENT   DONOR  CENTRAL  SYSTEM  

Por<ng  request  

Por<ng  request    ACCEPT  

Por<ng  executed  

Por<ng  execu<on  

Tcs  

T1  

T2  

T3  

1)  No  specific  por<ng  Date  and  at  Time  agreed.  Por<ng  happens  whenever  it  happens!    

2)  Receiving  a  message  just  triggers  the  next  step  message  3)  Por<ng  <me  is  T1  +  T2  +T3  +  Tcs’  +  Tcs’’  +  Tcs’’’  +  Tcs’’’’  

‘Go  with  flow’  por<ng  

Donor handling time

Execution at

Recipient Execution at Donor

RECIPIENT   DONOR  CENTRAL  SYSTEM  

Por<ng  request(por1ng  date/1me)  

Por<ng  request    ACCEPT  

Por<ng  executed  Por<ng  execu<on  

1)  Request  for  specific  por<ng  Date/Time.  Por<ng  Execu<on  waits  un<l  por<ng  Date/Time  has  arrived.    

2)  Capability  to  schedule  Number  Por<ng  to  take  place  in  the  future  

Por<ng  <me  is  T1  +  T2  +T3  +  Tcs’  +  Tcs’’  +  Tcs’’’  +  Tcs’’’’  +  Wai<ng  Time    

‘  Planned  Time’  Por<ng  

Por<ng    Date  &  Time  

Wai<n

g  <m

e  

T1  

T3  

Donor handling time

Execution at Donor

T2  

2)  Technical  system  implementa<on  •  Automated  procedures,  no  (or  minimal)  manual  interven<ons  •  No  Batch  Processes  (<me  consuming,  non-­‐real  <me),  but  event-­‐

driven  •  Overall  Data  Consistency  and  low  fault  rates  (Central  Database  

solu<on,  and    Central  Agent/Clearing  system)    •  Provisioning  Process  (Number  Ac<va<on)  must  be  efficient  and  

reliable,  and  well  integrated  with  Por<ng  Execu<on  

3)  Terms  and  condi<on  Reasons  not  to  accept  a  Por<ng  request  (non-­‐prepaid)  e.g.  :  •  Contract  End  date  not  reached  •  Terms  of  No<ce  period  before  a  subscrip<on  has  to  be  legally  

terminated  •  Outstanding  Payments  •  Bad  Debt  or  other  liabili<es  unresolved  Allowing  any  of  these  circumstances  to  reject  a  por<ng  request  will  

not  lead  to  the  best  possible  por<ng  <mes  NP  should  be  free  of  barriers  if  fast  por<ng  <mes  are  desired.  For  always  fast  por<ng  <mes,  keep  Contractual  T&C  and  Por<ng  

Rules  separately    

Understanding  the  drivers  behind  reducing  por1ng  1mes  

•  In  general,  Regulators  are  the  drivers  to  short  and  efficient  por<ng  

•  (Many)  Operators  may  have  objec<ons  and  see  complica<ons  (primarily  commercial  reasons)  

•  More  important  is  to  look  at  the  customer:  Q:  Does  ‘one  por<ng  <me  fits  all’?  A:  In  general  shortening  Por<ng  Times  is  a  good  thing,  but  the  Por<ng  Time  should  be  just  what  the  customer  needs,  and  not  necessarily  the  shortest  possible  <me  

 

Why  improve/shorten  the  por<ng  <me?    •  Because  Telecom  Regulators  want  it  •  Maturity  of  NP  solu<ons.  Because  it  is  technically  possible  •  Because    Customers  do  not  want  to  wait,  if  no  reason  •  Improvement  of  the  Customer  Experience,  process  that  is  

easier  to  understand  •  Contribu<on  to  more  level  of  compe<<on  in  the  Market  •  Benchmark  between  countries:  faster  is  bejer!    

Is  a  minimum  por<ng  <me  required  for  all  types  of  customers?  CONSUMER  PREPAID  (shop  order)  :  YES,    Less  than  10  minutes  (while  

wai<ng  at  the  point  of  sales)  PREPAID  ON  LINE  SALES:  NO,  several  days  available,  but  quick  

execu<on  may  be  triggered  by  customer  once  SIM  card  received  LARGE  BUSINESS:  NO,  customer  needs  prepara<on  and  <me  for  

migra<on,  Typically  4-­‐6  weeks  FIXED  PSTN:  NO,  physical  connec<on  or  LLU  needs  <me,  Typically  2  

weeks  VOIP:  YES  even  for  online  sales  CONCLUSION:  Do  not  get  hung  up  on  ultrashort  por<ng  <mes  as  a  

rule,  but  make  the  Por<ng  Process  and  the  <ming  fit  to  the  customers’needs  

   

DRAWBACKS  on  FAST  PORTING  TIMES?  1)  ‘impulsive  buying’,  no  <me  to  think  it  over  twice.  2)  No  <me  to  ask  the  Donor  for  a  bejer  deal!  (Remember  

that  MNP  is  a  tool  for  more  compe<<on  and  bejer  pricing)  3)  Non-­‐paid  customers  may  be  surprised  by  unexpected/

unknown  pay-­‐off  costs?    4)  Higher  risk  to  ‘Slamming’?  5)  Prepaid  Credit  at  the  old  network  lost?  6)  No  <me  to  ask  the  Donor  for  a  bejer  deal!                  Remember  that  MNP  is  a  tool  for  more  compe<<on  and  

bejer  rates.    The  number  of  ports  nor  the  por<ng  <me  dura<on  are  goals  in  itself  

 

Discussion  Tanzania  Por<ng  Time  defini<on?    

Conclusions  1)  Trend  that  average  por<ng  <mes  are  decreasing.  Por<ng  <mes  

of  1  day  or  less  have  become  common  .  Near  real-­‐<me  por<ng  bas  become  the  reality.  

2)  The  defini<on  of  ‘Por<ng  Time’,  and  monitoring  has  to  be  carefully  considered.  

3)  The  barriers  to  reach  fast  por<ng  <mes  (1  day  or  less)  are  primarily  of  a    legal  nature.  Technical  barriers  can  be  resolved.  

4)  Trade-­‐of  between  ‘Fast  Por<ng  Times’  and    ‘Por<ng  Reject  Reasons’  

5)  The  Por<ng  Time  is  not  a  ‘fit  for  all’.  Various  type  of  users  and  situa<ons  need  differen<a<on  depending  on  customer  requirements.  

 

Recommenda<ons  Regulatory  authori<es  have  to  :  •  Look  into  ‘Por<ng  Time’  in  a  detailed  and  way  •  Provide  clear  and  understandable  defini<ons  •  Set  realis<c  and  representa<ve  targets,  not  only  for  por<ng  

<me  but  also  for    valida<on  <me,  down  <me  etc.  •  Avoid  ‘one-­‐fits-­‐all’  objec<ves    •  Take  into  account  difference  between  customers,  

proposi<ons,  fixed  vs.  Mobile  •  Provide  clear  instuc<ons  for  monitoring  and  repor<ng  por<ng  

<me  performance