The prohibitively high cost of porting large amounts of fixed-line numbers hampers the success of geographic number portability and prevents competition in the telecoms sector.
Geographic number portability (GNP), which started becoming a reality in 2009, was hailed as the removal of a barrier to decent telecoms competition and consumer choice. The move was expected to spur competition in the sector and reduce prices.
Fixed-line porting, which followed on from mobile number portability, was implemented in two phases. The first, in May 2009, allowed large number blocks to be moved; and the second, which came into effect last year, catered for individual numbers.
So far, just over 165 000 fixed-line numbers have been ported since the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) allowed end-users to switch providers and keep their numbers. Yet, more than 800 000 mobile numbers have been ported since November 2006.
However, the Number Portability Company (NPC) charges operators R50 for each number they move, regardless if a single consumer or a corporate with 10 000 extensions is switching providers.
Telecoms companies argue this high cost of moving blocks of numbers, and incomplete regulations, is a barrier to end-users switching providers; inhibiting growth in the sector and stunting competition.
Too expensive
xConnect SA CEO Chris Geerdts says the cost involved is putting end-users off porting, killing innovation and the opportunity for corporates to save money. “It's unworkably expensive,” he argues.
End-users want to keep their numbers as some companies have had them for decades and they are an inherent part of a firm's identity, says Geerdts. He argues the cost of porting undermines competition, which was the reason GNP was allowed in the first place.
Geerdts says either the customer or the operator will end up forking out for the cost of porting, an amount that can take months to recoup and makes porting prohibitively expensive. “Either way, the customer pays in some way or another.”
Porting one number also requires a range to be entered, although in that case the start and end numbers are the same, explains Geerdts. Although more computing power may be needed, the amount of additional effort does not justify the cost, he argues.
Greg Massel, Switch Telecom director, says the cost is an obstruction to new entrants that want to offer their services to corporates.
The high cost of porting is a barrier to changing providers, regardless of whether a company wants to move a few hundred numbers or 10 000, argues Massel. “Half a million rand just for the right to move providers is exorbitant.”
GNP was meant to be pro-competition, but the cost defeats the purpose, says Massel. The charge-per-port is a model that dates back to when mobile number portability was introduced and is outdated, he adds.
Blame the regulations
Vox Telecom's chief commercial officer Murray Steyn says, in addition to the high cost of porting, which hampers competition, the regulations are incomplete.
“Numbers are not being ported in large quantities at the moment mainly because there is no mechanism to port 0800 or 0860 numbers, which are the most lucrative of the lot.” He explains these numbers are a company's identity and used as a branding tool.
“Because we can't port these numbers, the opportunity for the smaller telcos, and the benefit for their customers, is far smaller than it could be.” He says part of the problem is these numbers are not included in regulations, and there is no standard way for the industry to deal with interconnect and retail rates.
Clive Fagan, GM of the Number Portability Company, says the regulations do not allow for different rates to port blocks of numbers. He says the NPC sees numbers as individual units and not as blocks, regardless of how many are moved. “That's the way it's always been.”
The NPC is simply a facilitator and does not set pricing, says Fagan. “There's no such thing as a block if you look at the regulations.”
Paseka Maleka, ICASA spokesman, says the regulator is not planning to review the regulations “as yet”.
Share
