- NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - Hier 08:07

Why FNP means exactly nothing

[audio m4a="https://newsday.co.tt/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/BitDepth1517_Narration_30-06-2025.m4a"][/audio] BitDepth#1517 MARK LYNDERSAY THE introduction of fixed number portability (FNP), the ability of fixed-line users to change providers without losing their phone number, is not a completely pointless announcement, but it's very nearly so. The entire history of number portability in TT is one that is governed by the military term OBE (overcome by events), when neat plans collide with reality. Some background might help. The Telecommunications Authority of TT (TATT) announced that it would be introducing number portability to the market in February 2016. Yes, the initiative was started within shouting distance of ten years ago (technewstt.com/bd1031). Jamaica had already rolled out its own number portability project in 2015, porting 60,000 numbers. In April 2016, TATT announced that the project to start mobile number portability (MNP) had been delayed, then announced another delay in July. Finally, the authority, known for an excessive and often unmerited patience with its recalcitrant licensees, set a deadline of October 2016 for the commencement of the project. In its official statement on the matter, TATT noted that the deadline for mobile to mobile number portability would be October 31 and fixed to fixed number portability would be November 28, 2016. "The Authority," the official notice said, "declares that it shall cease forthwith to exercise forbearance on non-compliance by Operators who are subject to this DETERMINATION (sic)." So naturally, all licensees, worried that they might have their ability to operate pulled out from under them, rushed to do the regulator's bidding, yes? BWAHAHAHAHA. Noooo. They did not. A statement from the authority issued on July 2021 expressed the hope that good sense would prevail after TSTT's resistance to FNP had gone to court (technewstt.com/pr-tatt-number-portability-case). "Given today's judgement TATT intends to move promptly to implement Fixed Number Portability and work with TSTT and other fixed telecommunications service providers towards that goal," TATT proudly declared. This court case followed a July 2020 injunction filed against TSTT by Digicel complaining about the slow pace of number portability experienced by its customers. Having agreed to MNP, Digicel argued, TSTT was deliberately dragging out the process to frustrate potential migrants from its network. In its submission, Digicel noted, "Between January to June 14, 2020, a total of 9,274 porting requests were submitted by Digicel. There were 2,223 rejections for the six-month period." That matter was bounced back to TATT for specialist intervention after the Appeal Court upheld a decision by Justice Nadia Kangaloo. For those with a taste for legal judgements, reporting on Justice Frank Seepersad's findings is here: technewstt.com/tstt-flow-judiciary. So it's not a simple matter of TATT announcing number portability in 2016 and then announcing it again in 2025. The telecommunications landscape is also fundamentally different today. In 2016, TSTT had many customers connected to a copper hardline network. In September 2018, the company announced plans to entirely replace that network with fixed 5G connectivity or WTTx (wireless to the whatever). The copper network was ageing out, could not support modern connection speeds and was vulnerable to theft, because there is a healthy aftermarket for the metal. The company knew it was a problem since 2006, when a two-year project to replace copper lines with fibre-optic cable (technewstt.com/bd514/) was underway. TSTT's Zero Copper campaign did not take 18 months. It is still underway. In St James where I live, it took almost a year to complete to the point that copper switches could be removed from sidewalks. When a technology is announced and then languishes for a decade, other things happen. Digicel and Flow proceeded to create their own fixed network on top of their cable offerings. Anyone who didn't want to wait on WTTx either went to the competition or just used a mobile, where WhatsApp also eliminated the cost of long-distance charges. This grand announcement by TATT and the Ministry of Public Administration and AI did not reveal any numerical history to support number portability excitement. How many mobile numbers have been ported and from which providers? How many "landline" customers are actually left? OBE issues are relevant because we can't talk about number portability without considering the actual market for the service. Apart from businesses that want to hold on to vanity or well-distributed numbers, who needs FNP? Last week's FNP announcement brought praise from the AI Ministry's reliable cheerleaders and new eat-ah-food hopefuls, but they are actually celebrating another announcement in a decade-long disaster in implementation that looks set to benefit almost nobody. Mark Lyndersay is the editor of technewstt.com. An expanded version of this column can be found there The post Why FNP means exactly nothing appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.