Talk:Local number portability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original definition does not properly define LNP and how it works in the US. If it was written to describe LNP in a specific country, that country needs to be identified as part of this definition.

I have edited the article for specificity, clarity, and just plain good, sound information regarding LNP in the US. There is much more detail I could have included, but considering how complex LNP infrastructure can be, as the original author quite accurately points out, I think it more effective to try to keep it short while providing at least a minimum of technical detail.

I also argue against merging LNP to "Porting Authorisation Code" since this, too, is misleading about the nature of portability and how it works in the US. Since 1997, all ported numbers and number pool blocks in the US have been ported using an "LRN" or "Location Routing Number." In more than 5 years of LNP Administration, I've never used the term "Porting Authorisation Code" nor have I heard it used at any of the organizations and governing bodies regarding LNP including the FCC, ATIS, OBF, the LNPA and LNPA-WG, NANPA, NANC or NPAC. Merging these two will only serve to confuse the concept even further than it already is. While this concept may be accurate for another country, it will only serve to misinform those curious about LNP in countries outside the one for which the article has been written.

I can see the "Porting Authorisation Code" article being referenced by this one, but certainly not merged with it since it is unique to what I assume is the UK, where porting is obviously different than it is in the US and probably elsewhere in the world, as well.