Local number portability and local loop competition. Critical issues

Reinke, Thomas

doi:10.1016/s0308-5961(97)00058-x

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence that portability increases the mobility of customers and reduces the switching costs can also be found in other markets, for example, local number portability in the local telephone market (Reinke, 1998;Gans et al, 2001;Haucap, 2003), pension portability (Andrietti and Hildebrand, 2001;Gustman and Steinmeier, 1993) and health insurance portability (Stroupe et al, 2001;Miller, 2002) in the job market, and voucher portability in the housing market (Basolo, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Estimating the extent of potential competition in the Korean mobile telecommunications market: Switching costs and number portability

Lee

Kim

Lee

et al. 2006

International Journal of Industrial Organization

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Estimating the extent of potential competition in the Korean mobile telecommunications market: Switching costs and number portability

Lee

Kim

Lee

et al. 2006

International Journal of Industrial Organization

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Prior to MNP availability, customers faced switching costs related to printing new business cards, informing social circles about their new number, missing important calls from people that do not have the new number, etc. Regulatory authorities imposed mandatory MNP service in order to make the mobile telecommunication more competitive and reduce customer switching costs (Reinke, 1998). In this market scenario, customer retention becomes both more difficult and critical to business success.…”

Section: Need For Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring switching factors for mobile number portability: A survey

Khaliq

2017

Int. j. adv. appl. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pakistan's mobile phone market is one of the world's fastest growing markets with a subscriber base of 137 million users. Competition in the country's telecommunication industry is dominated by four players and customer demand is high. In addition, Pakistan is the first country in South Asia to have implemented Mobile Number Portability (MNP) in March 2007. MNP is a facility that allows mobile subscribers to switch between service providers without changing their existing phone numbers. Mobile phone service provider's selection may be influenced by various factors. Therefore, this research was undertaken to explore factors affecting MNP and to determine which factors were most influential in the selection of mobile phone service providers in a developing economy like Pakistan. Moreover, the study also probed into differences in customer perceptions between prepaid and post-paid customers. This exploratory study is based on primary data collected from 300 customers using services of different cellular companies who had experienced MNP facility. Factor analysis was carried out on obtained data and reliability of the resultant scale was verified to achieve the objectives of the study. The outcome of this research provided a concise framework of the various dimensions of customer choice. Contrary to previous researches, the result of this study indicated that infrastructural services, customer relationships, call quality and promotional packages were the most important factors affecting MNP. However, price of services was found less important factor in selection of telecommunication service providers. This study also showed that pre-paid and post-paid customers can be significantly different for many value-added services and promotional tools.

show abstract

“…The 1996 Telecommunications Act required that incumbent providers allow customers to keep their phone numbers when they changed to another company. However, the switching technology, while available, was not fully installed throughout the regional networks, and clearly, the lack of LNP was a significant obstacle to competition (Reinke, 1998). Additionally customers would have to deal with fiber optic installation construction on their property and they would need to complete numerous sales forms required by law.…”

Section: Exhibit 2: South Dakota Codified Law (Sdcl §9-35-18)mentioning

confidence: 99%