Head image from: Visual China
Number portability transfer, as the name suggests, users can freely choose among several telecom operators based on their personal recognition of their service level, provided that the conditions are met, and the original mobile phone number remains unchanged.
As a benefiting project that implements the concept of “people-centered”, the number portability transfer service brings huge competitive pressure to basic telecom operators. This puts forward that telecom operators continue to improve their overall service level Higher requirements.
This service looks very good, but it has gone through a relatively long journey in terms of policy support, technology implementation, and operation management. After all, the scope and chain involved are complicated. It is also true that the number portability transfer service was fully launched, and it took more than ten years of efforts from all parties to realize it.
In October 2006, the then Ministry of Information Industry issued Document No. 630, “Notice of the Ministry of Information Industry on Guaranteeing the Right to Choose a Tariff Plan for Mobile Phone Users.” From November 2010 to September 2014, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology successively listed Tianjin, Hainan, Jiangxi, Hubei and Yunnan as pilot areas for the mobile number portability policy.
On November 11, 2019, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued the “Administrative Regulations on Port Portability Services.” On November 27, 2019, the nationwide “number portability transfer” officially provided service kick-off meeting was held in Beijing.
It can be seen that the number portability transfer service started in the 2G era, and progressed in the 3G and 4G eras, but it was not until the 5G era that the number portability transfer service was launched nationwide. In the 5G era, on the side of individual users, the entire industry has entered an anxious period of competition around existing users.
This basic industry development stage is for the actual service provision of number portability. In some areas, for individual users, because some conditions are not met, it leaves a foreshadowing for some contradictions. The dissatisfaction of some conditions is often not caused by the unreasonable behaviors of the staff of individual operators and enterprises when the users must violate the spirit of the contract with sufficient knowledge. When some improper behavior occurred, the contradictory relationship was aggravated because of the negligence of internal management.
From the recent report of the Shaanxi Provincial Communications Administration’s investigation and handling of China Mobile’s Xi’an Branch’s unjustified refusal to provide users with number portability services, we can clearly see the improper internal management. What’s more serious is that the key operation that triggers fierce user complaints is to reportThe known 2-year service period, when handling the number portability network, was informed that the service agreement had been extended for 18 years, that is, the handling personnel adjusted the user agreement period to 20 years without authorization.
Therefore, when it was determined that the problems reported by users were basically true, Xi’an was imposed an administrative penalty of 50,000 yuan. Internally, five management cadres, including the deputy general manager in charge, were punished to varying degrees, including notifications, warnings, demerits, and exhortations. It can be said that internal penalties are more serious than external administrative penalties.
Judging from the reported incident, the company’s fine of 50,000 yuan is not considered low among the administrative penalties. This is a direct economic loss. The five people being punished to varying degrees will also have a certain impact on me. . More importantly, the corporate image has been damaged. For so many years, users’ criticisms of telecom operators have continued. Some criticisms may be improper, but criticisms caused by such incidents will be repeatedly cited.
Faced with this incident, we can’t help but ask: How did such an obvious move that did not pay off in the end come to this point? In other words, why is the number portability service for the benefit of the people so misread in some places?
Uncle Snake believes that the main reasons are as follows:
First of all, the internal publicity and implementation of the service of number portability should not be sufficient, especially the lower the level, the less understanding the implementation of this policy. Therefore, when faced with the user’s request for number portability, the handling staff did not pay enough attention to it. When they saw that the conditions for the transfer were not met, they would only respond step by step according to the general records of the system user.
Secondly, the main internal links are not sufficiently coordinated. In the face of obviously unreasonable situations, such as the 20-year long agreement period mentioned in the report, the business managers did not pay attention and took the initiative to investigate why. From a general point of view, this kind of extra-long agreement period should be considered as a special warning matter. If necessary, may need to be upgraded to actively promote usersReasonable demands were effectively resolved.
But judging from the results, there is a situation where “the railway police manages one section of each section”, which misses the best time to effectively solve the users’ requests for network transfer. Users repeatedly communicated to no avail through the network exposure, and aroused regulatory attention, and ultimately resolved through administrative penalties.
Finally, the internal pressure on performance appraisal for port portability.
The assessment of this service work mainly comes from two aspects. One is the assessment for transfer-in and the other is the assessment for transfer-out. The assessment indicators for transfer-out will have greater pressure at the grassroots level. This kind of assessment pressure is It will force grassroots personnel to use all possible methods to prevent users who want to transfer out as far as possible. Therefore, when the number portability service was fully launched, Uncle Sn suggested in an article on related topics that telecom operators should not use this work as a key indicator of performance evaluation.
Because the number portability transfer service is good, but in the case that the basic service difference is not obvious, the number of users who toss the transfer network may be too many at the beginning, but it will not cause a large amount as expected in the end Fluctuations.
As for the number portability transfer, in the eyes of Uncle Snake, it is a tasteless service. If you want to get a better network experience and service guarantee, in the case of the popularity of all Netcom mobile phones, continuous “speed up and fee reduction” Under the policy, tariffs continue to fall, and it is entirely possible to choose dual-network dual-standby, adopting a primary and one standby approach. This is much better than tossing about porting and transferring to the Internet. However, from this announcement, it is closely related to the setting of the number portability transfer assessment.
In short, the service of number portability is very good on the user’s side. However, because telecom operators at all levels have not reached an effective consensus on this work. On the contrary, it may also be due to the inappropriate setting of assessment indicators in the actual management link that caused dissatisfaction at the grassroots level, which distorted the classics. In this way, it can be said that “stealing chickens does not lose rice.” It is believed that this notification incident will be of great warning significance to major telecom operators.