As long as the “oliggo tacit understanding” of the three major operators still exists, the initiative will never be handed over to users.
Editor’s note: This article is from WeChat public account “Alter chat IT” ( ID: spnews), author Alter.
As the slow progress of speeding up and down over the years, the port number transfer is essentially the forced reform of operators under the pressure of the upper level. The original intention is not to give users as much welfare as possible. The initial starting point has not changed, and the port number transfer is ultimately a combination of contradictions.
The discussion before the popularization of 3G, the appeal of 4G commercial use, after 13 years of tossing, the boots of “carrying the number to the net” finally officially landed in the 5G year.
According to the interpretation of most media, the fruit of “carrying the number to the net” is not tempting: the port number transfer gives the user full freedom of choice, and the era of replacing the operator with the number has already arrived; Give the operator market a chance to reshuffle, and slightly weaker operators such as China Unicom and Telecom may compete for more market share…
It’s just the “mysterious” operator market. Uncertainty has almost become a normal state. The slogan of “speed-up and fee reduction” has been called for many years, and the monthly call charge has not risen. On the issue of the port number transfer of the operator’s cake, will the scene of “smelling its voice and being unrealistic” be staged again?
Heavy levels of “carrying numbers”
The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued the “Regulations on the Management of Portable Number Transfer Service”, which is quite clear:
Telecom service operators can not refuse, block or delay providing users with the right to carry the port number transfer service without proper reasons. After the number transfer service user proposes to apply for the transfer of the port number, the operator shall not adopt the technical means such as interception or restriction to affect the communication service quality of the port number transfer user.
Somewhat unfortunately, on the one hand, there is no public opinion about setting up a checkpoint for “carrying the number to transfer the network”, and on the other hand, it is a heavy checkpoint that the three major operators have laid in advance.
For example, after the “portable number transfer” system was put into trial operation, I conducted the enrollment qualification inquiry according to the SMS command provided by the operator. The result was that the port number could not be transferred for 7 reasons, including the binding. Broadband services, WLANs, family groups, and unified payment services that are not literally understood, personal interests that have not been used, and so on. In short, almost lost the qualification to carry the number to the network.
The reason is not difficult to understand. It has been 10 years since Hainan Mobile began to carry out the pilot number transfer network in 2009. From December 2018, Tianjin, Hainan, Hubei, Yunnan and Jiangxi have been transferred to the network. The pilot has also been in existence for nearly a year. Operators have enough time to bundle with users, such as family groups, broadband services, discount packages, traffic growth and other common routines.
A direct example, after the introduction of the time schedule for the port number transfer, the three major operators have introduced preferential policies for old customers, such as China Mobile’s “Check Network Age Delivery Traffic” and China Telecom’s “Network”. The age-old feedback, extended the user’s network transfer cycle in disguise, and even some netizens showed that after participating in the survey network to send traffic activities, the time of porting the number was “drag” to 2036.
As to whether the “bundling” of these businesses is a “just cause” as stipulated by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, there is no clear answer yet, and the “interpretation power” is firmly in the hands of operators.
If you are a “lucky” who has the qualification to transfer to the network, you may be informed of a series of transfer risks when you go to the operator’s counter. It is temporarily unable to accept third-party text messages, resulting in failure to log in to WeChat. Third-party application software such as QQ, Alipay, Taobao, or temporary notification SMS for bank and water and electricity services; cannot use third-party platforms such as Alipay and WeChat to charge for calls, and may also change mobile phones due to network standard…..
The most explained explanation is nothing more than the system transformation required for the port number transfer, involving operators, operators, banks, transportation, medical and other industries, and the number-to-network system system of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Wait. For example, if a user transfers the mobile phone number from mobile to telecommunications, the system docking between the telecommunications and the bank is not completed, and the user may not receive the SMS of the bank, and the bank needs to perform system transformation at the same time.
So, the port number transfer has not only become a contest between the three major operators, but also a system upgrade upgrade for all walks of life.
Technology gives way to business gaming
But technical theory and cost theory seem to be untenable.
As early as 1997, Singapore implemented the number portability system; in July 2003, the EU required member states to implement the policy of mobile phone number transfer; in 2006, Japan officially launched the port number transfer policy, and the procedure was on the same day. Can be completed… With a case from abroad, the technical threshold is unspeakable.
As for the cost, at that time, the three major operators in Japan, NTT DOCOMO, KDDI and Softbank, gave a refund fee of about 2,100 yen.RMB 134; South Korea’s new mobile phone market has become the peak period of the port number. If the network is transferred before the contract expires, it can also be off the net by paying liquidated damages; the UK simplified the transfer procedure in July this year. The transfer can be completed within one working day, and the user’s balance can continue to be used.
In the final analysis, the factors that hinder China’s port number transfer, technology and cost constraints are almost negligible, and commercial games are the slow-moving lesions.
Returning the time back to 18 years ago, China’s operator market is still a pattern of seven countries competing in telecommunications, China Unicom, China Netcom, China Mobile, Jitong, China Railcom and Weitong. The result is not as good as expected. Instead, there is a vicious competition. According to a work report of the National Audit Office in August 2018: between 2002 and 2006, the investment in infrastructure of mobile, telecommunications, China Unicom, China Netcom and China Railcom reached 11,235 billion yuan, but the utilization rate of network resources is generally low, the utilization rate of communication optical cable is only about 1/3, and the application of new technology has stopped.
In order to eradicate such vicious competition, what happened later is familiar to everyone. Jitong was merged into Netcom, and then reorganized and merged with China Unicom. Tietong was merged into China Mobile. The telecom business of Weitong was merged into China Telecom, which formally formed the market structure of “Three Kingdoms Kill”.
There is the “oligarch tacit understanding” reached by the three major operators. The price of the original smoke has been dying, and the communication market has gone through the 3G and 4G eras.
To some extent, the implementation of the port number transfer system is also the result of the business game. In the original tariff structure, the capital in the impression is often higher than Unicom and Telecom. After the timetable for the port number transfer, China Unicom and Telecom have successively removed a lot of packages below 19 yuan, which may be to protect The original “guarantee number” users will not be transferred on a large scale, but they also stifle the motives for users to reduce their tariffs through the transfer.
Even if it is because of the user of the signal difference network, the possible result is also transferred back and then back. After all, in the capital expenditure plan of the three major operators in 2019, China Mobile’s expenditure is about 166.9 billion yuan, China Telecom is 78 billion yuan, and China Unicom’s corresponding figure is 58 billion yuan, which is almost proportional to the receivables. Capital expenditure directly determines the operator’s base station density and indirectly limits the size of the normal service user.
I want to substantially force the reform of the communications industry. The port number transfer can only be said to be the first step. Base station sharing is the key. It was only the first step that ran for 13 years, and the base station shared almost no point in time.
Forced change under external pressure
The paradox is that the operator is clearly a monopolist lying in the comfort zone, and has repeatedly complained that “the pressure is huge.”
From the recently released third quarter earnings report, the three major operatorsThe revenues have all experienced different degrees of decline, and directly led to the decline in stock prices:
China Mobile’s operating income for the first three quarters was 566.7 billion yuan, down 0.2% year-on-year, of which net profit attributable to shareholders was 81.8 billion yuan, down 13.9% from the same period of last year;
China Telecom’s operating income for the first three quarters was 282.826 billion yuan, down 0.8% year-on-year, of which shareholders’ profit attributable to shareholders was nearly 18.4 billion yuan, down 3.4% from the same period last year;
China Unicom’s operating income for the first three quarters was 217.12 billion yuan, down 1.2% year-on-year, of which shareholders’ profit attributable to shareholders was about 9.8 billion yuan, up 11.9% over the same period of the previous year.
With regard to the reasons for both revenue and profit decline, China Mobile has given two arguments: one is to completely abolish the impact of domestic traffic roaming charges, and the other is to speed up the fee reduction work to weaken the profitability of data services.
Returning to the problem of porting to the network, it is also a product of policy pressure, the cost of system transformation and maintenance, will further dilute the profit margins of the three major operators. At least for the moment, the three major operators have almost zero threshold when users transfer, and set a heavy checkpoint for the user’s transfer. The one-and-one-light rule design undoubtedly exposes the operator’s response logic to a certain extent. It is not difficult to understand the various routines when carrying the number to the network.
In addition, the subtle time of 5G commercialization has also cast a shadow over the upcoming port number.
In 2019, China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom respectively indicated that they will invest 24 billion yuan, 8 billion yuan and 9 billion yuan in the construction of 5G base stations. By 2020, the three major operators plan to further expand the 5G construction to more than 340 cities across the country, and the basic investment will inevitably double.
According to the internal explanation of the operator, 4G investment has not been recovered, and it is necessary to “burn money” in the construction of 5G. Minimizing the user’s transfer out is a compulsory course for all operators, and it is inevitable to work hard on 5G mobile phones. The “contract machine” that was born when 3G and 4G were popularized is bound to become the standard in the 5G era. The three major operators will also release their own 5G mobile phones in cooperation with mobile phone manufacturers.
The difference is that the contract machine in the 4G era only appeared in the early stage of application. After the terminal subsidy of the operator ended, the contract machine gradually withdrew from the stage. But in the 5G era, the contract machine will become a new normal. After all, mobile phone operators have put an end to the best way for users to transfer their numbers. It is nothing more than limiting the network standard of mobile phones, supplemented by a certain price subsidy, and firmly grasping users in their own hands.
It can be concluded that, like the slow progress of speeding up and down years, the port number transfer is essentially the forced reform of operators under the pressure of the upper level. The original intention is not to give users as much welfare as possible. The initial starting point has not changed, and the port number transfer is ultimately a combination of contradictions.
Ending
As an ordinary consumer, I sincerely hope that operators can think of problems from the standpoint of users.
The operators in reality have long been the loyal fans of monopoly thinking. Just like the illusion that “virtual operators” once caused, companies buy communication services from operators and sell them under their own brands. The user, in the end, is only the new and retained vest for the operator.
It’s not known whether the port number transfer will repeat the past mistakes, but as long as the “oliggo tacit understanding” of the three major operators still exists, the initiative will never be handed over to users.