Over the past decade or so, many Caribbean countries have implemented mobile number portability (MNP) to increase competition and offer more choice to consumers. However, fixed mobile portability (FNP) implementation has lagged behind. With Trinidad and Tobago launching FNP this week, we discuss the subject and why it has remained a challenge.
Yesterday, 26 June 2025, fixed number portability (FNP) was officially launched in Trinidad and Tobago (Source: Trinidad and Tobago Newsday). Although mobile number portability was implemented in 2016, FNP has taken considerably longer to realise.
Although it might initially appear that Trinidad and Tobago has lagged behind the rest of the region regarding FNP, that is not the case. Few Caribbean countries have successfully implemented FNP compared to mobile number portability (MNP).
What is FNP, and the region’s track record?
At its heart, “number portability” is the ability for a telephone subscriber to retain their existing telephone number when they change service providers. FNP allows customers to keep their landline (fixed-line) telephone number when they switch from one fixed-line service provider to another, which traditionally would have been copper-based phone lines. However, modern fixed-line services offered over fibre optics or cable (like VoIP services tied to a geographic fixed number) are also included.
The implementation of number portability, whether fixed or mobile, is often cited as a way to increase competition among telecommunications providers by allowing consumers to ‘vote with their feet’. It is well known that consumers consider the need to change telephone and mobile numbers when shifting from one service provider to another as a disadvantage, as it can be difficult, inconvenient and expensive to ensure their entire network is aware when a change of number has occurred. By allowing consumers to keep their numbers but change their service provider, not only can the former avail themselves of the options in the market, but they also are not unduly tied to a particular provider and so have the freedom of choice.
MNP has seen wider and earlier adoption across the Caribbean region compared to FNP, as reflected in Exhibit 1. We outline reasons why in the next section.
Why has FNP been more challenging to implement than MNP?
Implementing any form of number portability comes with a broad range of challenges, which often technical considerations, the attendant cost for upgrades and the willingness of the service providers to participate in developing the portability framework. However, FNP often presents unique complexities compared to MNP. The key ones are outlined below.
First, and although it might be obvious, in order to successfully implement FNP, there ought to be a competitive fixed-line market with more than one carrier. However, some Caribbean countries still only have one major fixed-line service provider, and if they have others, the availability of the service might be limited geographically, for example, which does not readily support the effort needed to implement FNP.
In recent years, regional mobile/cellular carrier, Digicel, has expanded its network and service offerings to include fixed-line voice, fixed-wireless internet and voice, and cable/subscriber television. In countries where those services are available, it is competing in the fixed-line space and ground for FNP with have already been implemented or have become more viable.
Fixed-line carriers, especially longstanding ones, tend to be plagued with legacy infrastructure, specifically, copper-based networks and traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) systems. These systems were not designed with number portability in mind, making it more complex and costly to integrate the necessary databases and routing mechanisms. Further, terrestrial networks are being upgraded to fibre optics, which has been replacing the existing copper infrastructure, but the process is expensive and has been protracted.
Linked to infrastructure is the “last-mile challenge”. Unlike mobile/cellular services, where the connection is wireless, fixed lines often involve a physical “last mile” connection to the customer’s premises. In most Caribbean countries, the incumbent fixed-line carrier owns that last-mile connection. Hence, if a customer switches providers but wants to keep their existing physical line, in principle, the carrier to which they wish to transfer their service would have to install a last-mile connection, but that option is prohibitively expensive and is often not pursued. Alternatively, arrangements would need to be made to coordinate and facilitate access via the incumbent’s infrastructure, which can be a major regulatory and operational hurdle that would need to be resolved.
Additionally, it ought to be borne in mind, fixed-line numbers tend to be tied to a specific geographic location and exchange area. In other words, you could tell what geographic area a caller was calling from based on the phone number, and similarly, the network would know how to route calls accordingly. However, when a customer ports a fixed number, it means routing calls that historically went to a physical line in one location will now go to a different physical or virtual location provided by the new operator, which can add considerable complexity to routing tables and network provisioning.
It is also worth emphasising that the fixed-line network can carry a broader range of services beyond basic voice, such as DSL internet, cable TV, fax lines, alarms, and point-of-sale systems. Ensuring that all associated services seamlessly transfer with the number that has been ported can be a significant technical challenge. Furthermore, partial porting (where only the voice service moves, for example) can lead to service disruptions as well as a range of technical complexities that must be addressed.
Finally, as previously mentioned, implementing FNP or MNP requires the concerted involvement of infrastructure carriers and service providers in shaping the framework developed. Often, one or more players, and typically the incumbent provider, are reluctant to participate in the development process, which has been a major source of the delays countries have experienced in implementing number portability. However, once the framework is in place and the providers have made the necessary technical upgrades, the actual porting of numbers tends to involve more detailed coordination between the original operator and the new operator, especially concerning the physical infrastructure and service activation. If all entities are not sufficiently on board, delays can occur to the detriment of customers.
Summary
In Caribbean countries that have implemented MNP, we have seen more price competition, as operators are incentivised to offer more aggressive pricing plans, bundles, and promotions. Moreover, beyond price, operators have been forced to compete on service quality, including network coverage, speed, customer service, and innovative offerings. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for fixed-line services, which have languished for decades, but are crucial to facilitate our countries’ transition to digital societies.
Hence, when FNP has been successfully implemented, there is the potential for the benefits realised in the mobile/cellular segment to also occur in the fixed-line market. However, consumers must be made aware of it, and its use actively being encouraged, so that customers have the benefit of choice and that carriers and service providers will be prepared to give this important segment the attention it deserves.
In summary, implementing FNP is typically more challenging and resource-intensive than MNP due to the inherent complexities of legacy fixed-line infrastructure, geographic dependencies, and the broader range of associated services. This is a key reason why many Caribbean countries, and indeed many regions globally, prioritized MNP before tackling the complexities of FNP.
Image credit: Julian Hochgesang (Unsplash)
