Telecommunications: rights and network operations · France / Switzerland
Number portability: reconcile network events
An inter-operator portability review distinguishes the donor, recipient and number-range holder before linking requests, transfer events and routing changes. Preserve timestamps, timezones, protocol versions and event evidence. France and Switzerland apply their own numbering and portability rules, including different effective dates. The reconciliation exposes inconsistent statuses and missing handovers; it does not attribute operator fault from an incomplete event sequence or reveal a full telephone number.
Julie by AlphaDeep is an AI legal assistant for French law: it researches official references to help answer your questions (Légifrance, case law, service-public), analyses your documents and drafts your letters, for individuals and professionals alike.
Sources checked3 November 2026
- Official texts cited
- Sources checked on
- Drafted with AI assistance, our method
General legal information with official references and dated checks. It is not personalised advice: for a decision that commits you, have your situation checked by a qualified professional.
Julie by AlphaDeep
What records establish the request and effective transfer?
France: distinguish request receipt, acceptance, scheduling and effective-port confirmation under the relevant decision. Switzerland: preserve the corresponding actual transfer evidence; an acknowledgement or planned date alone does not establish completed portability.
Read the referencesYour file concerns “Number portability: reconcile network events”. Does it concern France or Switzerland? Share the document for number and roles and the decision you need to prepare.
3 free questions at signup. Avoid names and sensitive information.
Which donor, recipient and number-range holder roles are involved?
France: identify donor, recipient, range holder and any transit role separately. Switzerland: the technical prescription distinguishes the relevant providers as well; the original allocation holder is not necessarily the current serving operator.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
Masked portability and routing event reconciliation
Use one identified request and number per record, with only a masked number, roles, statuses, explicit timezone timestamps and evidence. A mask is not a unique identifier. Chronology and coincident events do not determine responsibility. The initial data are synthetic.
Synthetic example: fictional records · Masked portability and routing event reconciliation
- Jurisdiction
- France
- Dossier and version
- SYN-R1
- Operators and scope
- SYN-A → SYN-B
- Supplied interface and version
- SYN-V1
- Supplied events
- 2
| Masked number | Role | Event | Instant with timezone | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| +33••1234 | Donor | Release recorded | 2026-11-03T11:00+01:00 | SYN-E1 |
| +33••1234 | Recipient | Routing recorded | 2026-11-03T10:02Z | SYN-E2 |
One record for one number and request identified by your internal reference. A mask is not a unique identifier. Chronology proves neither fault nor incompatibility of two events. Missing information remains unknown.
What records establish the request and effective transfer?
France: distinguish request receipt, acceptance, scheduling and effective-port confirmation under the relevant decision. Switzerland: preserve the corresponding actual transfer evidence; an acknowledgement or planned date alone does not establish completed portability.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
Preparation reference: Masked portability and routing event reconciliation
| Preparation question | Point to verify |
|---|---|
| Which donor, recipient and number-range holder roles are involved? | France: identify donor, recipient, range holder and any transit role separately. Switzerland: the technical prescription distinguishes the relevant providers as well; the original allocation holder is not necessarily the current serving operator. |
| What records establish the request and effective transfer? | France: distinguish request receipt, acceptance, scheduling and effective-port confirmation under the relevant decision. Switzerland: preserve the corresponding actual transfer evidence; an acknowledgement or planned date alone does not establish completed portability. |
| How do timestamps and timezones establish the sequence? | France: retain the original timestamp and timezone of each event. Switzerland: use the same explicit-instant discipline; the tool orders supplied instants and leaves missing times unresolved rather than inventing a certain sequence. |
| Which routing information changed and what evidence records it? | France: connect routing data changes with their transmission and receipt evidence. Switzerland: preserve the corresponding technical exchanges and versions; an internal status does not establish that every receiving network already uses the updated information. |
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
How do timestamps and timezones establish the sequence?
France: retain the original timestamp and timezone of each event. Switzerland: use the same explicit-instant discipline; the tool orders supplied instants and leaves missing times unresolved rather than inventing a certain sequence.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
Which official provision helps explain this situation?
An inter-operator portability review distinguishes the donor, recipient and number-range holder before linking requests, transfer events and routing changes. Preserve timestamps, timezones, protocol versions and event evidence. France and Switzerland apply their own numbering and portability rules, including different effective dates. The reconciliation exposes inconsistent statuses and missing handovers; it does not attribute operator fault from an incomplete event sequence or reveal a full telephone number.
Which routing information changed and what evidence records it?
France: connect routing data changes with their transmission and receipt evidence. Switzerland: preserve the corresponding technical exchanges and versions; an internal status does not establish that every receiving network already uses the updated information.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
What rejected, cancelled or conflicting statuses need explanation?
France: retain rejections, cancellations and differing events with source records. Switzerland: compare the same documentary statuses; coincident timestamps require compatibility review and do not automatically prove impossible processing or operator fault.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
How does allocation entitlement differ from live portability data?
France: administrative allocation and live portability records serve different tasks. Switzerland: OST 34a concerns portability in the relevant service category; the allocation record alone does not establish the current routing of every number.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
Which rule or protocol edition governs each exchange?
France: decision 2022-2148 has staged application, including a specific enterprise fixed-number transition distinction until 1July 2027. Switzerland: identify the definitive technical prescription and actual protocol edition; neither jurisdiction’s edition should be selected from publication date alone.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
What handover evidence is missing before responsibility can be assessed?
France: identify missing transmission, recipient acknowledgement and effective-activation evidence before assigning responsibility. Switzerland: preserve the same unknowns. Use one known request and number per record; a masked display is not a unique identity key.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
Which official references should you consult?
- ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022www.arcep.fr
- CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-Ibiswww.legifrance.gouv.fr
- Ordonnance sur les services de télécommunicationwww.fedlex.admin.ch
- PTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2www.bakom.admin.ch
- Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22www.fedlex.admin.ch
Texts cited last checked: 3 November 2026
What other questions arise in this file?
What records establish the request and effective transfer?
France: distinguish request receipt, acceptance, scheduling and effective-port confirmation under the relevant decision. Switzerland: preserve the corresponding actual transfer evidence; an acknowledgement or planned date alone does not establish completed portability.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
Which routing information changed and what evidence records it?
France: connect routing data changes with their transmission and receipt evidence. Switzerland: preserve the corresponding technical exchanges and versions; an internal status does not establish that every receiving network already uses the updated information.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
How does allocation entitlement differ from live portability data?
France: administrative allocation and live portability records serve different tasks. Switzerland: OST 34a concerns portability in the relevant service category; the allocation record alone does not establish the current routing of every number.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22
What handover evidence is missing before responsibility can be assessed?
France: identify missing transmission, recipient acknowledgement and effective-activation evidence before assigning responsibility. Switzerland: preserve the same unknowns. Use one known request and number per record; a masked display is not a unique identity key.
ARCEP decision2022-2148 of6December2022CPCE L44 and L44-4 : L44-IbisOrdonnance sur les services de télécommunicationPTA784.101.113/1.10 edition2Ordonnance sur les ressources d’adressage dans le domaine des télécommunications : 22