Summary

  • Telecom Decision CRTC 2026-272 reduces the time for an underlying local exchange carrier to notify a reseller that a customer’s number has ported out from up to one week to two business days or less. It also approves clearer reseller definitions, partial-migration procedures, and fee handling for rejected expedited requests.
  • The Commission did not require an opportunity for resellers to validate residential port requests. The decision therefore tightens the record after a number moves but leaves divided responsibility for customer evidence before it moves. The notice deadline is not an end-to-end two-day switching promise.

The most useful detail in Canada’s new porting decision is a small distinction in time. A customer transfer may be complete in the porting systems, yet the reseller that sold the service may still be waiting to learn that it happened. Until the notice arrives, its billing and call-routing records can describe a service relationship that has already changed.

On 16 October, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission approved changes to the Canadian Local Ordering Guidelines and the related customer-transfer process map in Telecom Decision 2026-272. The decision cuts the underlying local exchange carrier’s post-completion notification period to a reseller from as long as one week to two business days or less. The Commission says the shorter interval should help prevent duplicate billing and call-routing errors, particularly for switch-based resellers. The order improves the handoff after a transfer; it does not say that all number transfers must finish within two days.

That boundary matters because porting is often described as one event: the customer chooses a new provider, the number moves, and service continues. Operationally it is a chain. The new provider submits a request; the underlying carrier checks the information it holds; a number is transferred through the relevant systems; and the reseller that manages the retail relationship must reconcile its own account, billing and routing records. If a party in that chain learns about completion late, the switch may be technically finished while the customer-facing ledger remains stale.

Resellers complicate the chain because the company that knows the customer is not always the company whose database is used to validate the request. A local exchange carrier may have a wholesale relationship with a primary reseller, which in turn sells to the end customer. The upstream carrier’s record can identify the reseller as its customer. A request submitted under the end user’s name may then fail an automated comparison, even though the reseller has the information needed to confirm who is asking to move.

The history is unusually explicit. In 2013, the CRTC found that mismatched names in carrier records had led to rejected transfer requests, escalations, workarounds and customer delay. It allowed bilateral validation arrangements and required a primary reseller to have an opportunity to validate business transfers. It did not require the same opportunity for residential transfers, reasoning that inadvertent residential migrations posed less risk than a mistaken business transfer that could cost revenue. It also set a one-week deadline for a local carrier to notify the reseller after a transfer completed.

The 2026 decision updates the last part more decisively than the first. It accepts a two-business-day notice after completion, yet the majority declines to mandate a residential validation opportunity. It points to the diversity of reseller arrangements, the possibility that a local carrier already has sufficient information, and the absence of compelling evidence for a regulatory change. Existing bilateral agreements remain the model. Thus the Commission gives the downstream reseller a faster signal that a port-out has finished, while preserving variation in whether that reseller can contribute evidence before the port is approved.

These are different control points. Completion notice is a message about a state change that has already occurred. Validation is an input into the decision to allow that state change. Faster notice can reduce the period during which billing or routing records are out of sync; it cannot prevent a bad match or a legitimate request from becoming stuck upstream. Conversely, a validation opportunity can help resolve identity questions before completion, but it adds a handoff whose cost depends on the parties’ systems, volumes and response times.

The CRTC’s settlement is therefore not simply “faster switching”. It favours a relatively crisp, measurable rule for post-port notification and a more flexible, negotiated model for residential verification. The distinction is sensible where arrangements vary, but it leaves an information-access asymmetry in place: a reseller may know the retail customer best yet have no standardized route into the upstream decision when that customer is residential.

The decision also tries to make expedited requests less ambiguous. A same-day expedited port involving a reseller is prohibited except in a dispute scenario, such as a request already processed or underway that was unauthorized or completed incorrectly. For disputed requests, the Commission expects the working group to set a standard cutoff in a future report, aligned to the ordering provider’s local time of receipt—not the time the gaining provider sent the request. Requests arriving after the existing cutoff would be treated as received on the next business day.

The CRTC describes five business days as the ordinary interval in the relevant process and says an expedited request can shorten it when submitted early enough. The customer’s existing service remains in place until the transfer completes. That is an important continuity safeguard, but the decision does not give every customer a new five-day guarantee, nor does it quantify how much faster transfers will become. The new two-business-day measure concerns notice between carriers after completion, not the total time from a customer’s request to a working service at the new provider.

Other approved changes address the operational details around that boundary. The guidelines will define reseller types, including switch-based, non-switch-based and non-carrier resellers, and clarify partial migrations—where one number or one member of a hunt group moves while other numbers remain with the existing provider. The Commission also permits a carrier to charge both an expedite fee and a rejection fee when an expedited request is rejected, with billing language to align with the ongoing review of model tariffs for competitive local exchange carriers.

Those provisions matter because the same label, “reseller”, can cover very different operating arrangements. A switch-based reseller may need to control call routing directly; another may depend more heavily on its underlying carrier. A partial migration can leave related numbers on separate providers. Clearer categories and process maps can help parties route a request to the right workflow, but they do not show whether the resulting process works quickly in practice. The decision contains no post-implementation data on rejection rates, completion times, duplicate invoices, misrouted calls or incremental operating costs.

Commissioner Bram Abramson’s dissent identifies the unresolved weakness. The majority frames residential validation as an added step whose benefit has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Abramson frames it as access to information: where the local carrier’s record names the reseller, a legitimate customer request may be hard to verify unless the reseller can be asked. The proposal would have required an opportunity to respond, not compelled the reseller to validate every request. The local carrier could proceed if the reseller did not answer within an agreed period.

In the dissent’s view, this design could preserve a timely route to completion while letting the party that holds relevant information participate.

The two views assign risk differently. The majority gives weight to operational complexity and the risk of more handoffs. The dissent gives weight to the cost of excluding a party that may hold the missing customer evidence, especially where the reseller cannot choose among upstream carriers. Neither the decision nor the dissent supplies comparative data on error rates, volumes, automation costs or the share of legitimate requests delayed by record mismatches. The dispute is consequently about the architecture of responsibility as much as a numerical service interval.

The practical test now has at least two clocks. One begins when a customer authorizes a move and measures the time to validate and complete the port. Another begins when the port is complete and measures how long the old reseller remains uninformed. The second clock now has a shorter ceiling. The first still depends on the request type, the relevant five-day or expedited process, existing agreements, the cutoff rules still to be specified, and whether the information needed for validation is available to the right party.

For customers, the near-term implication should be stated narrowly: the rule is designed to reduce stale records after a completed port, not to promise that every switch will take two business days. For resellers and underlying carriers, the operational question is whether the completion notice is received, matched to the right customer and number, and reflected in billing and routing records within the prescribed window.

For the CRTC and the CISC working group, the open questions are whether the future cutoff is usable across time zones and batch cycles, and whether evidence will emerge that residential validation opportunities materially reduce mistaken rejections or unauthorized transfers without imposing disproportionate cost.

The strongest result in Decision 2026-272 is a clearer end to the post-port handoff. Its limitation is equally precise: a better signal that a transfer has finished does not resolve who can supply the information needed to make the transfer succeed. Portability depends on both. A number must move under a reliable validation process, and the parties that still bill, route or support the service must learn promptly when it has moved.

Sources