The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Decima Reports. The wireless industry’s plan to implement wireless number portability for all of the country’s wireless subscribers is supposed to benefit all customers at once at the same time. While laudable, this is a significant departure from how WNP was viewed about six or seven years ago. In the late 1990s, WNP was seen as a competitive differentiator – a tool wireless carriers could use to lure subscribers from rivals. Now they and the wireless industry association have all but said WNP has nothing to do with competition; they say instead that it is a social policy objective no different than E911. Microcell Telecommunications (purchased by Rogers Wireless in 2004) was convinced that WNP could be a competitive differentiator against its larger rivals. It spent a great deal of money and time at the commission trying to become a CLEC, so that it could offer WNP. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Clearnet Communications (bought by Telus Mobility in 2000) also saw the benefit of becoming a wireless CLEC, although it never followed through on the process after it was acquired. The country’s two trailblazers are no longer in the market pushing the competitive envelope and some have suggested competition in Canada has suffered as a result. They say this is evident from the wireless penetration level of about 50%, and the relatively high prices consumers have to pay for service.  It’s difficult to determine if wireless penetration would be higher and prices lower if one or both of Microcell and Clearnet were still in the market. One thing is for sure, however, we would have two wireless CLECs in the country offering WNP in regions where they could. In a five-player market, WNP would have been seen as a competitive differentiator, not a social policy objective.