text:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted unanimously on 28 September 2001, is a counterterrorism measure passed following the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States. The resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and is therefore binding on all UN member states.

According to the official record of the meeting, the meeting convoked at 9:55 pm and adjourned at 10:00 pm. The five-minute meeting exemplified the Security Council's working method, in which the meeting serves only as a public announcement of a decision that has already been reached in secret in "informal consultations". Although the United States is widely credited with initiating Resolution 1373, once adopted unanimously, the resolution became a common act of the Security Council, and therefore all its members at the time had ownership over it.

Aims of the resolution
The resolution aimed to hinder terrorist groups in various ways. It recalled provisions from resolutions 1189 (1998), 1269 (1999) and 1368 (2001) concerning terrorism. UN member states were encouraged to share their intelligence on terrorist groups in order to assist in combating international terrorism. The resolution also calls on all states to adjust their national laws so that they can ratify all of the existing international conventions on terrorism. It stated that all States "should also ensure that terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the seriousness of such acts is duly reflected in sentences served."

The resolution established the Security Council's Counter Terrorism Committee [CTC] to monitor state compliance with its provisions.

It also aimed at restricting immigration law, stating that "before granting refugee status, all States should take appropriate measures to ensure that the asylum seekers had not planned, facilitated or participated in terrorist acts. Further, States should ensure that refugee status was not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation were not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists."

However, the resolution failed to define 'terrorism', and the working group initially only added Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan on the sanctions list. This also entailed the possibility that authoritarian regimes could label even non-violent activities as terrorist acts, thus infringing upon basic human rights.

Resolution 1456 (2003)
The absence of any specific reference to human rights considerations was remedied in part by Resolution 1456 (2003) which declared that "States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular, international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law."

Resolution 1566
UN Security Council Resolution 1566 picked up loose ends from resolution 1373 by actually spelling out what the Security Council sees as terrorism:

"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

Although this definition has operative effect for the purposes of Security Council action, it does not represent a definition of "terrorism" which binds all states in international law. That is a task which could only be achieved by way of agreeing to an international treaty under the auspices of the UN General Assembly. Negotiations towards agreeing to such are ongoing, and a Comprehensive Convention exists in draft form, however agreement to its exact terms, most particularly the definition of "terrorism", remains elusive.

Resolution 1566 also called for the creation of a working group that will expand the list of terrorist entities under sanction beyond the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

National implementation
Most states complied with the resolution, with varying willingness (Mexico and Venezuela being quite reluctant, especially concerning the freezing of assets of persons or groups whom they had no evidence of involvement in terrorism), but only a few of them did so by explicitly referring to the UN resolution.

Russia implemented the resolution with great willingness – President of Russia Vladimir Putin translated the resolution into Russian and enacted it as domestic law by 10 January 2002 in the decree of the president of the Russian Federation No 6 on Measures Towards the Implementation of UN Security Resolution 1373.

On 1 April 2014, the Government of Sri Lanka signed an order designating 16 organisations functioning as terrorist fronts on foreign soil freezing all assets and economic resources of those, using this resolution.

CTC 2008 report
Recommendations of the Counter Terrorism Committee 2008 report included increased measures concerning illegal immigration (considered, without evidence, as a serious risk to security) as well as:
 * to "Promote inter-agency coordination and the exchange of counter-terrorism information at the national, regional and international levels";
 * to "Encourage States to establish dedicated and permanent counter-terrorism units, with the assistance of experts seconded from various specialized institutions, in areas such as criminal law, counter-financing of terrorism and border control";
 * to "Encourage greater cooperation with INTERPOL and increased utilization of its resources and databases, such as red notices and watch lists" (Interpol created in 2002 the Interpol Terrorism Watch List).

Criticism
Oxford University public law professor Stefan Talmon argued that this resolution is an example of the United Nations Security Council veering into legislating law in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks when its role is to apply and interpret international law.


text:
Dent Blanche

The Dent Blanche is a mountain in the Pennine Alps, lying in the canton of Valais in Switzerland. At 14,295 ft-high, it is one of the highest peaks in the Alps.

Naming
The original name was probably Dent d'Hérens, the current name of the nearby Dent d'Hérens which does not overlook the Val d'Hérens. The nearby north face of the Dent d'Hérens is glaciated while the Dent Blanche holds much less snow, it was even called Dent Noire (Black Tooth) on the Woerl Atlas of 1842. In fact on older maps, in the area where both summits lie, only the name Weisszahnhorn (from German: White Tooth Peak) was given, the French name (Dent Blanche) only appearing in 1820. Because cartographers usually made their observations far from the mountainous remote areas and also because the Dent d'Hérens is sometime hidden behind the Dent Blanche thus less visible, the latter received the name. The inhabitants of the lower Val d'Hérens called the current Dent d'Hérens, Dent Blanche, but the ones of the upper Val d'Hérens called the mountain, Dent de Rong or Dent d'Erins, contributing to the general confusion. The contemporary names are official since the completion of the Dufour map in 1862.

Geography

The summit of Dent Blanche is an important geographic place as it is the converging point of three ridges. The three valleys separated by them are the Val d'Hérens, Val d'Anniviers and Mattertal. The respective villages of Evolène, Zinal and Zermatt lie approximatively at the same distance of the mountain.

The Dent Blanche has four steep faces rising over four glaciers: The north-east face (also called north face) rises above the Grand Cornier Glacier (part of the Zinal Glacier), the south-east face rises above the Schönbiel Glacier (part of the Zmutt Glacier), the south-west face rises above the Manzettes Glacier (part of the Ferpècle Glacier) and, finally, the north-west face of Dent Blanche rises above the homonym glacier.

The four ridges encompass almost exactly the four cardinal directions. The west ridge is named Arête de Ferpècle and the east ridge is named Arête des Quatre Ânes. The Col de la Dent Blanche (3,531 m) lies at the foot of the northern ridge, the Bivouac de la Dent Blanche is located there. The Dent Blanche Hut lies at the foot of the southern ridge which is used as the normal route. The grade of the route is AD (III+).

The region around Dent Blanche consists of many 4000 metres peaks. The Ober Gabelhorn (west), Dent d'Hérens and Matterhorn (south) are the closest high summits.

Climbing history

The first ascent was made via the south ridge (Wandfluegrat), which is the less difficult route to the summit and the actual normal route. On 12 July 1862, T. S. Kennedy, after an attempt on the east face of the unconquered Matterhorn, almost reached the summit with the guides Peter Taugwalder and his son. But after a minor accident, Peter Taugwalder refused to go any higher. Kennedy would finally reach the summit only a few days later, on July 18, 1862 with W. Wigram, J. Croz and J. Konig, despite adverse weather conditions.

A route on the east ridge was opened on 11 August 1882 by John Stafford Anderson and G. P. Baker, with guides Alois Pollinger of St. Niklaus in the canton Valais and Ulrich Almer. They started from the Mountet Hut and arrived at the summit after a difficult 12 hours climbing on a dangerous ridge overlooking the north face. Almer said on the summit, "We are four asses", and the ridge was then named Arête des Quatre Ânes or Viereselsgrat (Ridge of the Four Asses).

The north ridge was explored in 1899. On 28 August O. G. Jones, F. W. Hill with guides E. Furrer, C. Zurbriggen and J. Vuignier headed to the summit but they fell and only Hill survived. He reached alone the summit and a storm forced him to make a bivouac. He could report the news of the fatal accident in Zermatt only two days later.

The first ascent of the north north west ridge – described as "one of the last great problems" of the Pennine Alps – was by Dorothy Pilley Richards and I. A. Richards with Joseph Georges and Antoine Georges on 20 July 1928. Dorothy Pilley Richards later wrote up the ascent in her mountaineering memoir, Climbing Days (1935).

The first ascent of the north face is attributed to K. Schneider and F. Singer on 26 and 27 August 1932. They climbed from the left part at the base of the face to the summit. Only on 12 July 1966, Michel and Yvette Vaucher made a direct ascent on the north face.

The first winter ascent by the north ridge was completed by P. Crettaz and J. Gaudin on March 2, 1963.

A solo winter ascent on the north face was made for the first time in 1968 by C. Bournissen.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Dent Blanche


text:
Talk:Dent Blanche

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dent Blanche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090424062313/http://www.evolene.net:80/Page?nom=webcam to http://www.evolene.net/Page?nom=webcam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dent Blanche


text:
Revolt Against the Modern World

Revolt Against the Modern World (Rivolta contro il mondo moderno) is a book by Julius Evola, first published in Italy in 1934. Described as Evola's most influential work, it is an elucidation of his Traditionalist world view. The first part of the book deals with the concepts of the Traditional world; its knowledge of the bridge between the earthly and the transcendent worlds. The second part deals with the modern world, contrasting its characteristics with those of traditional societies: from politics and institutions to views on life and death. Evola denounces the regressive aspects of modern civilisation, and instead argues for a traditionalist society. Rivolta contro il mondo moderno was published in Milan by Hoepli in 1934. A revised and augmented edition was published in 1969. Translated into English by Guido Stucco (from the 1969 edition), it was published by Inner Traditions. It has also been translated into German, Spanish, French, Serbian and Hungarian. It is known as a cult book in the extreme right circles. The book influenced Mircea Eliade and other thinkers in the Traditionalist school, as well as the European Nouvelle Droite.

Contents
Revolt Against the Modern World is divided into two parts: The World of Tradition, and Genesis and the Face of the Modern World.

The first part, the world of tradition, is a comparative study of the doctrines of traditional civilizations where Evola indicates that the fundamental principles of the life of traditional man are manifested in the doctrine of two natures, the existence of a physical order and a metaphysical one. It follows the indication of the way in which the man of the tradition conceives law, war, property, relations between the sexes, immortality, and race. The second part instead contains an interpretation of history on a traditional basis: it starts from the origins of man to arrive at the modern concept of evolution in the Darwinian sense which, according to tradition, is considered a regress, an involution.

Evola begins the second chapter of Revolt against the Modern World stating that the traditional world is never perfectly realized in history. According to Evola, the key to tradition and what he supposes was the defining feature of the traditional world, was the experiential knowledge of the two natures: high and low, being and becoming, supernatural and natural. Then, Evola leads to promote the beneficial qualities of historical societies that embodied tradition: "The traditional world knew divine kingship. It knew the bridge between the two worlds, namely, initiation; it knew the two great ways of approaching the transcendent, namely, heroic action and contemplation. It knew the moral foundation, namely, the traditional law and the caste system; and it knew the political earthly symbol, namely, the empire."

From this, Evola concludes that the traditional world had no defining ethics so therefore, it had no theory of any kind. Without theory, there was no learning of such theory and without learning, no progress. Evola explains how any progress or change from these traditional societies is involution rather than evolution, the study of history is only the study of decay. Evola appreciates how due to this, in traditional societies there was only adherence to the primordialism, a single ethnic identity, which he believes has been lost due to modernity.

Once Evola characterizes traditional societies, he proceeds to dive into his metaphysical views of gender roles. As Evola divides the universe between above and below, he relates this to the supernatural and the natural. According to Evola, women are natural and men are supernatural. The male is self-subsistent while the female is dependent. In Evola's worldview, the role of the female is to be a mother and a lover, while the male's sole role is in war. Evola justifies his idiosyncratic views on gender roles by relating it to Hinduism and Taoism.

title: Revolt Against the Modern World


text:
LNP

LNP may refer to:

In science

 * Lecture Notes in Physics, a book series in the field of physics.
 * Linear-Nonlinear-Poisson cascade model, a model of neural responses.
 * Lipid nanoparticles, a drug delivery system in pharmacology.
 * LNP section, a structural steel standard for a family of unequal angle steel sections.

In sport

 * Lega Nazionale Professionisti, Italian football league.
 * Liga Nacional Profesional, Honduran football league.

In politics and government

 * Liberal–National Coalition, Australia
 * Liberal National Party of Queensland
 * Liberian National Police
 * Local Nature Partnership, environmental coalitions in England

Others

 * Local number portability, of telephone numbers
 * Lonesome Pine Airport, Virginia, US, IATA code
 * LNP (newspaper), Lancaster, Pennsylvania, US
 * LNP Media Group, publisher of the LNP newspaper

title: LNP


text:
Killer (Finnish band)

Killer was a rock band founded in 1999 in Helsinki, Finland. Although Killer was a quartet, vocalist Siiri Nordin was by far the most visible member.

History
The group's debut single Hurricane was released in February 2001. In August 2001 the debut was followed up by All I Want – a track that topped the local airplay list and made it to No. 2 on the charts, moving the band's debut album 'Sickeningly Pretty And Unpleasantly Vain' up to gold.

Their second album, Sure You Know How To Drive This Thing was internationally released in 2003 and entered the Finnish charts at position 7. Sure You Know How To Drive This Thing includes the song Naughty Boy which became the band's biggest hit. The song was one of the most played songs on Finnish radio during the summer of 2003; it also made it to number one on the MTV's Up North charts. One year later, Killer were invited to play at the Rock am Ring festival in Germany.

On February 5, 2005, bass player Timo Huhtala announced on the band's website the group will take an "undetermined break";

"This didn't include any great drama, just normal things. First of all, we went five years in a row without a decent break, so we ran out of ideas and energy. Secondly, we had different kinds of ideas about the direction Killer should be going, musically that is. Since we couldn't agree on this we couldn't continue."

As a result, Timo and Teijo formed their new band Killer Aspect, the name being a combination of the band names Killer and Personal Aspect – the former band of the guitarist.

Dynasty
Killer, along with Kwan and The Rasmus, were part of the initially unofficial association Dynasty, a loose association which joined the disparate bands. The association was found out of a friendship and joined interests and resulted in several co-operations: The Rasmus' members Lauri Ylönen and Pauli Rantasalmi produced both Killer's and Kwan's (the latter one only Rantasalmi) albums, Siiri appeared on Kwan's tracks Padam and Chillin' at the Grotto and Aki Hakala first played drums for Killer, later for Kwan before finally joining The Rasmus. Lauri also contributed lyrics to a special version of Killer's All I Want which was released as a b-side on the single.

Albums

 * Sickeningly Pretty & Unpleasantly Vain (2001)
 * Sure You Know How to Drive This Thing (2003)

Singles

 * All I Want (2001)
 * Hurricane (2001)
 * Fire (2002)
 * Naughty Boy (2003)
 * Watching – Waiting (2003)
 * Liar (2003)

Members

 * Siiri Nordin (vocals, piano)
 * Timo Huhtala (bass guitar)
 * Teijo Jämsä (drums)
 * Tuomas "Tumppi" Norvio (guitar)

title: Killer (Finnish band)


text:
User:21st centry fox~enwiki

I am a 22 years old youth from China, and my name is Hu Zhi Yun(胡志云), in which Hu is the surname. Computer Sicence(CS) is my profession, while my interets lay in many fiels such as history, archaeology, and anthropology. I am a newcomer here since I registered this username just at May 2004.

To Contact Me

 * ICQ 161863295
 * OICQ 378577417
 * Mail box: hu.gz@yeah.net

title: User:21st centry fox~enwiki


text:
Trampoline

A trampoline is a device consisting of a piece of taut, strong fabric stretched between a steel frame often using many coiled springs. People bounce on trampolines for recreational and competitive purposes.

The fabric that users bounce on (commonly known as the "bounce mat" or "trampoline bed") is not elastic itself; the elasticity is provided by the springs that connect it to the frame, which store potential energy.

Early trampoline-like devices

A game similar to trampolining was developed by the Inuit, who would toss blanket dancers into the air on a walrus skin one at a time (see Nalukataq) during a spring celebration of whale harvest. There is also some evidence of people in Europe having been tossed into the air by a number of people holding a blanket. Mak in the Wakefield Mystery Play The Second Shepherds' Play, and Sancho Panza in Don Quixote, are both subjected to blanketing – however, these are clearly non-voluntary, non-recreational instances of quasi-judicial, mob-administered punishment. The trampoline-like life nets once used by firefighters to catch people jumping out of burning buildings were invented in 1887.

The 19th-century poster for Pablo Fanque's Circus Royal refers to performance on trampoline. The device is thought to have been more like a springboard than the fabric-and-coiled-springs apparatus presently in use.

These may not be the true antecedents of the modern sport of trampolining, but indicate that the concept of bouncing off a fabric surface has been around for some time. In the early years of the 20th century, some acrobats used a "bouncing bed" on the stage to amuse audiences. The bouncing bed was a form of small trampoline covered by bedclothes, on which acrobats performed mostly comedy routines.

According to circus folklore, the trampoline was supposedly first developed by an artiste named du Trampolin, who saw the possibility of using the trapeze safety net as a form of propulsion and landing device and experimented with different systems of suspension, eventually reducing the net to a practical size for separate performance. While trampoline-like devices were used for shows and in the circus, the story of du Trampolin is almost certainly apocryphal. No documentary evidence has been found to support it.

William Daly Paley of Thomas A. Edison, Inc. filmed blanket tossing initiation of a new recruit in Company F, 1st Ohio Volunteers in 1898.

First modern trampolines
The first modern trampoline was built by George Nissen and Larry Griswold in 1936. Nissen was a gymnastics and diving competitor and Griswold was a tumbler on the gymnastics team, both at the University of Iowa, United States. They had observed trapeze artists using a tight net to add entertainment value to their performance and experimented by stretching a piece of canvas, in which they had inserted grommets along each side, to an angle iron frame by means of coiled springs. It was initially used to train tumblers but soon became popular in its own right. Nissen explained that the name came from the Spanish trampolín, meaning a diving board. Nissen had heard the word on a demonstration tour in Mexico in the late 1930s and decided to use an anglicized form as the trademark for the apparatus.

In 1942, Griswold and Nissen created the Griswold-Nissen Trampoline & Tumbling Company, and began making trampolines commercially in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The generic term for the trademarked trampoline was a rebound tumbler and the sport began as rebound tumbling. It has since lost its trademark and has become a generic trademark.

Early in their development Nissen anticipated trampolines being used in a number of recreational areas, including those involving more than one participant on the same trampoline. One such game was Spaceball—a game of two teams of two, or played between two individuals, on a single trampoline with specially constructed end "walls" and a middle "wall" through which a ball could be propelled to hit a target on the other side's end wall. Spaceball was created by Nissen together with Scott Carpenter and was used in space training at NASA.

Use in flight and astronaut training
During World War II, the United States Navy Flight School developed the use of the trampoline in its training of pilots and navigators, giving them concentrated practice in spatial orientation that had not been possible before. After the war, the development of the space flight programme again brought the trampoline into use to help train both American and Soviet astronauts, giving them experience of variable body positions in flight.

Competitive sports
The first Trampoline World Championships were organised by Ted Blake of Nissen, and held in London in 1964. The first World Champions were both American, Dan Millman and Judy Wills Cline. Cline went on to dominate and become the most highly decorated trampoline champion of all time.

One of the earliest pioneers of trampoline as a competitive sport was Jeff Hennessy, a coach at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Hennessy also coached the United States trampoline team, producing more world champions than any other person. Among his world champions was his daughter, Leigh Hennessy. Both Jeff and Leigh Hennessy are in the USA Gymnastics Hall of Fame.

The competitive gymnastic sport of trampolining has been part of the Olympic Games since 2000. On a modern competitive trampoline, a skilled athlete can bounce to a height of up to 10 m, performing multiple somersaults and twists. Trampolines also feature in the competitive sport of Slamball, a variant of basketball, and Bossaball, a variant of volleyball.

Cross-training for other sports
There are a number of other sports that use trampolines to help develop and hone acrobatic skills in training before they are used in the actual sporting venue. Examples can be found in diving, gymnastics, and freestyle skiing. One main advantage of trampolining as a training tool for other acrobatic sports is that it allows repetitive drill practice for acrobatic experience every two seconds or less, compared with many minutes with sports that involve hills, ramps or high platforms. In some situations, it can also be safer compared to landings on the ground.

Wall running
Wall running is a sport where the participant uses a wall and platforms placed next to the trampoline bed to do tricks. The basic movement is a backdrop on the trampoline and then the feet touching the wall at the top of the bounce. From there, there is no limit to the acrobatic movements that are possible, similar to regular trampolining. The advantage is that twists and turns can be initiated more forcefully from a solid wall and that the vertical speed can be transferred to rotation in addition to forces from the legs or arms. Additionally, energy can be gained both from the bed at the bottom of the bounce, and from the wall at the top of the bounce.

Recreational trampolines

Recreational trampolines for home use are less sturdily constructed than competitive ones and their springs are weaker. They may be of various shapes, though most are circular, octagonal or rectangular. The fabric is usually a waterproof canvas or woven polypropylene material. As with competitive trampolines, recreational trampolines are usually made using coiled steel springs to provide the rebounding force, but spring-free trampolines also exist.

Competitive trampolines
The frame of a competitive trampoline is made of steel and can be made to fold up for transportation to competition venues. The trampoline bed is rectangular 4.28 x in size fitted into the 5.05 x frame with around 110 steel springs (the actual number may vary by manufacturer). The bed is made of a strong fabric that can be woven from webbing, which is the most commonly used material. However, in the 2007 World Championships held in Quebec City, a Ross bed (or two-string bed), woven from individual thin strings, was used. This type of bed gives a little extra height to the rebound.

Bungee trampolines

A bungee trampoline is an attraction at many fairs, holiday resorts and several summer camps. Some cruise ships have bungee trampolines on board and some ski resorts in the summer. There are different models that range in ease of use and also in ease of setup. Some are on trailers and the number of trampoline mats varies for different models, with four being the most common. There are hydraulic models along with winch models depending on the age and manufacturer of the unit. The bungee cords allow for people without experience in gymnastics to perform flips and other manoeuvres that they wouldn’t be able to execute safely without the additional jumping height.

Commercial trampoline parks

In 1959 and 1960, it became very popular to have outdoor commercial "jump centres" or "trampoline parks" in many places in North America where people could enjoy recreational trampolining. However, these tended to have a high accident rate, and the public's interest rapidly waned.

In the early 21st century, indoor commercial trampoline parks have made a comeback, with a number of franchises operating across the United States and Canada. ABC News has reported that in 2014 there were at least 345 trampoline parks operating in the United States. Similar parks have more recently been opened in other countries. The International Association of Trampoline Parks (IATP) estimated that park numbers had grown from 35-40 parks in 2011 to around 280 in 2014. The following year, IATP estimated that 345 parks were open by the end of 2014, and that another 115 would open by the end of 2015 in North America. IATP also estimated that at the end of 2014 there were 40 parks outside of North America, and that by the end of 2015 there would be at least 100 indoor trampoline parks open internationally. As of March 2019, CircusTrix (and its subsidiary Sky Zone) is the largest operator of trampoline parks in the U.S. and in the world, with 319 parks operating under their brands.

These commercial parks are located indoors, and have wall-to wall-trampolines to prevent people falling off the trampolines on to hard surfaces. Padded or spring walls protect people from impact injuries. Despite these precautions, there has been at least one death recorded due to a head-first landing at a trampoline park. In March 2012, New York Yankees pitcher Joba Chamberlain seriously injured his ankle while jumping at a commercial jump centre in Tampa with his son. In 2018, a man died in a British Columbia trampoline park, which prompted calls for more safety regulations for these popular activities.

Safety
Using a trampoline can be dangerous. Organized clubs and gyms usually have large safety end-decks with foam pads at each end, and spotters are placed alongside the trampoline to try to break the fall of any athlete who loses control and falls. In 1999, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimated there were 100,000 hospital emergency room visits for trampoline injuries.

Due to the much larger numbers involved and lower safety standards, the majority of injuries occur on privately owned home trampolines or in commercial trampoline facilities rather than organized gyms.

CBC Television's Marketplace discovered that the trampoline park industry is unregulated in Canada, with different standards for padding and foam pit depth, self-inspections and repairs, and not being required to report injuries. It was also noted that there were generally too few staff to enforce rules, and that promotional advertisements often showed participants engaging in somersaults even though this was extremely dangerous without proper training. All trampoline parks rely upon liability waivers, where the signee assumes the risk of the activity including when injuries result from the establishment's own negligence or poorly maintained equipment, rather than beefing up safety standards and supervision.

Bouncing off a trampoline can result in a fall of 3 - 4 m from the peak of a bounce to the ground or a fall into the suspension springs and frame. Some medical organizations have suggested that the devices be banned from home use.

Authorities recommend that only one person should be allowed to jump at a time to avoid collisions and people being catapulted in an unexpected direction or higher than they expect. One of the most common sources of injury is when multiple users are bouncing on the trampoline at one time. Often, this situation leads to users bouncing into one another and thus becoming injured; many suffer broken bones as a result of landing badly after knocking into another user.

Another of the most common sources of serious injury is an attempt to perform somersaults without proper training. In some cases, people land on their neck or head, which can cause paralysis or even death. In an infamous incident in the 1960s, pole-vaulting champion Brian Sternberg became paralyzed from the neck down in a trampoline accident.

Danger can be reduced by burying the trampoline so the bed is closer to the surrounding surface to lessen falling distance, and padding that surrounding area. Pads over the spring and frame reduce the severity of impact injuries. Keeping the springs covered also reduces the risk of a limb falling between the gaps in the springs and the rest of the body falling off the trampoline.

Kits are available for home trampolines that provide a retaining net around the trampoline and prevent users from bouncing over the edge. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that there is no epidemiological evidence that these improve safety. The nets do prevent jumpers falling off the trampoline onto the ground, but these falls are not the most common source of injury. Multiple users bouncing in a netted trampoline can still be injured. Safety net enclosures have a larger benefit for safeguarding solo trampolinists, so long as they avoid falling on their head or neck.

Having some training in a gym may be beneficial in alerting people to possible hazards and provide techniques to avoid bad falls.

Family-oriented commercial areas in North America, such as shopping centres, carnivals, and so on, often include closed inflatable trampolines (CITs) as a children's attraction. These have safety nets on the sides to prevent injuries.

Mini-trampolines
A mini-trampoline (also known as a rebounder, trampette, jogging trampoline, or exercise trampoline) is a type of trampoline less than 1 m in diameter and about 30 cm off the ground, often kept indoors and used as part of a physical fitness regime. So-called rebounding provides a form of exercise with a low impact on knees and joints. Mini-trampolines do not give a rebound as high as larger recreational or competitive trampolines. Most department and big-box stores sell mini-trampolines.

Educational use
Trampoline activity has been used by science teachers to illustrate Newton's Three Laws of Motion, as well as the "elastic collision."

In co-operation with the University of Bremen and the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the machtWissen.de Corporation from Bremen, Germany developed the weightlessness demonstrator "Gravity Jumper" based on a trampoline. Due to the acceleration during the jump, an acceleration force takes effect in addition to the usual gravitational force. Both forces add up and the person on the trampoline seems to become heavier. As soon as the jumper leaves the trampoline, he is under a free fall condition, which means that the jumper seems weightless and does not feel the acceleration due to gravity. Every person receives a three-axis acceleration sensor, fastened to them with a belt. The sensor transmits the data of the flight path to a monitor; a monitor shows the course of the acceleration, including the weightless phase. The interplay of acceleration due to the trampoline and weightlessness becomes apparent.

title: Trampoline


text:
Local number portability

Local number portability (LNP) for fixed lines, and full mobile number portability (FMNP) for mobile phone lines, refers to the ability of a "customer of record" of an existing fixed-line or mobile telephone number assigned by a local exchange carrier (LEC) to reassign the number to another carrier ("service provider portability"), move it to another location ("geographic portability"), or change the type of service ("service portability"). In most cases, there are limitations to transferability with regards to geography, service area coverage, and technology. Location Portability and Service Portability are not consistently defined or deployed in the telecommunication industry.

In the United States and Canada, mobile number portability is referred to as WNP or WLNP (Wireless LNP). In the rest of the world it is referred to as mobile number portability (MNP). Wireless number portability is available in some parts of Africa, Asia, Australia, Latin America and most European countries including Britain; however, this relates to transferability between mobile phone lines only. Canada, South Africa and the United States are the only countries that offer full number portability transfers between both fixed lines and mobile phone lines, because mobile and fixed line numbers are mixed in the same area codes, and are billed identically for the calling party, the mobile user usually pays for incoming calls and texts; in other countries all mobile numbers are placed in higher priced mobile-dedicated area codes and the originator of the call to the mobile phone pays for the call. The government of Hong Kong has tentatively approved fixed-mobile number portability; however, as of July 2012, this service is not yet available.

Some cellular telephone companies will charge for this conversion as a regulatory cost recovery fee.

History
LNP was invented by Edward Sonnenberg while working for Siemens.

Though it was introduced as a tool to promote competition in the heavily monopolized wireline telecommunications industry, number portability became popular with the advent of mobile telephones, since in most countries different mobile operators are provided with different area codes and, without portability, changing one's operator would require changing one's number. Some operators, especially incumbent operators with large existing subscriber bases, have argued against portability on the grounds that providing this service incurs considerable overhead, while others argue that it prevents vendor lock-in and allows them to compete fairly on price and service. Due to this conflict of interest, number portability is usually mandated for all operators by telecommunications regulatory authorities. In the US, LNP was mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1996. The mandate required all carriers in the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) to be "LNP-capable" and port numbers to any carriers sending a BFR (bona fide request). The ability to keep a number while switching providers is thought to be attractive to consumers. It was also a major point made by CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers) preventing customers from leaving ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers), thus hindering competition. Details regarding the reasons for LNP and how it is to be implemented can be found in the First Report and Order referenced above.

In the US, the FCC has mandated this in order to increase competition among providers. As of late November 2003, LNP was required for all landline and wireless common carriers, so long as the number is being ported to the same geographical area or telephone exchange. This latest mandate included carriers outside the top 100 MSAs that previously enjoyed a rural carrier exemption.

Portability schemes
There are four main methods to route a number whose operator has changed.

All Call Query (ACQ)
The operator that originates the call always checks a centralized database and obtains the route to the call. The originating operator then routes the call to Serving Network.

Query on Release (QoR)
The operator that originates the call first checks with the operator to which the number initially belonged, the donor operator. The donor operator verifies the call and informs that it no longer possesses the number. The operator that originates the call then checks the centralized database, as is done with ACQ.

Call Dropback
Also known as Return to Pivot (RoP). The operator that originates the call first checks with the donor operator. The donor operator checks its own database and provides a new route. The operator that originates the call then uses this route to forward the call. No central database is consulted.

Onward Routing (OR)
The operator that originates the call routes the call to the donor operator. The donor operator checks its own database and obtains a new route. The operator to which the number was designated routes the call to the new operator. This model is called indirect routing.

Technical issues
Complexity for number portability can come from many sources. Historically, numbers were assigned to various operators in blocks. The operators, who were often also service providers, then provided these numbers to the subscribers of telephone services. Numbers were also recycled in blocks. With number portability, it is envisioned that the size of these blocks may grow smaller or even to single numbers. Once this occurs the granularity of such operations will represent a greater workload for the telecommunications provider. With phone numbers assigned to various operators in blocks, the system worked quite well in a fixed line environment since everyone was attached to the same infrastructure. The situation becomes somewhat more complex in a wireless environment such as that created by cellular communications.

In number portability the “donor network” provides the number and the “recipient network” accepts the number. The operation of donating a number requires that a number be “snapped out” from a network and “snapped into” the receiving network. If the subscriber ceases to need the number then it is normal that the original donor receive the number back and “snaps back” the number to its network. The situation is slightly more complex if the user leaves the first operator for a second and then subsequently elects to use a third operator. In this case the second operator will return the number to the first and then it is assigned to the third.

In cellular communications the concept of a location registry exists to tie a “mobile station” (such as a cellular phone) to the number. If a number is dialed it is necessary to be able to determine where in the network the mobile station exists. Some mechanism for such forwarding must exist. (For an example of such a system, see the article on the GSM network.)

In the US, there are standards for portability defined by the FCC, the LNPA, NANPA and the ATIS which are agreed upon by all member providers to help make LNP as cost-efficient and expedient as possible while still retaining a healthy level security for all providers and in respect of the highest level of customer service. These rules, first defined in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reports and Orders by the FCC (publicly available at fcc.gov), are further detailed by the LNPA in order to ensure any provider can successfully port numbers to any other provider. iconectiv provides a national database called the NPAC (National Portability Administration Center) which contains the correct routing information for all ported and pooled numbers in the US and Canada. The NPAC maintains detailed documentation of the procedure common among US carriers to port numbers as described here.

Providers use SS7 to route calls throughout the US/Canada network. SS7 accesses databases for various services such as CNAM, LIDB, VSC and LNP. Calls to ported numbers are completed when a customer who calls a ported number sends the dialed number to a provider's SSP (Service Switch Point), where it is identified either as a local call or not. If the call is local, the switch has the NPA-NXX in its routing table as portable, so it sends a routing request to the Signal Transfer Point (STP) which accesses a local database that is updated by an LSMS (Local Service Management System) which holds all routing for all ported numbers to which the carrier is responsible for completing calls. If routing information is found, a response is sent to the "query" containing the information necessary to properly route the call. If it is not a local number, the call is passed on to the STP and routed until it gets to a local carrier who will perform the "query" mentioned earlier and route the call accordingly.

The routing information necessary to complete these calls is known as a Location Routing Number (LRN). The LRN is no more than a simple 10-digit telephone number that resides in the switch of the service provider currently providing service for the ported telephone number.

When a provider receives a request to port a telephone number from a new customer, that provider sends an industry-standard Local Service Request (LSR) to the existing (or "old") provider. When the Old Provider receives this request, it sends back Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) and the process of porting the number(s) begins. Either provider can initiate the port using a Service Order Activator (SOA or LSOA) which directly edits the NPAC database mentioned before. Providers can also make these requests within the NPAC database directly. If the new provider initiates the port, it is called a "pull," and if the old provider initiates, it is a "push." Once the number is pulled or pushed, the providers must concur the request and the new provider must "activate" the number using the LRN of the switch serving the customer on the agreed due date. At the point this is completed, the number is ported.

Much of this process is duplicated in intermodal portability (porting between wireline and wireless providers). There are a few technical differences, however, in WLNP—Especially with concern to the time intervals allowed.

Fax and paging numbers
Some service providers, especially related to fax services, do not qualify as a "local exchange carrier" or other form of telecommunications carrier. Such service providers may be the "customer of record" from the LEC's perspective. As a result, the applicable law may not require that such service provider port out the number to another provider. Users and providers often negotiate portability and port out fees. eFax is one vendor that claims it is not a telecommunications company and does not allow porting out of numbers originally assigned by them to their customers; however, numbers ported by customers into eFax may be ported out.

A fax machine connected to its own physical telephone line at the subscriber's premises is portable in the same manner as any other standard wireline service. Distinctive ring sometimes poses problems, as one landline may have two or three numbers with a fax or dial-up modem programmed to answer just one of the secondary numbers on the line. Porting out the main number will usually unsubscribe the entire line, disconnecting the secondary numbers without moving them to the new provider.

In Canada, pocket pager answering services are exempted from all local number portability requirements. The same is not true of mobile telephones, which are fully portable to another carrier or another service type (such as landline or voice over IP) within the same local interconnection region.

Kenya
In Kenya, announced in 2004 that mobile number portability would be available as of July 1, 2005 and fixed-line number portability as of July 1, 2006. Mobile Number Portability was officially launched on April 1, 2011.

South Africa
In South Africa, announced Number Portability Company (Pty) Ltd (Reg. No. 2005/040348/07) was established in 2005 and Mobile Number Portability was introduced on 10 November 2006. Geographic Number Portability (between fixed operators) was introduced on 26 April 2010. The Mobile Number Portability Company is jointly owned by the mobile and fixed operators including Vodacom, MTN, Cell C, Telkom and Neotel.

Argentina
In Argentina, full mobile number portability is available since March 2012, being a law approved in 2000. It originally took up to ten working days to be effective. Since July 2017, however, takes up to a 24-hour period to be effective.

Brazil
In Brazil, number portability (both fixed and mobile) is available nationwide since March, 2009. However, it's not possible to port a fixed line number to a mobile line number and vice versa . It's possible to carry the fixed line number within the same municipality and for mobile line number within the same area code (comprising from parts of a state to an entire state).

Canada
In Canada, wireline/competitive local exchange carriers must provide portability. As of March 14, 2007, wireless carriers must provide portability in most of Canada.

Numbers are only portable within a LIR (local interconnection region), regions defined by the ILEC and approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), each of which cover a number of exchanges. Each LIR has a Point of Interconnection (POI) exchange through which calls are routed, and if a number is ported out to a different LIR then calls to that destination will be rejected by the POI switch.

Not all exchanges support LNP, typically there needs to exist competition within an exchange before an ILEC will enable portability, and then only by request. Most small local independent telephone company exchanges are exempted from competition and local number portability requirements. Numbers in the rarely used non-geographic area code 600 are not portable.

Dominican Republic
In the Dominican Republic, number portability in both mobile and local telephony was launched September 30, 2009. In March, 2009, the Dominican Telecommunications Institute (INDOTEL) selected Informática El Corte Inglés to administer the number portability.

Ecuador
In Ecuador, Mobile Number Portability has been available since 12 October 2009.

Mexico
In the Mexico is first Latin American country to have number portability in both mobile and local telephony. The Federal Commission of Telecommunications (COFETEL) applied this law, in defense and regulation of the Telmex monopoly. It was also a condition for Telmex for entering the video market triple play. Number portability has been available since July 5, 2008. The service used to be administered by Telcordia Technologies.

On August 29, 2019, the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT) announced that at the request of the telecommunications service providers, it would migrate its portability database administration to Mediafon Datapro. As a result, portability was temporarily suspended from August 30 to September 1. On September 2, portability was resumed with the service now being handled by Mediafon Datapro.

United States
In the United States, (b)(2), added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires all local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer number portability in accordance with the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC implemented regulations on 27 June 1996, with LECs required to implement them in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas by 1 October 1997 and elsewhere by 31 December 1998. (The regulations are currently located at, et seq.) The North American Numbering Council (NANC) was directed to select the Local Number Portability Administrators (LNPAs), akin to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) which administers the North American Numbering Plan.

LNP was first implemented in the US upon the establishment of the original Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) in Chicago, Illinois, in 1998. This service covered select rate centers in the Ameritech region. Thereafter, as switches and telephone networks were upgraded with location routing number (LRN) capability, LNP was deployed sequentially to the remaining Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) areas. The FCC since has mandated Wireless Local Number Portability starting November 24, 2003 (in metropolitan areas) and allowed operators to charge an additional monthly Long-Term Telephone Number Portability End-Use Charge as compensation. On November 10, 2003, the FCC additionally ruled that number portability applies to landline numbers moving to mobile telephones and, on October 31, 2007, the FCC made clear that the obligation to provide LNP extends to VoIP providers.

Toll-free telephone numbers (area code +1-800) have been portable through the RespOrg system since 1993 in the US and 1994 in Canada.

Hong Kong
In Hong Kong, fixed line number portability is available since July 1, 1995, the same day of fixed line telephone market liberalization (i.e., reversal of franchised monopoly), which was a requirement from the government. Mobile number portability is available since March 1, 1999. Although the government allowed porting a fixed line number to a mobile carrier or vice versa, the introduction of this service shall be decided by the fixed/mobile carriers in a voluntary basis. As of October 2009, fixed-mobile number portability is not available.

India
In India, mobile number portability launched in the state of Haryana on November 25, 2010. It was finally launched all over India on January 20, 2011.

Japan
In Japan, fixed line portability began in March, 2001. 番号ポータビリティー制度 (bangō portability seido – commonly referred to as portability or MNP) began on October 24, 2006. Users are able to change cellular phone carriers without changing their number for a fee of 5000 yen. However, e-mail addresses are subject to change, and music/data downloaded may become unusable.

The Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) spent three years to put mobile number portability into practice, since its initial workgroup started in November, 2003. As a result, NTT DoCoMo, KDDI and Softbank accelerated the price battle, but it was of little effect due to already competitive price plans and customer loyalty. Overall, mobile number portability in Japan was not very successful, because of high transition costs for the customer due to SIM lock, the long time it took to establish mobile number portability, allowing operators to fence in subscribers with price plans, and the significance of mobile Internet mail.

Malaysia
In Malaysia, mobile number portability plan to start by mid-2008, according to an article on the National News Agency Bernama

Pakistan
In Pakistan, (پاکستان) the PTA mandated mobile number portability on March 23, 2007. Users are able to change their cellular phone service for free. They just have to pay for new sim cards depending upon the provider they are migrating. Some companies even do not charge anything.

Singapore
Singapore was one of the first countries to introduce number portability for mobile telephones in 1997. This is currently implemented through voice call & SMS forwarding. True number portability was realized from June 13, 2008, with the implementation of a Centralised Number Portability Database Solution, as proposed by the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) of Singapore.

South Korea
In South Korea, mobile number portability service started from January 1, 2004. One thing different from other countries is that it started from SK Telecom, the dominant operator which has over 50% of market share. To prevent users' churning to the dominant operator, the government gave six months' and one year's delay to the second and the third operator, respectively. As a result, only SK Telecom's subscribers could move to other operators during the first six months.

Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, mobile number portability service started in August 2007. This is supported by Sri Lanka Telecom owned Mobitel Lanka and other cellular operators.

Europe
In the European Union, all telephone providers are required to provide number portability under the Universal Services Directive (2002/22/EU).

Albania
In Albania, mobile number portability was implemented in 04.05.2011 (AKEP). For fixed-line numbers, it started on some geographical areas in September 2012 and was available in all country by 01.04.2013 (AKEP).

Austria
In Austria, number portability was implemented in October 2004.

Belgium
In Belgium, number portability was implemented in October 2002.

Cyprus
In Cyprus, geographic, non-geographic and mobile number portability is required as of July 12, 2004.

Denmark
In Denmark, portability of fixed line numbers and ISDN was implemented on January 1, 2001. Mobile number portability was implemented on July 1, 2001. In 2006, 238,293 fixed lines were ported, along with 456,159 mobile lines. Considering that the number of fixed lines by the end of 2006 was 2,974,000 and the number of mobile lines was 5.828.000, roughly 7.9% of lines were ported in 2006.

Estonia
In Estonia, number portability is required from fixed operators since January 1, 2004 and should be required from mobile operators as from January 1, 2005.

Finland
In Finland, mobile number portability was implemented on July 25, 2003. The impact of mobile number portability in Finland exceeds that of other countries. In one year (June 2003 – June 2004), the combined market share of TeliaSonera, Elisa and DNA fell from 98.7% to 87.9%.

France
In France, geographic number portability has been available since January 1, 1998. As of January 1, 2001, it became possible to change geographic location or operator while keeping the same number. Mobile number portability was introduced on June 30, 2003. However, due to its lack of effectiveness, a new system was launched on May 21, 2007 with two objectives: having a single contact for the customer (the new operator should take all the steps towards mobile number portability) and a maximum period of ten days for mobile number portability to have effect.

Germany
In Germany, fixed number portability was introduced on January 1, 1998, for geographic numbers and numbers for non-geographic services. Mobile number portability was implemented on November 1, 2002.

Greece
In Greece, fixed number portability is available since January 1, 2003. Mobile number portability was implemented on March 1, 2004.

Hungary
In Hungary, portability exists for geographic numbers since January 1, 2004. Portability for non-geographic numbers (including mobile numbers) is available since May 1, 2004. There has been added a special area code +36 21, which legally allows the phone number to be anywhere in the world, beside having the +36 country code prefix.

Ireland
In Ireland, local number portability was implemented in 2000, using an IN solution with a shared routing database. Partial mobile number portability was introduced in 1997 with full portability becoming available in 2003.

Italy
In Italy, mobile number portability is available since April 30, 2002.

Luxembourg
In Luxembourg, mobile number portability introduced in June 2004. The Mobile Number Portability Central (MNPC) managed by the G.I.E Telcom E.I.G. operator group and developed, installed and operated by Systor Trondheim AS of Norway, was put into commercial operations from February 2005.

Norway
In Norway, Fixed number portability was introduced in 2000, one year before the introduction of mobile number portability. The administrative solution for fixed and mobile number portability in Norway, the National Reference Database (NRDB), was put into service in 2000. The NRDB is owned and managed by the 8 largest network operators in Norway through the company NRDB AS. The reference database was developed, installed and is presently operated by Systor Trondheim AS.

Portugal
In Portugal, fixed number portability was implemented on June 30, 2001. Mobile number portability has been available since January 1, 2002. The administrative Reference Entity (Entidade de Referencia (ER)) interconnecting all network operators and service providers is operated by a local third party, Portabil S.A., a joint venture between the internationally well known companies Logica and Systor Trondheim AS.

Slovakia
In Slovakia, number portability was implemented in May 2004.

Spain
In Spain, number portability among cell phone carriers is available since October 1, 2000, without any cost to the end user. The technical details for the process are regulated by the CMT (Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones or Telecoms Market Commission) and all carriers are obliged to comply with their requirements. As of August 2007, cell number portability must complete in 5 business days (i.e. excluding weekends) from the moment the request is confirmed by the customer, with the actual switch occurring late at night to avoid missing any calls. The user wakes up using a new SIM-card from the new cell provider while keeping the number.

In the mature Spanish cell phone market (as of June 2007, with 107 lines per 100 inhabitants ), portability has been widely used by the competing carriers as a way to steal each other's customers, usually offering them free handsets or extra credit. From June 2006 to June 2007 alone, 3,957,556 cell phone lines switched carriers via this proceeding, about 10% of all cellular lines in use. Spain is the one country in the European Union where more customers have switched cell phone providers, with more than 9 million carrier switches completed as of April 2007.

As for the fixed line market, number portability is also available since year 2000, but weaker competition meant that actual adoption of the fixed number portability process was quite sluggish. As of August 2004, 1,041,246 fixed line switches were completed.

Fixed line market is peculiar in Spain, since only two local loop providers can operate at each particular region (or demarcación as regulated by the CMT): a cable carrier (such as Ono, R and many others) and the former State monopoly (Telefónica). The sole of them operating statewide—Telefónica—is obliged to provide other firms with access to their exchange facilities or rental/transfer of their copper last-mile loops, at fees regulated by the CMT (practice known as local loop unbundling). As cable providers do not have a statewide footprint, many users have no actual chance of applying for "true" fixed number portability, that is, giving up Telefónica's service altogether. Some of them can however get their service from a third company who will bill the service and then pay Telefónica for the copper pair rental and maintenance fees, with the customer receiving a single bill. In the end, as Telefónica set up a reselling program for their fixed lines and DSL internet access, the former monopoly is still much in control of the fixed line market, including profitable broadband access. In fact, Telefónica was fined in excess of €152 million by the European Commission on July 4, 2007 on ground of "impeding competition on the Spanish broadband internet access market for more than five years, and so depriving consumers and business of a choice of broadband suppliers".

Due to the billing scheme used throughout Europe and most of the world, where the calling party assumes the full cost of the call, and calling a cellphone is usually more expensive than calling a fixed line, a distinction must be made between cellphone numbers (beginning with "6" or, from October 2011, "71", "72", "73" or "74", ) and fixed numbers (usually beginning with 9 or 8). Full number portability in which a customer transfers a cell to a fixed number or vice versa is thus not possible. See Telephone numbering in Spain for more information.

Sweden
In Sweden, fixed line portability was implemented in 1999 and mobile number portability was implemented on September 1, 2001. At the introduction of mobile number portability the Swedish operators joined forces and procured a central solution, SNPAC CRDB, which is a central reference database now containing both the fixed and mobile portings.

Switzerland
In Switzerland, mobile number portability is available since March 1, 2000, and land line number portability since April 2002.

Turkey
In Turkey, mobile number portability was implemented in Nov 2008. Fixed number portability was initially planned to take place exactly 6 months following the mobile number portability, on May 9, 2009. However, it was not until September 9, 2009 that the regulator approved the procedure for fixed number portability. Since then, fixed and mobile operators, and the incumbent, are working to get the process going and performing interoperability tests. However, there is still progress to be made and the progress for fixed number portability has not proved to be going ahead as in-time as the mobile number portability.

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, Ofcom directs fixed-line telephone network providers, mobile phone providers and broadband service providers to provide number portability under the Porting Authorisation Code rules and Migration Authorisation Code code of practice respectively. As the UK was an EU member country, the Ofcom direction was intended to reflect the requirements of EU Directive 2002/22/EU.

Serbia
In Serbia, number portability service on public telephone networks at a fixed location is available as of 1 April 2014.

Israel
In Israel, number portability is free and takes 15 minutes. All cellular lines can be ported, Landline numbers may be ported, except between regions (area codes). Wireless and VoIP companies each have a single area code for the whole country. Within it, numbers may be ported with no regard to geographic area.

There is no porting between landline and cellular lines. (date implemented? http://www.moc.gov.il/new/documents/engineering/faq_24.8.05.pdf )

Oman
In Oman, Mobile Number Portability was mandated on the Public Mobile Operators, Nawras and Oman Mobile, via the licenses issued to them by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA). Mobile number portability was launched on August 26, 2006. Users are able to change cellular phone carriers without changing their number for a nominal fee of 3 OMR.

Saudi Arabia
In Saudi Arabia mobile number portability was launched on July 8, 2006, to be the first country to launch this service in the ME region. A centralized number portability clearinghouse (NPC) solution was implemented by CITC(the telecom regulation authority) and the two mobile phone operators were obliged to implement the MNP solution in their networks and to interface with the NPC. the service was provided to the mobile subscribers for free.

Australia
In Australia, local telephone numbers have been portable since 1999. The porting process is based on a peer-to-peer file exchange between fixed line operators. According to ACMA, local number portability came into full effect at the start of 2000. Mobile number portability has been available as of September 25, 2001.

For service providers who require knowledge of porting activity to enable them to deliver voice calls directly to the current "network owner", they can either form agreements with all of the fixed-line operators, or use a third-party LNP provider, such as Paradigm.One.

New Zealand
In New Zealand, local and mobile number portability (LMNP) began on April 1, 2007. The rules governing LMNP originate in the Number Portability Determination. Ports are authorised, scheduled, and coordinated via a centralised number portability system called IPMS (Industry Portability Management System). All networks update their own routing and confirm this to IPMS. There are now 26 carriers and service providers that participate in LMNP in New Zealand, over a million numbers have been ported.

title: Local number portability