Done by: Swati singh MA1013

. To know the satisfaction level of current network service provider. To identify factors which determine the network switching behavior of mobile users.OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY  To find out network switching behavior of mobile     users. To know the reason for network switching. To examine the growth of Mobile number portability in India.

 H0 =MNP has not resulted in significant loss of customers .HYPOTHESIS  H1 =MNP has resulted in significant loss of customers.

1991). 1994. sign boards and other paraphernalia on which their numbers are displayed. and websites have to be updated with the new contact information. 2005). including having to inform contacts of a number change (Dick & Basu. 2004. both financially and psychologically (Dick & Basu. Dewenter & Haucap. They also risk losing business opportunities through missing calls from those who are unaware of their number changes (Smura. 2003) . Beuhler & Haucap. Murray. This is because they end up having to reprint business cards. Several articles discuss the composition of switching costs and most suggest that it consists of the time and money expended in moving to a different operator.REVIEW OF LITERATURE Mobile subscribers incur switching costs when changing operators to take advantage of lower call rates and potentially better services. the costs of switching operators and changing phone numbers are far greater. 1994) and the loss of or having to give up a phone number (Buehler. Such an action is perceived as a risk. For business enterprises. The imposition of contractual agreements and customer loyalty programs by mobile operators add to these switching costs.

Park & Jeong. Sutherland (2007) states that regulators have found it necessary to introduce MNP services. Kim. MNP was introduced 3 in the early part of 2000 in most of Europe and the USA. 2004). while Singapore was among the earliest countries to adopt the facility in 1997 (Buehler. number portability has been adopted in about 60 developed countries with mature telecom markets. act as a barrier to changing operators by reducing the attractiveness of switching to better alternatives. 2005). operators have to offer tariffs low enough to outweigh the cost of switching networks (Haucap. To date. the more likely a subscriber will not move to another carrier (Gerpot. 2003). as they reduce switching costs and “facilitate consumer choice and ensure effective competition”. 2009). As a result. Rams & Schindler. . the greater the switching costs. 2001. furthermore. For new operators in the mobile sector. therefore. high switching costs act as a barrier to winning over subscribers from competing networks. Dewenter & Haucap. including several developed Asian countries (Keynote Capitals.Cont…  These costs.

.QUESTIONNAIRE  The questionnaire is finalized and will be distributed to 80 to 100 respondents.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.