Mobile Number Portability in Sri Lanka: Is it a costly illusion of choice?

While MNP promises flexibility, it comes with a significant cost, one that the entire consumer base will end up shouldering

After weighing the psychological, financial, and operational aspects, one question remains: Is MNP solving a major problem, or is it an expensive solution to a minor inconvenience? When stripped of its emotional appeal, MNP does not significantly enhance consumer freedom, improve competition, or justify the costs involved

In today’s fast-moving digital world, convenience is king. Consumers want freedom, flexibility, and the ability to switch to better products and services at will. Mobile Number Portability (MNP) seems like a step in that direction giving users the ability to change telecom providers while keeping their number.

On the surface, it sounds empowering. No more being tied to a single provider just because of a long-held number. No more hesitation about switching due to the hassle of updating contacts. But is the ability to port a number really as valuable as it seems?

When we examine MNP through the lens of neuromarketing and behavioural neuroscience, a different story emerges. One that reveals how human psychology, economic reality, and government inefficiencies might turn MNP into something far less beneficial than expected.

The psychology of choice: More options, more confusion?

Consumers often assume that having more choices leads to better decisions and greater satisfaction. But behavioural science suggests otherwise. The paradox of choice, a well-documented psychological phenomenon explains that when people are given too many options, they often experience decision fatigue and struggle to act.

Switching telecom providers isn’t as simple as it appears. Even if users get to keep their number, they still have to:

• Understand new plans and tariffs: which may not always be clear-cut.
• Adjust to a different customer service experience: which could be better or worse.
• Update payment methods and billing cycles: adding an extra layer of friction.

These small inconveniences stack up in the brain, making the process of switching seem much bigger than the supposed benefit. This is why most people, despite having the option, tend to stick with their current provider unless there’s a major disruption.

Loss aversion: The emotional attachment to a number

One of the strongest psychological biases in decision-making is loss aversion. The idea that people feel the pain of losing something more strongly than the pleasure of gaining something new. This principle explains why many consumers hesitate to change their number.

But let’s step back and ask: What exactly do we lose when we get a new number?

• Messaging apps (WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram) don’t rely on constant number changes. Once registered, your contacts remain intact.
• Most business and personal contacts save names, not just numbers, making the number itself less significant.
• Dual-SIM and call forwarding options already exist, allowing users to transition seamlessly if they really want a new provider.

The reality is, the perceived “loss” of a number is more psychological than practical. MNP plays into this fear, making it seem like an essential service, when in fact, most users could adapt to a new number with minimal disruption.

The economics of MNP: Who pays the price?

While MNP promises flexibility, it comes with a significant cost, one that the entire consumer base will end up shouldering.

Implementing MNP requires:

• A centralised number database that all telecom providers must integrate with.
• Infrastructure and software upgrades across multiple companies.

Ongoing operational costs for managing, maintaining, and securing the system.

Who will bear these costs? Consumers. Even those who never use MNP will see price adjustments as telecom providers recover expenses through increased fees or hidden charges.

Now, consider this:

• If MNP were free, people might switch frequently, overloading the system and leading to chaos.
• If MNP came with an extra charge (say, Rs. 100 per month), how many would actually use it?

Most people, when faced with a recurring cost for something they previously viewed as a “right,” will simply opt out realising that call forwarding or a dual SIM is a far easier and cheaper solution.

Will MNP really improve competition?

Proponents of MNP argue that allowing users to switch networks effortlessly will force telecom companies to improve services and lower prices. But human behaviour doesn’t work that way.

Customers don’t make decisions purely on rational comparisons of service quality and price. Instead, they rely on heuristics; mental shortcuts that simplify decision-making:

• Familiarity bias – “I’ve been with this provider for years. I know how it works.”
• Social proof – “Most of my friends use this network, so it must be good.”
• Status quo bias – “Switching sounds like a hassle. I’ll stick with what I know.”

These psychological patterns reduce the likelihood of mass switching meaning that even with MNP, competition may not increase as dramatically as expected. Instead, telecom providers will likely focus on retaining their existing customers through loyalty programs and marketing strategies, rather than engaging in aggressive price wars.

Government execution: The hidden risk no one talks about

Even if MNP were highly beneficial, its success depends on flawless execution. That’s where another challenge arises: government oversight and management.

Large-scale implementations in Sri Lanka often struggle with:

• Bureaucratic inefficiencies leading to delays and mismanagement.
• Corruption risks where contracts, systems, and infrastructure investments become avenues for misuse.
• Technical failures creating frustration for users rather than providing seamless service.

With past infrastructure projects often going over budget and underperforming, the concern isn’t just about cost. It’s about whether MNP will even work as intended without becoming yet another mismanaged public initiative.

The silent question: Is this a real consumer need?

After weighing the psychological, financial, and operational aspects, one question remains:

Is MNP solving a major problem, or is it an expensive solution to a minor inconvenience?

When stripped of its emotional appeal, MNP does not significantly enhance consumer freedom, improve competition, or justify the costs involved.

If the focus is truly on consumer benefits, wouldn’t it be more impactful to:

• Enhance network quality and coverage to reduce dissatisfaction in the first place?
• Lower call and data rates instead of passing on additional costs?
• Improve customer service and digital experiences, which matter more in the long run?

The final thought: A costly illusion of choice

At first, MNP appears to empower consumers with choice and freedom. But when examined through neuromarketing and behavioural neuroscience, it becomes clear that its psychological appeal is stronger than its actual benefits.

Most consumers will find that: 

• They rarely need to switch numbers in today’s digital age. 
• The cost of implementation will affect all users, not just those who port. 
• Simple alternatives like call forwarding already exist. 
• MNP won’t drastically change telecom competition due to consumer habits. 
• Poor execution could turn it into a frustrating and expensive policy.

In the end, MNP is not the game-changer it’s made out to be. It’s a costly illusion of choice that benefits a few at the expense of many. Before jumping on the MNP bandwagon, Sri Lanka must ask: Are we truly solving a problem, or just creating a new one?