Commission launches consultation on a single Europe-wide phone number for EU businesses
This news just came my way, and may be of interest. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1664&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Best regards, Niall O'Reilly
On 7 dec 2010, at 15.57, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This news just came my way, and may be of interest.
...and why do they not use ENUM including delegations? Some figures in the document give me flashes from the previous millenium! 1998 -- welcome back! ;-) Patrik
Hi Patrik, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Some figures in the document give me flashes from the previous millenium!
1998 -- welcome back!
maybe it's similar to fashion (cf. RIPE60 dinner in Prague!) with all of its retro trends etc. ;-) Best, -C.
On 07/12/10 17:13, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 7 dec 2010, at 15.57, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This news just came my way, and may be of interest.
...and why do they not use ENUM including delegations?
I was thinking that the consultation would be an opportunity for the real ENUM players ... /Niall
On 7 dec 2010, at 19.08, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 07/12/10 17:13, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 7 dec 2010, at 15.57, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This news just came my way, and may be of interest.
...and why do they not use ENUM including delegations?
I was thinking that the consultation would be an opportunity for the real ENUM players ...
It would be so easy to launch this CC as an ENUM-only service. We all know that. And, to be not too negative, I THINK it is possible to bend the results in the report in that direction. But, that implies the actual agreement with The Operator is such that it can be the ENUM operator for the CC in question. And that The Operator is interested in such a design. Patrik
Hi Patrik, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 7 dec 2010, at 19.08, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 07/12/10 17:13, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 7 dec 2010, at 15.57, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This news just came my way, and may be of interest.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1664&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en ...and why do they not use ENUM including delegations? I was thinking that the consultation would be an opportunity for the real ENUM players ...
It would be so easy to launch this CC as an ENUM-only service. We all know that.
And, to be not too negative, I THINK it is possible to bend the results in the report in that direction. But, that implies the actual agreement with The Operator is such that it can be the ENUM operator for the CC in question. And that The Operator is interested in such a design.
so "The Operator" is a pan-European single entity then? IMHO not very likely given that the European Commission OTOH is so super-eager to enhance competition, for example. If it's set up the classic way as a PSTN service, then IMHO this number space will be "shared" amongst operators like +46 or +49 is. That, however, leads to a very interesting question: how to deploy cross-country _AND_ cross-operator number portability? As I do not believe that the Commission would do without... Best, -C.
On 15 dec 2010, at 19:14, "Carsten Schiefner" <enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
If it's set up the classic way as a PSTN service, then IMHO this number space will be "shared" amongst operators like +46 or +49 is. That, however, leads to a very interesting question: how to deploy cross-country _AND_ cross-operator number portability? As I do not believe that the Commission would do without...
As I wrote, there are a surprisingly large number of things not talked about in detail in thus low quality report. Patrik
Hi Patrik, Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr) wrote:
On 15 dec 2010, at 19:14, "Carsten Schiefner" <enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
If it's set up the classic way as a PSTN service, then IMHO this number space will be "shared" amongst operators like +46 or +49 is. That, however, leads to a very interesting question: how to deploy cross-country _AND_ cross-operator number portability? As I do not believe that the Commission would do without...
As I wrote, there are a surprisingly large number of things not talked about in detail in thus low quality report.
as I have read the paper it's not yet a (final) report, but merely a call for comment on the idea itself, to see whether there is any interest at all in having such a number space. In case there is sufficient interest, I'd only then expect the Commission to take the second step and to come forward with a much more detailed paper explaining and/or seeking input for the how-to. Best, -C.
On 16 dec 2010, at 17.42, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
as I have read the paper it's not yet a (final) report, but merely a call for comment on the idea itself, to see whether there is any interest at all in having such a number space.
In case there is sufficient interest, I'd only then expect the Commission to take the second step and to come forward with a much more detailed paper explaining and/or seeking input for the how-to.
Correct, but it is hard to know what and how to comment on this... Patrik
--On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 18:13 +0100 Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> wrote:
On 7 dec 2010, at 15.57, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This news just came my way, and may be of interest.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10 /1664&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
...and why do they not use ENUM including delegations?
Right. Well, maybe someone European should drop them a short note suggesting that they request delegation of 3.8.8.3.e168.arpa as an easy way of developing/ experimenting with this. If nothing else, the amusement value of watching the ITU try to figure out how to turn it down would be considerable. Or, if one were sadistic, one could think about avoiding the silliness of giving the EU a four-digit country code by generating a short document allowing for regional number delegations in the ENUM tree so that, e.g., ...5.1.1.eu.e164.arpa. would work.
Some figures in the document give me flashes from the previous millenium!
1998 -- welcome back!
Indeed. john
My my .. how the memories return. Makes you want to just throw up your lunch. I remember when NeuStar got the contract to manage +3883 and then nothing happened since there was no mandate to enable the code in the C5/C7 switches. Consequently nothing happened ..there was lots of discussion of ENUM enableling the code even then but no action due to the resistance of the incumbent carriers. I noted there isn’t much here about policy..one of the things everyone thought was going to be a driver for a pan EU prefix demand was toll-free. That is one policy idea for the numbering space that would have worked but the resistance I recall was pretty fierce. Just like the resistance to formalizing pan EU centralized databases for LNP. You have now most of the big players UK DE etc essentially ignoring the order while the smaller countries SE NL are doing a excellent job. -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:25 PM To: Patrik Fältström; Niall O'Reilly Cc: enum-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Commission launches consultation on a single Europe-wide phone number for EU businesses --On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 18:13 +0100 Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> wrote:
On 7 dec 2010, at 15.57, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This news just came my way, and may be of interest.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10 /1664&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
...and why do they not use ENUM including delegations?
Right. Well, maybe someone European should drop them a short note suggesting that they request delegation of 3.8.8.3.e168.arpa as an easy way of developing/ experimenting with this. If nothing else, the amusement value of watching the ITU try to figure out how to turn it down would be considerable. Or, if one were sadistic, one could think about avoiding the silliness of giving the EU a four-digit country code by generating a short document allowing for regional number delegations in the ENUM tree so that, e.g., ...5.1.1.eu.e164.arpa. would work.
Some figures in the document give me flashes from the previous millenium!
1998 -- welcome back!
Indeed. john
participants (7)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
John C Klensin -
Niall O'Reilly -
Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr) -
Patrik Fältström -
Patrik Fältström
-
Richard Shockey