Hi Carsten, John-Erik, folks, If *I* don't pay, I don't care whether it scales or the paper-shuffling costs a fortune. Just ask the mobile phone network people what they do for number port - you will need to prepare for the description so that you don't laugh. Designing a solution susceptible to automation would be elegant, but it is not an absolute pre-requisite. Re. Number Ranges. As a customer I have a monthly contract that has a block of inclusive call minutes - the so-called free (hah!) minutes. I care whether I can call one of these numbers within my inclusive call minutes. Most (if not all) Operators exclude calls number translation service ranges (i.e. you pay for calls to these numbers). Thus if I have an 0845 xxxxxxx number or whatever in the UK, I will not be popular with those people who want to call me, AND may expect +44845 xxxxxxx to just not be routed from elsewhere. In Summary, I would like a geo number so it's routed from outside the UK and so it can be called within inclusive call bundles - don't forget this last one. That's why there are arguments *FOR INCOMING CALLS*. The idea that being tied to a geographical area is important for non-tariff/routing reasons is thin. A non-geo number prefix is a hint that Operators will play with the tariffs and will exclude this from inclusive call bundles. It's the "Mark of Cain" and (as a potential customer of VoIP-terminated service) I don't want such a number. However, the Regulators in some Countries seemed obsessed with Emergency Service, and whether or not someone using the phone must be informed that they might die if they try to place an emergency call via this thing that looks like a phone. If only to clarify their concerns, there's a GOOD argument that Emergency calls should be made using a non-geo number as CLI, so that the Emergency Services Operator has a hint that they need to ask where one is located. This is an overwhelming Argument, IMHO, *FOR OUTGOING CALLS*. Thus I'm greedy - as a potential customer, I don't care how much registration costs if someone else is paying, and I want both a geo AND a non-geo number for incoming and outgoing calls, respectively. all the best, Lawrence On 20 Oct 2004, at 09:13, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

Hi John-Erik,

interesting points...

John-Erik Horn wrote:

...

ENUM validation: 1) I can sign a DINA4 sheet of paper and have my telephone connection and all associated numbers ported from any current telco network to any other telco network willing to offer me telephony service. (I have actually done this often, works fine.) Takes 2 weeks max.

Does it scale? Is it meant to scale because there is a need for scaling? Do we want to have the papershuffling? What is the number/percentage of people porting their number compared to initial/re-validation of a phone number?

...

2) I can sign a sheet of paper (or even respond to an email) and have my web domains moved from one webhosting provider to the next. If it takes two weeks that's actually kind of slow. Works fine also!

Not the same thing, I think. Changing providers has nothing to do with validation of the relation user<->E.164 number, IMHO this is about authentication whether a transfer of such an already validated relation may occur.

...

3) I cannot sign a sheet of paper and have my telephone number simply assigned as an ENUM domain because this is apparently a BIG PROBLEM. Don't believe the hype.

Of course you can have that - I did it with my provider, he got two faxes of my last bills. Question are: see 1)

...

Prefix 032: Do we really want it? Do you think the telcos (incumbent or other) are really going to offer local charges for termination to such numbers?

What can be arguments against it that _sort_of_ would make sense?

...

Will this appeal to the masses like special prefixes for cell phone networks?

I think I don't get that point, I am afraid.

Cheers,

-C.

-The only way to keep a telco business running is to invest in the -future. No teleco will sell the same services of today in 5 years time. -So by cannibalizing parts of revenue (which you can very well -compensate by optimizing costs and gaining revenues form the new -services) for new technologies you guarantee the survival of your -telecom company. I doubt that an incumbent (generally meaning the former state-controlled monopolist) will technologically help his competitors while he is trying to buy time and get his own VoIP-rollout ready for service. He will cannibalize his own income if that (reduced) income stays in his own pocket. He won't (voluntarily) help put that income into other peoples' pockets. That's not cannibalization, that's voluntary starvation. And that contradicts the will to survive.

On the other hand are special prefixes for VoIP truly a step forward for VoIP services?

-Yes, one problem with VoIP only numbers is that the caller network must -know if 1) called number is allocated and 2) where the called number is -to be found VoIP/PSTN. This is critical in order to avoid routing -loops. Having ENUM void service and dedicated area code for IP only -solve this problems. That is not convergence. True convergence must mean not only convergence of networks but also of naming and adressing space. It should not matter to the caller where the target destination is located. If I use a VoIP channel or a POTS line is my problem and I should pick a service operator that offers seamless access from both networks. That should not be the problem of the caller.

Or are we being misled to develop our own subculture on the net and let ourselves become marginalized instead of truly converging the networks which in the ultimate consequence must mean using geographical "normal" teleophone numbers for VoIP services. Which also means seamless transitions between networks (IP and telco).

-Convergence means you have to start somewhere in a non disruptive way -and find a smooth migration path. All who started with dedicated -prefixes have achieved critical mass of VoIP subscribers the rest are -still busy with debates. VoIP providers without a basic fee trying to make their money on cheap minutes are not business models that can/will scale or turn profit. So critical mass is a question for truly commercial voip providers. On top of that many of them do not have/offer direct customer access. They are parasites on the networks of other and they will never be able to offer QoS. And at the moment I see none in Germany and know of none in Europe that have anything worth being called a critical mass, economically speaking. And I doubt that our own special prefix for VoIP will help getting there.

I personally see the subjects prefix 032 (in Germany), ENUM validation and unbundling of the local loop as smoke bombs to distract the VoIP community.

-No, is a ventilation shaft being open. I mean the so-called debates on the above mentioned subjects are diversions. They are intended to stall the new VoIP kids on the block for time while the major players prepare their rollout and complete their testbeds (e.g. Deutsche Telekom with Alcatel in Slovakia).

It is sad that the RegTP plays along with this game. Any of the above mentioned subjects could be solved and/or implemented within months, not years, if there was a will.

-It should but not everyone agrees to my points (they agree with you :-) Maybe. John-Erik