[cooperation-wg] Re: [enum-wg] market potential/future for public ENUM

On 2 jun 2011, at 17.12, Richard Shockey wrote:

> Patrik is right.  It really is a competition issue. What I'm sure of is that
> E.164 is NOT going away anytime soon despite what our IETF colleagues think.

It is going away from the minds of people. People have the E.164 in their address books etc, and even though E.164 is used for the actual dialing, it is less and less important what the number is, that you can keep your number etc.

It is there in some vcard that you pass around, and it could as well include a SIP address or whatever.

The importance is fast going away.

> The competition issue is also the driver for carrier ENUM as well.  I'm
> getting serious hints on this side of the pond that the driver is HD Voice
> (G.722) especially for the LTE mobile deployments rolling out in 2012. The
> carriers finally realized they cant deploy anything new if the number
> translation infrastructure remained the same. 

No, that is not the driver. It is the other way around.

People invent new services, and then the question is what identifier one should use.

Incumbents that do have E.164 numbers of course want to use them.

Others do not want to use E.164 numbers.

Who has innovated most the last 100 years?

In the telephony space, champagne bottles where opened when they invented '*' and '#' on the phones, and that was probably the greatest invention for the 15 year period around it.

On the Internet we get a new good service every minute.

   Patrik -- being provocative by design at the moment to make my point

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:27 AM
> To: Jim Reid
> Cc: Richard Shockey; RIPE ENUM WG; cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [enum-wg] market potential/future for public ENUM
> 
> On 2 jun 2011, at 11.17, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
>> On 2 Jun 2011, at 09:07, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> 
>>> Only regulation can unlock this situation. That forces E.164 holders to
> either have a DNS that people can enter whatever they want, or let third
> parties run DNS for the E.164 numbers in question.
>> 
>> True. But, playing Devil's Advocate, why would a regulator want to
> intervene?
> 
> From a competition point of view.
> 
> The question is of course if the E.164 is to be used for other services than
> voice. If so, without unbundling of E.164 from the (one) provider of
> services, only the provider of the voice service that the E.164 is tied to
> can also provide other services (like video conferencing, SIP etc).
> 
> It is completely up to the regulators what kind of competition and open
> market they want.
> 
>> I expect they'd feel there was no point because the market has already
> made its decision about public ENUM. That would also get them off the hook
> for regulatory oversight of the Tier-1 delegation and name space: registry
> contract, codes of conduct, SLAs, etc. If you were the regulator, what path
> would you choose? :-)
> 
> I would immediately require the provider that is tied to the E.164 to
> 
> 1. Run DNS/ENUM for the numbers they provide services for
> 
> 2. Give the ability for the user of the E.164 to say what URIs the NAPTRs
> for the E.164 should refer to
> 
> 3. As alternative to 1+2, give the ability for the user of the E.164 to run
> DNS themselves (directly or indirectly at a third party DNS provider)
> 
> 4. Require the ones that run the LNP database (or equivalent) to expose the
> content via ENUM
> 
> It is serious now. Either E.164 numbers will never again be used, and will
> die a slow death, or it will be used also in the future. It is up to the
> regulator.
> 
>   Patrik
>