[enum-wg] repost: Proposal for non-geographic ENUM E.164 UPTS for the general public

Richard Shockey wrote:
>> I recently during a VoIP round-table raised that very questions to a 
>> rep from RegTP, the German regulator, whether in the wake of the 
>> +49.32 deliberations there are any first thoughts to get rid of area 
>> specific codes, i.e. enable geographic portability. The answer was a 
>> clear "No, nothing whatsoever".
> 
> I imagine the silence was deafening. I can just see the little DT reps 
> desperately trying to get the subject changed as fast a possible. " isnt 
> it lunch time yet?"

Actually not. There was no DT rep on the stage at least - and the people 
  there had no real ears for numbering issues in general (apart from 
bashing the lenghy process for +49.32), but were most concerned about 
DT's strong (> 90%) position in the DSL market, the lack of technical 
alternatives to it - such as cable -  and insufficient LLU: you still 
have to get a PSTN (no damn mercy!) line if you want to have DT-based 
DSL. Even via a third party reseller...

>> Later on, during a privat chat, I heard something like "It's still 
>> partly used for PSTN routing and also important for tariffing" - humm...
> 
> PRECISELY .. the only justification for geographic codes is the 
> artificial barriers of "rate centers" used for Tariffs  Something your 
> friendly national incumbent monopoly carrier does not want to talk about 
> especially in front of regulators.

It was actually a rep from the regulator pointing that out. When I 
mentioned that there are carriers around already offering calls to any 
destination within the borders of the Federal Republic for 1.x cents a 
minute,so tariffing might not be a viable argument in the long run any 
longer - then I felt that deafening silence...

>> And a really heretic thought: what about phone numbers becoming a 
>> commodity sometime in the future, as in: fully portable on a global 
>> scale?
> 
> I think we'll all just dial via SIP URI before we see that happen <g>

Or this way, yes... ;-)

Cheers,

	-C.