[enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany

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.
>