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

-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