Re: [enum-wg] market potential/future for public ENUM
On 1 jun 2011, at 19.14, Richard Shockey wrote:
Well as your former ENUM WG chair (yea!! NO BLUE DOT!!!) .. Yes public ENUM is essentially dead.
That just because the holders of E.164 does not allow end users that use the E.164 in question have the ENUM record in DNS refer to whatever they want. 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. This has nothing directly to do with ENUM, but rather whether the E.164 number should be tied to one and only one specific provider of services or not. I also copy cooperation wg in RIPE as that wg is one that could discuss this lock-in situation that exists. Patrik
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? 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? :-)
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
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. 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. -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:27 AM To: Jim Reid Cc: Richard Shockey; RIPE ENUM WG; cooperation-wg@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
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@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:27 AM To: Jim Reid Cc: Richard Shockey; RIPE ENUM WG; cooperation-wg@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
--On Thursday, June 02, 2011 17:18 +0200 Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> wrote:
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. ... 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. ...
This is, of course, consistent with another industry trend, even in the E.164 PSTN and closely-related spaces. A few decades ago, people typically had two phone numbers: "work" and "home". The second was often shared (e.g., with other family members); the first one might be (with coworkers or a main switchboard). Now we've got multiple numbers associated with different media (a mobile phone or two), services (PSTN and VoIP and fax), sometimes numbers in different countries or areas to save callers toll charges, and so on. And, of course, there are other services -- e.g., email, IM, non-E.164-VoIP services -- that don't normally use E.164 numbers at all. If a correspondent has more than a handful of contact point identities, it becomes rapidly clear that one wants to reach a particular person or function, not a long-obsolete surrogate for a copper pair and whomever happens to be standing close to its terminal. In the current world, E.164-style numbers have exactly one major user advantage over other types of identifiers and that is that all-numeric strings survive internationalization with far less trouble and confusion than alphanumeric identifiers. Other than that, the competition comments apply -- all of the advantages go to the incumbent holders of those numbers and, perhaps, the manufacturers of older-style terminals (those that, unlike the more common devices Patrik mentions, don't support address books). If someone asked me where to make a big investment in the hope of seeing a large ROI these days, it wouldn't be in E.164 numbers, especially public-tree ones. The opportunity might have been there for a while to make them really useful, but a variety of factors and institutions conspired to let that window close by trying to hold on to old, PSTN-dominated, ways of doing things. john
participants (4)
-
Jim Reid -
John Klensin -
Patrik Fältström -
Richard Shockey