On 2008-12-29, at 13:56, Joe Abley wrote:
However, so long as telcos maintain effective control
over the E.164
number plan and have no commercial reason to modify their existing
interconnect tariffs (or to allow their subscribers to be called in
ways that don't use their network) it seems clear that such a thing
will never happen.
On 2008-12-29, at 19:01, Mark Harris wrote:
We (and I mainly mean Michael but also Keith and
Jordan and others)
worked hard to persuade the telcos that it was a Good Thing(tm) but
TCF is where the process got bogged down. They kept saying 'yes, we
do a test' but never when or how.
I suppose I could interpret your description of the TCF's reaction to
the idea as simple telephantitude, but it also doesn't seem especially
outrageous to read both paragraphs above as saying the same thing.
I was not involved, but I hear that in North America there was a
tremendous amount of layer-9 activity surrounding the creation of a
testbed registry for 1.e164.arpa -- presumably far more than would
ever be required for 4.6.e164.arpa, given that +1 includes several
countries. The testbed registry was created, at CIRA in Ottawa. As far
as I know, it remains empty, some years later.
From Michael's comments in this thread it sounds like some thought
has been put into how end users might be enticed to use a +64 enum
registry which seems very pragmatic and sensible. Perhaps such
pragmatism and grass-roots efforts were not a feature of the +1
It does seem possible, however, that in this case the ship has sailed
on enum. I've never seen a device marketed to users directly which
uses enum, for example, but I do see them today using skype.
The other day my two sisters in the UK were evidently having trouble
getting in touch with each other as they drove across the country in
opposite directions trying to converge on a restaurant somewhere round
the M25 for lunch. One of them had changed her GSM number some time
ago without bothering to tell anybody. They both managed to get in
touch with each other using Facebook from their cellphones. The lack
of an E.164 number was not, in their case, a barrier to communication.
Perhaps the importance of phone numbers is dwindling, and enum, no
matter how enthusiastically promoted, will be dragged down with them.