I always thought the E.164 to DNS mapping would have been really cool.
Extremely flexible call routing, nearly instantly portable, no lock in
and even free calls, just like domain names.
Pity the free calls bit means no telco is going to willingly implement
it, even if it would make things far easier for them.
Wikipedia says Australia trialled it in 2007.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.164#DNS_mapping_of_E.164_numbers
On 01/05/18 09:29, Mark Delany wrote:
On 30Apr18, Matthew Moyle-Croft allegedly wrote:
Historically we???ve had numbers that are geo based for landlines (02, 03, 08
etc) and other numbers that delineate the cost to call (eg. 04 for mobile,
13/18 for fixed cost non-geo or free, 1900 for ???premium??? etc). But we???re
now looking to a future where a range of factors are meaning that the
differentiation is less meaningful.
(Not sure whether this is strictly a nogger topic, but interesting
nonetheless).
It's a shame that geo numbers are falling into disuse as people like
the location information conveyed with a number as well as the
txt-capability feature advertised with 04/05 too.
These two preferences along with the ultimate decline towards zero in
voice and txt revenue seem like an opportunity to "re-invent" this
address space as it is one of only two globally federated address
spaces - and thus *extremely* rare and valuable.
But like you I doubt very much whether any innovation will
occur. Apart from the current cash-cow issue, probably the biggest
problems are:
a) any change has to come via the glacially slow Telco standards
bodies
b) implementation is now largely in the hards of vendors which
supply and manage an ever increasing number of phone networks on
behalf of Telcos (cf Ericsson and Telstra).
Unfortunately telco vendors are as much fans of federated
solutions as all the failed messaging products and services we
see on the Internet... which is to say, not at all.
c) The revenue problem: Telcos never implement anything unless there
is a very strong link to revenue. A rich and open address-space
is not that thing by a long-shot (cf email).
d) Telcos thus far control the destiny of phone numbers and they
view their exclusive rights as not-over-my-dead-body turf. Even
if they don't know how to leverage it they are right to worry
that others might know - thus further eating into their revenue
streams. They would much rather a dead address space than handing
it over to innovation.
My fantasy is a revivified ENUM which advertises features/capabilities
for a given number - perhaps with carrier-only access to minimize
abuse.
But on past experience the telcos never even managed to deal with the
most trivial feature-discontinuity issue between mobile and landlines
(cf mobile address-space in the US) or txt and mms. That track-record
suggests that the prospect of reliably enhancing this address-space
are less than zero.
But don't get me started :-)
Mark.
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
--
Nick Stallman
Technical Director
Email n...@agentpoint.com <mailto:n...@agentpoint.com>
Phone 02 8039 6820 <tel:0280396820>
Website www.agentpoint.com.au <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/>
Agentpoint <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/>
Netpoint <https://netpoint.group/>
Level 3, 100 Harris Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/agentpoint/> Twitter
<https://twitter.com/agentpoint> Instagram
<https://www.instagram.com/Agentpoint/> Linkedin
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/agentpoint-pty-ltd>
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
