Subject: Re: [Enum] Re: Name Spaces & Domain Names (was Non-Terrminal NAPTRs Considered Harmful)

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:33:18 -0400

Jim.
 
To start with the point I agree ;-=
 
>I think there's still a very big disconnect between bell-heads and
>net-heads. Few of the former seem to know how the DNS works (or can be
>made to work). Few of the latter understand SS7 signalling or how calls
>get routed in the telco world. Sigh.

>Yes, it does. There are a number of ways this can be achieved. BT could
>come to an agreement with Telekom Austria (say) along the lines of "you
>can get access to my copy of 4.4.e16.arpa if I can get access to your
>copy of 3.4.e164.arpa". Or Telekom Austria's Infrastructure ENUM could
>just have entries which say "throw all calls to the UK at the SIP
>gateways provided by whoever is our UK based
>telecoms-partner-of-the-month".

Either you are now also a bellhead or wnat to pull the leg of the
bellheads.

What you are proposing is that the telcos continue their model just
to be sure they are dead sooner. Imagine only all VoIP providers in
the world to make bilateral agreements.

Why are you not proposing that every ISP in the world is making
bilateral agreements with any other ISP just to see the web-sites he
is hosting. You may see only websites your provider is hosting or are
hosted by providers your provider has an agreement with.

I cannot propose this model to my or any other VoIP provider because
the OPEX will kill them.

The benefit of ENUM is that every provider is maintaining his
own data and if you want to know who is hosting a number, you
just look it up in ENUM. Done.

Everything else is baroque unnecessary complications just 
draining OPEX money out.

BTW, I just read the new proposed US regulatory framework

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/other/050617regframework.pdf

and the only things what basically remain is singnificant
market power and the obligation to INTERCONNECT ;-)

"For purposes of this act, unfair methods of competition means: 

(a) practices that present a threat of abuse of significant and non-transitory market power as determined by the Commission consistent with the application of jurisprudential principles grounded in market-oriented competition analysis such as those commonly employed by the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice in enforcing the Federal Trade Commission Act and the antitrust laws of the United States; and 

(b) with respect to interconnection, practices that pose a substantial and non-transitory risk to consumer welfare by materially and substantially impeding the interconnection of public communications facilities and services in circumstances in which the Commission determines that marketplace competition is not sufficient adequately to protect consumer welfare, providing that in making any such determination the Commission must consider whether requiring interconnection will affect adversely investment in facilities and innovation in services. "

Richard

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Thilo Salmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:04:50 -0400

Richard,

> hosted by providers your provider has an agreement with.

Two reasons actually:

1.) websites facilitate media distribution rather than end2end
communication services
2.) websites have not been accessible through a parallel infrastructure
based on a different economic model

ad 1.) limiting access to public web sites does not usually make sense -
for neither the content provider nor the end user. End2end communication
services are quite different animals. Comparing voip with email seems
more fair to me. In this case an infrastracture openly accessible by
anyone has almost rendered email to be useless due to the high amount of
unauthorized traffic. While I do not wish to suggest a border gateways
will prevent 100% of voip spam, I believe any additional layer of
control would bring a benefit.

ad 2.) Hardly any carrier has the reputation of being overly cuddly
leave alone altruistic. I am suprised what you expect from those in the
POTS market today. In almost all cases do carriers earn access charges
for incoming calls. What would be your proposition to carriers to waives
them for the general public? Would it not come naturally to assume, that
_if_ there were waived, they would be waived mutually?

Best,
Thilo