Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: Name Spaces & Domain Names

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:16:13 -0400

Hi Thilo,

I did not use the e-mail example because I expected
that someone will immediately sent me an e-mail stating
that the e-mail system is broken ;-)

SIP is modelled after e-mail and this is exactly how
it should work. The problems currently with e-mail is
a more broader problem on the Internet and has to be solved
in general. We should not stop SIP as intended because identification
and authentication on the Internet is broken. BTW: web started
as broadcast, but no it is also basically P2P. Anybody providing
customer services at the Internet via web-access should know this ;-)

What we see at the moment is:

We have two systems running in parallel at the moment:

There will be a competition (at the end-users device)
giving him the choice 1) to use any service on the Internet
or 2) to use a walled garden NGN type service ala IMS, YahooBB
or Skype (Skype is something special here in between).

The walled garden approach is favoured by the "bellheads" to keep
their current revenue streams up and running, which requires charging
for voice calls for origination, transit and termination.

This requires interconnect agreements and is causing all this mess.

If a user is accessing the Internet NOT at home, he has bring his own
equipment (device) and to pay for access to the local access provider.

The user he is calling has to do the same.

This holds true for both models, which means that in the second case
the user has to pay extra. Why should he want to do this?

The only argument left is more security (ha, on a Wifi hotspot at
Starbucks) and "improved" or "guarantied" QoS (again from the same
Starbucks Hotspot, or even worse via a mobile access in the US).
ROTFL - this means that in one case you are tunnelling from New York
back to Germany to your IMS homenetwork, they are setting up the
call via your super peering agreements to the Austrian IMS homenetwork
and this is tunnelled now to a Hotspot in Japan. I bet 100 Euro the
quality
with Skype direct will be better.

So with the already available multi-mode (3G, WiFI) devices there
will be a competition between using the Internet direct or 
using the IMS service provided @home. Since the quality will be the
same, the services provided will also be the same (remark: the
services provided on the Internet may even be better or at least
available sooner ;-), I also believe that the security (good or
Bad) will be the same, the only difference will be the price.

So the carrier should do anything possible to reduce their
OPEX, which implies a very efficient interconnect regime.

Please remember the word from Clay Shirky regarding fax-mail:
You may compete with everybody, but NOT with your customer.

Additional remark regarding termination fees: pls look up the 
Proposal 
http://www2.sprint.com/mr/cmastaticfiles/non-landing/documents/PPTopic/8
-13-04sd.pdf 

from the intercarrier Compensation Forum 
http://www2.sprint.com/mr/topic.do?topicId=180

The proposal goes from 0.000175/minute down
to zero in 2001.

Richard

Richard Stastny
OeFEG
tel:+43 664 420 4100
enum:+43 780 203 211
callto://fordprefect
http://voipandenum.blogspot.com

> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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

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