From peter at gradwell.com Sat Jun 6 16:52:24 2009 From: peter at gradwell.com (Peter Gradwell) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:24 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] [Fwd: UK ENUM Consortium - Notice of Annual General Meeting - 25 June] Message-ID: <4A2A82A8.2030103@gradwell.com> [ Apologies for cross-posting ] Members / Potential Members *UK ENUM Consortium - Notice of Annual General Meeting - 25 June* ** We have recently been appointed as the UK ENUM Consortium's Secretariat and I am therefore writing on behalf of the UKEC Board of Directors to inform you that the Annual General Meeting of the UK ENUM Consortium is to take place on: *Thursday 25 June 2009 at the Radisson SAS Portman Hotel, Montagu Suite, 1st Floor, 22 Portman Square, London W1H 7BG* You should have recieved information from my Nominet colleague Kathryn Francis about the next ENUM Information Day commencing with coffee and registration at 9am and finishing with lunch at 12.30pm. The *AGM will then start at 2pm*, followed by a Policy Advisory Board which will help the UKEC Board of Directors in the development of the UKEC Business Plan and in formulating priorities for 2009/10 and beyond*.* One of the key topics to be discussed will be CRU. ** Please find attached the agenda for the AGM. The UKEC Memorandum and Articles of Association require notice of the AGM to be given 21 days in advance of the meeting taking place - which is today - however at this time we are unable to give formal notice as it is a requirement to also send out all the accompanying documentation. The UKEC Directors recently took the decision to undertake a formal review of the the M & As which is ongoing. *So on their behalf I am writing to seek your permission to use the short notice procedures under the Companies Act 2006 which allows us to serve formal notice in less than the required 21 days - and so with your agreement - we will then send out the formal notice a few days before 25 June with both the revised Memorandum and Articles of Association and the company accounts. * *Please can you confirm your acceptance to me by return and_ also let me know if you are intending to attend the AGM_* * . If you are also intending to join us for the ENUM Information Day and Lunch please let Kathryn Francis at Nominet know at* k.francis at nominet.org.uk including any specific dietary requirements. I very much hope that you will be able to join us for what I am sure will be an informative and interesting day and in particular for the AGM and Policy Advisory Board, which are important steps in moving ENUM forward. I look forward to hearing from you and should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me. kind regards Jane Jane Smith Account Director Secretariat *The UK ENUM Consortium* 111 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 0SR Tel: 020 7340 8749 URL: www.ukec.co.uk/ -- peter gradwell. . http://www.gradwell.net/ Registered at 26 Cheltenham St, BA2 3EX, No: 3673235. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0906 UKEC AGM Agenda - JS.doc.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 23329 bytes Desc: not available URL: From racribeiro at gmail.com Fri Jun 19 19:24:42 2009 From: racribeiro at gmail.com (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:24:42 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? Message-ID: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, I'm new to the list, so this will be my first post... I'm making a master thesis on ENUM and its adoption (or non adoption). My background is 100% technical, so I'm "a believer" that ENUM is like a swiss knife to handle all kind of addressing problems between E-164 numbering and the new Internet URI based services. It can solve many other problems and can, even, be the base/enabler to new services. But I wonder if this is the pragmatic view that we should have about new things. What if ENUM is getting "hard" to deploy because it can't provide a business model to its "stake holders"? Do users understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do companies understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do operators want to explain to their users what it is, while risking their benifits? Do constructers will make R&D on products that users don't understand? Is there a killer application other than VoIP for ENUM? In other words: "does the business case mater for ENUM adoption?" I'm aware that Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland and others have progressed to "final" deployment. I would like to exchange some mails with some of you about the financial aspect of the ENUM "technology". (fees, costs, ENUM registers per capita/phone number, service levels, ...) Is ENUM a solution to gain money, or a solution to loose less money? If it is to gain, who gains? Tier-1, Tier-2? (the user pays...) If it is to loose less, who does? The operators, the users? Many, many questions more... but only for you if you are interested. Sorry about this "off-topic"/"non-technical" post, but didn't know where to go to ask this. Thank you all, Rui Ribeiro racribeiro at gmail.com From tschlabach at gmx.net Mon Jun 22 16:42:06 2009 From: tschlabach at gmx.net (Torsten Schlabach) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:42:06 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Hi Rui, hi all! My apologies; I guess this discussion is indeed not what this list is made for, but I can't help answering, as you touch on a number of things which bother me as well for a long time. First of all, I don't think ENUM is hard to deploy at all, it's hard to foster acceptance of it. I might oversimplify things, but IMO the problem with ENUM is: * Benefit and effort are on two different ends. If *I* maintain an ENUM entry for my phone number which points so a SIP address, *you* can possibly call me cheaper. So I need to maintain my entry, you have the benefit. Only the small number of situations where I as the called party care about what the calling party has to pay for the call will just not make the case; especially as * It is hard for the calling party to make an ENUM call. I can only speak from my perspective in Germany and a number of other countries, mostly in Europe. Like many people, I am making 95% of my phone calls from my mobile. As there is no single mobile operator in the world who does ENUM lookups on outgoing calls (AFAIK, correct me) my only chance would be two-stage dialling, i.e. call an access number, then call the number I want to talk to. This is a cumbersome process and few people I know would be willing to use it as their daily method of making phone calls. Especially as you cannot use the number stored in the mobile, but you have to punch it in again, etc. Also when I take a look at making calls from home, many people in Europe have VoIP enabled termination equipment these days; often in form of a so-called Fritz!Box (deployed by a lot of fixed line providers at least in Germany) and similar. But then again, the Fritz!Box does not support an ENUM lookup for outgoing calls and few other typically deployed VoIP terminals do. Why is that? I can only speculate, but IMO: 1. Because the providers who give customers the devices are not interested in their customers reaching IP targets free of charge; they will rather want to charge for the call. So they might execute some influence on the makers of those boxes not to put a simple checkmark "Do ENUM lookup on outbound calls" in there. 2. There is little pressure from consumers as ENUM is an entirely unknown concept outside VoIP wizards. Even lots of people who do know what VoIP is don't know or don't care about ENUM. I have been thinking about that for a long time, and IMO there would be a very easy and effective solution to this problem: Put up a regulation which makes an ENUM lookup on an outbound call mandatory for operators; both fixed line as well as mobile. Then of course the regulation should also include some proper rules about how to price calls to IP targets. Maybe someone has a better idea ... Regards, Torsten Rui Ribeiro schrieb: > Hi All, > > I'm new to the list, so this will be my first post... I'm making a > master thesis on ENUM and its adoption (or non adoption). My > background is 100% technical, so I'm "a believer" that ENUM is like a > swiss knife to handle all kind of addressing problems between E-164 > numbering and the new Internet URI based services. It can solve many > other problems and can, even, be the base/enabler to new services. > > But I wonder if this is the pragmatic view that we should have about > new things. > > What if ENUM is getting "hard" to deploy because it can't provide a > business model to its "stake holders"? > > Do users understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do companies > understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do operators want to > explain to their users what it is, while risking their benifits? Do > constructers will make R&D on products that users don't understand? Is > there a killer application other than VoIP for ENUM? > > In other words: "does the business case mater for ENUM adoption?" > > I'm aware that Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland and others have > progressed to "final" deployment. I would like to exchange some mails > with some of you about the financial aspect of the ENUM "technology". > (fees, costs, ENUM registers per capita/phone number, service levels, > ...) > > Is ENUM a solution to gain money, or a solution to loose less money? > > If it is to gain, who gains? Tier-1, Tier-2? (the user pays...) > > If it is to loose less, who does? The operators, the users? > > Many, many questions more... but only for you if you are interested. > > Sorry about this "off-topic"/"non-technical" post, but didn't know > where to go to ask this. > > Thank you all, > > Rui Ribeiro > racribeiro at gmail.com From Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk Mon Jun 22 16:56:11 2009 From: Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk (Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:56:11 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Message-ID: > * It is hard for the calling party to make an ENUM call. I can only > speak from my perspective in Germany and a number of other countries, > mostly in Europe. Like many people, I am making 95% of my phone calls > from my mobile. As there is no single mobile operator in the world who > does ENUM lookups on outgoing calls (AFAIK, correct me) my only chance > would be two-stage dialling, i.e. call an access number, then call the > number I want to talk to. I have written an ENUM Client for Android which is due for imminent release. It integrates directly with the Contact / Dialer application (indeed anywhere you can dial a number from). Whenever you dial a full E.164 number with suitable IP connectivity it automatically performs an ENUM lookup. If there are no results, the call proceeds as normal. If there are ENUM results, they are presented in a (sorted) list, so the end user can choose which alternate contact method to use. The application also offers the option to bypass the ENUM results altogether and call the original number. I'll send more details (including a download link) once it's formally announced. kind regards, Ray -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet e: ray at nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonfarmer at enta.net Mon Jun 22 17:00:53 2009 From: jonfarmer at enta.net (Jon Farmer) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:00:53 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4A3F9CA5.3070107@enta.net> Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk wrote: > > I have written an ENUM Client for Android which is due for imminent > release. > > It integrates directly with the Contact / Dialer application (indeed > anywhere you can dial a number from). Whenever you dial a full E.164 > number with suitable IP connectivity it automatically performs an ENUM > lookup. > > If there are no results, the call proceeds as normal. If there are > ENUM results, they are presented in a (sorted) list, so the end user > can choose which alternate contact method to use. The application > also offers the option to bypass the ENUM results altogether and call > the original number. > > I'll send more details (including a download link) once it's formally > announced. > > kind regards, > > Ray > > -- > Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET > Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet > e: ray at nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 Well finally a application that understands what ENUM can do that's useful to an average joe. Well done Ray, I can't wait to try it on my G1, although not right now as I am watching Wimbledon on it :-) Regards Jon -- Jon Farmer Voice Technical Lead Entanet International Ltd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From tschlabach at gmx.net Mon Jun 22 17:19:26 2009 From: tschlabach at gmx.net (Torsten Schlabach) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:19:26 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> Hi Ray! > I have written an ENUM Client for Android which is due for imminent > release. That opens up ENUM for at least 0,5% of all mobile phone users worldwide. Or am I too optimistic. No, sorry, don't get me wrong. This *does* make sense, but I hope you agree it's not the answer to the problem. The makers of the more widespread handsets will not implement something like that guess for that reason, knowing that the majority of handsets are distributed through the network operators' channels. Two technical questions: 1.) Making the lookup does require your handset to have a GPRS / 3G Internet connection, right? 2.) If the result of the lookup is sip:someone at mysipprovider.com, how do you deliver the call. Again over IP? You know that you will have a worse sound quality than GSM that way and that you will violate the contract conditions of I guess 75% of all mobile operators that way? I mean, you may not care. But the discussion here is about widespread adoption. I can see the case where if an app like yours spreads (it could possibly we written for iPhones, S60 handsets, etc.) an operator may just decide to block all SIP traffic on his networks. That wouldn't necessarily make a good case for ENUM, would it? In other words; I'd like to see a robust and officially supported solution which would work for widespread deployment with (sorry) clueless people. Just to give you another example: There are some ENUM gateways in Germany. You can dial a landline phone number and you will get a new ENUM dial tone. Many people have plans which give them unlimited or very cheap calls from their mobile to landlines, so you can call call from your handset in Germany to a SIP address in China virtually free. Guess what ... Some network operators recently started to simply block those access numbers. To make it a bit more complete, they also blocked some other services such as calling card access numbers, phone conferencing services and Podcast to Phone services. User's of those kind of services have complained to the regulator, who didn't feel like saying anything about this. And given my understanding EU telco regulation (I can't speak for other parts of the world here) I wonder if the use of a regular geographic landline number to provide a gateway to VoIP targets would at all be in line with telecommunication laws of if this has just been tolerated in the past, as many things had been tolerated and are strictly enforced now. If you want ENUM acceptance, bring the subject up with the EU. They gave the GSM operators trouble re their roaming charged; they may also do something about ENUM. Regards, Torsten Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk schrieb: > > > * It is hard for the calling party to make an ENUM call. I can only > > speak from my perspective in Germany and a number of other countries, > > mostly in Europe. Like many people, I am making 95% of my phone calls > > from my mobile. As there is no single mobile operator in the world who > > does ENUM lookups on outgoing calls (AFAIK, correct me) my only chance > > would be two-stage dialling, i.e. call an access number, then call the > > number I want to talk to. > > I have written an ENUM Client for Android which is due for imminent > release. > > It integrates directly with the Contact / Dialer application (indeed > anywhere you can dial a number from). Whenever you dial a full E.164 > number with suitable IP connectivity it automatically performs an ENUM > lookup. > > If there are no results, the call proceeds as normal. If there are ENUM > results, they are presented in a (sorted) list, so the end user can > choose which alternate contact method to use. The application also > offers the option to bypass the ENUM results altogether and call the > original number. > > I'll send more details (including a download link) once it's formally > announced. > > kind regards, > > Ray > > -- > Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET > Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet > e: ray at nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 From Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk Mon Jun 22 17:31:13 2009 From: Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk (Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:31:13 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> Message-ID: > That opens up ENUM for at least 0,5% of all mobile phone users > worldwide. Or am I too optimistic. It's a start, and a proof of concept. > No, sorry, don't get me wrong. This *does* make sense, but I hope you > agree it's not the answer to the problem. The makers of the more > widespread handsets will not implement something like that guess for > that reason, knowing that the majority of handsets are distributed > through the network operators' channels. > > Two technical questions: > > 1.) Making the lookup does require your handset to have a GPRS / 3G > Internet connection, right?> Yes, the application works over WiFi, or 3G/Edge if enabled. It won't enable itself if all it has is GPRS. > 2.) If the result of the lookup is sip:someone at mysipprovider.com, how do > you deliver the call. Again over IP? You know that you will have a worse > sound quality than GSM that way and that you will violate the contract > conditions of I guess 75% of all mobile operators that way? If the chosen record is a SIP URI, these can be called using the Sipdroid application for Android, to which I have contributed patches. The version of that software that's in the Android Market is WiFi only, although there's a developer version which does SIP over 3G/Edge (but again, only if enabled). > I mean, you may not care. But the discussion here is about widespread > adoption. I can see the case where if an app like yours spreads (it > could possibly we written for iPhones, S60 handsets, etc.) an operator > may just decide to block all SIP traffic on his networks. That wouldn't > necessarily make a good case for ENUM, would it? This app would be a lot harder on iPhone or Symbian because it's far harder (if not impossible) to hook and intercept outbound calls. I'm not going to get into the market penetration discussion - I'm (mostly) just a tech. cheers, Ray -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet e: ray at nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Mon Jun 22 18:33:26 2009 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:33:26 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4A3FB256.20808@ucd.ie> Torsten Schlabach wrote: > Hi Rui, hi all! > > My apologies; I guess this discussion is indeed not what this list is > made for, but I can't help answering, as you touch on a number of things > which bother me as well for a long time. [Co-chair hat ON] No need to apologize! From : Charter The ENUM Working Group discusses developments relating to Internet resource mapping using E.164 telephone numbers as identifiers, commonly known as ENUM. The working group monitors and promotes initiatives to advance this technology. It also identifies ways for the RIPE community to develop and nurture the use of ENUM. Discussion of paths (or obstacles) to deployment fits our charter. "Non-technical" isn't necessarily "off-topic". Either of the Co-Chairs will blow the whistle if/when the discussion strays too far. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM WG From racribeiro at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 18:59:16 2009 From: racribeiro at gmail.com (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:59:16 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Message-ID: <943c86c90906220959g4a368d37s4afbef5eae314000@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, > * Benefit and effort are on two different ends. If *I* maintain an ENUM > entry for my phone number which points so a SIP address, *you* can possibly > call me cheaper. So I need to maintain my entry, you have the benefit. Only > the small number of situations where I as the called party care about what > the calling party has to pay for the call will just not make the case; In economy this is identified as an "externality". Often the solution to this kind of problem is the investement of the state in order to create a "critical mass" for it to grow it self. It was the way the road, highways, railroad and telco started... Here I have to refeer to the "Metcalfe's law" where: "the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law > * It is hard for the calling party to make an ENUM call. I agree... that's why I agree with your last sentence: "Put up a regulation which makes an ENUM lookup on an outbound call mandatory for operators; both fixed line as well as mobile." The problem here is... isn't this too much? Why should the state force this kind of "tecnological shift"? A few years ago I've been architecting a nation wide voip network. One thing that came very evident is that there would not be the need to create VoIP gateways to users/companies if the operators would place and receive calls from the VoIP world. Imagine... a farm of gateways in each operator, and that's it! no one had to "mess up" with iPBX with T1/E1 connected to it, no ISDN, no PSTN. Just clean VoIP (outside the operators). > 1. Because the providers who give customers the devices are not interested > in their customers reaching IP targets free of charge; they will rather want > to charge for the call. So they might execute some influence on the makers > of those boxes not to put a simple checkmark "Do ENUM lookup on outbound > calls" in there. And that isn't only on the user end equipments. There is a known feature (ENUM support), that isn't documented, on the software of the leading router company. It is available if you are willing to "dig trough" the CLI. But this is de "conspiracy" theory. I would like to avoid this line of thought. The "economic" view is... if there isn't value in the market, then there is no feature, because, if it were, the market would provide the feature. I believe that this is a feature that not many are willing to pay for... > 2. There is little pressure from consumers as ENUM is an entirely unknown > concept outside VoIP wizards. Even lots of people who do know what VoIP is > don't know or don't care about ENUM. That's true. That is why I wonder if ENUM is something that can be marketable. What features could you associate with it in order to the user come to the operator and say: "I need ENUM"! Is VoIP still the only application for ENUM? Does ENUM is still on time with the new telco paradigm (PSTN vs. IMS)? Was it overrun by events? Does it still make sense? For how long? Is there any study that demonstrate that users prefer (or not) numbers over URI's? Thank you all, Rui Ribeiro racribeiro at gmail.com From richard at shockey.us Mon Jun 22 19:56:33 2009 From: richard at shockey.us (Richard Shockey) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:56:33 -0400 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> Message-ID: <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> > There are some ENUM gateways in Germany. You can dial a landline phone > number and you will get a new ENUM dial tone. Many people have plans > which give them unlimited or very cheap calls from their mobile to > landlines, so you can call call from your handset in Germany to a SIP > address in China virtually free. > > Guess what ... Some network operators recently started to simply block > those access numbers. To make it a bit more complete, they also > blocked some other services such as calling card access numbers, phone > conferencing services and Podcast to Phone services. > > User's of those kind of services have complained to the regulator, who > didn't feel like saying anything about this. And given my > understanding EU telco regulation (I can't speak for other parts of the world here) > I wonder if the use of a regular geographic landline number to provide a > gateway to VoIP targets would at all be in line with telecommunication > laws of if this has just been tolerated in the past, as many things > had been tolerated and are strictly enforced now. If it were the US or Canada the regulators would not care as user controlled end to end VoIP is specifically considered an Information service and unregulated. The use of the NANP phone number is irrelevant. Remember there are two form of ENUM .. the 'classic ENUM" of RFC 3761 and e164.arpa and the carrier ENUM which are private instantiations of enum trees using the technology of 3761. Carrier ENUM which is essentially a replacement for SS7 and Global Title Translation is doing just fine and deploying rapidly for applications like MMS/SMS routing etc in carrier networks. > > If you want ENUM acceptance, bring the subject up with the EU. They > gave the GSM operators trouble re their roaming charged; they may also do > something about ENUM. Well since the GSM-A is organizing a private ENUM service for its operators the Commission may well have something to say about that. BTW any speculation on whether Vivian Reading is to be renominated as the EU telecom's regulator? > > Regards, > Torsten > > From Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk Tue Jun 23 13:19:20 2009 From: Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk (Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:19:20 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Message-ID: Yesterday, I wrote: > I have written an ENUM Client for Android which is due for imminent release. This application is now available for download from: http://code.google.com/p/enumdroid/ It's also in the Google Market, under Applications -> Communication. Ray -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet e: ray at nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonfarmer at enta.net Tue Jun 23 13:31:06 2009 From: jonfarmer at enta.net (Jon Farmer) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:31:06 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4A40BCFA.6090801@enta.net> Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk wrote: > Yesterday, I wrote: > > > I have written an ENUM Client for Android which is due for imminent > release. > > This application is now available for download from: > > http://code.google.com/p/enumdroid/ > > It's also in the Google Market, under Applications -> Communication. Installed :-) -- Regards Jon -- Jon Farmer Voice Technical Lead Entanet International Ltd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk Tue Jun 23 13:51:38 2009 From: Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk (Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:51:38 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <000701c9f3f7$3a4f0a60$aeed1f20$@pl> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <000701c9f3f7$3a4f0a60$aeed1f20$@pl> Message-ID: > Nice app, but? > > It?s designed to UK dialing style? Instead of just copying the > ?tel:? numbers from DNS in the format as they appear (like +48606?.) > it replaces ?+? with ?**? ? this doesn?t work in Poland? The '**' prefix is the app's ENUM bypass prefix. The app has to add the prefix to tel: URIs (and then later strip it off again) so that they don't go back through the ENUM lookup when you dial them. Can you please let me know [offlist] what number you were trying to dial? Ray -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrzejb at nask.pl Tue Jun 23 13:57:12 2009 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:57:12 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <000701c9f3f7$3a4f0a60$aeed1f20$@pl> Message-ID: <002301c9f3f9$be979060$3bc6b120$@pl> Bypass yes, but double asterisk is widely recognized as international dialing code (instead of "+"), but not for example in Poland for mobile carriers, "**" doesn't work. Dr. Andrzej Bartosiewicz [ bartosiewicz.pl skype: abartosiewicz contacts: bartosiewicz.tel ] --> follow me on Twitter: @bartosiewicz From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:52 PM To: Andrzej Bartosiewicz Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? > Nice app, but. > > It's designed to UK dialing style. Instead of just copying the > "tel:" numbers from DNS in the format as they appear (like +48606..) > it replaces "+" with "**" - this doesn't work in Poland. The '**' prefix is the app's ENUM bypass prefix. The app has to add the prefix to tel: URIs (and then later strip it off again) so that they don't go back through the ENUM lookup when you dial them. Can you please let me know [offlist] what number you were trying to dial? Ray Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.85/2193 - Release Date: 06/21/09 20:02:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrzejb at nask.pl Tue Jun 23 13:39:11 2009 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:39:11 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> Message-ID: <000701c9f3f7$3a4f0a60$aeed1f20$@pl> Nice app, but. It's designed to UK dialing style. Instead of just copying the "tel:" numbers from DNS in the format as they appear (like +48606..) it replaces "+" with "**" - this doesn't work in Poland. Dr. Andrzej Bartosiewicz [ bartosiewicz.pl skype: abartosiewicz contacts: bartosiewicz.tel ] --> follow me on Twitter: @bartosiewicz From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:19 PM To: enum-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? Yesterday, I wrote: > I have written an ENUM Client for Android which is due for imminent release. This application is now available for download from: http://code.google.com/p/enumdroid/ It's also in the Google Market, under Applications -> Communication. Ray -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet e: ray at nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.85/2193 - Release Date: 06/21/09 20:02:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk Tue Jun 23 14:21:23 2009 From: Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk (Ray.Bellis at nominet.org.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:21:23 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <002301c9f3f9$be979060$3bc6b120$@pl> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <000701c9f3f7$3a4f0a60$aeed1f20$@pl> <002301c9f3f9$be979060$3bc6b120$@pl> Message-ID: > Bypass yes, but double asterisk is widely recognized as > international dialing code (instead of ?+?), but not for example in > Poland for mobile carriers, ?**? doesn?t work? Ah, interesting, I didn't know that! I'll pick an alternate bypass string (or make it configurable) thanks, Ray -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet e: ray at nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Jun 25 00:44:21 2009 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:44:21 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> Message-ID: <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> [Co-chair hat OFF] Rich, all - Richard Shockey wrote: > Remember there are two form of ENUM .. the 'classic ENUM" of RFC 3761 and > e164.arpa and the carrier ENUM which are private instantiations of enum > trees using the technology of 3761. Carrier ENUM which is essentially a > replacement for SS7 and Global Title Translation is doing just fine and > deploying rapidly for applications like MMS/SMS routing etc in carrier > networks. IMHO this just cannot be stressed too much. Actually, Rui's whole set of questions needs to be separately applied to both flavours; e.g. "Do users understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do companies understand it and are willing to pay for it?" wrt. Infra ENUM puts operators up as users and/or companies. A first idea of an answer might be heavily related to the interconnection and termination regime in a certain country as well as the (non-) existence of number portability - and how this is technically done. Best, Carsten From racribeiro at gmail.com Fri Jun 26 23:45:46 2009 From: racribeiro at gmail.com (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:45:46 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, 2009/6/24 Carsten Schiefner : > > Richard Shockey wrote: >> >> Remember there are two form of ENUM .. the 'classic ENUM" of RFC 3761 and >> e164.arpa and the carrier ENUM which are private instantiations of enum >> trees using the technology of 3761. Carrier ENUM which is essentially a >> replacement for SS7 and Global Title Translation is doing just fine and >> deploying rapidly for applications like MMS/SMS routing etc in carrier >> networks. > > IMHO this just cannot be stressed too much. Actually, Rui's whole set of > questions needs to be separately applied to both flavours; e.g. "Do users > understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do companies understand it and > are willing to pay for it?" wrt. Infra ENUM puts operators up as users > and/or companies. (companies <> operators) (companies = ENUM user companies) I know that there is infra-structure ENUM. My work will be on user ENUM though. The infrastructure ENUM is here to stay, it is being used on several countryies, companies and operators to route calls outside the SS7 system. These are private ENUM trees, in fact, there isn't an infrastructure worldwide/universal ENUM for operators. This may happen, but I believe that there is no drive to it on the "old" PSTN networks. On IMS, ENUM is part of the ecosystem. I wonder if there is the "vision" to integrate the several ENUM trees. I will be focused on user ENUM. For me this is the "hard" part of ENUM. And if it is so hard, is it worth it? For me it is... the Internet is user driven, ENUM may provide this shift of paradigm on the Voice (and other) services. User ENUM will pushes governments, regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. I think that detach the e164 number from the PSTN Voice service is the first step. The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree and to terminate the call through their own gateways to the Internet, if ENUM returns a valid address. After that, the door is open. Once users get numbers detached from the Voice Service, new services will be available, for sure. Users are very innovative, and new users/usages will submerge. VoIP bases services will be the frist (marketing, IVR, podcasts, ...), but others will follow. Will it be cool to have a number to access your website, I don't know... but why not. > A first idea of an answer might be heavily related to the interconnection > and termination regime in a certain country as well as the (non-) existence > of number portability - and how this is technically done. What are the termination regimes available world wide? Found some: - bill and keep (US) - cost based (access) (?) - calling party pays (Europe) Thank you all, Rui Ribeiro racribeiro at gmail.com From tschlabach at gmx.net Mon Jun 29 18:13:23 2009 From: tschlabach at gmx.net (Torsten Schlabach) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:13:23 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> Hi Rui! > I will be focused on user ENUM. For me this is the "hard" part of > ENUM. Yes, and IMO it's the only flavor for which the public cares. I couldn't care less if my Telco operator is using SS7, an internal ENUM tree or a flat text file to lookup the target of my call as long as I have no influence over it. > User ENUM will pushes governments, > regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. Yes, but how? One possibly extremely successful method would be to convince Skype that they do ENUM lookups on their SkypeOut service and deliver the call via IP (and free of extra charge, of course) if there is a valid IP target returned or to offer a way to terminate skype: URLs as a means of SkypeIn. Both would boost ENUM! The only problem: SkypeIn and SkypeOut as they are are sources of revenue for Skype. As a smaller scale alternative ... (just coming to mind): Few people know that default SIP clients such as Ekiga (formerly GnomeMeeting) can make calls to ENUM enabled phone numbers without having to use a gateway at all. Maybe this needs a bit more promotion. Any volunteers to start a Phonebuntu distro? (I am serious, guys!) > The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree I think they are doing that a lot, unfortunately. ;-) No, sorry, but I think here you don't say what you mean. I guess you meant to say: The second will be to "force" operators to *query* the ENUM tree I agree with you that - as much as I hate saying this - it will have to be the regulator who needs to so something about this. Unless someone could come up with a different compensation for the network operators for the lost revenue of IP termination. And network operators in that case are not just the good old PSTN / GSM telcos but 95% of all VoIP network operators, both open standards based and proprietary (think Skype). If you need any links in / information about German telco regulation, feel free to ask me. Regards, Torsten Rui Ribeiro schrieb: > Hi all, > > 2009/6/24 Carsten Schiefner : >> Richard Shockey wrote: >>> Remember there are two form of ENUM .. the 'classic ENUM" of RFC 3761 and >>> e164.arpa and the carrier ENUM which are private instantiations of enum >>> trees using the technology of 3761. Carrier ENUM which is essentially a >>> replacement for SS7 and Global Title Translation is doing just fine and >>> deploying rapidly for applications like MMS/SMS routing etc in carrier >>> networks. >> IMHO this just cannot be stressed too much. Actually, Rui's whole set of >> questions needs to be separately applied to both flavours; e.g. "Do users >> understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do companies understand it and >> are willing to pay for it?" wrt. Infra ENUM puts operators up as users >> and/or companies. > > (companies <> operators) (companies = ENUM user companies) > > I know that there is infra-structure ENUM. My work will be on user > ENUM though. The infrastructure ENUM is here to stay, it is being used > on several countryies, companies and operators to route calls outside > the SS7 system. These are private ENUM trees, in fact, there isn't an > infrastructure worldwide/universal ENUM for operators. This may > happen, but I believe that there is no drive to it on the "old" PSTN > networks. On IMS, ENUM is part of the ecosystem. I wonder if there is > the "vision" to integrate the several ENUM trees. > > I will be focused on user ENUM. For me this is the "hard" part of > ENUM. And if it is so hard, is it worth it? For me it is... the > Internet is user driven, ENUM may provide this shift of paradigm on > the Voice (and other) services. User ENUM will pushes governments, > regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. I think that > detach the e164 number from the PSTN Voice service is the first step. > The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree and > to terminate the call through their own gateways to the Internet, if > ENUM returns a valid address. > > After that, the door is open. Once users get numbers detached from the > Voice Service, new services will be available, for sure. Users are > very innovative, and new users/usages will submerge. VoIP bases > services will be the frist (marketing, IVR, podcasts, ...), but others > will follow. Will it be cool to have a number to access your website, > I don't know... but why not. > >> A first idea of an answer might be heavily related to the interconnection >> and termination regime in a certain country as well as the (non-) existence >> of number portability - and how this is technically done. > > What are the termination regimes available world wide? > > Found some: > - bill and keep (US) > - cost based (access) (?) > - calling party pays (Europe) > > > > Thank you all, > > Rui Ribeiro > racribeiro at gmail.com From info at streamservice.nl Mon Jun 29 19:56:00 2009 From: info at streamservice.nl (Stream Service) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:56:00 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> Message-ID: <005401c9f8e2$dcf6f800$96e4e800$@nl> Hello Torsten, It is cheap for Skype / other operators to use ENUM, where possible, for outgoing calls. They can charge their clients for the normal rate, but save a few cents (on long calls). We are currently looking into ENUM and are planning to start using ENUM (starting with outgoing calls and incoming will follow soon if everything goes as planned). If for example a big telco starts using ENUM for landlines it would be great start. A weak point for ENUM is that you need an ENUM domain per number and these are not really used and at the moment to expensive compared to the savings. With kind regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Torsten Schlabach Sent: maandag 29 juni 2009 18:13 To: Rui Ribeiro Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? Hi Rui! > I will be focused on user ENUM. For me this is the "hard" part of > ENUM. Yes, and IMO it's the only flavor for which the public cares. I couldn't care less if my Telco operator is using SS7, an internal ENUM tree or a flat text file to lookup the target of my call as long as I have no influence over it. > User ENUM will pushes governments, > regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. Yes, but how? One possibly extremely successful method would be to convince Skype that they do ENUM lookups on their SkypeOut service and deliver the call via IP (and free of extra charge, of course) if there is a valid IP target returned or to offer a way to terminate skype: URLs as a means of SkypeIn. Both would boost ENUM! The only problem: SkypeIn and SkypeOut as they are are sources of revenue for Skype. As a smaller scale alternative ... (just coming to mind): Few people know that default SIP clients such as Ekiga (formerly GnomeMeeting) can make calls to ENUM enabled phone numbers without having to use a gateway at all. Maybe this needs a bit more promotion. Any volunteers to start a Phonebuntu distro? (I am serious, guys!) > The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree I think they are doing that a lot, unfortunately. ;-) No, sorry, but I think here you don't say what you mean. I guess you meant to say: The second will be to "force" operators to *query* the ENUM tree I agree with you that - as much as I hate saying this - it will have to be the regulator who needs to so something about this. Unless someone could come up with a different compensation for the network operators for the lost revenue of IP termination. And network operators in that case are not just the good old PSTN / GSM telcos but 95% of all VoIP network operators, both open standards based and proprietary (think Skype). If you need any links in / information about German telco regulation, feel free to ask me. Regards, Torsten Rui Ribeiro schrieb: > Hi all, > > 2009/6/24 Carsten Schiefner : >> Richard Shockey wrote: >>> Remember there are two form of ENUM .. the 'classic ENUM" of RFC 3761 and >>> e164.arpa and the carrier ENUM which are private instantiations of enum >>> trees using the technology of 3761. Carrier ENUM which is essentially a >>> replacement for SS7 and Global Title Translation is doing just fine and >>> deploying rapidly for applications like MMS/SMS routing etc in carrier >>> networks. >> IMHO this just cannot be stressed too much. Actually, Rui's whole set of >> questions needs to be separately applied to both flavours; e.g. "Do users >> understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do companies understand it and >> are willing to pay for it?" wrt. Infra ENUM puts operators up as users >> and/or companies. > > (companies <> operators) (companies = ENUM user companies) > > I know that there is infra-structure ENUM. My work will be on user > ENUM though. The infrastructure ENUM is here to stay, it is being used > on several countryies, companies and operators to route calls outside > the SS7 system. These are private ENUM trees, in fact, there isn't an > infrastructure worldwide/universal ENUM for operators. This may > happen, but I believe that there is no drive to it on the "old" PSTN > networks. On IMS, ENUM is part of the ecosystem. I wonder if there is > the "vision" to integrate the several ENUM trees. > > I will be focused on user ENUM. For me this is the "hard" part of > ENUM. And if it is so hard, is it worth it? For me it is... the > Internet is user driven, ENUM may provide this shift of paradigm on > the Voice (and other) services. User ENUM will pushes governments, > regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. I think that > detach the e164 number from the PSTN Voice service is the first step. > The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree and > to terminate the call through their own gateways to the Internet, if > ENUM returns a valid address. > > After that, the door is open. Once users get numbers detached from the > Voice Service, new services will be available, for sure. Users are > very innovative, and new users/usages will submerge. VoIP bases > services will be the frist (marketing, IVR, podcasts, ...), but others > will follow. Will it be cool to have a number to access your website, > I don't know... but why not. > >> A first idea of an answer might be heavily related to the interconnection >> and termination regime in a certain country as well as the (non-) existence >> of number portability - and how this is technically done. > > What are the termination regimes available world wide? > > Found some: > - bill and keep (US) > - cost based (access) (?) > - calling party pays (Europe) > > > > Thank you all, > > Rui Ribeiro > racribeiro at gmail.com From racribeiro at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 00:51:57 2009 From: racribeiro at gmail.com (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:51:57 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> Message-ID: <943c86c90906291551nfd09aabse8d68bd1e40c918c@mail.gmail.com> Hi Torsten, >> User ENUM will pushes governments, >> regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. > > One possibly extremely successful method would be to convince Skype that > they do ENUM lookups on their SkypeOut service and deliver the call via > IP (and free of extra charge, of course) if there is a valid IP target > returned or to offer a way to terminate skype: URLs as a means of > SkypeIn. Both would boost ENUM! The only problem: SkypeIn and SkypeOut > as they are are sources of revenue for Skype. What I see in this situation is that Skype is assumed as a non "public protocol" firm. Everything about skype is "closed", while the internet, ENUM and SIP are on the other way. You have to see also that the value of ENUM is the same as Skype, the size of the network. More the users, more the value of the network. I believe that Skype has already reached it's critical mass, while ENUM didn't. Why should skype "give a hand" to ENUM? Will it have some kind of "business case"? Any advantage in it? Don't think so. If skype starts to support SIP, then ENUM has a chance... does any one knows if they will support SIP soon? >> The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree > > I think they are doing that a lot, unfortunately. ;-) LoL! (good thinking...) > No, sorry, but I think here you don't say what you mean. I guess you > meant to say: > > The second will be to "force" operators to *query* the ENUM tree > > I agree with you that - as much as I hate saying this - it will have to > be the regulator who needs to so something about this. Yes. What kind of information/pressure can be applied to the regulator to force the ENUM querying by the operators? Open the market to small operators? Detach numbers from landline/mobile service? What can be the drive to this change? > Unless someone > could come up with a different compensation for the network operators > for the lost revenue of IP termination. I really don't think that there will be any "lost of revenue". You have to think in two ways: 1st - the "traditional PSTN network" that was up until 2004. The cost/revenue model was based on circuits fees and voice calls. The operator received per call. The interconnect rates were high, and the business model was there for decades... 2nd - the "new IMS network" that will appear in a couple of years. The cost/revenue model will/is based on broadband access, bandwidth, quality of service, while voice will be just a commodity. It will bundled... in fact, they will be happy not to pay anything to interconnect carriers to deliver the call. More the users with ENUM, more the revenue (less the cost) for the call initiator. The problem is the present... the 1st model is moving towards the 2nd and no one knows/wants to take the first step. > If you need any links in / information about German telco regulation, > feel free to ask me. Yes, I need some information. I will contact you personally. Thanks. Thank you all, Rui Ribeiro racribeiro at gmail.com From racribeiro at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 01:05:28 2009 From: racribeiro at gmail.com (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:05:28 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <005401c9f8e2$dcf6f800$96e4e800$@nl> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> <005401c9f8e2$dcf6f800$96e4e800$@nl> Message-ID: <943c86c90906291605q58e1e726t51cf2d414bff55db@mail.gmail.com> Hi Mark, Hi all, > It is cheap for Skype / other operators to use ENUM, where possible, for > outgoing calls. They can charge their clients for the normal rate, but save > a few cents (on long calls). I agree with this. I believe that skype doesn't support it because it will damage their own network value more that it would add. They will connect to ENUM when the size of the tree gets "larger". But they will fight til the end... I'm sure. > We are currently looking into ENUM and are > planning to start using ENUM (starting with outgoing calls and incoming will > follow soon if everything goes as planned). Excelent. Look at other trees also. In Portugal there are/will be soon more thousands of numbers available on nrenum.net. The NREN is commited to ENUM, but since there isn't any advance from the regulator... a solution had to be persued. nrenum.net is also being used in other countries (10!). > If for example a big telco starts using ENUM for landlines it would be great > start. That is the "critical mass" that I was talking about. > A weak point for ENUM is that you need an ENUM domain per number and these > are not really used and at the moment to expensive compared to the savings. Do you have prices. I've found the Austrian case and it goes about 20cents/month per each ENUM domain/number. Do you have more prices, from other countries? What about registrars? I've found several types of those. (types = diferent types of companies). There are hardware makers that make iPBX boxes and "offer" ENUM registers to their clients bundled on the montlhy fee for support of the hardware. If you charge 5?/number for suport, you can pay 0,15? to ENUM... Thank you all, Rui Ribeiro racribeiro at gmail.com From info at streamservice.nl Tue Jun 30 01:26:28 2009 From: info at streamservice.nl (Stream Service) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:26:28 +0200 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? Message-ID: Hello Rui, Currently the price for an ENUM domain in the Netherlands at a registrar is around 20 euro/year. This doesn't sound much, but when you look at how many we would need to register and how often currently we receive a call it is much. We could also become a registrar, but that would even cost more for as far as I know. With kind regards, Mark Scholten Stream Service (Algemeen) info at streamservice.nl Tel : +31 (0)53-7112711 Fax : +31 (0)53-7112716 Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: XWM-610908 Department: Stream Service (Algemeen) Priority: Low Status: prioriteit laag From fweimer at bfk.de Tue Jun 30 10:41:37 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:41:37 +0000 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: (Stream Service's message of "Tue\, 30 Jun 2009 01\:26\:28 +0200") References: Message-ID: <82zlbq6rlq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Stream Service: > Currently the price for an ENUM domain in the Netherlands at a > registrar is around 20 euro/year. Interesting. What's the yearly cost of a typical phone plan (mobile or landline)? -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From info at streamservice.nl Tue Jun 30 10:56:43 2009 From: info at streamservice.nl (Stream Service) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:56:43 +0200 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? Message-ID: Hello Florian, The typical cost for a phone plan (mobile) are starting at 10 euro/month and for a landline it is also around 10 euro/month if I am correct. But this is without any calls, I did check the usage for last year and paying 20 euro/year/number would only increase the costs (no savings yet). The costs for a ENUM domain should be lower if you ask me. With kind regards, Mark Scholten Stream Service (Algemeen) info at streamservice.nl Tel : +31 (0)53-7112711 Fax : +31 (0)53-7112716 Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: XWM-610908 Department: Stream Service (Algemeen) Priority: Low Status: Open From paf at cisco.com Tue Jun 30 11:17:11 2009 From: paf at cisco.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:17:11 +0200 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30 jun 2009, at 10.56, Stream Service wrote: > The typical cost for a phone plan (mobile) are starting at 10 euro/ > month and for a landline it is also around 10 euro/month if I am > correct. But this is without any calls, I did check the usage for > last year and paying 20 euro/year/number would only increase the > costs (no savings yet). > > The costs for a ENUM domain should be lower if you ask me. What is the cost of a domain name in .NL? paf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tschlabach at gmx.net Tue Jun 30 11:41:57 2009 From: tschlabach at gmx.net (Torsten Schlabach) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:41:57 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <005401c9f8e2$dcf6f800$96e4e800$@nl> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> <005401c9f8e2$dcf6f800$96e4e800$@nl> Message-ID: <4A49DDE5.5000608@gmx.net> Hi Mark! > They can charge their clients for the normal rate, But then the whole point of VoIP termination is gone. Ok, it would be possible to charge them less. For example, Afghanistan (yes, some people call there) is still a comparatively expensive country for termination; 30 EUR-Cent / minute on average. I could come up with some other examples. If Skype would decide to charge only the < 2 EUR-Cent per Minute they would charge for calls for example to the German fixed network in case the call goes to an ENUM target, that might be a fair compromise, as I think their effort is comparable. For a termination in VoIP it means th operator needs to forward the traffic to the next Internet Exchange. The same would be true when it comes to traditional telco's. I said this before. I they charged a call to an ENUM target at the same rate as a call to a national landline or to a network internal target, I think that would be as fair as acceptable. > A weak point for ENUM is that you need an ENUM domain per number and > these are not really used and at the moment to expensive compared to > the savings. Expensive? I never paid a single cent for any ENUM domain. Not in Germans, not in Bulgaria. I haven't used ENUM in other places of the world. Regards, Torsten Stream Service schrieb: > Hello Torsten, > > It is cheap for Skype / other operators to use ENUM, where possible, for > outgoing calls. They can charge their clients for the normal rate, but save > a few cents (on long calls). We are currently looking into ENUM and are > planning to start using ENUM (starting with outgoing calls and incoming will > follow soon if everything goes as planned). > > If for example a big telco starts using ENUM for landlines it would be great > start. > > A weak point for ENUM is that you need an ENUM domain per number and these > are not really used and at the moment to expensive compared to the savings. > > With kind regards, > > Mark Scholten > > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Torsten Schlabach > Sent: maandag 29 juni 2009 18:13 > To: Rui Ribeiro > Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? > > Hi Rui! > >> I will be focused on user ENUM. For me this is the "hard" part of >> ENUM. > > Yes, and IMO it's the only flavor for which the public cares. I couldn't > care less if my Telco operator is using SS7, an internal ENUM tree or a > flat text file to lookup the target of my call as long as I have no > influence over it. > >> User ENUM will pushes governments, >> regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. > > Yes, but how? > > One possibly extremely successful method would be to convince Skype that > they do ENUM lookups on their SkypeOut service and deliver the call via > IP (and free of extra charge, of course) if there is a valid IP target > returned or to offer a way to terminate skype: URLs as a means of > SkypeIn. Both would boost ENUM! The only problem: SkypeIn and SkypeOut > as they are are sources of revenue for Skype. > > As a smaller scale alternative ... (just coming to mind): > > Few people know that default SIP clients such as Ekiga (formerly > GnomeMeeting) can make calls to ENUM enabled phone numbers without > having to use a gateway at all. Maybe this needs a bit more promotion. > Any volunteers to start a Phonebuntu distro? (I am serious, guys!) > >> The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree > > I think they are doing that a lot, unfortunately. ;-) > > No, sorry, but I think here you don't say what you mean. I guess you > meant to say: > > The second will be to "force" operators to *query* the ENUM tree > > I agree with you that - as much as I hate saying this - it will have to > be the regulator who needs to so something about this. Unless someone > could come up with a different compensation for the network operators > for the lost revenue of IP termination. And network operators in that > case are not just the good old PSTN / GSM telcos but 95% of all VoIP > network operators, both open standards based and proprietary (think Skype). > > If you need any links in / information about German telco regulation, > feel free to ask me. > > Regards, > Torsten > > Rui Ribeiro schrieb: >> Hi all, >> >> 2009/6/24 Carsten Schiefner : >>> Richard Shockey wrote: >>>> Remember there are two form of ENUM .. the 'classic ENUM" of RFC 3761 > and >>>> e164.arpa and the carrier ENUM which are private instantiations of enum >>>> trees using the technology of 3761. Carrier ENUM which is essentially a >>>> replacement for SS7 and Global Title Translation is doing just fine and >>>> deploying rapidly for applications like MMS/SMS routing etc in carrier >>>> networks. >>> IMHO this just cannot be stressed too much. Actually, Rui's whole set of >>> questions needs to be separately applied to both flavours; e.g. "Do users >>> understand it and are willing to pay for it? Do companies understand it > and >>> are willing to pay for it?" wrt. Infra ENUM puts operators up as users >>> and/or companies. >> (companies <> operators) (companies = ENUM user companies) >> >> I know that there is infra-structure ENUM. My work will be on user >> ENUM though. The infrastructure ENUM is here to stay, it is being used >> on several countryies, companies and operators to route calls outside >> the SS7 system. These are private ENUM trees, in fact, there isn't an >> infrastructure worldwide/universal ENUM for operators. This may >> happen, but I believe that there is no drive to it on the "old" PSTN >> networks. On IMS, ENUM is part of the ecosystem. I wonder if there is >> the "vision" to integrate the several ENUM trees. >> >> I will be focused on user ENUM. For me this is the "hard" part of >> ENUM. And if it is so hard, is it worth it? For me it is... the >> Internet is user driven, ENUM may provide this shift of paradigm on >> the Voice (and other) services. User ENUM will pushes governments, >> regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. I think that >> detach the e164 number from the PSTN Voice service is the first step. >> The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree and >> to terminate the call through their own gateways to the Internet, if >> ENUM returns a valid address. >> >> After that, the door is open. Once users get numbers detached from the >> Voice Service, new services will be available, for sure. Users are >> very innovative, and new users/usages will submerge. VoIP bases >> services will be the frist (marketing, IVR, podcasts, ...), but others >> will follow. Will it be cool to have a number to access your website, >> I don't know... but why not. >> >>> A first idea of an answer might be heavily related to the interconnection >>> and termination regime in a certain country as well as the (non-) > existence >>> of number portability - and how this is technically done. >> What are the termination regimes available world wide? >> >> Found some: >> - bill and keep (US) >> - cost based (access) (?) >> - calling party pays (Europe) >> >> >> >> Thank you all, >> >> Rui Ribeiro >> racribeiro at gmail.com > From tschlabach at gmx.net Tue Jun 30 12:03:33 2009 From: tschlabach at gmx.net (Torsten Schlabach) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:03:33 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <943c86c90906291605q58e1e726t51cf2d414bff55db@mail.gmail.com> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> <005401c9f8e2$dcf6f800$96e4e800$@nl> <943c86c90906291605q58e1e726t51cf2d414bff55db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A49E2F5.6090808@gmx.net> Hi all! On the price disucssion: ENUM entries are free of charge in Germany as well as in Bulgaria. Not that it helped a lot ... Regards, Torsten Rui Ribeiro schrieb: > Hi Mark, > Hi all, > >> It is cheap for Skype / other operators to use ENUM, where possible, for >> outgoing calls. They can charge their clients for the normal rate, but save >> a few cents (on long calls). > > I agree with this. I believe that skype doesn't support it because it > will damage their own network value more that it would add. They will > connect to ENUM when the size of the tree gets "larger". But they will > fight til the end... I'm sure. > >> We are currently looking into ENUM and are >> planning to start using ENUM (starting with outgoing calls and incoming will >> follow soon if everything goes as planned). > > Excelent. Look at other trees also. In Portugal there are/will be soon > more thousands of numbers available on nrenum.net. The NREN is > commited to ENUM, but since there isn't any advance from the > regulator... a solution had to be persued. nrenum.net is also being > used in other countries (10!). > >> If for example a big telco starts using ENUM for landlines it would be great >> start. > > That is the "critical mass" that I was talking about. > >> A weak point for ENUM is that you need an ENUM domain per number and these >> are not really used and at the moment to expensive compared to the savings. > > Do you have prices. I've found the Austrian case and it goes about > 20cents/month per each ENUM domain/number. Do you have more prices, > from other countries? > > What about registrars? I've found several types of those. (types = > diferent types of companies). There are hardware makers that make iPBX > boxes and "offer" ENUM registers to their clients bundled on the > montlhy fee for support of the hardware. If you charge 5?/number for > suport, you can pay 0,15? to ENUM... > > Thank you all, > > Rui Ribeiro > racribeiro at gmail.com From Antoin.Verschuren at sidn.nl Tue Jun 30 11:44:15 2009 From: Antoin.Verschuren at sidn.nl (Antoin Verschuren) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:44:15 +0200 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? References: <82zlbq6rlq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> 20 E/year is at a Registrar, and that's because there is only one active registrar allowing third party registrations, and I don't think he makes a profit on that. The price at the registry is currently 5,- (and in 2009, you get a 50% discount, so 2,50/y) And for lager numberblocks there are different prices. One delegation of 10.000 numbers will cost 2500,-, discounts negotiable, so effectively this is 0,25 Euro per number. To become a registrar, the fee is 620,- (also 50% discount in 2009, so 310,-) So it's a question of big numbers. Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Utrechtseweg 310, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands P: +31 26 3525500 F: +31 26 3525505 M: +31 6 23368970 mailto:antoin.verschuren at sidn.nl xmpp:antoin at jabber.sidn.nl http://www.sidn.nl/ > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Florian Weimer > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:42 AM > To: info at streamservice.nl > Cc: racribeiro at gmail.com; enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business > case matter? > > * Stream Service: > > > Currently the price for an ENUM domain in the Netherlands at a > > registrar is around 20 euro/year. > > Interesting. What's the yearly cost of a typical phone plan (mobile > or landline)? > > -- > Florian Weimer > BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ > Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 > D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From tschlabach at gmx.net Tue Jun 30 12:27:24 2009 From: tschlabach at gmx.net (Torsten Schlabach) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:27:24 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <943c86c90906291551nfd09aabse8d68bd1e40c918c@mail.gmail.com> References: <943c86c90906191024t23921e68sebec79c10252b1d4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3F983E.4000604@gmx.net> <4A3FA0FE.2040305@gmx.net> <000901c9f362$c89062a0$59b127e0$@us> <4A42AC45.6070407@schiefner.de> <943c86c90906261445m6fddca27jef0c62401e2db156@mail.gmail.com> <4A48E823.1070602@gmx.net> <943c86c90906291551nfd09aabse8d68bd1e40c918c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A49E88C.5090705@gmx.net> Hi! > 2nd - the "new IMS network" that will appear in a couple of years. Hopefully. Right now, for example, I don't now of anyone who could offer me end-to-end QoS over the Internet. I may be wrong, but I see no movement at all in that direction. Well, maybe in other places of the world? I am speaking about consumer trunks here and I am speaking about the Internet, not about offers for corporate networks and QoS which works as long as the traffic stays with one carrier. > Yes. What kind of information/pressure can be applied to the regulator > to force the ENUM querying by the operators? Open the market to small > operators? Detach numbers from landline/mobile service? What can be > the drive to this change? "Open the market to small [innovative] operators?" would typically be an argument that the regulator might listen to. Though the argument would have to come from one of those small, innovative operators. Critical mass is definitely an argument, no doubt. Of course, one could think about making attempts to generate a critcial mass outside the PSTN world at first to have a good argument then for the PSTN operators to give their users a reasonable access to that cloud. But then I am stuck again. IMO there are two types of telephony: 1. PC based telephony. This is the people who spend their lives (or a major portion of it) in front of computers. Now if I want to use a computer to make and receive phone calls, would I care about ENUM or rather call directly to SIP addresses which are so much easier to remember and easy to type on a computer? 2. Handset based telephony. This is whenever I *don't* have a computer, i.e. on the move, where I don't have my own computer that has the proper Internet connection and VoIP software (in the office of my employer, in the university, ...). Handset based telephony means GSM in more and more cases. Where it's not GSM but landline, still, it's those devices with a keypad that has *01234567890# and on which it would be quite cumbersome to type an alphanumeric address. This is what ENUM was made for IIUC. When we speak about GSM, the operator is the only one who can do anything about ENUM. When we speak about landlines (fixed phones, DECT phones) then there is a whole dilemma again. I just bought a snom m3. A genuinely designed VoIP DECT phone. First of all, it cost 3-5 times the price of a simple ATA / PSTN DECT phone, approx. 150 EUR versus offers starting at 29,00 EUR and below. And guess if it has ENUM support; even optionally? I mean, what scares me as that even the people who make VoIP don't seem to believe in ENUM at all. snom could market this telephone saying: Call everywhere in the world for free. (*) With (* = if the called party has an ENUM domain.) Why don't they do that? Because they didn't have the idea or because they don't want to. (Anyone from snom, AVM, LinkSys, on this list?) One could build a PC app which uses ENUM, but (see above) I would have a problem explaining someone why she should use it and not use SIP straight or ... and that's what 95% of the people around me do ... Skype. I am out of ideas. Sorry. Regards, Torsten Rui Ribeiro schrieb: > Hi Torsten, > >>> User ENUM will pushes governments, >>> regulators, operators and companies to the new paradigm. >> One possibly extremely successful method would be to convince Skype that >> they do ENUM lookups on their SkypeOut service and deliver the call via >> IP (and free of extra charge, of course) if there is a valid IP target >> returned or to offer a way to terminate skype: URLs as a means of >> SkypeIn. Both would boost ENUM! The only problem: SkypeIn and SkypeOut >> as they are are sources of revenue for Skype. > > What I see in this situation is that Skype is assumed as a non "public > protocol" firm. Everything about skype is "closed", while the > internet, ENUM and SIP are on the other way. You have to see also that > the value of ENUM is the same as Skype, the size of the network. More > the users, more the value of the network. I believe that Skype has > already reached it's critical mass, while ENUM didn't. Why should > skype "give a hand" to ENUM? Will it have some kind of "business > case"? Any advantage in it? Don't think so. > > If skype starts to support SIP, then ENUM has a chance... does any one > knows if they will support SIP soon? > >>> The second will be to "force" operators to question the ENUM tree >> I think they are doing that a lot, unfortunately. ;-) > > LoL! (good thinking...) > >> No, sorry, but I think here you don't say what you mean. I guess you >> meant to say: >> >> The second will be to "force" operators to *query* the ENUM tree >> >> I agree with you that - as much as I hate saying this - it will have to >> be the regulator who needs to so something about this. > > Yes. What kind of information/pressure can be applied to the regulator > to force the ENUM querying by the operators? Open the market to small > operators? Detach numbers from landline/mobile service? What can be > the drive to this change? > >> Unless someone >> could come up with a different compensation for the network operators >> for the lost revenue of IP termination. > > I really don't think that there will be any "lost of revenue". You > have to think in two ways: > > 1st - the "traditional PSTN network" that was up until 2004. The > cost/revenue model was based on circuits fees and voice calls. The > operator received per call. The interconnect rates were high, and the > business model was there for decades... > > 2nd - the "new IMS network" that will appear in a couple of years. The > cost/revenue model will/is based on broadband access, bandwidth, > quality of service, while voice will be just a commodity. It will > bundled... in fact, they will be happy not to pay anything to > interconnect carriers to deliver the call. More the users with ENUM, > more the revenue (less the cost) for the call initiator. > > The problem is the present... the 1st model is moving towards the 2nd > and no one knows/wants to take the first step. > >> If you need any links in / information about German telco regulation, >> feel free to ask me. > > Yes, I need some information. I will contact you personally. Thanks. > > Thank you all, > > Rui Ribeiro > racribeiro at gmail.com From fweimer at bfk.de Tue Jun 30 17:09:31 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:09:31 +0000 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> (Antoin Verschuren's message of "Tue\, 30 Jun 2009 11\:44\:15 +0200") References: <82zlbq6rlq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> Message-ID: <82prcl69n8.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Antoin Verschuren: > And for lager numberblocks there are different prices. One > delegation of 10.000 numbers will cost 2500,-, discounts negotiable, > so effectively this is 0,25 Euro per number. Does this mean that subscribers have to pay per extension/subdomain and are not free to create all the subdomains they want? -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From racribeiro at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 17:13:40 2009 From: racribeiro at gmail.com (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:13:40 +0100 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> References: <82zlbq6rlq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> Message-ID: <943c86c90906300813v1e586c6ak15b2e26995a4db08@mail.gmail.com> Another strange ideia... What if operators receive back money from ENUM registers... what if the ENUM Registry pays 30% or 40% to the operators that make lookups on the tree? It might be pinouts... may not. The "driver" for operators will be to get some revenue from the ENUM tree it self becoming a source of income. (don't flame me... just giving ideias to the discussion). Rui Ribeiro racribeiro at gmail.com From tschlabach at gmx.net Tue Jun 30 17:29:20 2009 From: tschlabach at gmx.net (Torsten Schlabach) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:29:20 +0200 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <943c86c90906300813v1e586c6ak15b2e26995a4db08@mail.gmail.com> References: <82zlbq6rlq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> <943c86c90906300813v1e586c6ak15b2e26995a4db08@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A4A2F50.7010000@gmx.net> Hi Rui (and all others)! Don't hold back strange ideas. The non-strange ideas have proven to not work. If you view the subject of ENUM lookup as part of the interconnection regime (I do) than an interconnect is all about: There is X amount of money available for the call; which operator will get what portion. Looking at the different models (bill and keep, calling party pays, ...) in different countries, maybe the right combination of the two could be a winning concept. Money is indeed something which will usually make people think. Regards, Torsten Rui Ribeiro schrieb: > Another strange ideia... > > What if operators receive back money from ENUM registers... what if > the ENUM Registry pays 30% or 40% to the operators that make lookups > on the tree? It might be pinouts... may not. The "driver" for > operators will be to get some revenue from the ENUM tree it self > becoming a source of income. (don't flame me... just giving ideias to > the discussion). > > Rui Ribeiro > racribeiro at gmail.com From ckl at innovaphone.com Tue Jun 30 17:41:19 2009 From: ckl at innovaphone.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Christoph_K=FCnkel?=) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:41:19 +0200 Subject: AW: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? References: <82zlbq6rlq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> <943c86c90906300813v1e586c6ak15b2e26995a4db08@mail.gmail.com> <4A4A2F50.7010000@gmx.net> Message-ID: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A03859372@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Another issue is reliability. We have implemented ENUM years ago in our PBX product but customers are not using it. Carriers don't have a benefit (from user enum) and customers neither. Cause if they are using enum, they never know if their calls go through (not even if they indeed go to the right destination). It might, but it might not. This is a) cause targets enum directs calls to usually are somehow "unsecure" and b) cause enum creates an n to n interop problem. When i pass all my calls to my (SIP or legacy) provider, I have only a 1:1 interop problem. This is what we hear from customers. The picture might change with SIPS/SRTP though. Regards, Christoph -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Money is indeed something which will usually make people think. From cdel at firsthand.net Tue Jun 30 17:46:28 2009 From: cdel at firsthand.net (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:46:28 +0100 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <943c86c90906300813v1e586c6ak15b2e26995a4db08@mail.gmail.com> References: <82zlbq6rlq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> <943c86c90906300813v1e586c6ak15b2e26995a4db08@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <81A5322E-438C-4D42-8330-05C75D52A43B@firsthand.net> ENUM is neither a product nor a service. ENUM is a protocol. There are already per dip models carriers pay for registry dips but this is really beside the point as a adopting a single revenue model won't drive adoption of ENUM. I think I should also note that in my view ENUM is not a carrier play ENUM is not a user play but ENUM could be a very useful Regulator play. To suggest just three useful features that ENUM brings for Regulators. a/ ENUM enables reachability over both IP and TDM networks using a single numbering resource. b/ ENUM registry contains dynamic information about numbering resources under the Regulator's sphere which is valuable to regulator and market dynamics. c/ ENUM offers support for implementing services that underpin a regulatory role for universal service obligations as communications move across both IP and TDM networks. For example number portability. Trying to link ENUM to any particular financial model is counter productive. Each market participant can decide for themselves how or why they might leverage ENUM. But they can only do this if it is implemented. So the Regulator should allocate all numbers with ENUM. Then the Regulator will underpin universal service and seed both critical mass and low per unit cost. This is vital as users with numbers will pay in the end. Will it be used? Who knows. Carriers may start to look at ENUM as a simple way to enhance how they offer edge based routing to optimise their bilateral relationships with customer configurable services. That could be a game changer. Of course customers unhappy with carrier services may use ENUM to route around choke points but then they can do that today using IP directly at least where carriers don't add latency and filtering to their IP access networks. Christian Christian de Larrinaga On 30 Jun 2009, at 16:13, Rui Ribeiro wrote: > Another strange ideia... > > What if operators receive back money from ENUM registers... what if > the ENUM Registry pays 30% or 40% to the operators that make lookups > on the tree? It might be pinouts... may not. The "driver" for > operators will be to get some revenue from the ENUM tree it self > becoming a source of income. (don't flame me... just giving ideias to > the discussion). > > Rui Ribeiro > racribeiro at gmail.com > From racribeiro at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 18:06:19 2009 From: racribeiro at gmail.com (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:06:19 +0100 Subject: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter? In-Reply-To: <82prcl69n8.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <82zlbq6rlq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <850A39016FA57A4887C0AA3C8085F949DD3F67@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> <82prcl69n8.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <943c86c90906300906v47c43f2al49408d550ccd114f@mail.gmail.com> 2009/6/30 Florian Weimer : > * Antoin Verschuren: > >> And for lager numberblocks there are different prices. One >> delegation of 10.000 numbers will cost 2500,-, discounts negotiable, >> so effectively this is 0,25 Euro per number. > > Does this mean that subscribers have to pay per extension/subdomain > and are not free to create all the subdomains they want? That is a great question. What kind of services are provided by registrars? - just number delegation towards the client DNS server? (the user can make any update, at any time, of any information. User must be savy) - DNS hosting for any kind of registers? (the user accesses through a web interface to it's own profile, and ads any kind of information in type, and in number. Less savy, but has to have some knowledge) - DNS hosting for predefined registers? (the user acesses through a web interface to it's own profile, and selects from predefined registers) - DNS hosting for limited predefined registers? (as above, but with a limited number of registers. How many?) - DNS hosting limited for SIP? (as above, but only allowing SIP records. Maybe even accepting only URI putting all the information "around" them automaticly) Do you have others? Thanks, Rui Ribeiro racribeiro at gmail.com