[enum-wg] repost: Proposal for non-geographic ENUM E.164 UPTS for the general public
Carsten Schiefner enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de
Wed Aug 11 20:04:36 CEST 2004
Hi. Chris Heinze wrote: >> [If the incumbent routes the call at all...] > > well that's a question for the regulator then, isn't it. ...which in various countries IS the incumbent. > i don't want to > nor see a reason why to mess with regulations. if a country decides to > ban voip-gateways (although still i don't really know a good reason > why), Keep the minute meters of the 100% state owned telco glooming, for example? There has been precedence set in Belorussia AFAIR where two people went to jail for a considerable period of time for using VoIP. Interestingly, there was no law whatsoever prohibiting VoIP. The charge was something along the lines of "causing revenue loss to the incumbent". > that's the country's decision and that decision has to be followed > in that country. but i don't think this is a good reason to prevent > everyone else from promoting voip. That indeed is true. :-) > the concept as such should work also without an 'assignment window'. but > i think it's not a too bad idea, otherwise most-popular-vanity-number > grabbing probably can not be prevented. So? Why should it? If it's FCFS and I am faster that you, why shouldn't I get the most attractive number and you only the second most? Or vice-versa, of course! ;-) Secondly: is an AW-type of measure really the appropriate means to deal with this very issue? > also, depending on the policy, > conservation might be identified as an issue. Coudl you further detail here? The only reason for depletion I can see is rather natural: a massive interest by individuals. As said already: I have hard times thinking about individuals who would like to have MORE than one number - isn't the whole exercise about subsuming various means of communication under ONE number?! ;-) Cheers, -C.
[ enum-wg Archives ]