Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

I would have thought that the discussion about the LNP contract, foreshadowing in its acrimony and cost the current presidential contest (you pick the party...), would provide carriers with some incentive for more flexibility.

I'm not sure why you consider the effort "US centric". I suspect almost all countries will be faced with the IP transition and, in particular, with upgrading the existing number portability system, if they have one, or creating one. The current number portability (whether or not it's geographic) leaves much to be desired, as recent events (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-plans-296-million-fine-slamming-cramming-and-obstruction-0 makes a good read) illustrate.

Collectively, we don't do well with tech predictions. (Speaking from some experience, none of the VoIP protocols were on anybody's "gap list.") Sometimes protocols that everybody thought we needed fail to find use, sometimes they make unexpected experiences (RSVP-TE comes to mind). But having an open protocol is invariably better than winging it or letting lawyers design it. 

One important test case is whether the MODERN proposals can implement the current industry structure, in both the geographic and 800# space. If not, there's clearly a gap. Thus, maybe you can help point out the specific features that would need to be supported to implement a version of today's policies, possibly with more formal down-delegation to facilitate tracking, and possibly multiple "registrars", as exists today in the 800# space. (As you know, today we often don't have a good idea of who is actually using a number, given informal "delegation" and reselling-that-doesn't-dare-call-itself-that.)

Henning

________________________________________
From: Modern <[e-mail]> on behalf of Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:47 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat; 'Modern List'
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft


>But us end users regard the numbers as *ours*. The fact that we must go,
>hat in hand, to our carrier and beg for any sort of administration of
>that number is a *problem*, not a feature. Anything that will give us
>more control over *our* numbers is a *good* thing!
>
>I have no illusions that the carriers share this opinion. I do hope that
>the FCC does.

RS> There is progress. Non traditional carriers now have access to the numbering plan ( yes even Google voice) directly but even the simplest reform ..National Geographic Number Portability for instance creates a hornets nest of orthogonal issues (rate centers LATA) that have to be resolved before it can be implemented and the rules have to change ( that is a FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making BTW) and that is a political problem not a issue for the IETF to resolve. Contrary to what Tom says the existing technology can work reasonably well for NG-NP without imposing unreasonable costs on traditional telephony service providers.  Yours truly is living through that little fustercluck right now.



My contention is still that MODERN is putting the cart before the horse and looks way way to US specific. The proposed use cases are unimplementable given the current set of regulations, the structure of the industry and does not actually solve a real problem.  There is no business case here which I suspect something else is going on.  The real problem is IP interconnection data ( aka NG ENUM) a system distributed synchronized registries is desperately needed NOW and could be widely implemented quickly as a greenfield technology. Once you build on success you can add some of these other use cases as the regulatory structures evolve, which usually takes a decade and endless ex parte filings in the public record.

As it stands now MODERN is trying to build something that no one wants and no carrier will ever implement ( gee sounds like 6116 ).

This is the exact opposite of the STIR proposition.  STIR is actually addressing a serious international problem where there is ample evidence the regulators and the legislators are desperate for a solution.

Call SpoofingBipartisan Anti-Spoofing Bill Introduced
Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) introduced

http://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ID=F135ABD9-C427-464F-853D-E95509AFA93F

Legislation

https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/22216bill.pdf




>
>       Thanks,
>       Paul
>
>_______________________________________________
>Modern mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern

_______________________________________________
Modern mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern