e164.isc.org strengths (was Re: Getting NANPA to designate a non-geographic area code?)

[Andre Gironda <andre@operations.net>]

I'm replying to both Paul Vixie and Mark Lindsey because I want to
touch on both of their recent posts.

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:12:03AM -0400, Mark R. Lindsey wrote:
> Some VoIP companies seem to be able to get NANP numbers already.
> In addition, the number subscribers get might or might not have
> a relation to their geographic location.

I've always wondered how they do this.  Some seem to represent only
LATA's they exist in, while others (CallTower, Vonage, VoicePulse,
Nufone, ICG Voicepipe, etc) can get a block of DID's from anywhere.

Some charge an exorbitant $8/mo per DID, which doesn't scale for most
business needs.  E.g. http://connect.voicepulse.com/rates.aspx
However, others make this highly lucrative, even if your inbound is
charged exactly like mobile calls.

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:23:17PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > The controversy would erupt due to the introduction of 1.e164.arpa
> > Real Soon Now.  What is the migration strategy?  What is the life
> > cycle of the ISC root?
> 
> when the people who asked us to add stuff tell us to take it out, we would.
> (unless it's on a term agreement like three years or whatever, in which case
> it would die if not renewed, unless it's taken out sooner by request.)

Paul - I think that your method is going to work better to get on the E.164
path (instead of e164.org).  I was very intrigued about e164.org when I
first heard about it, but it seems to work for individuals only.  If I
wanted to push a business through their callback methodology, I'd have to
sit in front of every phone and sign them all up.

With your method, I can send you the bill that indicates what DID's
my business owns, and when they expire.  I do agree with some of
the others that it does seem to be a lot of work on your part,
however (i.e. someone made the comment of $35 / work order).

> since i tried to get woody and wessorh to do this and they passed on it,
> and since e164.org has apparently failed to take the voip world by storm,
> it's time to make the offer-- if you have numbers to register and you'd
> like to see e164.isc.org created for you to share SRV/NAPTR information
> with your competitors and others, send me mail privately.

I think it's a little too early to say that e164.org hasn't taken off,
yet, no?  But on the same token, myself and others would appreciate
alternatives.


--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.