Regulatory Drivers in all of this

["Mark S. Fedor" <fedor@checkmatecomm.com>]

Hi.  Thanks Daniel/Randy for setting this list up.
I have been thinking about all of these issues
the last few months.  I like Paul's earlier
analogy, but I think the fuse has already been
lit, it is just a matter of how long you think
the fuse is!

Currently, I tend to think of two subgroups within
the Internet Telephony space.  Each group has its
position on the technical, political, business spectrum.
I know this is an oversimplification, but it works
for my feeble mind.

The first group I would think of as the purists, pioneers,
early adopters, pushing the edge of technology.   They 
would rather use "e-mail-like" SIP-URI's vs E.164 numbers.  
They are the early adopters who "want to do the right thing".
Use the "technology as it was intended to be used".  A lot
of people in this group have businesses to run, not-for-profit
or otherwise.  Nothing wrong with this.  I, myself, used to
put my UUCP, ARPA, CSNET, BITNET, and MCImail address in
my signature back before the DNS came about. (look at some
of the sig blocks of posters on this list, looks eerily
similar... I digress)  :-)

The second group I would characterize as the "broadband internet
telephony companies" of today.  They are currently getting big
investment dollars, all rushing for a land grab to bring PSTN
telephony service via the internet.  They are targeting mass-market,
integrating existing technology, utilizing existing services and
practices (including e164 numbers).  I haven't seen any balance
sheets or results, but let's assume that they are being successful
at gaining customers and will continue to do so.

I've talked to a few of these companies and they are trying like
mad to stay under the regulatory radar screens.  Staying as far as
possible from even looking like a "real telco".  They lease their
numbers from a CLEC.  Most don't even want to run or own a softswitch.
They outsouce trunk interconnection to TDM.  Most own very
minimal network infrastructure.  They are
not interested so much in "optimization" right now.  They
want to achieve critical mass first.  Optimize later.

The downside of this is that they don't have much control or
cannot manipulate their numbers.  Specifically, how they look
to the "outside" world.

As a result, and paul mentioned this, they all use TDM to tie
themselves together.  VOIP to VOIP call always has TDM middleman
involved.  Granted, this is not a high percentage of calls
right now, but it will continue to grow.

Long leadup to the real question and comment.  I feel that regulatory
drivers will "push" this second group of guys to quickly keep as many
calls completely IP-based as possible.  My thinking is that any call
that "touches" the TDM fabric will be subject to regulation while
any call that is native IP end-to-end could be considered data-only
(computer to computer).   Another possibility is that if e164 numbers
somehow become the "method" of identifying a regulated call, it
might drive these internet telephony companys to quickly "push"
alternate addressing schemes.

Are there any other regulatory drivers that would accelerate a movement
towards alternative addressing, ENUM-like infrastructure for the
mass-market internet telephony providers?

thanks for reading to the end.

mf




--
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/>.