Slashdot Mirror
John Patrick: ENUM is a Really Big Deal
penciling_in writes "John Patrick, former vice
president of Internet technology at IBM, says 'ENUM is a really big deal'. Here
is what he has to say on CircleID about this: 'Basically, ENUM
is a protocol that will make it possible to converge the Public Switched
Telephone Network (PSTN)
and the Internet. In other words, a telephone number can get you to a Web
service -- telephone number in, URL out. The idea can be extremely useful when
you consider that most telephones are limited to twelve keys on a keypad. Every
try to enter your alphanumeric login ID and password to a web site on a cell
phone or Personal Digital Assistant? It is next to impossible! The biggest
impact of ENUM will probably be for Voice Over IP (VoIP).
In fact, it could be the tipping point.'"
This message brought to you by 1-800-SLASHDOT
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
Unless you are actually enumerating the values of a user-defined type, it is safer and simply better programming practice to use the const keyword instead of the deprecated enum hack.
And I use VoIP now and it saves me a lot of money in long distance charges. Whether the service provider is using ENUM, I don't know, but I do know that as an end user I don't care one way or the other. Const, Enum, it's all the same to me (as a user).
Next stop IPv6 and having a number for everything...
"Hello this is the refrigerator, the Answering machine is broken, so speak slowly and I will put on a sticky note... with your message"
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
ENUM is good when the PBX is not authoritative for a number. For example, if someone dials a number inside a company, if that number is for another extension in the company you send the call there. It is only when this number goes outside of the company that it is useful.
BTW, It also plays well with SIP (RFC 3261), because that number can map to a SIP URI sip:user@domain to route a call. Neato!
--------
Free your mind.
I don't see how this needs an extra protocol. For instance, you could type in Slashdot's address as 66*35*250*150#.
No reason to make it more complicated than it is.
Besides, old technologies such as POTS (Telephones) and TV are frequently regulated (and taxed!) by governments in a way that makes them unsuitable for open content. The very thought of connecting these very taxable technologies to the Internet scares me.
The whole idea behind having to dial a *number* to get in touch with someone is so antiquated that it's hard to believe that in this year 2003 we are still using it as our primary means of communication. It's like a giant cow just standing there eating and sleeping and sucking up valuable resources and farting toxic methane gas which is warming our atmosphere making this world unlivable.
If we can get VoIP, we can finally tip over this flatulent bovine and bring ourselves into the 21st century. I shouldn't have to dial a number to connect to someone. No one ought to be reduced to a simple number! I should be able to call an acquaintance using their name or ideally some truly identifying tag like a URL. ENUM is essentially the only system that would allow this kind of connection.
The phone companies are sleeping on their laurels now. It's time to bring the next tech to bear and knock these soon-to-be hamburgers over.
Telephone numbers are almost as long as numeric IP addresses. Why not get rid of DNS and key in the addresses? And issue paper "Internet books" where we could look up the IP addresses of sites we wanted to access?
I'm not sure what aspect of cognitive psychology explains this, but I and many of my middle-aged friends acknowledge having problems remembering local phone numbers now that in our state we are required to dial area codes on all calls.
I'm talking about short-term memory here. Forget long-term memory, I haven't stored telephone numbers in my brain in years; I have a Palm for that.
What I'm saying is that I can look in a telephone book, see the local number 762-####, and even though all local numbers have the area code 781, remembering to dial 781 (and dialing it) put enough extra strain on my enfeebled brain that by the time I've dialed the 781 and the 762, I can't remember the last four digits any more.
Actually I dial 1-781-762 because, for some unknown reason, the power that be have decided that a) you must dial a 1 if the call is a local toll call; b) there is no simple algorithm for determining whether or not an exchange in the 781 area code is a local toll call or not; c) if I don't dial the 1 some of my calls will not go through; d) if I always dial 1 all of them go through; e) dialling the 1 does not change the cost of the call, so... well, you get the idea.
Information theory says that the "1" carries no information, and the "781"--being the same on 95% of my calls--carries less than a single bit of information. That "1781" should only amount to a fraction of a digit's worth of memory strain.
Well, tell it to my brain, because it apparently doesn't know how to do data compression on the leading digits of telephone numbers.
Even if I keep the telephone book in my hand, by the time I've finished dialing the 1-781-762, my eyes have moved off the page and it takes me a good two or three seconds to reacquire the listing visually, scan carefully horizontally to make sure I'm picking up the number that's on the same line as the name, get those last four digits, and transfer my attention back to the the dial.
The phone system seems to be getting less and less patient even as telephone numbers get longer and longer. Even though the equipment must cost orders of magnitude less than it did twenty years ago, the engineers that set the timeouts apparently can't stand having their precious equipment tied up. The result is that sometimes the phone times out and abort the call before I can key in the last four digits.
Yes, I considered posting this as an Anonymous Coward. No, I don't have any memory-related mental diseases--and I'm not all that old.
But the prospect of tying websites to telephone numbers strikes me as the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Every try to enter your alphanumeric login ID and password to a web site on a cell phone or Personal Digital Assistant? It is next to impossible!
Effective next monday, all Internet users will have their usernames and passwords converted to 32-digit numbers to comply with telephone-Internet convergence. Use them to login to our website at http://2529850985513857918375981751. Your username and password are:
Username: 72946835 56198569 01854984 91856914
Password: 57105710 19158294 19469819 14691749
This is done for your convenience. Have a nice day!
There are many issues to be worked out
Technically, the QoS (latency) over the low quality lines, seems something of an issue. I read somewhere that anything more than 0.1 sec latency makes conversation noticeably less spontaneous. Maybe it will encourage us all to listen to others without interrupting them:)
Politically, the regulated monopolies that provide local telephone service will be difficult to interface with. They'll demand money for access to the offices (some people have stories about this), but are also obligated to maintain lines and obey a slew of regulations, such as providing service to backwater areas, emergency service, tacking on a whole zoo of fees and taxes.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The tipping point for VoIP will be going to the local discount store and being able to buy a standards-compliant phone with ethernet and/or POTS (depending on the desire to bridge to POTS) for less than $50. Add slightly more money for greater features (more POTS lines, 802.11, cordless, voicemail, etc).
In other words, the standards for VoIP need to crystalize to the point where interoperability with gatekeepers and other switch-like devices is a given, and not some game of vendor lock-in. I should be able to buy a Samsung/Apex/Sampo/$cheap_asian_brand VoIP phone, plug it into my ethernet network and have it just plain work with other VoIP phones, bridges, etc.
How or what the various numbering protocols work isn't the tipping point. The PSTN is too big and complex and the legacy devices too numerous to think that a new, acronym-loaded, buzzword-compliant numbering scheme will make a difference. For VoIP to matter it must initially be transparent to the POTS world, and that means telephone numbers and bridging.
Vonage is on the right track here as a bridging service. Their POTS bridge device is on the right track at least conceptually, although I can't comment on its protocol neutrality.