US Urged To Merge IP and Telephone Numbers

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1033-984578.html?tag=fd_nbs_comm' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1033-98457...tag=fd_nbs_comm</a><br /><br /></div>"The Department of Commerce on Thursday threw its weight behind an emerging standard that could simplify personal communications by providing a single point of contact for telephone and Internet communications.<br /><br />The Commerce Department said it will support an electronic-numbering system, known as ENUM, which would allow consumers to specify a single identifier for their telephone numbers, e-mail and Instant Messaging addresses, fax numbers, and mobile phone numbers."<br /><br />The implications for something like this could be staggering if done right.

[luebster]

Theoretically, email spammers would then be able to fax, phone, and IM even more spam? What about telemarketers? They can now email me? They can call my cell phone?

I personally like the idea of having separate numbers/addresses. I can have "private" ones, like my personal email, which I give out only to trusted people/websites, and more "public" addresses, which I use for message boards (like this one!) or whatnot.

I think what is really happening here is with the skyrocketing numbers of fax machines, cell phones, etc., there is a serious shortage of available 10-digit numbers. Rather than move to 11 or 12 digits, just reduce the number of...uh, numbers. :?

Anyway, I'll stick to keeping my cell phone and email addresses to myself.

[don dre]

I liek the idea. thgouh I may still want to retain separate addresses, as long as this is an option instead of a requirement it could have significant effects. I already go in snd select home/office/cell, why not have them the same number?

[rocuf]

I would fight this tooth and nail.... imagine every spammer and telemarketer having every way to contact you. It be a nightmare. Not to mention the ability for whoever to spy on you with just a few cracks of passwords

[orangehat]

They must be having reading about SNMP when they came up with that. It reminds me of a MIB (except for arpa appendage).

[luebster]

Don't get me wrong. I like the IDEA of having one number. It would certainly make it easier to remember numbers and as an added bonus, would reduce the file size of my contacts :D

However, I don't want certain phone numbers/addresses of mine (or my wife's) known to the public. I enjoy my right to privacy. I might support this if I could optionally add communication devices (phones, fax machines, email addresses) to my "one-number" list and still have private, unlisted numbers.

My local telephone company (Cincinnati Bell) already does something similar. You submit your cell phone, work phone, etc., and when someone calls your home phone number, all the other phones ring as well. I started using it because it was cool (W?BIC!), but turned the feature off after 2 days. W?BIWA! (Why? Because it was annoying!).

With this proposed "standard," will all of my phones ring when someone calls me? I hope not. How can I differentiate between my wife's cell phone and my own? Will my wife have a separate "one-number"? What about my 2 week old daughter? When does she get her "one-number"? When she gets her driver's license? When I sign her up for a cell phone? When she registers to vote? I know it's very early, but there are WAY too many questions for me to jump on the bandwagon.

[TawnerX]

...mmm...

Total Information Awareness anybody?

[JMountford]

Interresting, appealing, yet terrifing.

The ramifications are going to big. This is worth paying attention to.

[RedRamage]

:( Its a little worry some to me. There's the obvious problems of loss of privacy as others have mentioned. There are some people I don't give my cell phone number too because I don't want them calling him on it. Plus, I don't want telemarketers calling me at work.

Beyond that, I'd worry about the techno-fumbles. Not to be mean, but there are, frankly, some people who do not handle new concepts well at all. I just have this feeling that I'd get faxes sent to my home line or people trying to call me on the cell getting my fax instead.

[bblock]

Gee - can anyone say "Number of the Beast?" I feel like the next logical step is to get the modern-day barcode (a wireless chip implant) stamped on my forearm.

I like the concept, but am sick of spam and wouldn't give up my privacy for the convenience of others being able to contact me.

[luebster]

My understanding is that the system will determine the type of transmission and route the communication accordingly. Meaning, it will see that it is a fax transmission and route the data to the other end's fax machine. It will see that it is an email, so it will route the code to the other end's email address.

One problem I see here is users with multiple phones (home, cell, spouse's cell, etc). When a call is placed to you, which one of your phones rings? All of them? Home only? Can the caller choose from list?

I guess I'll wait for more specifics before I pass too much judgement.

Ah, who am I kidding? IT STINKS! :wink:

[anthonymoody]

My understanding of one of the possibilities is to follow a URL type functionality. IOW, to call your mobile someone would "dial" mobile.yourname.num or some such thing.
TM

[Will T Smith]

One of the beautiful parts of such a scheme would be the ability to define sophisticated filtering. Such a scheme could also define standards for advertising exactly WHO is calling or emailing, faxing, etc...

I have no problem with others being able do find my email/phone ID as long as I know exactly who is calling and can filter appropriately.

[TawnerX]

The problem I see is, since everything is using one system, routing, and basic infrastructure, it would just invite disaster.

what happens on the net now will happen on that system too. Worm, virus, spam, spying, routing weakpoint, etc... you name it. (the Japanese already got a taste of wireless phone worm, and spam)

On the other hand, probably because of all the concern above, the development of universal tamper proof ID and transmission encryption tool finally will get on the way.

Probably in the near future everybody would carry some quantum state generator? Hey if the DoD is using it, why not me. I encrypt, therefore I am.

[ctmagnus]

War with Iraq. (almost typed iRaq. Too much iPaq exposure :))

War with Afghanistan.

South Korea developing nukes.

One hostile country will be able to knock out telecommunication in it's entirety in a given area with one strike.

[ThomasC22]

One hostile country will be able to knock out telecommunication in it's entirety in a given area with one strike.

Well, although I agree with all the other points here, I think the point of this is just the opposite. What this plan would serve to do is give the nations entire communications infrastructure the same routability that the Internet currently enjoys (which is, after all, why the internet was developed in the first place)

[brntcrsp]

everybody ready for IPv6?

[Jhokur2k]

Lol would they make phone numbers like 555.123.456.7 ? Could you imagine the sheer number of people that couldn't grasp the concept... let alone want to switch. Now if it were to provide instant internet access to any device, let me download my voice mail to my pc while on the road, and VoIP, then I'm all for it. Something tells me tho, kids would be bored and start trying to crash phones, computers, etc. by randomly dialing 10 digit numbers. It would push IPv6 up, considering how many people would need multiple IP's for everything. Screw phone jacks - everything CAT6 wired (there's a retraining class for phone techs waiting to happen... 'Wait, you mean now I have to wire 8 wires instead of 2?').

Doubt it'll ever happen. I mean how fast do phone companies move now, with the existing technology? Now you want them to strip it all out and start over? Bah.

[Ainvar]

In a way this is kinda cool. But otherwise it is scary. If I want someone to get a hold of me, I give them my info. If I don't want you getting a hold of me I do not give yuo my information. My home line has no phone hooked to it cause even with a changed number, privacy director, and all this other crap that is suppose to filter out the telemarketers and this and that. My phone rings off the hook. My cell phone does not ring if it is an unknown number and get routed to a nice little happy voicemail box that get checked every day or so.

I dont want all my email addresses and all my other way of communicating slapped with one identification code. If I wanted that I will tatto a barcode on my forehead for everyone to see and use. Some of this technology is just a slow way of getting eveything put together to spy/track you if needed. Enough crap gets spread around by spammers without some dumbass in the goverment trying to make things better actually makes everything worse cause they did not think ahead.

I think someone was reading about SNMP and MIBs when thinking this crackpot idea.

[mmidgley]

They must be having reading about SNMP when they came up with that. It reminds me of a MIB (except for arpa appendage).
everybody ready for IPv6?
SNMP and IP (v4 or v6) use mechanisms so the average comsumer doesn't ever have to deal with number-dot-number..., but can use plaintext strings. I would think they would develop a similar situation so that actual phone numbers are for use with old/conventional phones, but that a string identifier would be the official way to contact me (allowing the system to figure out in which manner I am being contacted). Not knowing the details of the proposal I can't comment beyond this, except that I think filtering could be implemented successfully.

m.

[DarkHelmet]

It is so nice to see that the illusion of privacy persists!
Wake Up, Neo!

[shindullin]

I don't think that spammers would be as much of a problem as hacker, whackers, viruses, worms and other malevolent creatures of the internet getting access to our home, work and cell numbers and creating even larger scale havoc than they do today in the computer world. That said, I think that the move towards single identification numbers is probably inevitable. If it's easier for big business AND government, it gonna happen whether it makes regular folk happier or not.

[ctmagnus]

whackers

Wireless hackers? That's a term I may have to apply to myself soon.

Wireless is good. Wireless is very good.

[ctmagnus]

wtf? Where's my sig in the previous post? :confused totally:

I may have discovered a bug! 8)

[shindullin]

whackers= hackers who break into systems to do BAD stuff to it. ie break stuff. they whack the stuff and in the "community" are called whackers. sort of like people who used to manipulate the phone systems being called phreaks.

[ctmagnus]

whackers= hackers who break into systems to do BAD stuff to it. ie break stuff. they whack the stuff and in the "community" are called whackers. sort of like people who used to manipulate the phone systems being called phreaks.

Those are called crackers? At least in this part of the world they are, when the media doesn't screw it all up.

Edit: You're in the same part of the world. Must be a dialect thing. :)

[Tom_Gilheany]

In case anybody wants to read the actual project, it is located on the website of the International Telecommunication Union (a part of the UN devoted to international telecommunications standards).

http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/enum/index.html

The Internet Architecture Board & some of the IETF working-groups are also involved with this, looking to see how well this integrates with next-generation SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) Multi-media over IP systems.

-->Tom

[CoreyJF]

The privacy issues could be staggering. ANd how would you accomodate someone who doesn't mine giving out an email address or IM name but keeps his number unlisted...

[nirav28]

So baby...So can I get your number?..err, I mean IP number...err I mean your unique Identifier...

[freitasm]

wtf? Where's my sig in the previous post? :confused totally:

I may have discovered a bug! 8)

Sometimes the sig doesn't show... You have to EDIT the post and check the Attach signature...

[shindullin]

OffT: I've heard the "black hats" of the hacker community called both crackers and whackers. I'm now in my 30's and don't know how the community has changed but there used to be a pretty clear division between crackers who were "true" barbarians and whackers who were not true hackers bc they couldn't actually create their own hacks but used junk of the internet (BB's back in the day) but these "would-be" hackers would damage stuff while foraging around because they didn't really know what they were doing.

On Topic: Big business and big brother want us to have one "identifier" bc it makes us easier to track down. Easier to track statistically for marketing purposes. Easier to monitor for national security... etc. etc. Sometimes, however, the it's not in the individual's interest to be easilly tracked. ie want to hide from telemarketers, an abusive spouse, etc. Making it mandatory to just have one identifier will probably cost us a LOT in terms of personal privacy interests and is probably a bad idea generally. Could you imagine the woman trying to flee the abusive husband who can't get phone calls or use email because her account is being monitored by her stalking psycho hubby? Maybe she's have to go to the ministry of personal identifiers before she gets on the bus so she can fill out the forms asking permission to change her number.


edit: just heard these know-nothings who download hacks and mess things up (deliberately and otherwise) are now called "hacker punks?" don't know how accurate that is. If so it's kinda interesting. Maybe there will be hacker punks running riot on your personal voicemail, fax#, computer, ip address etc. in one fell personal identifier swoop as well.

[ctmagnus]

wtf? Where's my sig in the previous post? :confused totally:

I may have discovered a bug! 8)

Sometimes the sig doesn't show... You have to EDIT the post and check the Attach signature...

Me: :sleeping: (or duh... duh...)

:oops:

:)

[ctmagnus]

...these "would-be" hackers would damage stuff while foraging around because they didn't really know what they were doing.

Gad... I've had to correct problems for people like this so many times. I know a guy that had a significant portion of his memory missing for a rather long period of time because he was "hacking".

Hacking is perfectly acceptable as long as it's either white hat and the hacker knows how to correct his mistakes, or in a test environment.

edit: just heard these know-nothings who download hacks and mess things up (deliberately and otherwise) are now called "hacker punks?"

An appropriate term imo. Personally, I would refer to them as cracker punks.

I really dislike the way the media always refers to crackers as hackers, it gives the whole hacker community a bad name. I know (of) plenty of hackers and none of them have ever done anything bad/wrong/illegal.

Anyway, back to the topic...