Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

[LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon)]

On 2/22/2010 11:20 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/22/2010 8:42 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> When Somebody calls one of my "portable" telephone numbers, they don't
>> get a message telling them they have to call some other number.  The get
>> call progress tones.
> 
> 
> You are confusing what is presented to the end-user with what might be going on 
> within the infrastructure service.
> 
> Call progress tones are the former and their primary goal is to keep the user 
> happy, providing very constrained information.  Especially for mobile phones, 
> there is often all sorts of forwarding signallying going on while you hear to tones.

I understand that--and had not considered that the global inventory of
MTAs could be swapped out with stuff that could handle the redirection
mechanically.

I had left the telephone business by the time SS7 came along--how was
that introduced?  (I have assumed that it was as the #2, #4, and #5
machines and their equivalents were swapped out for ESS machines for a
lot of additional reasons.)

> In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes something 
> that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least tolerably - 
> viable in the email infrastructure.  Unfortunately, the details of the two are 
> massively different in terms of architecture, service model, cost structures and 
> operational skills.

No kidding--something like making airlines do something railroads can do.

-- 
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have."

Remember:  The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.

Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:  http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml