28May 09
Mobile, VoIP and geographic phone numbers
Posted by Phil Dobbie @ 10:53 7 comments
Play or download the Twisted Wire podcast below:
Embed podcast:
Will we see mass adoption of VoIP calling on our mobile phones? Does VoIP over 3G provide the quality of voice call that we've grown to expect? Given the threat to their traditional voice revenues can we expect the mobile carriers to fight its adoption and control access on their networks?
Today on Twisted Wire Phil Dobbie talks to Skype's APAC VP Dan Neary and Graeme Dollar, COO for Australian VoIP provider engin.
Mobile VoIP could create a headache for ACMA, which is responsible for managing the numbering plan. The portability of VoIP devices has already challenged the charging regime of local call zones. Will the situation become more pronounced with the advent of Mobile VoIP? ACMA's Robert Johnson talks about the authority's Numbering Discussion Paper.
We also ask whether the demand for VoIP on a mobile device is ill-placed. Are we looking to save money or do we really want a unified communications solution, where calls find us wherever we are? In which case, do we care how the call is delivered? And do the limitations of the geographic phone numbers still apply?
Tell us what you think. Have you tried VoIP over 3G? How did it sound? Do you think we'll see widespread adoption of VoIP on mobile devices? Add your thoughts in the Talkback section at the end of this post. Or leave a phone comment on Phil's answer phone — call 02 8006 1257.
13%
1%
The ACMA numbering discussion paper (link in article) deserves some comments:
1. Yes, you need some regulatory body to ensure that emergency calls are handled properly... but they haven't been thus far:
a) The Inquest into a walker-death 100km W of Sydney showed that Calling Number Display had naught to do with the death, but the Ambulance Service insistence on only being able to locate by street and nearest cross street meant a walker giving the description of the well-known named walk he was on, was left for dead, despite numerous phone calls for assistance.
b) Thus far ACMA etc has simply said, don't use VOIP for emergency calls. That might be right, but Triple-O should always have been ABLE to handle VOIP and even SMS from people stuck in marginal mobile range. The authorities have been far too 'blinkered' in this area. What telephone number would you SMS to if you wanted to get the info to a Triple-O operator?
c) In general how the call was made will be less relevant, but getting the info from the caller is the need.
2. ACMA made itself a joke when it put '03' prefix for SA numbers (as well as Vic numbers). For eons, we've had state-based digit assignments (used as first digit of postcode, prefix digit for radio stations etc). In changing the national telephone numbering, ACMA (or its predecessor name) ran roughshod over that convention, when it should have implemented it. Now, there is little point in keeping to any strict geographic basis, as the allocation of prefix to region was muffed by ACMA.
3. In terms of geographically-independent numbers, I loved the original fully-portable 0500 sequence. My number was (0500)UGETME... then Sol arrived and hated the idea of Telstra supporting number portability, so the whole service was limited to forwarding to ONLY Telstra numbers, and then the service was killed. I just love to watch the innovation you see roll out from large monopolies - if it is innovative, it gets withdrawn.
4. The costs to have Telstra relay calls, if you relocated a business just a few suburbs away is so high as to NEED VOIP-IN services to do that easily for you. I don't have a problem with them restricting you from doing a VOIP-OUT from such services (appearing to have an office where you don't). But frankly, Skype lets you do this anyway, so maybe you are trying to stop the tide by barring it. From a national competition perspective, allowing a near-free-for-all (any non-geographic numbers) is actually better. The more levels of red-tape you add, the more you add to business costs. If someone answers an apparent Perth number, and can ship to customers in Perth, good luck to them. And if the service they offer requires a local physical presence, then they won't be able to have a 'virtual office' there.
5. The ONLY valid concern of ACMA is that people should not be fraudulently misrepresenting what another party might bill as a local call. In other words, if a VOIP provider is prepared to give a Sydney company a Perth number, then it is the obligation of the VOIP provider, to have the transfer from IP-based network to PSTN/POTS (normal voice line) at a Perth exchange (any Perth exchange). That way, no other telco can claim they were 'fooled' by the number. However, the fact that such VOIP calls are free to the consumer is only a 'theoretical' (market share) loss to Telstra, and not fraud. Telstra could have offered the same VOIP service at the same rates (but chose not to).