Can the competitive model meet the unique operational demands of the emerging IP-Communications industry?
Is the emerging IP-Communications industry best served by utilizing e164.arpa as the exclusive Tier-1 ENUM Registry implementation? The e164.arpa public ENUM registry implementation is based on asking 200+ ITU Member States to each define a structure for operating ENUM Registry services for the subset of E.164 numbers that fall under their control at the country code level. For example, France will define a structure for the registration of E.164 numbers under country code 33, Germany under country code 49, and so on. A perceived strength of the e164.arpa model is that it derives authority from the existing PSTN regulatory model. By comparison, a potential weakness of the model is the widely distributed nature of the solution. For example: Time to market: E164.arpa will be slow to develop. It is simply time consuming and difficult to coordinate the selection of Tier-1 ENUM service providers across 200+ ITU Member States. Pricing: Pricing policies, billing policies, payment terms, etc.
Related Questions
- How do emerging risk management practices at large institutions, particularly in operational risk management, benefit the whole industry?
- I have peak demands and need a competitive rental rate - can you provide cost effective rental trucks that meet my specifications?
- Can the competitive model meet the unique operational demands of the emerging IP-Communications industry?
