Skip to main content

Issuing phone numbers, a failing public service.

The unreliable ID?

In many articles, the IT industry complains about the fussy nature of the phone number as a reliable ID. For example, in this article. What wend wrong?

The ITU It was original set up by governments to resolve international issues on standards for telecommunication. One of their standards is the Telephone numbering plan. This telephone numbering plan was set up in a time of fixed landlines, never considering mobile personal use.

Who has ownership?

Let's have a look at the international public telecommunication numbering plan E.164.
The first 3 digits are the country code or country calling code. Counties control the subscribers assignment in the networks of the member countries. So countries have jurisdiction over the subscriber assignment in the country networks.
In that regard, the county calling code is the jurisdiction code! National governments have ownership!

To me, it looks like governments fail to provide the public service we (the people) could expect from them. We should be able to obtain a phone endpoint subscriber number from our government. And link it to a service provider of our own liking. The telecom business had (in the fixed line area) a technical interest to be responsible for subscriber numbers in their network. But that is not the nature of the telecom business anymore.

Who (with deep pockets) is going to sue a government?

SIM Hijacking / SIM swap scam can only happen because the subscriber assignment responsible party (government) is not in the loop of mobile number portability. The governments don take their responsibility.
It is about time that companies as Twitter and Google are starting legal cases against governments not taking their responsibility.
How can governments ask for a check on the authentication of a Twitter account holder when they fail in taking responsibility for their role in number issuing?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Brussels could do a better job

Abstract Legal systems should enable good public services, not just complicate things. We (the people) don't really need governments, we need good public services. These days, too little is done to ensure a level playing field for companies on a global scale. Enabling big companies to lock buyers into their influence sphere and squeeze as much as possible money out of them. Below three examples where our public services fail. Selling hardware with preinstalled OS should be illegal If a consumer buys a smartphone or a personal computer, it is always sold with an operating system preinstalled. This fixes the consumer into the commercial influence sphere of the hardware seller. Apparently, the Brussels bureaucracy is not really interested in a plane playing field that enables European suppliers to participate in the smartphone and desktop computing market. Would Brussels really be interested in a plane playing field, it would not be allowed to sell end-user devices (smartphones and pe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The end of Windows is underway

Thanks to the virtual machine (VM) revolution, slowly but surely UX (unix like) operating systems are becoming the defacto industry standard. All Apple OS-es are UX based. Android is UX based. All internet is UX based. The whole Linux family of OS-es are UX based. The only remaining exception is Windows. The virtual machine revolution and cloud based (UX) computing is nail in the coffin for Windows however. Now  Google acquired Cameyo and with that brings Windows apps to ChromeOS. It is only a matter of time and all the functionality only available on Windows will be available as a SaaS or ( first  in VM mode) on Linux. All companies (for example SolidWorks ) start to offer SaaS, forced by the market. They feel the pressure  of OnShape . Most development work is already done on Linux based machines. Windows is also becoming legacy because there is extra cost involved to make apps for Windows compatible  with the newest generation of hardware (linke Tablets). This is...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inconsistency in legislation

Good BDO Netherlands July 20 writes about the privacy paradox between PSD2 and the GDPR . PSD2 is a new European directive aimed at payment transactions in Europe. The law has five goals: Competition in the European payment market. Make innovations in the payment system better possible. Protect consumers better. Increase the security of payments. Contribute to a single European payment market. "However, where PSD2 requests open access to (confidential) transaction data, the GDPR imposes stricter requirements with regard to allowing this data and security to be shared." This is just one of the examples showing that the legislative process has completely got out of hand. How come? What is the quality of legislation? And is there something to do about it? How it comes In a word "islands". Too many people are involved in the legislative process in Europe. It certainly concerns thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of people. These work for different governments, diffe...
Post a Comment
Read more