5 ms·
> When Google demands an E.164 number, they're not demanding it despite the fact that E.164 is a somewhat closed, opaque network, but because of it. Basically e
by sly010 5y ago
> When Google demands an E.164 number, they're not demanding it despite the fact that E.164 is a somewhat closed, opaque network, but because of it. Basically everything bad about the E.164 namespace and its constituent organizations is precisely what makes it attractive to organizations for use cases like these.
That is kind of the point isn't it. Despite all its shortcomings it's a useful identifier because of its scarcity.
Btw, the domain name system and x.509 would not work either without scarcity and trust delegation.
In fact if I remember correctly some newly re-imagined digital 'networks' like Urbit also opted for scarce identifiers, because they work out better economically.
- hlandau 5y agoI'm not sure I follow. Domain names are not meaningfully "scarce", unless you mean in the sense that you pay for them. But even then domain names are not "scarce" because one domain can support an effectively unlimited number of subdomains, and free providers of subdomains exist.
- LeifCarrotson 5y agoGood, semantic, short, memorable domain names are scarce. You pay though the nose for them. Arbitrary subdomains on free subdomain providers are not the same as having "FirstnameLastname.com"
- hlandau 5y agoBut this has nothing to do with anything I complained about. I don't recall complaining about the scarcity of "designer" phone numbers (for example), just that it is a closed system relative to email. The complaint, amongst the others made, is that I can't own my own identifier, not that that identifier might be unfashionable.
- theonlybutlet 5y agoMany countries have number portability meaning you can take your number with you to your new provider, it would be ownership in the same way as a domain address.
- hlandau 5y agoI'm aware of portability. This doesn't create ownership, it simply seeks to alleviate the most common pain point around the fact that numbers aren't owned. It's not the same thing as ownership such as regards a domain name. Telcos can allocate numbers as they please, much as ISPs or web hosts can allocate IP addresses as they please to your services but this doesn't make you the owner of them. Fortunately, nobody uses IP addresses in their email addresses (though it is allowed).
- theonlybutlet 5y agoThey can allocate it but that's got nothing to do with ownership that's customisation. In practice you basically have ownership in that you are able to move it around with you to whichever provider you want.
- sly010 5y agoI was just trying to make a point that scarsity and usefuleness are related. In the case of domains the scarcity comes from name recognition and the cost of registering not just in terms of money, but also in terms of process. Perhaps the point is not what the technology allows, but the status quo around what constitutes an 'acceptable' form of identification. Whatever the solution (for personal identification) it needs to be somewhat scarce, but also ubiquitous. But different applications need different level of scarcity. Phone numbers just seem to be the right balance for social media.