- 13. Timeline
14. INTERNATIONAL CONNECTIVITY
- Mandatory regulations are nonexistent
in international service, although recommendations are made by the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) concerning international interconnectivity.
ITU recommendations are generally discounted within national boundaries
when related to local character grouping and sequencing.
- The Public Telecommunications Numbering
Plan (ITU Recommendation E.164) does
place a limitation however of 15 digits on address length for international
connectivity. Three digits <xxx> are reserved for country codes,
leaving 12 digits for addresses.
- Outgoing Calls
- Because MTAS does not affect conventional
telephone addressing, its adoption will not have a direct effect on outgoing
- Incoming Calls
- Ostensibly, for MTAS to function in international
service in regard to incoming messages will require that both <*>
and <#> keys appear on keypads outside the NANP service area. However,
unless MTAS were internationally adopted for telecommunication addressing,
the symbol keys will not be functional. In addition, it would be unrealistically
to assume that foreign telecommunications companies would activate their
symbol keys solely to accommodate NANP requirements. Accordingly NANP addresses
will have to be reformatted in foreign countries for foreign connectivity.
- To reach NANP telecommunication devices
from outside the NANP service area will require that a ITU-compatible number
sequence be dialed. Accordingly, outside the NANP service area all NANP
addresses will take the following fixed form:
- Consequently, anyone dialing into the
NANP service area will be instructed to dial a final digit identifying
the device to be reached after the address.
- This string would then be translated
to the MTAS format at the NANP gateway. For example consider a facsimile
message from France to the NANP address (987) 321<**>1234. To access
the United States the sequence dialed would be
- This control signal would be transmitted
to the appropriate NANP gateway where it would immidiately be recognized
as a facsimile address. The address would then be translated into the NANP-compatible
address without ambiguity:
- There is little probability that modems
or pagers would need to be accessed from outside the NANP service area,
but if the requirement arose they could be accommodated, as could videophone
or devices not yet developed.
- ITU Compatibility Issues
- All countries in the NANP service area
and most countries in Western Europe and North and South America have <*>
and <#> keys on their telephone keypads, as do most countries
on the eastern Pacific rim. As in the NANP service area none of these countries
use the <*> and <#> keys for primary addressing purposes. Consequently
the MTAS protocol could be readily adapted to specifying telecommunication
devices by sub-addresses in these countries for domestic and international
telecommunications. MTAS is fully compatible with national addressing protocols,
at least for the countries shown, if MTAS were to be adopted by such countries.
In each case the number of digits following the symbol group must be fixed.
- Of course if MTAS were fully implemented
this option is practical only for countries which presently have <*>
and <#> keys on their telephone keypads, posing an inconvenience
for those countries that do not. Overwhelmingly most residential subscribers
only have telephones on their lines and most businesses use their telecommunication
devices only for domestic purposes, as in the NANP service area. Because
MTAS is compatible with present addressing no problems arise. Only those
subscribers who require international service would have to replace their
telecommunication devices in a timely fashion, or use the appropriate suffix
group that would be transformed at the NANP gateway. For all others the
upgrading would depend on personal needs or desires as they arise.
- Of course it would be exceedingly convenient
if all of the countries that might adopt the MTAS protocol used the same
markers for the same telecommunication devices, or at least for the principal
devices in common usage, but this would hardly be necessary. If marker
standards were adopted however it would probably fall under the aegis of
the Telecommunications Standardization Sector of the ITU with the International
Standards Organization undoubtedly involved. In any event no standards
promulgated would be mandatory.
- 15. CONCLUSION