From the description of Flash 10, it is clear that they are also doing a similar thing. But it is not clear whether they are following the full ICE framework or a subset. It is worthing looking into it once we have additional information.

Just because I take exception to their solution does not mean that the pain point they address is not real. My suggestion to IVR designers is to recognize this and simplify those callers who have access to Internet. A preferred approach could be for these enterprises to produce IVR map on their own website. Then internet connected callers can first visit this website, traverse the IVR menu tree just like Fonolo users will do. Once they reach the desired point, the site can generate a string of digits. Then a caller has to dial the standard number and enter the generated number string. The IVR system can correlate the entered digits to the selection made on the website and route the call accordingly. This way, we can augment the limited signaling capability available in PSTN with the rich UI available through the web browser. This is what “Intelligent at the End” will suggest.

Dan suggests that traditional directories and their online versions can not handle currently available multiple communication modes. So he suggests that the optimal solution is “a user-generated directory in which individuals own and update their own listing.” EnThinnai, which has been operational for a year, does exactly that. He further states that the access to the directory needs to be restricted. He thinks, “[t]he social directory could implement an invite authentication process like any other social network.” Here again EnThinnai is ahead. EnThinnai users will have the ability to control who can access when and which contact information. However, we disagree that there will be a single or even handful of gatekeepers. We are striving to provide a mechanism for each individual to run their own EnThinnai and control their own directories. We do not just mouth “Intelligent at the End” mantra; we believe in it.

First a cheap shot: Michael, there are no downsides in being a Relying party and there are no pain points. If anything, OpenID simplifies the lives of Relying Parties. More seriously, the confusion is created by OpenID proponents themselves because they highlight unrealistic benefits.

A relying party that has decided to accept OpenID has no obligation to accept ID issued by one and all ID providers. For example one of the stated reasons for Sun to issue OpenID to its employees is that retailers who would like to give discount to Sun employees can use Sun issued OpenIDs as verification of employment. So it is conceivable that a retailer may decide to accept OpenIDs issued by Sun and nobody else. OpenID is a “Passport” and not a “Visa”. One of the implied casualties is the possibility of Single-Sign-On.

Secondly, there is a general perception that registration procedure is simplified because the Relying Parties could collect profile information from the ID providers. Even though the protocol allows for this exchange of information, there could be external reasons for Relying Parties to explicitly collect them from their users.

These are the top two claimed benefits of OpenID. But many of the OpenID proponents do not emphasize the real benefit of OpenID. We all the time joke that “in Internet, nobody will know you are a dog”. So if a Relying Party is interested in serving senior citizens, then it can look for an opened issued by AARP. If a social network meant for middle schoolers, then it can look for an OpenID issued by school districts. This is the benefit of OpenID. So as a proponent of OpenID, I would like to lobby AARP, AAA and school districts to issue OpenID to its members/students. Then as a Relying Party I will be able to target services to the appropriate audience.

Now let me defend the actions taken by the big Internet companies. As I reasoned earlier, it is not against the protocol for a company to only issue OpenIDs and not accept from others. It is not even detrimental to wider adoption of OpenID. Just this morning Alec Saunders (most assuredly a friend and a well wisher) discussed Michael’s post in his daily Sqwakbox. There he mentioned EnThinnai and laments that one of the reasons he is not trying it out is that none of his friends have OpenID. This suggests that as a Relying Party, I will benefit enormously if the Big Internet companies issue OpenID to their members and raise general awareness. What will be my benefit that they also accept OpenIDs from others? I am afraid not much. On the other hand if they talk up OpenID and people have general exposure to it then Alec will not have his reservation. So I would rather advocate the big Internet companies to educate their members of OpenID rather than expend my goodwill on them accepting OpenIDs issued by third parties.

I am passionate about the objectives of EnThinnai and it is not viable without the services of OpenID. I do not care so much as whether other sites accept OpenID or not; but it is imperative that there are enough OpenID issuers and that Internet users have pocketful of OpenIDs so that any two Internet citizens will have a mutually acceptable ID providers.
So if you are an OpenID proponent then i urge you to do the following:

1. Ask any and everyone who provides authentication services to issue OpenID.
2. Ask Internet citizens to amass as many OpenIDs as possible.
3. Give visibility (not suggesting you heap praise, but offer an objective review) to budding Relying Parties. This is from a personal hurt. Here is EnThinnai, whose service objectives are viable only with OpenID. But not a single OpenID proponent has analyzed or discussed EnThinnai. But there is no end to people talking about Plaxo et. al. who don’r particularly require all that exposure.

In certain cases, the LEAs may not need access such an elaborate setup. It so happened that in a recent case, the Italian authorities needed to locate one of the suspects. “Soon after the murder, Guede (the suspect) left Perugia, but he kept checking Facebook for messages from friends. The Communications Police arranged for one of those to contact Guede using Skype from their office, and as the two chatted, the cops traced Guede to a computer in Dusseldorf.”

From one Jonathan to another: Remember H.323 remarks? What goes around comes around.

By the way, is Skype is really P2P or CS in disguise? Isn’t their NAT traversal derived from the same source as STUN – UDP hole punching? (Read the History section at the bottom of the page.) Is Skype call model different than SIP, which is no different than H.323? Why do I get the feeling that I am listening to politicians promising "change"?

Another notable quote in that story is from Lokesh Mishra, general manager of marketing at Woodland Worldwide: "And we are also playing on the typical Indian mind-set that thinks if the white people are wearing our brand, then it must be good."

The phone is very unimaginative in many respects. To begin with the cordless technology that uses 1.9 MHz radio. Instead it should use DECT that can support wideband codecs (it is a VoIP phone as well and not just TDM as Alec seems to suggest). (Update: It is a DECT 6.0 phone, but it is not clear whether it supports a wideband codec.) Next it should support multi-handsets with the base station acts like a rudimentary PBX, which DECT facilitates. This way, each member of the family can have a designated handset and can target ring the handsets. The handsets should have a much bigger screen so as to provide enhanced user experience, like directory based dialing, ease of call control. There is no need to have any browsing and related functionalities at the base station. I have never used the base station at my home. When did you use yours last?

OpenPeak’s phone has a critical flaw. It acts like a service provider’s node, instead of the consumer’s device. A better approach is to market it as a consumer device, treat it as the “central office” and derive features from there without any further dependence on the service provider. This way there is no opportunity to levy any additional monthly fee.

I feel that Alec’s experience notwithstanding, I think such a phone can be built at competitive price. Currently, Costco retails DECT multi-set cordless phones for about $20 per piece (base station is $20, each handset is $20). I would hazard a guess that touch screen will add about $10 to the handset and Ethernet interface and ATA function will add $15 to the base station. But think about it: such a device will really add intelligence to the End and revolutionize both PSTN and VoIP marketplace.

Let us hope that this event is equivalent to Gandhi being thrown off the train in South Africa. As a first step, he has joined DataPortability.org. But I want him to start a “homespun” movement. After all spinning wheels are available from a few people (including our own EnThinnai). Let us work together to perfect the wheel. There is no need to be locked within the walled garden. Swaraj now! Swaraj forever!

PS: If you are interested to add your comments, please visit the original post.

Last year was an interesting year because of my involvement in EnThinnai. Postings were fewer than usual, but some posts saw more traffic than usual. Thanks for continuing to read and hope you will find this blog to be of interest in the coming year as well. Thank you.