Email system provision is unregulated in the UK.

securityguy

tronator wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the case where the old ISP forwards the email to the new ISP. I was thinking of the sender needs to query this database instead of/before querying the MX in DNS. Such things need to be implemented in the whole world, not only at dome UK ISPs.

Right, and that's obviously impossible.

As far as I know it works like this for mobile numbers. If somebody calls me, the call doesn't go first to my previous network operator who forwards the call to my current provider. My number is stored in a central database together with my current provider. The network of the person who calls me looks into this database and the old network is not involved in that at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know. When I was last involved in telephony, Ofcom had just finished a consultation about the fact that all calls did, in fact, go via the "owner" of the prefix, and that they wanted All Call Query implemented and set out timescales for doing so:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/gc18/summary

That consultation was predicated on the assumption that core voice would be moving to next-generation networks (NGN, 21CN) which in the end didn't happen, and in fact almost all UK voice is still carried on System X and the like. It's possible there's some overlay for the 07XXX block, where most of the portability is happening; I'm absolutely certain that portability for local numbers (ie, "I want to switch from BT to Virgin, please port my number") is done by forwarding. Well, not quite forwarding: the call hits the exchange that owns the prefix, a "redirect the call to this other number" message is sent back and the speech path is rerouted directly: the call isn't tromboned through the exchange that originally owned the number.

It was still the case that mobile calls were terminated by the owner of the prefix and rerouted from there as recently as three years ago, because 3 were getting their knickers in a twist about it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/11/ofcom_porting/

It might have changed since then.

However, I'm not quite sure what the relevance is: with email, the reasons why tromboning is an issue (end-to-end latency, limited bandwidth on links to access switches) don't apply. All that would happen is that ISPs would operate redirection exactly like vanity domain providers do very successfully.

tronator

I was wrong, it works like I thought almost everywhere in the world, but not in UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_number_portability#Technical_details
"A significant technical aspect of MNP is related to the routing of calls or mobile messages (SMS, MMS) to a number once it has been ported. There are various flavours of call routing implementation across the globe but the International and European best practice is via the use of a central database (CDB) of ported numbers. A network operator makes copies of the CDB and queries it to find out to which network to send a call. This is also known as All Call Query (ACQ) and is highly efficient and scalable. A majority of the established and upcoming MNP systems across the world are based on this ACQ/CDB method of call routing. One of the very few countries to not use ACQ/CDB is the UK, where once a number has been ported, calls to that number are still routed via the donor network."

System

I am assuming that there is a CDB for each country? How would that work for email addresses which are not country dependant?

vofs007

RobTang wrote: »

They are more untouchable because its generally a free service and with that its not like a regulator can enforce a level of up time or force compensation where your direct losses are zero.

Exactly why ISPs (in particular) claim it is a free add on to avoid regulation and any chance of being sued.

securityguy

vofs007 wrote: »

Exactly why ISPs (in particular claim) it is free add on to avoid regulation and any chance of being sued.

So the effect of your "policy" would be that all ISPs would leave the email space: why would they accept regulation for something which customers don't regard as a differentiator? So what would be the net effect: you would have a regulatory regime that regulates a sector that doesn't exist any more, which would achieve, what exactly?

vofs007

securityguy wrote: »

So the effect of your "policy" would be that all ISPs would leave the email space

I do not think this would be the case for all ISPs.

securityguy wrote: »

Why would they accept regulation for something which customers don't regard as a differentiator?

An ISP offering a regulated email system would be more attractive than one that did not offer any email system or an unregulated one.

securityguy wrote: »

So what would be the net effect: you would have a regulatory regime that regulates a sector that doesn't exist any more, which would achieve, what exactly?

If ISPs were foolish enough to not offer an email service then (as I have already indicated) there would be the opportunity for other suppliers to step in and offer a regulated service. This would contribute to a more competitive market.

System

If the ISPs withdrew from email provisioning then it would still be a level playing field between them and, if anything, they would gain by not having to provide mail servers, store email traffic on behalf of the government etc.

If people then move to other mail providers then most of them are not UK based so would not have to be regulated. What would be the point of the regulation then?

vofs007

!!!!!! wrote: »

If the ISPs withdrew from email provisioning then it would still be a level playing field between them and, if anything, they would gain by not having to provide mail servers, store email traffic on behalf of the government etc.

If people then move to other mail providers then most of them are not UK based so would not have to be regulated. What would be the point of the regulation then?

It is likely that some ISPs would withdraw from email provision.
eg SSE have given subscribers just 30 days notice of this.

Regulated email providers would be UK based. Regulation would be of benefit to suppliers also.

Uxb

ROTFL
So are you going to tell Gmail, Hotmail etc that they cannot offer their services to UK residents unless they are regulated and they can only be regulated if they are based in the UK.

You appear to want a old style soviet like centrally planned economy where everything is "regulated" and as the older ones of us on here can recall the result was empty shops out there.
So no, regulation was not of any benefit to either supplier or customer.

vofs007

Uxb wrote: »

ROTFL
So are you going to tell Gmail, Hotmail etc that they cannot offer their services to UK residents unless they are regulated and they can only be regulated if they are based in the UK.

You appear to want a old style soviet like centrally planned economy where everything is "regulated" and as the older ones of us on here can recall the result was empty shops out there.
So no, regulation was not of any benefit to either supplier or customer.

No I am not saying that. I am saying that email suppliers if they want to have the "regulated" qualification would have to be subject to UK jurisdiction.