Let me first comment that I was thrilled to see the outstanding attendance for Richard Shockey’s presentation “Expansion in the Universe? The FCC, NANP, and the future of IoT” at IoT Evolution/6G Expo last month in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It shows that this is a topic that warrants further discussion.
We have always known that, at some point, there will be more IoT devices than people on the telephone network and, while we have not reached that point, we are facing issues where the dialing plans within specific rural states would have to change to accommodate IoT.
To put it bluntly, people like to dial the way they know and don’t want to chance for the sake of accommodating a bunch of devices. Let’s also acknowledge that machines can dial 15 numbers faster than people can (if they need to dial at all).
The FCC, at some point in the near future, is going to mandate that IoT devices use +1 and 14 more digits, which is what the international number plan accommodates today.
What are the implications for us in the IoT industry?
First of all, most systems are not using all 15 digits and, therefore, just like Y2K, will have to expand to accommodate all the numbers. This is going to be painful in the development and the transition for two reasons.
First, there is a great deal of legacy out there that is not going to swap out SIMs and, if you are allowed to keep the legacy systems as the exist, how are you going to display the 15 digits that haven’t existed previously?
Secondly, some systems, like alarms and asset tracking, actually will occasionally dial either a text message and/or a voice message. So, now you have to have a translation table from the label associated with the SIM and the outbound number you are going to call. In many cases, the number is no more than a billing reference and, as such, the “to and from” are not dialed but IP addresses. This could mean a resurgence of the IETF’s ENUM solution, either in a private or public DNS addressing solution.
That brings us to the question of whether the PSTN will support those 15 digits being shown on caller ID. We already have problems with the major carriers implementation of STIR/SHAKEN where they override the MSP’s verification. What will they do with an address not in their dial tables? Will alerts and alarms be marked as “SPAM RISK?”
This will require industry cooperation and, given the history of delays that the FCC has allowed, it’s likely that the “switch” to switch will be a mess where the nimble MVNOs will be waiting on the MNOs upgrade their legacy systems. This is not a dig on the MNOs; it’s a reality of legacy.
Edited by
Erik Linask
