
My Addressbook? Keep it. Telephone numbers are a disgrace to our generation. - andreasklinger
http://klinger.io/post/17313437389/my-addressbook-keep-it-telephone-numbers-are-a
======
bwarp
Horse shit. There is nothing wrong with telephone system or the numbering
scheme or the fact that we use numbers.

It's simple, doesn't require lots of technology (a analogue phone handset only
has a few components in it) and it is ubiquitous across the entire globe.

The moment you add a DNS-type layer or indirection to it, it becomes more
complex. Handsets become more complex, the network becomes more complex,
usability declines.

The problems of remembering or writing down a name versus a number are far
greater.

This is typical technophiles ignoring the minimal needs of about 90% of the
populous of this rock.

~~~
randomdata
> Horse shit. There is nothing wrong with telephone system or the numbering
> scheme or the fact that we use numbers.

There is never anything wrong with the technology you know. I think the Unix
shell is a thing of beauty. You have a user interface and programming language
all rolled into one, available on even the simplest of hardware. Put it in
front of the average computer user, however, and they'll look at you like you
have two heads.

I do not know the telephone system. For me, the internet has pretty much
always been there so I had little need to use the phone and I still only use
it a handful of times per year. Making a phone call is as confusing to me as
it is to someone who has to dive into the command prompt once per year. On top
of that, it seems like every time I try to use it, it fails in some way
(disconnects, misrouted calls, etc.), adding to my frustrations.

The telephone system is pretty ingenious from a technical perspective, but it
is a user experience nightmare for anyone who did not grow up with it. I know
exactly how older people feel about computers that did not grow up with them,
because that is me with the telephone.

We are at least trying to make computers more accessible, why are we ignoring
the telephone?

~~~
polyfractal
Honest question: how does the telephone system confuse you?

-Dial a number, receive a person (or voicemail).

-Most people don't even dial numbers any more. Select contact, press send, receive person.

Do you use a cellphone or landline? Are you in the US? I'm on (crappy) AT&T
service with a cell phone and haven't had a dropped or misrouted call...ever.

~~~
randomdata
> how does the telephone system confuse you?

Confuse may not be the best word, intimidated maybe, but I don't know. I
realize it is just the execution of basic steps.

As per my previous example, how does _if [ -r /etc/passwd ]; then cat
/etc/passwd; fi_ confuse someone? It too is just simple, repeatable steps.

> Do you use a cellphone or landline? Are you in the US?

I have had problems with both, though cell does seem more prone to it, even in
strong reception areas. This is in Canada, spanning multiple providers. I find
it actually quite amazing how often it does fail for me, though I recall
reading some stats not too long ago that showed the number of calling errors
to be surprisingly high.

------
prof_hobart
Firstly, the comparison with DNS doesn't really make sense.

DNS works because there is a one to one mapping between name and number. There
is only one johnsmith.com anywhere on the web. OTOH, there are many thousands
of John Smiths out in the real world, each with their own unique set of phone
numbers (and other things that this guy seems to have overlooked from an
"address book", like an actual address, or an email address, or relationships
to other people).

DNS doesn't solve the fact that many people called John Smith may have their
own websites. They won't all be found at johnsmith.com. This is solved through
a combination of search engines (equivalent of a phone book) and bookmarks
(which is pretty much the equivalent of a person's address book - so DNS alone
clearly hasn't removed the need for address books in the online world).

Secondly, that's all totally irrelevant to the actual issue with Path -
whether someone's got access to a complete list of your contacts with all of
the details required to contact them, and got this without your permission.

~~~
darklajid
I fail to understand your point. Yes, lots of people share names. But it
should be enough to store _one_ handle to get to (=> resolve) your _current_
number.

That might be your domain or email address. Or something totally different.

The major part for me here is not 'do we need digits without meaning', it is
'bind some name to a way of contacting the person'.

DNS as a comparison makes sense for me. I store john@smith.com as a contact.
When I want to call that guy my phone figures out how to reach him _and he can
update that information_.

Just like you can move your domain name to point to a different number. If the
name server is under your control (or your hoster loves you) and ignoring
certain limitations of the protocol and buggy caching behavior, you could even
change the result of a lookup every minute. That, for phone numbers, would be
awesome.

~~~
prof_hobart
Because

a)that doesn't get rid of the need for address books - even with email I still
need an address book to tell me which John Smith I want to email, and

b) that's got absolutely nothing to do with the Path issue - them uploading my
address book with a single phone number/phone DNS whatever for my contacts
without my permission is just as bad as them uploading my address book with 5
different phone numbers for each of my contacts

------
mike-cardwell
"There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and
naming things." -- Phil Karlton

There is not an easy solution to the "problem" that this article describes.

The current situation allows us to look up numbers without letting some
central authority know what numbers we are looking up and without letting them
have our address book. Any solution to this "problem" is likely to reduce
everyone's privacy by getting rid of one of these features.

EDIT: You can contact me using the same "username@domain" style address for
email, XMPP and SIP. I guess that's something. People still need to store my
"username@domain" address in an address book though.

~~~
jgw
"There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and
naming things." -- Phil Karlton

Out of curiosity, where does this come from? And why, having never read this
quote before, have I seen it three times in as many days?

------
antihero
This is called a phonebook, and people don't always want their numbers to be
published in it. Also, how do we uniquely identify people? This post is so
badly thought through.

------
saghul
I'm happy to see someone ranting about this, I couldn't agree more.

This was solved years ago in the VoIP world by ENUM, but it didn't get enough
traction because nobody can _earn_ any money with it.

Here is how it works: your phone "number" would be sip:saghul@domain.tld and
you'd have a legacy alias which is a regular phone number, for example:
+40317105163. Then someone which knows my legacy number may use DNS to get my
SIP URI and call me for free:

    
    
        dig NAPTR 3.6.1.5.0.1.7.1.3.0.4.e164.arpa
        ; ANSWER SECTION:
        3.6.1.5.0.1.7.1.3.0.4.e164.arpa. 3600 IN NAPTR  100 5 "U" "E2U+web:http" "!^.*$!http://ag-projects.com!" .
        3.6.1.5.0.1.7.1.3.0.4.e164.arpa. 10 IN  NAPTR   100 5 "U" "E2U+sip" "!^.*$!sip:saul@ag-projects.com!" .
        3.6.1.5.0.1.7.1.3.0.4.e164.arpa. 3600 IN NAPTR  100 5 "U" "E2U+web:http" "!^.*$!http://saghul.net!" .
        3.6.1.5.0.1.7.1.3.0.4.e164.arpa. 3600 IN NAPTR  100 5 "U" "E2U+loc:http" "!^.*$!http://bit.ly/d41V3X!" .
    

You can put several things in DNS, the above example (real one) contains 2
websites, a SIP URI and a URL with location information (a link to Google
Maps).

There is an Android application called ENUMdroid which will do a ENUM query
for each number you dial and it'll present a screen with it's findings:
[http://saghul.net/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2010/02/CAP2010021...](http://saghul.net/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2010/02/CAP201002122147.jpg)

Apple allows you to use FaceTime and iMessage with email-style addresses, lets
see if they can push the model forward :-)

~~~
mauriciob
I find it rather odd that they didn't group the codes.

Wouldn't it be better if they made something like this: [phone number].[area
code].[country code]?

I mean, I don't really have much information on the E.164 standard, but the
information o Wikipedia seems to show that at least the country code is
separated from the other numbers, allowing each country to have its own
structure.

~~~
Aloisius
Well, using a reversed nibble format allows you to have a different nameserver
at each level distributing the load and ownership. If as a telco, I have the
block of phone numbers +14155551000-+141555519999, I can easily have my
nameserver delegated for it as 1.5.5.5.5.1.4.1.e164.arpa.

IPv6 and IPv4 reverse lookups work the same way.

Besides, it isn't like users are typing this in directly. Might as well get in
all the flexibility you can. You could do things like add extensions and have
it route properly without any extra work or have a country with both 7 and 8
digit phone numbers.

------
chrislomax
Great! Until you realise there are 100's of Chris Lomax's in the world?!

And then I become ChrisLomax103454751983, that's miles easier to remember.

------
rue
On a related note, giving my contact information to you isn't a permission to
forward it to someone else (granted in this case without your knowledge). I
wish this aspect got more attention.

------
fenesiistvan
The whole article is just an advertisement for vox.io

------
peterwwillis
I think we have segregated our information services for specific uses, and the
phone numbers seem to work within that paradigm.

If someone needs to contact me about a specific issue or we need to have a
back-and-forth conversation, or if they just want to become my friend, they'll
probably ask for my Facebook (don't have one) or e-mail address.

If someone wants a date, or to call me maybe once about something like a job,
they'll ask for a phone number.

The phone number doesn't reveal anything about you - hell, you can't even find
someone's name in the White Pages most of the time. It's an impersonal
identifier. The e-mail address, Facebook, Twitter, etc can reveal all sorts of
personal details about you.

I wouldn't give up on phone numbers yet because there exists no alternative
social replacement for impersonal contact. Silly I know, but social
interaction is silly.

------
ragmondo
Heh."The address book needs a DNS system" ... It was launched. It was called
".tel". It failed.

------
brk
I have solved this problem a slightly different way, and I realize that it is
not perfect.

90% of my business is conducted within the US, here I have a single number I
give out. This number is managed by Ribbit (www.ribbit.com , no affiliation).

Ribbit knows a list of numbers for me: Office desk phone "Mobile" IP Phone
(eg: sometimes it is at my house, or at my condo if I am spending more than a
few days there, or possibly even travels with me if I am going someplace for
an extended time). iPhone 3GS which has numbers in the US, Dubai, Caribbean
and Japan via multiple SIMS. iPhone 4 which has a US number.

When you call my Ribbit number, it rings ALL these services simultaneously,
whichever phone I pick up is the one that gets the call.

I can take numbers out of the routing loop if I want (for example when I
travel, I don't need my home phone to ring and bug my wife).

So, to reach me, you dial a single number.

The downside to it is CallerID. While I _can_ jump through some hoops to use
apps and soft phones to get around this, it's a PITA (to me), so if I call you
back from Japan for example, you're going to likely see my Japanese phone
number as the caller ID, but I get more calls than I make, so it's not a huge
problem.

The phonebook to DNS analogy is also off in that we all have "bookmarks" of
sites we want to revisit and keep in a handy list. DNS has not solved or
removed the issue of list keeping and organization/management.

~~~
andreasklinger
great reply. thanks for that!

reg bookmarks: bookmarks is nothing you type in and make work. Its shortcuts
to your favourites. And you dont bother about technical layers below.

------
Sander_Marechal
It's already a solved problem using using SIP. Some of my friends have SIP
address. I can call them anywhere using the same address. Home phone, mobile,
even using VoIP on a laptop.

~~~
jackalope
Serious question: How easy is it for your friend to call you back immediately
from the same device? An hour later from a different device? A week later from
any device? If the convenience doesn't flow both ways, it's not a solved
problem. [It might be, I really don't know.]

~~~
Sander_Marechal
The return path works just like normal. Just hit the dial-back button on your
phone or VoIP software and the phone that I used to phone you will start
ringing. It gets interesting when we both have SIP/ENUM. I could call you from
my mobile when I am at home and, when you ring me back, my home phone could
ring because my SIP preference says to use that first.

The only tricky thing is your own SIP/ENUM preference. It needs to know where
incoming calls need to go. But that can be automated (e.g. your phone sees
your home wifi network and thus sets the preference to ring the home phone
first).

Other neat stuff is possible too. One of my coworkers has linked his home
phone to his cellphone. When you call his home number, both his home phone and
cell phone will ring, even when he is at work. Whichever device answers first
gets the call.

------
furyg3
I've been using GV for a while now, which is certainly a next step in solving
the problem (short of cell phone DNS).

The problem is that I get the impression that GV has stalled.

I still can't forward my GV number internationally, after years of this being
one of their most-requested features. Google has GV in the US, and in NL, yet
you can't forward between these countries or have a US & NL number associated
with one GV account.

It's a bit silly, as many other services offer this feature. It's also easy
money for Google.

------
jpdoctor
> _Telephone numbers need a DNS system!_

LOL. Apparently the author is too young to remember phone books.

As an aside: Older folks will remember Sun receiving a lawsuit from the newly
disintegrated phone system regarding their use of "yellow pages". They issued
an update which took the "yp" prefix out of their commands.

~~~
andreasklinger
I mentioned telephone books. I am too old to forget this crime against nature.

And imho: Telephone books are the like blackboards/dial up sites with lists of
more sites.

------
nextparadigms
It's unnecessary to try to "reinvent" the phone address book now. VOIP and
IM's are already doing that.

~~~
thatjoshguy
See Facetime and iMessage.

If Facetime worked for just voice calls, and over 3G, everything would be
perfect.

~~~
andor
See Google Talk and Skype, both of which can do voice-only calls and video
calls over 3G. It's not all perfect, though...

The problem with Skype on a mobile is that keeping a connection to their P2P
network requires much more power than the usual push notification channel
does. It's more expensive computationally and traffic-wise.

Google Talk, in comparison, needs less power, but the audio and video quality
is just much worse (on my Nexus S with ICS). I also have fewer contacts in
GTalk than in Skype. And for some reason, on many phones, there is no audio
and video support at all.

------
ageektrapped
It's been a few years since I worked in softphones, but this "problem" is
essentially solved with the SIP protocol. Everyone gets an address of the form
user@domain. (The protocol scheme is sip: but the beauty of using user@domain
is that one can quickly switch to mailto:). Then the immediacy of the
communication dictates the medium. Don't need an answer right away? Email. Low
priority? IM/Text. Must talk now? Voice.

I believe Office Communicator (or whatever it's called now) was designed with
this in mind.

But that doesn't negate the need for an address book. One still needs to know
the user@domain address, as others have pointed out.

------
feralchimp
What, as exactly as possible, is the desired user experience for contacting
people for voice calls?

Serious question. All the discussion around whether phone numbers / something-
like-DNS-for-phone-numbers-but-with-failover / GrandCentral-like things (GV,
Ribbit also?) / Siri / FaceTime are okay (and for which user groups), is damn
near impossible without identifying the actual goal state.

------
JBiserkov
I believe Microsoft Office Communicator solves part of this problem. It
supports call forwading based on powerful rules and presence status, has Web
access and much more.

I think the author is wrong in dismissing Skype/Microsoft in their ability to
solve a complex problem and deliver both consumer- and enterptise-friendly
solutions.

------
jof
This article raises a good point, and AFAIK there's noone doing something like
this on a large commercial scale.

There are systems for mapping telephone numbers into DNS, like ENUM
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENUM>), and e164.arpa. in DNS.

------
drcube
So instead of an address book, we add telephone-dns and then we have a list of
bookmarks? What's the upside again? Personally, I'm rethinking this whole DNS
thing. I already have a huge list of bookmarks, I don't see why there couldn't
just be IP addresses.

------
cwilson
While I don't necessarily agree with everything in this post, I do see two
problems with phone numbers:

1\. Ask yourself, how many phone numbers do you actually know at this very
moment? I'm willing to bet, on average, it's less than five. It might be
slightly higher on this site, but for the average consumer, I'm guessing it's
between 1 and 3. I ask people this all the time, and I know many who don't
know a single number other than their own, or their parents.

2\. You've all seen the Facebook groups that pop up when someone loses their
phone. "I lost my phone, give me your number!".

Apple is doing a very good job of solving this for the masses right now with
iCloud, but you have to be an iPhone user to take advantage.

~~~
huxley
That's a new phenomenon though, people had to remember more phone numbers
before mobile phones or built-in address books.

From muscle memory alone, I can still finger dial about a dozen phone numbers
belonging to friends when I was a kid, even though it's been 28 years since I
last called them. Funny thing is that I can't recall the numbers without mock
dialling them.

------
petepete
Isn't .tel a step in the right direction here?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.tel>

------
junto
Let the username battle begin. callme://junto Dibs...

------
bilban
How about something like the Finger Protocol?

------
Karadoc
Dude. What is wrong with a JAR file?

------
perfunctory
Why am I reading this on the home page of HN?

------
mjwalshe
Subs eh - this is some one with a trivial knowledge trying to apply one model
(dns) to another (POTS).

X.500 was the proposed solution (70's/80's) where you had interconnected
directories that would allow a distributed worldwide directory to work. Only
trouble is that a full working x.500 system is probably still at the bleeding
edge of what is possible.

A Google or Microsoft could do it if they upped their game in terms of rigous
adherence to standards by a few hundred % or so.

Stick to the frocks hunni.

