Dynadot โ€” .com Transfer

Survey : Will Phone name will replace Phone Number

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

hakita

Established Member
Impact
2
Hello all,

Here is a survey:
Do you think that one day, Phone Number (+71.5464645) will become Phone Name ( FirstName.tld ) ?
(as IP adresses have became Domain name)

1) No, Phone Number will never become Phone Name
2) Yes, Phone Number will become Phone Name in less than 10 year from now
2) Yes, Phone Number will become Phone Name but in more than 10 year from now


EDIT : the question is not about names REPLACING numbers, but names RESOLVING numbers ( like DN are resolving IP)

Best regards
 
Last edited:
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Unstoppable DomainsUnstoppable Domains
Not anytime in the near future. There is no popular demand for it.
The entire system would have to be reworked and I doubt you could get major companies all behind one format.

Brad
 
0
•••
It will never happen.

Maybe 50+ years in the future it's possible something will come along that will replace phone numbers outright, but I'm pretty positive we haven't seen it yet.
 
0
•••
The entire system would have to be reworked and I doubt you could get major companies all behind one format.Brad
Brad, name resolution is about an aditional layer. You do not have to change any existing infrastructure to do so. BUT any phone terminal would need a internet access, this is a point.

As internet server, you have an IP + a DN for conveniant.
As phone terminal, you will cold have an PN (phone number) + a PN (phone name) for conveniant.
No need extra technologie, just internet and name resolution ( good old techo;)
 
0
•••
I guess in 25 years we can come back here and see who was correct.

Brad

Brad, name resolution is about an aditional layer. You do not have to change any existing infrastructure to do so. BUT any phone terminal would need a internet access, this is a point.

As internet server, you have an IP + a DN for conveniant.
As phone terminal, you will cold have an PN (phone number) + a PN (phone name) for conveniant.
No need extra technologie, just internet and name resolution ( good old techo;)
 
0
•••
I guess in 25 years we can come back here and see who was correct.
Brad
Lol, that would be fun. :hehe:
Maybe their will no terminal anymore, i ll give you a psychic call, ans it will ring in your left hear :)
 
0
•••
No, it will never replace the phone numbering system...but, I don't think .tel was intended to replace the current numbering system... I think it's main intent is to work with the current numbering system, and create a seamless link between the internet and phone systems/Networks, making it easier to access data at a very HIGH speed due to the info being stored directly on the DNS...
 
0
•••
No
 
0
•••
There are not enough letters in the alphabet to do this. At least not with one extension, such as .tel. Just imagine if every single email address in the world was @yahoo.com. Same effect.
 
0
•••
No.
 
0
•••
There are not enough letters in the alphabet to do this. At least not with one extension, such as .tel. Just imagine if every single email address in the world was @yahoo.com. Same effect.

Whats the maximum length for a domain name? 63, 64 characters? 26 characters in the alphabet, plus 10 numbers = 36 to the 64th power is A LOT of combinations... More than enough to put everyone on one extension. However, incorporating this method, there would be no way to identify where the number was located geographically. Also, given the vast number of regs on a single extension, the landscape and quality of domains would be far worse than .COM. If we ever went to that system, we'd be racing to go back to the old numbering system, because it would be far more effective.

Besides, I believe we'll have communications devices hardwired to our brains before this system ever gets adopted.
 
0
•••
nope
 
0
•••
Yes and No :)
 
0
•••
Even if all phones eventually become IP devices, rather than a domain itself, maybe a subdomain would suffice?

Call.Company.TLD?

I don't see it happening at all though.
 
0
•••
Yes and No :)

Agree.

Phone numbers will continue to exist especially for individuals but click to call is going to be a big part of the mobile internet and some companies will "brand" their click to call name. The click to call name is still reliant on a phone number but for all basic purposes the alphabetical brand will be more memorable to the customer and what is used.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I'll go out on a limb and say 'yes'. Numbers are too difficult to recognize. But it will take a long time. People are just too accustomed to numbers. 30 years maybe? Todays kids are the first children to have their own phones, and they use numbers, so you have to wait at least a generation.
 
0
•••
Internet became huge in 10 years when it went mainstream...

I say, it will happen, everything will be connected to the internet refrigirators, blu-ray players etc and ordinary phones.

IP-phones and cellphones are taking over.
Its very easy to make an IP phone support this since its allready connected.

People update the cellphones quite often these days, I don't see why they would not update or stop using their old phones.

Oldschool phones are dying everything is migrating to be ip-based.

It would be enough with one phonecompany supporting this for it to spread very fast and one phonecompany will do this in less than 10 years thats my bet.
 
0
•••
never happen
 
0
•••
i was happy to reg datasmartphones with the idea all phones will migrate to data plans , so i think your a little bit on the money, phones and the net are going to be the future (even now) but perhaps not the way you are asking , good fun question though !
 
0
•••
I dont think this will happen, if anything i think some other kind of technology will become apparent over time, replacing numbers.

Until then, we will still see stuff like this happenning! YouTube - maxeaus8's Channel
 
0
•••
Appraise.net
Domain Recover
NameMaxi - Your Domain Has Buyers
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the pageโ€™s height.
Back