I don't think it is the size that is the problem. I imagine it is like a routing table, keeping track which number is managed by which operator, and if India has number portability, there needs to be a transactional method to update it that is shared by all operators. I could imagine this being done with a blockchain.
Or for that matter, recording of call details for billing between operators?
"Keep track of which number is managed by which operator" reduces to "store a small amount of information for each phone number".
In a traditional database setup, the "transactional method to update it" would be sending a request to a central server to update the database. The central server can be run by whatever regulatory body or industry association is responsible for number portability -- ideally, this would be the group with legal authority to overrule whatever the computer system says anyway. It wouldn't need to handle a large number of transactions per second because people don't change phone providers very often.
You could imagine doing it with a blockchain instead, but you could also imagine doing it using a Yahoo Groups email list -- that doesn't make it a necessary or good solution.
What if other operators don't want to introduce an additional governing entity with a super power of taking their customers? Like if they don't want additional corruption, easy to misuse power, etc?
I mean, I can imagine government wants this, so if such ideas comes from government you're going to have such regulatory body. But otherwise, if it comes from operators itself, they don't want to introduce such entity, and they don't want to award one of them as an ultimate boss to rule all of the numbers. Blockchain, at least, gives them a chance to continue to be equal.
Blockchain backers seem to take it as a given that centralization is bad. But when pressed on why, the best answers I have seen are “because centralization is bad”. Well, I guess that’s not 100% true; the first answer is that we shouldn’t trust authority. Why? Because authority is bad. Why? Because authority is bad.
But as this article articulates so well, that’s a red herring. Like, you can come up with all sorts of wild scenarios where central authority can be bad. But ultimately, these are scenarios you’re unlikely to encounter in the real world, and if you do, there are much simpler solutions.
Blockchain technology always reminded me of that XKCD about cryptographer expectations vs. reality (https://xkcd.com/538/): it’s solving a problem that only really exists in fantasy for 99% of the population.
Sounds good at first, but now your calls stop working if the regulator's system goes down for maintenance. You can certainly make it work, but I don't see what the major benefit of using a central database is here.
> It wouldn't need to handle a large number of transactions per second because people don't change phone providers very often.
That makes it fit blockchain quite well, actually.
Or for that matter, recording of call details for billing between operators?