<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Giving ENUM a helping hand</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2004/10/30/giving-enum-a-helping-hand/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/10/30/giving-enum-a-helping-hand/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:45:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aswath</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/10/30/giving-enum-a-helping-hand/#comment-98678</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aswath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2004/10/30/giving-enum-a-helping-hand/#comment-98678</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is interesting to note that in an early paragraph of the press release PT claims that because &quot;...standards-based applications required a DNS or Proxy infrastructure...PSTN and Mobile users were unable to directly reach VoIP users without some form of media gateway.&quot; (Oh really! not because of signaling mismatch and TDM/packet mismatch?)

Then in the final paragraph, almost in the passing they state that &quot;Calls between IP and PSTN are carried by GNUPÑ¢ partner service providers or through a GNUP-enabled media gateway.&quot; How are they any different than any of the current crop of service providers?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is interesting to note that in an early paragraph of the press release PT claims that because &#8220;&#8230;standards-based applications required a DNS or Proxy infrastructure&#8230;PSTN and Mobile users were unable to directly reach VoIP users without some form of media gateway.&#8221; (Oh really! not because of signaling mismatch and TDM/packet mismatch?)</p>
<p>Then in the final paragraph, almost in the passing they state that &#8220;Calls between IP and PSTN are carried by GNUPÑ¢ partner service providers or through a GNUP-enabled media gateway.&#8221; How are they any different than any of the current crop of service providers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VoIP Dude</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/10/30/giving-enum-a-helping-hand/#comment-98679</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[VoIP Dude]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2004/10/30/giving-enum-a-helping-hand/#comment-98679</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I place no faith whatsoever in AT&amp;T, GoDaddy.com, MCI, SBC Laboratories, Sprint, Verizon banding together to pull VoIP networks into a collaborative future.  Most of those folks are playing big time defense on VoIP.  Where are the ITSPs who&#039;d benefit the most?  Where are the MSOs?

Perhaps 1.e164.arpa will happen at some point but will in be 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008?  If there&#039;s not some big Telcordia standard the ILECs can point to, will their telecom engineers hold it up from rolling out?  ;-)

And the IETF ENUM group seems to be arguing over whether e164.arpa is for end-user registrations or for carriers to use.  Depending what comes out of that who knows what public ENUM will be.  Wireless carriers are already doing private ENUM for MMS (pictures) - so perhaps private ENUM will be the future??]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I place no faith whatsoever in AT&#038;T, GoDaddy.com, MCI, SBC Laboratories, Sprint, Verizon banding together to pull VoIP networks into a collaborative future.  Most of those folks are playing big time defense on VoIP.  Where are the ITSPs who&#8217;d benefit the most?  Where are the MSOs?</p>
<p>Perhaps 1.e164.arpa will happen at some point but will in be 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008?  If there&#8217;s not some big Telcordia standard the ILECs can point to, will their telecom engineers hold it up from rolling out?  ;-)</p>
<p>And the IETF ENUM group seems to be arguing over whether e164.arpa is for end-user registrations or for carriers to use.  Depending what comes out of that who knows what public ENUM will be.  Wireless carriers are already doing private ENUM for MMS (pictures) &#8211; so perhaps private ENUM will be the future??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

