why did you delete my comment?

It told about the fact that the Jangle feature can be used to issue free local VoIP numbers and thus make every international call a local call.

Don’t you want people to hear this?

The nice thing is Jangl provides this 2-way privacy by giving people phone numbers that works just like any other phone number they use – they can dial, screen, use caller ID, view missed calls, store in their phone Contacts, and even send a text message, just like any other number.

I don’t think it’s quite a farce though, as some of our services could be considered anonymous with respect to phone numbers, since your number is “not named or identified”. Also, according to the third definition above, no voice communication could EVER be truly anonymous because your voice is both distinctive and recognizable – once we talk, I’ll recognize you the next time you call, and perhaps if I overheard you talking on the street. So I’m not sure it makes sense to apply a strict definition here.

What we have learned though is that letting people place and receive calls with other people without either of their numbers being revealed – whatever it’s called – is valuable and is the key to bridging the web and the phone. And that is what our new product is about.

i think in the international case, this scenario is actually pretty powerful. I have been staying in touch with a few friends via Jaxtr and Jangl, and well, it is pretty good to not have to deal with phones.

In case of Jangl on Match.com, since the phone numbers are protected, there is a sense of anonymity.

I agree with you by the way, but couldn’t come up with a better way of describing it. Any help?

Virtual worlds / social networks need REAL anonymous 2-way communication.

This is a farce. It is not anonymous.

By definition it is not.

According to Webster:

1 : not named or identified 2 : of unknown authorship or origin 3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability

Therefore, Jangl is NOT ANONYMOUS.

Please stop saying that it is.

We can’t theorize details like this; it would be ignoring what the consumer of the future looks like and wants. Will they have SIP URIs and when? Should we issue them ourselves or just cooperate with them? Our point is, we’ll provide consumers utility that matters, in modes that matter. We’re reeling in some of the promise of SIP, bit by bit. Who knows who’s registered where at that point?

I am heading out to a press thing right now, so if you comment back, it’s not because I’m not interested.

Let us move the clock forward and you are issuing SIP URIs. Do your subscribers register their SIP clients with you or do they continue to have their own registrars? If it is the latter then I do not see how things have changed from the current (yes, you have eliminated one directory service, but how do you ensure currency of the information?); if it is the former, then yes you do have white pages, but consisting only of your customer base.

Look, we’re building to a SIP vision. It’s not here today, and the masses don’t know or care about it today. So rather than trying to issue SIP URIs today and forcing the issue, the idea here is to build services that collapse communications silos. And solving the privacy problem needed to be first, so we did that. Now we’re moving on and expanding this in the form of services that anyone (not just geeks) can use.

I’ve described the important features such a system should have here (at the risk of appearing to post blogspam): http://blog.libranlover.net/2007/05/contacts-management-system.html

-Keep your digits private -Call internationally for free -Control who can call you when & what happens when they do -Make/receive voice mails or talk/text – your choice -More to come…

By the way, I can not resist taking a dig at you for so easily giving them the Voice 2.0 moniker. One of the feature we should be demanding of “2.0″ anything is disintermediation. But what they seem to have done is firmly planted themselves between me and my contacts.