Not as "clearly" as you think. I have posted about this issue before. To me it clearly is a misread of the context in which the phrase: "no known applications" is used. If you think about it, don't you think it would be plain silly for VoIP-PAL themselves to tell you about their technology & how great it is, and then after explaining it all, to tell you there is no use for it or "no known use for"? Makes no sense. What does make sense is to carefully read & consider that they are conveying a whole different meaning to the phrase. If you instead interpret the meaning to be that no other teleco out there is using or "applying" that particular technology at this time, you have grasped the meaning, as opposed to thinking it refers to 'no use' for such technology. Not only does that offer the correct context for the use of "no known application" phrase, you can use the last part of what they wrote about this, where they talk about RBR, to validate what I'm explaining is the true context of the phrase. There, instead of stating "no known application", it states there are so many applications that it's hard to imagine them all because, according to what the author is saying there, anytime a network connects to another network, RBR technology is used. So in the final analysis, what they are saying & what the phrase means, now placed in the proper context, is that vplm, at the time they wrote this piece, were saying that no other phone companies were using the listed vplm technology (mobile gateway, legal intercept, 911), but at the same time they WERE using the one that is called RBR.
I hope that clears up for you and others, what they meant when they wrote "no known application".
