<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>David Isenberg &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from David Isenberg on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-08-15T11:09:01-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> McCain's Tech Policy (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88151_mccain_tech_policy</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88151_mccain_tech_policy</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was hoping that <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/CBCD3A48-4B0E-4864-8BE1-D04561C132EA.htm">McCain's Tech Policy</a> would emphasize and extend the two McCain pro-Internet initiatives -- the McCain Lautenberg Community Broadband Act and Spectrum Re-regulation, neither of which have yet seen the light of day -- but it doesn't. In the first case, it makes a vague nod in the direction of "market failure and other obstacles." In the second, it treats spectrum policy as a done deal; now that we can surf the Web in coffee shops, we're done. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88151_mccain_tech_policy">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-15T11:09:01-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> F2C: My Opening Remarks (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/f2c_my_opening_remarks</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/f2c_my_opening_remarks</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here are my opening remarks at <a href="http://www.freedom-to-connect.net/">F2C: Freedom to Connect</a> yesterday: "I am honored to be among so many remarkable people. We have to be remarkable people, because we have a hell of a job to do. The Internet has been given to us. It is a miraculous gift, and a boon to our lives... at least in part because it accidentally matured outside the purview of profit and loss. Now the money has arrived. If you want to see what happens when the money arrives, look at Nigeria or Venezuela or Russia or Iraq..." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/f2c_my_opening_remarks">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-04-01T11:09:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The Network Management Excuse (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/81163_network_management_excuse</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/81163_network_management_excuse</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Telco front-man Scott Cleland, <a href="http://www.precursorblog.com/node/629">in a recent blog post</a>, thumbs his nose at the Four Internet Freedoms and says that the FCC should too. Under current leadership, it probably will. Referring to the recent submissions to the FCC by <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/fp_pk_comcast_complaint.pdf">Free Press and Public Knowledge</a> and <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/vuze-petition-20071114.pdf">Vuze</a> complaining about Comcast's use of reset packets to block applications that compete with Comcast's own proprietary video entertainment offering, Cleland says "Network management trumps net neutrality." There are lots of reasons for, ahem, managing. Cleland neglects to observe that controlling congestion the way Comcast does it is like scattering nails in the road for traffic control. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/81163_network_management_excuse">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-01-16T16:16:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Financial Times on Telecoms Separation (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/711171_financial_times_telecom_separation</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/711171_financial_times_telecom_separation</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've written that a Network Neutrality law needs a Network Management Exception, and I've <a href="http://isen.com/blog/2007/10/why-net-neutrality-law-is-not-enough.html">laid out how this exception is likely to become a giant vacuum-cleaner-fish loophole</a>. The way out is the separation of infrastructure from service, so infrastructure operators can have no financial interests in the services they carry, hence no motive to discriminate in anti-competitive ways. Now today's Financial Times has an <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7414a7a6-93b2-11dc-acd0-0000779fd2ac.html">editorial</a> on the EC telecom regulator, Viviane Reding's proposal to beef up national telecom regulatory authority within European countries and create a Europe-wide so-called super-regulator. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/711171_financial_times_telecom_separation">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-11-17T14:30:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Why a Net Neutrality Law is Not Enough (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/net_neutrality_law_not_enough</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/net_neutrality_law_not_enough</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Once we decide that Network Neutrality is a good thing to (re)enshrine in law, then we need to ask how to do that effectively. One way would be to pass a law saying, "Thou shalt not discriminate." That's the current approach. But network operators will say that they must manage their network, and if, in the course of network management, they were to disadvantage some source, destination, application, service or content, they might be accused of violating the law. So any Network Neutrality law must have a Network Management Exception... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/net_neutrality_law_not_enough">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-10-22T13:02:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> FCC Gets 27,063 Comments on Network Neutrality (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/fcc_network_neutrality_comments</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/fcc_network_neutrality_comments</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To date, the FCC has posted 27,063 comments it has received from the Citizens of the United States about its Network Neutrality NOI, aka Broadband Industry Practices WC Docket No. 07-52 [<a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-31A1.doc">.doc</a>, <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-31A1.pdf">.pdf</a>]. The first hundred are <a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts">here</a>, with links to the rest. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/fcc_network_neutrality_comments">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-07-18T10:41:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Treating Different Types of Communications Differently (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/network_neutrality_communication_types</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/network_neutrality_communication_types</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A friend who read my <a href="http://isen.com/blog/2007/05/making-network-neutrality-sustainable.html">Creating Sustainable Network Neutrality</a> paper wrote to say, "Help me understand what is so bad about treating different types of communications differently." That's a really good question! If you want to offer vertically integrated services on special purpose networks, such as video entertainment or pager service or telephony, I do not have a problem with that, provided you don't use your market power to impede Internet applications that offer competing services... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/network_neutrality_communication_types">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-06-01T15:53:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Clues about the Future of TV (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/clues_about_the_future_of_tv</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/clues_about_the_future_of_tv</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A recent <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199400174">article</a> chronicles the telcos' slow start in cable TV. I don't think the telcos stand a chance of succeeding in cable TV. Instead, if they're to succeed at all, they'll probably buy or form alliances with existing cablecos... But they'd better start swimming, because the times are a changing.. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/clues_about_the_future_of_tv">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-05-14T14:33:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> How to Increase Broadband Competition (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/how_increase_broadband_competition</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/how_increase_broadband_competition</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Susan Crawford, seeking to learn from Korea and Japan, identifies three routes towards broadband competition... Facilities based competition: Still waiting for that mythical third wire, or perhaps some unused, unlicensed TV spectrum, but not holding my breath. (Broadband over powerline? It is such an encumbered technology that it is its own barrier to entry.) Wholesale access: Been there, tried that, but the Bells wouldn't unbundled elements... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/how_increase_broadband_competition">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-05-09T09:41:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Is Comcast Impairing Vonage? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_comcast_impairing_vonage</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_comcast_impairing_vonage</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On the one hand, the big telcos are chanting the mantram, "We shall not block, impair or degrade any content, service or application." On the other hand, they're saying, "There's no problem. We don't need a law until there's a problem." Well, now. Mitch Shapiro over at IP & Democracy, <a href="http://www.ipdemocracy.com/archives/001216vonage_users_cite_problems_with_comcast_isp.php">points</a> to Russell Shaw's <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=938">post</a> that says: "I have been noticing a growing number of posts in which many Vonage users and Vonage Forum Members have been complaining about the quality of Vonage calls over Comcast broadband connections..." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_comcast_impairing_vonage">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-03-06T14:25:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>