<?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>Brough Turner &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Brough Turner on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-05-30T17:11:01-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> SIP Revolution, Massively Delayed - But There's Hope (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/85306_sip_revolution_delayed_hope</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/85306_sip_revolution_delayed_hope</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The SIP Center asked for an article which I finally wrote the weekend before last. My article was actually rather negative, but they <a href="http://www.sipcenter.com/sip.nsf/newsview?open&type=News&docid=WEBB7F32GK">published</a> it anyway. Now I'm feeling a little guilty as there is an optimistic note I could have used as my conclusion. So let me try again... First let me summarize my problem. When SIP emerged in 1996, it's support for direct connections from one user to another was extremely compelling. This was the VoIP protocol which would lead to a complete revolution in communications... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/85306_sip_revolution_delayed_hope">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-30T17:11:01-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Telecom in China: After the Dust Settles (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/852711_telecom_china_after_dust_settles</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/852711_telecom_china_after_dust_settles</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The long rumored reorganization of the telecommunications sector in China <a href="http://www.plus8star.com/?p=122">has begun</a>. Now China will have three major companies, each with both mobile and fixed networks. The focus for fixed network growth is broadband Internet access. The focus for mobile will be continued growth in mobile subscribers and the launch of 3G services, with the three companies using three different 3G technologies. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/852711_telecom_china_after_dust_settles">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-27T10:29:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Google Surpasses Supercomputer Community, Unnoticed? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/85218_google_surpasses_supercomputer</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/85218_google_surpasses_supercomputer</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This week's issue of EE Times carries a story <a href="http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207800650">Pflops here; now what?</a> about IBM's new 1 petaFLOPS supercomputer, the Roadrunner, and how its designers are scrambling to run benchmarks in advance of the annual <a href="http://www.supercomp.de/isc08/content/e2/e1791/index_eng.html">International Supercomputing Conference</a> (ISC) being held June 17th-20th. It's an article (dare I say, a puff piece?) about IBM, but it does mention competing supercomputers by Japanese vendors. However, it makes no mention of distributed computing projects like <a href="http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/">SETI@Home</a> or, more importantly, of the Google computing cluster. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/85218_google_surpasses_supercomputer">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-21T07:31:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> NGN is Not the Internet, and Never Will (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/ngn_not_the_internet</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/ngn_not_the_internet</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see and hear a lot of confusion about next generation networks (NGN). In most cases people are using the term roughly as the <a href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com13/ngn2004/working_definition.html">ITU-T defines it</a>: "A Next Generation Network (NGN) is a packet-based network able to provide services including Telecommunication Services and able to make use of multiple broadband, QoS-enabled transport technologies and in which service-related functions are independent from underlying transport-related technologies." but many people don't realize how little this has to do with the Internet... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/ngn_not_the_internet">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-10T06:20:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> China's 3G License Delay is a Smoke Screen (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/84249_china_3g_license_smoke_screen</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/84249_china_3g_license_smoke_screen</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last week there was a flurry of stories about China's 3G plans after <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080414/tc_nm/china3g_permits_dc">Jonathan Dharmapalan of Ernest & Young was quoted</a> as saying he expected it to take 12 to 24 months from the start of China's commercial TD-SCDMA trials, i.e. from now, until 3G licenses were issued. But there was little analysis or comment on what's really happening. 3G licenses are a formality. They delay the deployment of 3GSM & CDMA 2000 which could otherwise happen rapidly -- just plug new cards into existing radios and offer established handsets (already being manufactured, in China, for the world market). <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/84249_china_3g_license_smoke_screen">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-04-24T09:39:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Models for Muni WiFi Completely Neglect Technology Evolution (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/841610_muni_wifi_neglect_technology_evolution</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/841610_muni_wifi_neglect_technology_evolution</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Modern travel means interminable waits, but it's a good time for reading. I finally read <a href="http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/wireless_pittsburgh">Wireless Pittsburgh: Sustainability of Possible Models for a Wireless Metropolitan-Area Network</a> by Jon M. Peha, published in February as a working paper of the New America Foundation. The good news: it's full of interesting cost estimates and projected subscriber take rates based on specific demographics in Pittsburgh, Minneapolis and Philadelphia... The flaws in this study...
 <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/841610_muni_wifi_neglect_technology_evolution">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-04-16T10:32:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> NY Times Grossly Misreads WEF Report (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/84920_ny_times_misreads_wef_report</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/84920_ny_times_misreads_wef_report</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Today's New York Times includes an article by John Markoff entitled "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/technology/09internet.html">Study Gives High Marks to US Internet</a>." But either John Markoff is fuzzy about exactly what the Internet is or he didn't actually read the report. His title is way off base. He did interview a few people who are quoted in the latter part of the article, so there is some information in the article. But he's done a major disservice for the many who read only the title or perhaps first paragraph... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/84920_ny_times_misreads_wef_report">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-04-09T14:28:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Gaping Hole in Models for Using Spectrum Efficiently (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/832812_models_wireless_spectrum</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/832812_models_wireless_spectrum</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In February, the FCC's Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis published three studies (<a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280521A1.pdf">1</a>, <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280522A1.pdf">2</a>, <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280523A1.pdf">3</a>) on spectrum licensing and spectrum utilization. Thanks to Nick Ruark for <a href="http://spectrummatters.blogspot.com/2008/03/fcc-mulls-value-vs-efficiency-of.html">pointing them out</a>... Reading on I was struck by a gaping hole in their assumptions. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/832812_models_wireless_spectrum">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-03-28T12:49:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Broadband Access: What Should We Regulate? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/broadband_access_what_should_we_regulate</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/broadband_access_what_should_we_regulate</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality">Network Neutrality</a> is a hot topic in the US. The FCC <a href="http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/homepage/x1637673942">held hearings</a> in my neighborhood recently (while I was in Asia). Now I see Professor Susan Crawford <a href="http://scrawford.net/blog/show-it-dont-say-it/1126/">will be testifying</a> next Tuesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "Net Neutrality and the First Amendment." I look forward to her remarks, but I worry that the whole discussion will be focused on "IP Pipes," that is connectivity at network layer 3. This distracts us from the fundamental problem... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/broadband_access_what_should_we_regulate">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-03-08T12:42:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The Perfect Phone (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/82299_the_perfect_phone</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/82299_the_perfect_phone</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=p6M7FhMAAABtjXqWMkhNUB0lb3QYb5D1WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww">Lee Dryburgh</a> initiated a great thread in the <a href="http://www.ecommmedia.com/">Emerging Communications</a> public group entitled <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/EmergingCommunications-public-general/browse_thread/thread/45f0b3a7764ec040">What would your perfect phone be?</a> There are 14 messages there at this moment with a lot of good ideas, but my first thought was the term "phone" is too limiting. Indeed, some of the correspondents' ideas also go far beyond the idea of a telephone. Here's what I want and fully expect to see, eventually. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/82299_the_perfect_phone">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-02-29T09:08:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> iPhone, Android, 700 MHz: What Maximizes Wireless Innovation? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/82480_iphone_android_700_mhz_wireless_innovation</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/82480_iphone_android_700_mhz_wireless_innovation</link>
			<description><![CDATA[At the Emerging Communications Conference <a href="http://ecommmedia.com/">eComm 2008</a>, I'm moderating a panel "Wireless Innovation, with or without operators." This will be a discussion -- smart people from differing camps responding to (hopefully) probing questions from yours truly, and the audience. Points of view represented include Google Android, J2ME/JavaFX Mobile, iPhoneWebDev.com, Skype and Trolltech Qtopia (Nokia), plus Chris Sacca, formerly head of Google's wireless initiatives. I've been thinking about subjects and questions for the panel. As a start, I'll set down my current views, then seek others' views and questions. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/82480_iphone_android_700_mhz_wireless_innovation">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-02-04T07:58:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> How Tiered Internet Pricing Could Actually Facilitate P2P (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/81289_tiered_internet_pricing_p2p</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/81289_tiered_internet_pricing_p2p</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Time Warner Cable's planned experiment with <a href="http://www.geek.com/time-warner-cable-to-experiment-with-internet-access-charges/">tiered charging for Internet access</a> has generated a <a href="http://darkstarspoutsoff.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/paying-by-the-b.html">flurry</a> of <a href="http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/internet/bye-bye-unlimited-flatrate-internet.asp">coverage</a> in the <a href="http://ictcenter.blogspot.com/2008/01/tiered-internet-services-coming.html">blogsphere</a>, but no new insights (at least that I've seen). The primary problem ISP's complain about is that 5% of their customers use 90% of the available bandwidth and when they examine this traffic, it's mostly peer-to-peer file sharing... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/81289_tiered_internet_pricing_p2p">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-01-28T09:16:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Google Playing to Win in the 700 MHz Auctions (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/812112_google_win_700_mhz_auction</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/812112_google_win_700_mhz_auction</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Many say Google will <a href="http://www.thestreet.com/pf/newsanalysis/techstockupdate/10393139.html">bid to lose</a> in the upcoming 700 MHz auctions and <a href="http://www.forbes.com/special_contributors/2008/01/18/google-spectrum-auction-tech-cx_pco_0118paidcontent.html">many</a> <a href="http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/01/google-700-mhz-bid-bid-to-lose.html">more</a> are equivocating. The idea is Google's entry alone will induce enough openness, and besides they couldn't afford to become an operator. This shows a total lack of understanding! <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/812112_google_win_700_mhz_auction">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-01-21T12:29:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Congestion in the Backbone: Telecom and Internet Solutions (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/congestion_backbone_telecom_internet</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/congestion_backbone_telecom_internet</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When a network is subject to a rapid increase in traffic perhaps combined with a rapid decrease in capacity (for example due to <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdtne/is_200110/ai_ziff15538">a fire</a> or a <a href="http://osdir.com/ml/operators.sanog/2006-12/msg00017.html">natural disaster</a>), there is a risk of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_collapse">congestion collapse</a>. In a congestion collapse, the remaining capacity is so overloaded with access attempts that virtually no traffic gets through. In the case of telephony, everyone attempts to call their family and friends in a disaster area. The long standing telephony approach is to restrict new call attempts upstream of the congested area... This limits the amount of new traffic to that which the network can handle. Thus, if only 30% capacity is available, at least the network handles 30% of the calls, not 3% or zero... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/congestion_backbone_telecom_internet">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-09-12T09:31:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Understanding the Skype Outage (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/070820_understanding_skype_outage</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/070820_understanding_skype_outage</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Skype's <a href="http://heartbeat.skype.com/2007/08/what_happened_on_august_16.html">official explanation</a>. Phil Wolff has a good set of <a href="http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/08/skype_explains.html">interpolated comments</a> on the official explanation. There are two things to add... As the <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/20/skype_outage_post-mortem/">Register points out</a>, last Tuesday was Microsoft's monthly patch day and those patches required a re-boot. If we believe Skype that their problem started with excessive login attempts, this is the only plausible explanation on the table... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/070820_understanding_skype_outage">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-08-20T09:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>