<?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>Rob Frieden &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Rob Frieden on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2012, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2011-12-23T07:58:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> How AT&T and Verizon Further Consolidated the Wireless Marketplace While Most Weren't Looking (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111223_how_att_and_verizon_further_consolidated_wireless_marketplace</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111223_how_att_and_verizon_further_consolidated_wireless_marketplace</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Before anyone claims victory for the consumer in AT&amp;T's abandonment of its "swinging for the fence" gambit to buy T-Mobile's market share and spectrum, consider what did not make many headlines this week. Both AT&amp;T and Verizon substantially shored up their spectrum stocks with major deals with Qualcomm and several cable companies respectively. Solid hits for both carriers: not homeruns, but very strategic singles and doubles. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111223_how_att_and_verizon_further_consolidated_wireless_marketplace">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2011-12-23T07:58:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> New, Old and Forgotten Frames in the Network Neutrality Debate (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_old_and_forgotten_frames_in_the_network_neutrality_debate</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_old_and_forgotten_frames_in_the_network_neutrality_debate</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One key reason for confusion about Network Neutrality lies in the many different and inconsistent frames used to shape the debate. The Tea Party has entered the fray by characterizing the matter primarily in terms of freedom. Republicans decry the "job killing" impact of the FCC's rules. Network Neutrality advocates appear ambivalent whether the FCC has capitulated to special interests, or shaped a pragmatic compromise. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_old_and_forgotten_frames_in_the_network_neutrality_debate">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2011-01-06T10:39:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> No Free Lunch in Internet Peering or Transit (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101209_no_free_lunch_in_internet_peering_or_transit</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101209_no_free_lunch_in_internet_peering_or_transit</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Like many of you, I am keenly following the Comcast-Level 3 dispute and am trying to make sense of it all.  The dispute confirms several universal principles about Internet traffic routing that have passed the test of time. ... Consumers pay Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") a monthly subscription with the expectation that the fee covers access to available content, i.e., the conduit. As the World Wide Web evolves and content options diversify to include full motion video, consumers simply expect their ISPs to make sure the download distribution pipes are sufficiently robust to handle high bandwidth requirements and commensurately large monthly download volume. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101209_no_free_lunch_in_internet_peering_or_transit">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-12-09T09:59:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Comcast's Demand for a Video Surcharge From Its Level 3 "Peer" (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101129_comcasts_demand_for_a_video_surcharge_from_its_level_3_peer</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101129_comcasts_demand_for_a_video_surcharge_from_its_level_3_peer</link>
			<description><![CDATA[According to Level 3, a major long haul Internet Service Provider, Comcast has demanded a "recurring fee" when Level 3 hands off movie and other high capacity video traffic for delivery by Comcast to one of the cable company's subscribers. This demand warrants scrutiny, perhaps less in the context of Network Neutrality and more in terms of further diversification (unraveling) of the peering process. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101129_comcasts_demand_for_a_video_surcharge_from_its_level_3_peer">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-11-29T19:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in the Google-Verizon Legislative Framework (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100809_good_bad_and_the_ugly_in_the_google_verizon_legislative_framework</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100809_good_bad_and_the_ugly_in_the_google_verizon_legislative_framework</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Google and Verizon have developed a "Proposal" on Internet access which I am sure they expect to serve as a template, starting point and frame of reference going forward. In light of the FCC's judicial reversal in the <em>Comcast</em> case, the absence of substantive progress at the FCC and the unlikelihood of congressional action, two major stakeholder can and have taken the lead. It should come as no surprise that Verizon and Google have emphasized and begrudgingly compromised on their corporate interests. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100809_good_bad_and_the_ugly_in_the_google_verizon_legislative_framework">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-08-09T14:35:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> About Those "Mission Critical" Bits (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/about_those_mission_critical_bits</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/about_those_mission_critical_bits</link>
			<description><![CDATA[News that Google and Verizon are negotiating "better than best efforts" Internet routing probably comes across as a betrayal of sorts to network neutrality advocates. Bear in mind that Information Service Providers ("ISPs") do not file public contracts known as tariffs and have the freedom to negotiate deals with individual clients. On the other hand ISPs, regardless of their FCC regulatory classification, cannot engage in unfair trade practices that achieve anticompetitive goals such a tilting the competitive playing field in favor of a corporate affiliate, or special third party. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/about_those_mission_critical_bits">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-08-05T06:25:01-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Network Neutrality and the FCC's Inability to Calibrate Regulation of Convergent Operators (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100506_network_neutrality_fcc_regulation_of_convergent_operators</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100506_network_neutrality_fcc_regulation_of_convergent_operators</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For administrative convenience and not as required by law, the FCC likes to apply an either/or single regulatory classification to convergent operators. Having classified ISPs as information service providers, the Commission unsuccessfully sought to sanction Comcast's meddling with subscribers' peer-to-peer traffic. Now Chairman Genachowski wants to further narrow and nuance regulatory oversight without changing the organic information service classification. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100506_network_neutrality_fcc_regulation_of_convergent_operators">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-05-06T10:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> More Available Wireless Spectrum and Higher Market Entry Barriers (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/more_available_wireless_spectrum_and_higher_market_entry_barriers</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/more_available_wireless_spectrum_and_higher_market_entry_barriers</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The tremendous demand for, and profitability of mobile telephony supports legislative and regulatory efforts to refarm spectrum with an eye toward reallocating as much as possible for wireless telephony and data services. But there is a downside that no one seems to acknowledge. In light of past FCC practice and the behavior of incumbent wireless carriers I expect two anticompetitive outcomes to occur with the onset of any more spectrum. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/more_available_wireless_spectrum_and_higher_market_entry_barriers">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-03-03T12:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Wireless VoIP: Loss Leader or Upselling Strategy? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/wireless_voip_loss_leader_or_upselling_strategy</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/wireless_voip_loss_leader_or_upselling_strategy</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Verizon Wireless' decision to allow their subscribers to access Skype raises a question about strategy. Is Verizon leveraging Skype access as an inducement for subscribers to upgrade to smartphones and commit to $30 a month data plans, has the company acknowledged that its future marketplace success lies in data and not voice services, and how will the company prevent a substantial reduction in plain old voice subscriptions priced above the $30 data plan benchmark? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/wireless_voip_loss_leader_or_upselling_strategy">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-02-19T11:33:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The Greatest Free Riders of Our Time (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100129_greatest_free_riders_of_our_time</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100129_greatest_free_riders_of_our_time</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Former Southwestern Bell CEO, now General Motors CEO Ed Whitacre famously accused Google of free-riding his network, despite the obvious truth that Google pays for traffic delivery to peering points and ISPs gladly enter into reciprocal peering agreements in lieu of cash transactions that would likely result in a near zero payment as roughly equivalent traffic balances out. Mr. Whitacre did raise a legitimate question whether there are free riders and I'm seeing one darling and one unexpected group flying below the radar. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100129_greatest_free_riders_of_our_time">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-01-29T11:15:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The Regulatory Arbitrage Lovefest (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20091001_the_regulatory_arbitrage_lovefest</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20091001_the_regulatory_arbitrage_lovefest</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My day job, which includes finishing a book, updating a broadband law treatise, and trying to engage undergraduate students in the challenges of telecommunication and Internet policy, prevents me from weighing in each time I see yet another outrageous claim on such issues as network neutrality, broadband market penetration, and the competitiveness of U.S. telecoms markets. But I have to make time for this one. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20091001_the_regulatory_arbitrage_lovefest">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-10-01T11:19:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Some Unsolicited Advice for AT&amp;T re Google Voice (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090802_some_unsolicited_advice_att_google_voice</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090802_some_unsolicited_advice_att_google_voice</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The FCC has posed a number of provocative questions to AT&amp;T regarding the fact that iPhone subscribers cannot download and use the Google Voice application. AT&amp;T should stifle every motivation to play cute or clever with the FCC. Apple adopted such a strategy when it suggested to the Library of Congress and others that it would be curtains for the free world if iPhone owners could hack, jailbreak, tether, and otherwise use their handsets without fear of violating the prohibition on circumventing copyright laws contained in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090802_some_unsolicited_advice_att_google_voice">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-08-02T16:40:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The Google Telephone Company? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090723_the_google_telephone_company</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090723_the_google_telephone_company</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Google has undertaken a beta-test of <a href="http://www.google.com/googlevoice/about.html">a telephony platform</a> that includes the opportunity to route incoming calls to multiple devices and telephone numbers as well as free domestic long distance service. Google offers a service that fits somewhere between computer-to-computer, Internet telephony and Voice over the Internet Protocol telephony with access to and from the public switched telephone network. These service categories present polar opposites for U.S. regulatory purposes... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090723_the_google_telephone_company">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-07-23T11:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Top Ten List of Needed FCC Regulatory Reforms (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_needed_fcc_regulatory_reforms</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_needed_fcc_regulatory_reforms</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Honesty is the best policy. At the risk of anthromorphizing a regulatory agency, at the very least the FCC has not told the complete truth, or put itself in a position not to know the truth. The FCC has contributed to debates about what constitutes credible facts and statistics, and what this data means. For example, soon-to-be former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin asserted as the gospel truth his factual conclusion that cable television operators collectively have a 70% market share... The FCC should acknowledge that it may not know all the facts. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_needed_fcc_regulatory_reforms">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-01-29T07:13:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Apple iPhone Apps Store: Refreshing Openness or Walled Garden? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081218_apple_iphone_apps_store_open_or_walled</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081218_apple_iphone_apps_store_open_or_walled</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Apple Computer has received high praise for the diversity of applications available for the iPhone. The company shows great willingness to accept third party software innovations. But Apple also solely decides whether to accept and make available any application. Rejected software vendors for the most part do not exist if they do not have shelf space at the Apple store. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081218_apple_iphone_apps_store_open_or_walled">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-12-18T07:22:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
