<?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>Martin Geddes &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Martin Geddes on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-04-07T11:11:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> Goo Goo Goggles: 700MHz Spectrum Auction and the U.S. Taxpayers (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/84794_goo_goggles_700mhz_us_taxpayers</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/84794_goo_goggles_700mhz_us_taxpayers</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Scott Cleland <a href="http://www.precursorblog.com/node/701">claims</a> the open access rules on 700MHz spectrum triggered by Google's bid fleeced the US taxpayer by $7bn. I don't buy it, even as a signed-up fully-paid network neutrality <a href="http://www.telepocalypse.net/archives/000905.html">opponent</a>. Firstly, the numbers ignore economics. If the C block was encumbered, that would raise the prices of the A and B blocks. So you need to take a much smaller differential as to the cost of the encumbrance. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/84794_goo_goggles_700mhz_us_taxpayers">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-04-07T11:11:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> A Packet of Lies (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/710223_packet_of_lies</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/710223_packet_of_lies</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've been reading the kerfuffle around Comcast's <a href="http://isen.com/blog/2007/10/eff-replicates-comcast-discrimination.html">blocking of various random network protocols</a> with interest. Whilst I remain convinced that blanket "network neutrality" legislation remains just a form of digital <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripe_water">gripe water</a> (cures colic for cybernauts), there's clearly a problem. As I <a href="http://www.telepocalypse.net/archives/000905.html">previously alluded</a> there's a definite consumer protection issue over what you buy when it <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1576">says 'Internet' on the tin</a>. So here's tuppence worth of additional input... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/710223_packet_of_lies">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-10-22T16:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Frustrations with VoIP Phone Services (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/frustrations_voip_phone_services</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/frustrations_voip_phone_services</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I ought to explain why I've suddenly gone cold on VoIP. It's just I've watched my own behaviour. I've grown tired of the inconsistency of PC VoIP calls, and instead I've reverted to using landlines, mobiles and Jajah (for callback). But I'm still using IM to set up many of those calls! The problem isn't unique to any one client - they're all proving unsuitable for business use with clients (which is most of my telephony needs covered). The worst of all seems to be Skype conference calling... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/frustrations_voip_phone_services">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-05-26T19:24:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Help! This is Not an Emergency (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/help_this_is_not_an_emergency</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/help_this_is_not_an_emergency</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I like the drift of the <a href="http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/004418.html">Pulver/Evslin</a> proposal on emergency communications, and wish there was as vigorous a debate going on over here. I just hope we in the UK aren't jerked out of complacency by some major disaster -- although widespread use of pre-paid cellular means the problem of sunken landlines isn't as acute. Yet I can't help but wonder why the poor public has to wait for a disaster before they're given partial control over how their number maps to different destinations and services. Why can't I get a voicemail service from someone other than my connectivity provider? Why is ENUM hostage to the telcos, whose interest lies in ensuring that new services can only come from them? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/help_this_is_not_an_emergency">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-04-27T17:25:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Disappearing Telephony (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/disappearing_telephony</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/disappearing_telephony</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm just stepping back a minute to think about what Emerging Telephony actually is. You might have seen my <a href="http://www.telepocalypse.net/archives/000851.html">earlier musings</a> on the different philosophical underpinnings of "Western" telephony and "Eastern" thought. In an oversimplified nutshell, the Western approach puts the individual in the centre of the universe. The Eastern idea is to put the group in the middle. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/disappearing_telephony">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-02-02T14:56:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Would the Real Network Neutrality Please Stand Up? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/real_network_neutrality_please_stand_up</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/real_network_neutrality_please_stand_up</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm sure this is something that's been raked over before, but I don't see a common understanding of what 'Net Neutrality' actually is. Despite many of the Internetorati <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html">demanding it by law</a>. There appear to be several different camps, which you could paint as "bottom of IP", "middle" and "top". The bottomistas would see enforced Internet Protocol itself as a premature optimisation and violation of the end-to-end principle. Unhappy that you only get IPv4 or IPv6? Still grumpy that you only have IPv4 and not even IPv6? Really miserable that your VoIP packets are staggering under the poisonous load of IPv6 headers? You're a bottomista. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/real_network_neutrality_please_stand_up">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-11-15T15:49:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Whither DNS? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/whither_dns</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/whither_dns</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Domain Name System is often though of as an integral part of the Internet. Without it, how can you ever locate anything? Well, quite easily, thank you very much. DNS is used implicitly for many services, such as web browsing. It also includes explicit extensions for a few applications such as e-mail. (I'm talking here about DNS the system, not DNS the technology that can be re-purposed to things like ENUM.) But the most notable thing about DNS is its receding importance... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/whither_dns">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-09-14T12:14:57-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> URLs: Ontologically Speaking (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/urls_ontologically_speaking</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/urls_ontologically_speaking</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was reading David Weinberger's reports on how the New York Times is planning on tackling its "link rot" problem where articles slip behind the pay-wall. Part of their solution appears to be to replace articles with their summaries. As usual, this got me thinking about telephony. Why don't phone calls and callers have URIs or URLs? ...Let's take addressing the endpoints first. Obviously, ENUM is one way of "Internetising" the phone number address space. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/urls_ontologically_speaking">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-03-10T14:03:50-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Why NAT Isn't As Bad As You Thought (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_nat_isnt_as_bad_as_you_thought</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_nat_isnt_as_bad_as_you_thought</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Please do sit down. Should the shock cause you to suddenly lose consciousness, I hereby disclaim all responsibility for any subsequent loss or injury. I'm about to defend the anthrax of the Internet: NAT. Network Address Translation is a hack to enable private IP addresses on one side of a router (inside your network) to talk to public IP addresses on the other side (on the Internet, outside your network). It really doesn't matter how it works. The consequence is that unless the router is specifically configured, outsiders can't get in uninvited. So those on the inside can't, by default, act as servers of any service to the outside world. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_nat_isnt_as_bad_as_you_thought">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2004-01-15T13:36:20-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>