<?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>&#45; CircleID</title>
	<link>https://www.circleid.com/blogs/</link>
	<description>Postings from  on CircleID</description>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:rights>Copyright 2026, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
	<dc:date>2026-03-31T21:29:00+00:00</dc:date>

	
	<item>
		<title> FCC's "Commercial Reasonableness" Standard Already a Dismal Failure (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20140528_fccs_commercial_reasonableness_standard_already_a_dismal_failure</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20140528_fccs_commercial_reasonableness_standard_already_a_dismal_failure</link>
		<description><![CDATA[T-Mobile filed a petition today making it clear that the FCC's commercial reasonableness standard is a failure. Anyone following net neutrality knows that the FCC is proposing to authorize discrimination and pay-for-priority deals known as fast lanes. The FCC is claiming we need not worry, however, because the FCC can make sure that entrepreneurs and users face only "commercially reasonable" discrimination. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20140528_fccs_commercial_reasonableness_standard_already_a_dismal_failure">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Net Neutrality's Legal Binary: An Either/Or With No "Third Way" (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20140513_net_neutralitys_legal_binary_an_either_or_with_no_third_way</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20140513_net_neutralitys_legal_binary_an_either_or_with_no_third_way</link>
		<description><![CDATA[People working on net neutrality wish for a "third way" &mdash; a clever compromise giving us both network neutrality and no blowback from AT&amp;T;, Verizon, Comcast and others. That dream is delusional because the carriers will oppose network neutrality in any real form; they want paid fast lanes. They have expressed particular opposition to "Title II" of the Communications Act &mdash; something telecom lawyers mention the same way normal people might reference the First or Second Amendments. Title II is the one essential law to ban paid fast lanes. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20140513_net_neutralitys_legal_binary_an_either_or_with_no_third_way">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Interconnection Disputes Are Network Neutrality Issues (of Netflix, Comcast, and the FCC) (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20140407_interconnection_disputes_are_network_neutrality_issues</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20140407_interconnection_disputes_are_network_neutrality_issues</link>
		<description><![CDATA[A lot of people have been talking about the "interconnection" deal between Comcast and Netflix and whether that deal is related to network neutrality. (It is.) This question comes partly because the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order (also known as the network neutrality order) was recently struck down. So network neutrality lands back at the FCC, with a new Open Internet proceeding, at the same time Netflix starts working so poorly on Comcast that Netflix had to cut a special deal with Comcast. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20140407_interconnection_disputes_are_network_neutrality_issues">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Filtering the Internet Is Still a Bad Idea: DCA, ABC, and Steroid Searches (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20131007_filtering_the_internet_is_still_bad_idea_dca_abc_steroid_searches</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20131007_filtering_the_internet_is_still_bad_idea_dca_abc_steroid_searches</link>
		<description><![CDATA[A few days ago, ABC News ran an "investigative" piece called "Group Probes Ease and Danger of Buying Steroids Online." ABC describes the "group" at issue as "an online watchdog," the Digital Citizens Alliance. That group determined that some of the millions of available YouTube videos encourage steroid use and that YouTube (which is owned by Google) places ads next to steroid-related videos and search results. They argue that Google and YouTube should be held legally responsible for any illegal content linked or posted. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20131007_filtering_the_internet_is_still_bad_idea_dca_abc_steroid_searches">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Ignore The Chicken Littles: Let's Give New Web Domains a Try (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20130405_ignore_the_chicken_littles_lets_give_new_web_domains_a_try</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20130405_ignore_the_chicken_littles_lets_give_new_web_domains_a_try</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Before the experiment has gotten off the ground, some critics have expressed concern about applications to operate domains referring to a "generic" product or service, like .car, .book, or .app. News reports indicate that Microsoft and other Google competitors have filed complaints about Google's applications, while authors' organizations have raised questions about some of Amazon's applications. These complaints assert that giving these applicants the right to operate these new domains would provide an unfair competitive advantage. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20130405_ignore_the_chicken_littles_lets_give_new_web_domains_a_try">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>