<?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> Reframing the Infrastructure Debate (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20130501_reframing_the_infrastructure_debate</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20130501_reframing_the_infrastructure_debate</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Fast and reliable infrastructure of any kind is good for business. That it's debatable for the Internet shows we still don't understand what the Internet i -- or how, compared to what it costs to build and maintain other forms of infrastructure, it's damned cheap, with economic and social leverage in the extreme. Here's a thought exercise... Imagine no Internet: no data on phones, no ethernet or wi-fi connections at home - or anywhere. No email, no Google, no Facebook, no Amazon, no Skype. That's what we would have if designing the Internet had been left up to phone and cable companies... <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20130501_reframing_the_infrastructure_debate">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>