<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>VentureBeat - Latest Comments in Roundup: MetroFi connects Foster City, GDrive leak, Cisco&amp;#8217;s triple threat</title><link>http://venturebeat.disqus.com/</link><description>News about Tech, Business and Innovation</description><atom:link href="https://venturebeat.disqus.com/roundup_metrofi_connects_foster_city_gdrive_leak_cisco8217s_triple_threat/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:04:52 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Roundup: MetroFi connects Foster City, GDrive leak, Cisco&amp;#8217;s triple threat</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2006/10/14/roundup-metrofi-connects-foster-city-gdrive-leak-ciscos-triple-threat/#comment-14668807</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The devil is in the details? Is it possible that if the carriers can maintain 2 or more virtual Link Layers (a.k.a. VLAN) for the delivery of their content they might be safe from this patent litigation?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As per OSI the network Layer is Layer 3, the patent states "System and method for providing integrated voice, video and data to customer premises over a single network"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it really a single network if the Link Layer is not shared? a.k.a. different VLAN for each service?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Francesco Caggioni</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:04:52 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>