<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SBC Ready To Take on Local Governments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2005/05/08/sbc-ready-to-take-on-local-governments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2005/05/08/sbc-ready-to-take-on-local-governments/</link>
	<description>Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:57:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Glunt</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2005/05/08/sbc-ready-to-take-on-local-governments/#comment-11508</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Glunt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2005 19:39:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/05/08/sbc-ready-to-take-on-local-governments/#comment-11508</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The problem for the telcos is much more than just dealing with
10,000 bureaucracies.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Most communities have &quot;equal access&quot; rules that say you must provide
the TV service to the entire community and not just cherry-pick the
wealthier areas.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Since the fiber to the home/node strategies of SBC and Verizon are
based upon targetting the high demographic areas first, poor areas
may not get access to IPTV for years, if ever.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And what politician would allow a telco to offer sexy new services
to the rich people in town while consigning the lower income people
(who actually are a larger percentage of eligible voters) to
inferior services.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This was a battle the cable companies fought 30 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The telcos are just waking up to the problem.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And the cable companies are making sure that local communities are
aware of this. Comcast has already started making noise within the
communities where it already has been granted a franchise that the
telcos should be barred from offering IPTV unless they cover the
entire area.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This could be a MAJOR problem for telcos trying to offer a &quot;triple
play&quot; in competition to what the cable companies are offering.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem for the telcos is much more than just dealing with
10,000 bureaucracies.</p>

<p>Most communities have &#8220;equal access&#8221; rules that say you must provide
the TV service to the entire community and not just cherry-pick the
wealthier areas.</p>

<p>Since the fiber to the home/node strategies of SBC and Verizon are
based upon targetting the high demographic areas first, poor areas
may not get access to IPTV for years, if ever.</p>

<p>And what politician would allow a telco to offer sexy new services
to the rich people in town while consigning the lower income people
(who actually are a larger percentage of eligible voters) to
inferior services.</p>

<p>This was a battle the cable companies fought 30 years ago.</p>

<p>The telcos are just waking up to the problem.</p>

<p>And the cable companies are making sure that local communities are
aware of this. Comcast has already started making noise within the
communities where it already has been granted a franchise that the
telcos should be barred from offering IPTV unless they cover the
entire area.</p>

<p>This could be a MAJOR problem for telcos trying to offer a &#8220;triple
play&#8221; in competition to what the cable companies are offering.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
