<?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:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
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: Is AT&amp;T a Cable Company?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/video/is-att-a-cable-company/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/video/is-att-a-cable-company/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 00:44:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vid-Biz: Netflix, AT&#38;T, Next New &#171; NewTeeVee</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/video/is-att-a-cable-company/#comment-451055</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Vid-Biz: Netflix, AT&#38;T, Next New &#171; NewTeeVee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/2007/10/15/is-att-a-cable-company/#comment-451055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] IPTV Subscriptions Growing; company&#8217;s embattled U-verse service now has 126,000 subscribers. [...]
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] IPTV Subscriptions Growing; company&#8217;s embattled U-verse service now has 126,000 subscribers. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/video/is-att-a-cable-company/#comment-451054</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:32:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/2007/10/15/is-att-a-cable-company/#comment-451054</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It will be interesting to see the implications of this as they relate to the impending WGA strike.  If the WGA loses its battle to get better rates on Internet content, and cable TV content begins to be delivered via Internet - does this mean studios can then pay writers at the lower Internet rates?  Not only would the WGA lose their battle for repurposed internet content, but they would also potentially lose significant ground on established media if it is delivered over the web.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It will be interesting to see the implications of this as they relate to the impending WGA strike.  If the WGA loses its battle to get better rates on Internet content, and cable TV content begins to be delivered via Internet &#8211; does this mean studios can then pay writers at the lower Internet rates?  Not only would the WGA lose their battle for repurposed internet content, but they would also potentially lose significant ground on established media if it is delivered over the web.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

