<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FairPoint Begins New England IPTV Trial</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/</link>
	<description>Providing insight, analysis, and commentary on the evolving telecom competitive landscape</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:53:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/comment-page-1/#comment-6616</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 16:06:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/#comment-6616</guid>
		<description>My understanding is the physical FTTH infrastructure was in place - not the entire FiOS platform. Most likely, they had a clean &lt;a href=http://www.heycheckthis.com&gt;FTTH&lt;/a&gt;  slate to work from, and decided IPTV was the better move for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My understanding is the physical FTTH infrastructure was in place &#8211; not the entire FiOS platform. Most likely, they had a clean <a href=http://www.heycheckthis.com>FTTH</a>  slate to work from, and decided IPTV was the better move for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/comment-page-1/#comment-4397</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/#comment-4397</guid>
		<description>For a communications company they are falling way short. No internet access to them and the only numbers on my bill are Verizon #s. The only 800 # I have is consistently busy. I am ready to tear my hair out and don&#039;t know how they can stay in business this way/    </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For a communications company they are falling way short. No internet access to them and the only numbers on my bill are Verizon #s. The only 800 # I have is consistently busy. I am ready to tear my hair out and don&#8217;t know how they can stay in business this way/</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy</title>
		<link>http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/comment-page-1/#comment-4254</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/#comment-4254</guid>
		<description>I hope Salem gets it
I am an underground customer so i hope by the summer.
COMCAST Needs competition here in SALEM.Rates are too high ,channels disappearing.Too bad Verizon was all set to offer FIOS then pulled out in 2005 at the last minute to focus on NJ then 2 months later announced the sale of all the landlines to Fairpoint</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope Salem gets it<br />
I am an underground customer so i hope by the summer.<br />
COMCAST Needs competition here in SALEM.Rates are too high ,channels disappearing.Too bad Verizon was all set to offer FIOS then pulled out in 2005 at the last minute to focus on NJ then 2 months later announced the sale of all the landlines to Fairpoint</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bernie</title>
		<link>http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/comment-page-1/#comment-4045</link>
		<dc:creator>Bernie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/#comment-4045</guid>
		<description>My understanding is the physical FTTH infrastructure was in place - not the entire FiOS platform. Most likely, they had a clean FTTH slate to work from, and decided IPTV was the better move for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My understanding is the physical FTTH infrastructure was in place &#8211; not the entire FiOS platform. Most likely, they had a clean FTTH slate to work from, and decided IPTV was the better move for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike T.</title>
		<link>http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/comment-page-1/#comment-4043</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike T.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:17:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.telecompetitor.com/fairpoint-begins-new-england-iptv-trial/#comment-4043</guid>
		<description>Interesting that they would go with IPTV. Seems like Verizon is having far less technical issues with FiOS TV than a lot of folks are having with IPTV. If the infrastructure was in place, seems to me that they should have followed the Verizon model entirely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting that they would go with IPTV. Seems like Verizon is having far less technical issues with FiOS TV than a lot of folks are having with IPTV. If the infrastructure was in place, seems to me that they should have followed the Verizon model entirely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
