﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>The Local Loop</title>
    <description>Welcome to Civitium's Blog: The Local Loop.</description>
    <link>http://civitium.com/LOCALLOOPBLOG/tabid/60/BlogId/1/Default.aspx</link>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <webMaster>greg@civitium.com</webMaster>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:33:58 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:33:58 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <generator>Blog RSS Generator Version 3.4.0.39853</generator>
    <item>
      <title>On the Issue of Anchor Tenancy</title>
      <description>Anchor tenancy has long been part of the dialog in municipal wireless. Basically, the term anchor tenancy has been used to describe one form of revenue assurance that is made by local government to a private-sector partner who commits to deploy a wireless network in a city. As the pullback of private investment in municipal Wi-Fi networks has played out this year, anchor tenancy has moved onto center-stage. But despite all the attention it has received, there has been little thoughtful analysis to look at whether and when it’s appropriate, what level of commitment should be required, and at what point does an anchor tenancy commitment go overboard&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://civitium.com/LOCALLOOPBLOG/tabid/60/EntryID/7/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://civitium.com/LOCALLOOPBLOG/tabid/60/EntryID/7/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://civitium.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60&amp;EntryID=7</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://civitium.com/DesktopModules/Blog/Trackback.aspx?id=7</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>