Beginning this fall, you'll be seeing a little more of Telephony, but less often. Facing the realities of the shift from print media to the Web, Telephony will be publishing larger issues once a month, rather than smaller ones every other week.

The nature of what we write won't change — we will continue to focus on the issues that are most critical to service providers, delivering the news and information that service provider executives need to do their jobs better.

So why, in that case, is our cover story devoted to municipal broadband networks?

Aren't the cities and city-owned utility companies that build these networks essentially competing with local telecom service companies?

Well, yes, they are, but not necessarily because they want to. In the course of writing this month's cover story, I interviewed multiple executives running municipal networks, and not one of them told me they built their fiber-to-the-home network out of a burning desire to get into the telecom business. Instead, these city officials wanted their communities to stay connected to a digitally driven economy and didn't see any other way to provide that connection.

In each case, I asked why the city government involved didn't first try to work with its incumbent telco or cable company to get the fiber network built, and in most cases, the answer was simple: We did and they weren't interested.

It's easy to understand why telcos aren't rushing out and building FTTH networks in Tier 2 or Tier 3 cities or in rural communities: They aren't convinced such builds are cost-effective, and they have investors to whom they must answer. Even Verizon, an FTTH champion, preferred to divest its Vermont properties rather than build a network there. And that's why Burlington Telecom and now ValleyFiber are using publicly backed bonds to build FTTH in Vermont.

Telecom service providers need to be aware of this trend because it is not going away — if anything it is getting stronger as FTTH equipment prices fall and cities see more successful role models emerge. To date, the primary response of telecom players has been to seek legal means to stop municipalities from funding networks or to limit the services they are able to offer.

This is not a long-term strategy, especially if this trend gains momentum as expected. Telecom service providers need to explore opportunities to work together with municipalities that want to be on the right side of the digital divide — not just view them as enemy combatants.

P.S.: Telephony's editors once again have planned a two-day conference, Telephony LIVE, to explore the future of telecom. We hope to see you Sept. 30-Oct. 1 in Chicago. Learn more at telephonyonline.com/telephonylive08.