<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: umm in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17649173</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:42:25 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:42:25 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: umm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17649173</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1397436"><b>matrix3D</b></A> : Since when was that their goal? I've always heard that 802.11n was meant for speeds somewhere around 200 - 300 Mbps... effectively translating into a "real-world" speed of about 100 Mbps or so. 802.11n was always meant as a wireless replacement for Fast Ethernet (100 Mbps), not Gigabit Ethernet.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17649173</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:02:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>umm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17646125</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/186811"><b>brianiscool</b></A> : Wireless-n will be drafted when it reaches 1000Mbs]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17646125</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:31:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
