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

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

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;Fewer with service is better than none.&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Fewer-with-service-is-better-than-none-18123080</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:34:06 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:34:06 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Fewer with service is better than none.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Fewer-with-service-is-better-than-none-18124086</link>
<description><![CDATA[jhboricua posted : As opposed to the empty unfulfilled deployment promises played out by the greedy Telco officials?<br><br>:uhh:]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Fewer-with-service-is-better-than-none-18124086</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:56:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Fewer with service is better than none.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Fewer-with-service-is-better-than-none-18123080</link>
<description><![CDATA[dynodb posted : <I><BLOCKQUOTE>However, a primary goal of the telco's "franchise reform" lobbying push is to eliminate build out requirements, which increases their ROI, but ultimately means fewer people actually get service.</I></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>Actually the opposite is likely true.  With build-out requirements demanding 100% availability the financial disincentive to offer service is great enough that it's quite likely no one would get the service- especially with the extortion-like municipal shenanigans often played out by greedy city officials.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Fewer-with-service-is-better-than-none-18123080</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:25:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

