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

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

<channel>
<title>Odd in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18712889</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:58:17 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:58:17 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Odd</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18716972</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/290667"><b>SRFireside</b></A> : Or taking the first steps in the process. When you haggle you always demand more than you want. That way when the negotiations start you end up settling for a deal that is much closer to what you actually expected.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18716972</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:50:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Odd</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18715199</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>TK Junk Mail</b></A> : It will never happen if Google demands that all 4 conditions must be in the auction rules in order to bid. It sounds more like they are grandstanding trying to make a point about Net Neutrality than in actually planning to bid.<br><SMALL>--<br>--<BR><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb">Internet News</A><BR><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h">My BLOG</A><BR><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto">My Web Page</A></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18715199</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:28:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Odd</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18715049</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/290667"><b>SRFireside</b></A> : But it probably buys a lot more wireless infrastructure. Google isn't an ISP so it's probably better for them to avoid the issues that seasoned providers are more adept at like rights of way COs and whatnot. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18715049</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:00:06 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Odd</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18714297</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/625141"><b>pnh102</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  SRFireside <A HREF="/useremail/u/290667"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>Doesn't it sound smarter to invest in that 700Mhz market?</DIV>I am not really sure.  We all can agree that a wired broadband connection of any sort most always provides superior service than a wireless service.  $4.6 billion can buy a lot of fiber optic cable.<br><SMALL>--<br>Only SHATNER is Kirk.</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18714297</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:49:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Odd</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18713911</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/290667"><b>SRFireside</b></A> : Doesn't it sound smarter to invest in that 700Mhz market? I'm guessing the infrastructure on that would cost less than laying down fiber all over the country. Which is exactly the reason why all the other incumbent telco and cablecos want a bit of that. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18713911</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:51:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Odd</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18713246</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/625141"><b>pnh102</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  bmn <A HREF="/useremail/u/344321"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>Tell your local telephone and cable companies to piss off and sign up with a company that offers 21st century connectivity with 21st century speeds..." </DIV>That's really the only drawback if Google were to get into this racket.  They would probably hit the places already served by multiple broadband ISPs first.<br><SMALL>--<br>Only SHATNER is Kirk.</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18713246</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:20:47 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Odd</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18713156</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/344321"><b>bmn</b></A> : I can see the flyer now..<br><br>"Google Fiber to the Home...   Coming to a town near you.   Tell your local telephone and cable companies to piss off and sign up with a company that offers 21st century connectivity with 21st century speeds..."<br><SMALL>--<br>Prove it...<B><br><A HREF="http://www.pool.ntp.org">Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.</A></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18713156</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:08:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Odd</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18712889</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/625141"><b>pnh102</b></A> : Why does this sound like grandstanding on the part of Google?  Nothing is stopping them now from investing that money into expanding wired broadband solutions for places which don't have access now.<br><SMALL>--<br>Only SHATNER is Kirk.</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18712889</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:31:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
