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

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

<channel>
<title>Re: 768 vs dial-up in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18789672</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:24:26 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:24:26 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: 768 vs dial-up</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18791454</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1464667"><b>xo</b></A> : i agree with you. here, 1 megabit dsl costs 80 dollars a month. yes, you read that correctly. so i'm stuck between either outrageously priced dsl or cable with awful customer support. for $10 dollars, i would love a 768/384 backup dsl line.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18791454</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:20:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: 768 vs dial-up</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18790232</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/297537"><b>en102</b></A> : For $10/month... they would have more people sign up than they probably want at that price.  For a cheap/stable connection, I would take it.  The only thing that would be painful, would be downloading ISO images (Fedora Core).<br><SMALL>--<br>Canada = Hollywood North</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18790232</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:19:18 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: 768 vs dial-up</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18790102</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1433433"><b>ncbill</b></A> : Yep, that's the big reason they don't advertise it - few would want to pay for faster broadband.<br><br>Cable broadband here is 6x faster - for 5x the price.<br><br>I am very glad I switched to $10/month DSL.<br><br>Even gladder they have to sell it to me for that price through the end of 2009.<br><br>At $10/month, it's also a great backup for those with cable broadband (here cable drops if the wind blows hard)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18790102</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:58:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: 768 vs dial-up</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18789672</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/162762"><b>djrobx</b></A> : For light users who are mostly web surfers and emailers, there's not a big difference in the "user experience" between 1.5mbps and 768kbps.  I think a $10 768kbps DSL product would have a big appeal.<br><br>It's still relatively tough to find a site that takes advantage of connections faster than 768kbps.   Most streaming video sites are STILL 300kps at best. <br><br>Hell, we have an office of about 70 computers sharing a 768/384 DSL connection, and I rarely ever hear anybody complain about it being slow.  Usually when it is, it's only because someone's uploading a big attachment.<br><br><SMALL>--<br>Laser eye surgery rocks!  I love frickin' laser beams.</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18789672</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:49:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>768 vs dial-up</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18789574</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/218745"><b>lordfly</b></A> : Lets see, $7/mo for dial-up or $10/mo for 768K.  Am I missing something here?  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18789574</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:33:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
