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

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

<channel>
<title>WiMAX in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18979706</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:47:50 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:47:50 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: WiMAX</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18980294</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1304890"><b>Sammer</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by sprintusrrrrrr :</SMALL><BR><BR>Really sad to see cities get suckered into a technology never intended for broad coverage when WiMAX is just a year or two away.<br> </DIV>WiMAX isn't a cheap technology and it will only succeed if people are willing to pay for it. IMHO WiMAX will compete with  cellular internet but it remains doubtful that it will compete with the low cost of WiFi for less than broad coverage. You are right about some cities being suckered, especially if the WiFi units aren't upgradeable.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18980294</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:57:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>WiMAX</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18979706</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : Really sad to see cities get suckered into a technology never intended for broad coverage when WiMAX is just a year or two away.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18979706</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:15:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
