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

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

<channel>
<title>Re: Competing against Bell is fun. in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20225966</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:13:56 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:13:56 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Competing against Bell is fun.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20226006</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1269402"><b>battleop</b></A> : As soon as DSL was deregulated BellSouth came out with a new agreement that had similar language.   You had two choices, sign it and keep your DSL network or not sign it and close up shop.  I never saw the revised AT&T contract but I am sure it has similar language.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20226006</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:44:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Competing against Bell is fun.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20225966</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/697933"><b>CoxCable4</b></A> : I can't believe this is not a breach of contract with smaller isp who buy access wholesale.<br><br>Wouldn't you think these smaller isps make sure unfiltered, unthrottled connection would be in the terms?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20225966</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:39:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Competing against Bell is fun.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20223671</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/512567"><b>travisc</b></A> : Thankfully, we don't use their network.  I'd be a bit pissed right now if we did.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20223671</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:52:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
