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

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

<channel>
<title>Stats from 2006 in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20450532</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:09:43 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:09:43 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Stats from 2006</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20451338</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/418831"><b>Automate</b></A> : Because there is nothing new here.  Everything in the AP story has already been said in the May 2 posting.  The only thing different is the number of subscribers which is old news and not even the newest numbers from the FCC]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20451338</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 12:24:18 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Stats from 2006</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20450719</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/810895"><b>W1RFI</b></A> : Actually, AP got it wrong. The latest statistics from the FCC are as of the middle of 2007:<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280906A1.doc" >hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a&middot;&middot;&middot;06A1.doc</A><br><br>The report is based on mandatory reporting requirements.<br><br>In the report, the FCC says that there are 100,900,000 broadband lines of at least 200 kb/s in at least one direction.  Of those, 5,420 are BPL. As of mid 2007, BPL enjoys a market share of 0.0054% of the broadband lines in the US.<br><br>The total could be a bit higher as of the end of 2007, or now, but not dramatically so.  <br><br>Utility uses such as meter reading do not count in this total.  The industry has been focusing on the utility side of the equation for some time.<br><br>Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org<br>225 Main St<br>Newington, CT 06111<br>Tel: 860-594-0318<br><br>BPL ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20450719</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 10:28:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Stats from 2006</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20450560</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/428142"><b>KeysCapt</b></A> : If they are in fact still "the latest" and a far cry from the projected 2 million, why not? They are clearly labeled to show their age and serve to show this is in fact a dead horse.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20450560</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 09:51:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Stats from 2006</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20450532</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/418831"><b>Automate</b></A> : Although I doubt it has changed much I don't think making you headline stats from 2006 is a good idea.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20450532</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 09:45:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
