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

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

<channel>
<title>Maybe it wasn&#x27;t interference they were worried about in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21049162</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:34:17 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:34:17 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Maybe it wasn&#x27;t interference they were worried about</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21049162</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : My theory is they were mostly worried that people would be able to leverage T-Mobile compatible hardware for use with the free spectrum.  That would lower the cost for entry, thus in a way T-Mo would be subsidizing the free spectrum.  If there was a new unique frequency used it would require development of new radios and that would slow down uptake of the free frequencies.<br><br>But then again perhaps that is a lame theory because they wouldn't want to pay for an interference test otherwise.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21049162</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:57:27 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
