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

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

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;speed numbers look darn good for a 2.8 rating : /&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/speed-numbers-look-darn-good-for-a-28-rating-22085887</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:34:17 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:34:17 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: speed numbers look darn good for a 2.8 rating : /</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-speed-numbers-look-darn-good-for-a-28-rating-22085968</link>
<description><![CDATA[uid1307457 posted : oh, thought i changed those]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-speed-numbers-look-darn-good-for-a-28-rating-22085968</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:16:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>speed numbers look darn good for a 2.8 rating : /</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/speed-numbers-look-darn-good-for-a-28-rating-22085887</link>
<description><![CDATA[Bronnster posted : Those update numbers look pretty darn good. has the issue now been resolved as far as connection? Looks like you're getting your monies worth there. Kinda unfair to give Qwest that black eye rating if you're all good now. just saying...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/speed-numbers-look-darn-good-for-a-28-rating-22085887</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:03:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

