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

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

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;LAGZ0RZ&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/LAGZ0RZ-25697704</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:29:28 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:29:28 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: LAGZ0RZ</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-LAGZ0RZ-25808465</link>
<description><![CDATA[camaro97 posted : Poor latency with faster DL speed would be better.  Ran a speed test at 6:00 today.   Blistering download of .36 Mbps.  Paying for 3.0 Mpbs.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-LAGZ0RZ-25808465</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2011 18:31:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>LAGZ0RZ</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/LAGZ0RZ-25697704</link>
<description><![CDATA[anon posted : "Satellite would have to be better!"<br>I strongly disagree ^<br><br>You must factor in satellite latency, not just bandwidth.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/LAGZ0RZ-25697704</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:09:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
