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

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

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;ATT Lower&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/ATT-Lower-25872551</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 14:01:16 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 14:01:16 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: ATT Lower</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ATT-Lower-25873688</link>
<description><![CDATA[anon posted : Yes! Next year we shall invent dozens of new and improved phone companies, that are also better than at&t, so dear ol' Ma' Bell can sink further down in the ratings. This year, at&t might be number 5, but next year, she'll be number 10! That's five whole number two's!!!<br><br>Like people need everyone else, some consumer survey group, the FCC telling them that at&t is number two! We all could smell that it's number two! Hello!?!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ATT-Lower-25873688</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 15:34:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>ATT Lower</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/ATT-Lower-25872551</link>
<description><![CDATA[dsless posted : ATT being lower? I didn't think that would be possible from a customer standpoint! :D]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/ATT-Lower-25872551</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 11:38:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
