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

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

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;Had a conversation w/ this user via PM&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Had-a-conversation-w-this-user-via-PM-25989514</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 05:34:48 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 05:34:48 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Had a conversation w/ this user via PM</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Had-a-conversation-w-this-user-via-PM-25989514</link>
<description><![CDATA[davoice posted : Since I'm in Comporium territory (and I personally have their fiber to the home product), I had a conversation w/ this user via PM.<br><br>He's in an area that has phone service served by AT&T.  So it's not really Comporium's fault that he can't get service there.  It's AT&T's.  Comporium's franchise agreements only covered the area where they provided phone service (remember they used to be Rock Hill Telephone Company).<br><br>Hopefully he's now able to get AT&T DSL via a new remote DSLAM in the area.<br><br>So this report technically should not apply to Comporium.  It should reply to AT&T and Time Warner.  (It applies to Time Warner because they were granted a countywide franchise agreement but haven't started building out yet.)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Had-a-conversation-w-this-user-via-PM-25989514</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:18:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
