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

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

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;Un-Upgraded Losses?&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/UnUpgraded-Losses-27949915</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 03:00:43 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 03:00:43 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Un-Upgraded Losses?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/UnUpgraded-Losses-27949915</link>
<description><![CDATA[elray posted : Once again, Karl is reading the tea leaves and applying a bit of editorial license.  Where does it claim in the quarterly report that the "DSL Losses" are in "un-upgraded" territory?<br><br>I submit that it could be the opposite.<br>Last May, Karl claimed that AT&T was forcing U-Verse upgrades.<br>Each of which would account for a "DSL loss" - in an upgraded area.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/UnUpgraded-Losses-27949915</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:46:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
