<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: First Look at the Broadband Stimulus Rules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.telecompetitor.com/first-look-at-the-broadband-stimulus-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.telecompetitor.com/first-look-at-the-broadband-stimulus-rules/</link>
	<description>Providing insight, analysis, and commentary on the evolving telecom competitive landscape</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:36:30 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim Turner</title>
		<link>http://www.telecompetitor.com/first-look-at-the-broadband-stimulus-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-7752</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Turner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:47:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://telecompetitor.com.s71817.gridserver.com/?p=1440#comment-7752</guid>
		<description>Broadband speeds are woefully inadequate. 768k is a joke. Why not push the envelope and go for at least 3 mbps? Seems like a waste of $4 billion to allow our rual broadband network to only offer 768k. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Broadband speeds are woefully inadequate. 768k is a joke. Why not push the envelope and go for at least 3 mbps? Seems like a waste of $4 billion to allow our rual broadband network to only offer 768k.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
