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

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

<channel>
<title>Re: Fat pipes -- not Fat Taxes in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r7086648</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:20:20 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:20:20 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Fat pipes -- not Fat Taxes</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7086648</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/729909"><b>Tom Zachman</b></A> : Good idea...I always read your posts /wipes brown stain off nose\ (just kidding)<br>Too bad the legislators don't have a clue what their connectivity is and where it comes from...<br><br>Who wants to setup a website.  www.telecommunications.splained.2.congressional.dummies.gov]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7086648</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:24:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Fat pipes -- not Fat Taxes</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7084410</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/732594"><b>ronpin</b></A> : The Universal Service Fund might actually be an impediment to getting Fiber To The Home (FTTH). How? Most Schools have T-1 or better lines now. That bandwidth is mostly wasted outside of school hours.<br>The schools could could actually <I>make</I> money reselling that bandwidth to local FTTH overbuilders and ISP's -- unless they got their bandwidth with USF funds. It's illegal to resell bandwidth purchased with USF money (in Texas at least).<br>Why can't we taxpayers stipulate that private broadband providers be able to buy bandwidth from city ISD's to replace any USF funds -- where demand exists? ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7084410</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:23:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
