<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Networks good for rural? Or rural good for Google?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blandinonbroadband.org/2010/03/04/google-networks-good-for-rural-or-rural-good-for-google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blandinonbroadband.org/2010/03/04/google-networks-good-for-rural-or-rural-good-for-google/</link>
	<description>News and information on broadband use, policy, and trends</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:18:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google Networks good for rural? Or rural good for Google? &#171; Welcome to Rurb.MN</title>
		<link>http://blandinonbroadband.org/2010/03/04/google-networks-good-for-rural-or-rural-good-for-google/#comment-6818</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Google Networks good for rural? Or rural good for Google? &#171; Welcome to Rurb.MN]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blandinonbroadband.org/?p=3085#comment-6818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] following article was previously posted by Ann Treacy on the Blandin on Broadband blog on March 2, 2010.  We have received permission to reprint this article on our [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] following article was previously posted by Ann Treacy on the Blandin on Broadband blog on March 2, 2010.  We have received permission to reprint this article on our [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

