<?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:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
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: WiFi Tax, Maybe Not</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:01:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ZaragozaWireless.Org &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Bush quiere sacar tajada del wifi</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/#comment-114340</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ZaragozaWireless.Org &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Bush quiere sacar tajada del wifi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:48:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/#comment-114340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] Actualización: Me entero por distintos sitios que la noticia no como la comentaba exactamente. La tecnología wifi no es una de las afectadas por la tasa. Gracias a los que me han avisado. [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Actualización: Me entero por distintos sitios que la noticia no como la comentaba exactamente. La tecnología wifi no es una de las afectadas por la tasa. Gracias a los que me han avisado. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BillyBLOGirlardo &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Bush Pushes Web Backwards By Taxing Wi-fi</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/#comment-114339</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BillyBLOGirlardo &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Bush Pushes Web Backwards By Taxing Wi-fi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:50:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/#comment-114339</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] EDIT: looks like this comment made Om do an about-face and print this article in retraction so I guess I need to follow suit&#8230; okay, after 2 seconds of deliberation, I take back everything I said about Wi-fi being taxed, but I stand behind all the Bush jabs lol  Revenue, Wi-fi, wifi, Iraq Save this story to your del.icio.us account [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] EDIT: looks like this comment made Om do an about-face and print this article in retraction so I guess I need to follow suit&#8230; okay, after 2 seconds of deliberation, I take back everything I said about Wi-fi being taxed, but I stand behind all the Bush jabs lol  Revenue, Wi-fi, wifi, Iraq Save this story to your del.icio.us account [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan Hardin</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/#comment-114338</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan Hardin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:55:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/#comment-114338</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that only talking about a rumor such as a WiFi tax will actually make people think &quot;Hey, that sounds like a good idea.&quot; They talk about it. It causes uproar. A company with a big blue logo decides to get involved. Governments (country and business) look at numbers and see how more can be squeezed out of John Q. We end up paying more for something we shouldn&#039;t.  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Getting Feds involved?  ..not a good idea.
I mean look at Cingular and their ATT buyout.
Feds: &quot;Umm...we will only allow your ATT Wireless buyout if you sell off some of their markets to local companies so you will not become a monopoly.&quot;
Cingular: &quot;OK. You got it!&quot;
[a few months pass]
Cingular: &quot;Hey everybody..want a new plan? Well we&#039;ve decided to raise our rates right along with the bar.  ...and we can do that because the Feds said that we are not a monopoly.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I happen to live in one of those markets that Cingular had to sell off to a local provider, and I got screwed.  The contract was passed on, my data plan was dropped, m2m calling to ATT/Cingular was gone, and I went through H-E-double-hockey-sticks for them to let me out of the contract with no termination fee.  So now I&#039;m with Cingular and I&#039;m paying the more expensive rate.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So the best option here is to silence the hype and leave any Fed talk out...otherwise people will start thinking and I&#039;ll have to move to Spain and denounce every living in the backasswards ASU.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that only talking about a rumor such as a WiFi tax will actually make people think &#8220;Hey, that sounds like a good idea.&#8221; They talk about it. It causes uproar. A company with a big blue logo decides to get involved. Governments (country and business) look at numbers and see how more can be squeezed out of John Q. We end up paying more for something we shouldn&#8217;t.  </p>
<p>Getting Feds involved?  ..not a good idea.<br />
I mean look at Cingular and their ATT buyout.<br />
Feds: &#8220;Umm&#8230;we will only allow your ATT Wireless buyout if you sell off some of their markets to local companies so you will not become a monopoly.&#8221;<br />
Cingular: &#8220;OK. You got it!&#8221;<br />
[a few months pass]<br />
Cingular: &#8220;Hey everybody..want a new plan? Well we&#8217;ve decided to raise our rates right along with the bar.  &#8230;and we can do that because the Feds said that we are not a monopoly.&#8221;</p>
<p>I happen to live in one of those markets that Cingular had to sell off to a local provider, and I got screwed.  The contract was passed on, my data plan was dropped, m2m calling to ATT/Cingular was gone, and I went through H-E-double-hockey-sticks for them to let me out of the contract with no termination fee.  So now I&#8217;m with Cingular and I&#8217;m paying the more expensive rate.</p>
<p>So the best option here is to silence the hype and leave any Fed talk out&#8230;otherwise people will start thinking and I&#8217;ll have to move to Spain and denounce every living in the backasswards ASU.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Splashman</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/#comment-114337</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Splashman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/02/07/wifi-tax-maybe-not/#comment-114337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Um, &quot;maybe&quot; not?  Seems to me you ought to be a bit less ambiguous about it, considering that your original announcement http://gigaom.com/2006/02/06/bush-lets-tax-wifi/) was both unambiguous and alarmist.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This post is the equivalent of a page A34 retraction of a front-page story.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, &#8220;maybe&#8221; not?  Seems to me you ought to be a bit less ambiguous about it, considering that your original announcement <a href="http://gigaom.com/2006/02/06/bush-lets-tax-wifi/" rel="nofollow">http://gigaom.com/2006/02/06/bush-lets-tax-wifi/</a>) was both unambiguous and alarmist.</p>
<p>This post is the equivalent of a page A34 retraction of a front-page story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

