<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rogers&#39; VOIP Plans</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/06/28/rogers-voip-plans-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/06/28/rogers-voip-plans-2/</link>
	<description>A Canadian Take on the Web</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/06/28/rogers-voip-plans-2/#comment-357</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:10:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://markevanstech.com/?p=690#comment-357</guid>
		<description>I take it Rogers will be rolling out an access-dependent service then, like Videotron, etc?
When at home (I&#39;m not, for the summer) I am a Videotron Internet customer -- locked into the 12-month agreement.  It&#39;s not pretty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I take it Rogers will be rolling out an access-dependent service then, like Videotron, etc?<br />
When at home (I&#39;m not, for the summer) I am a Videotron Internet customer &#8212; locked into the 12-month agreement.  It&#39;s not pretty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/06/28/rogers-voip-plans-2/#comment-356</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://markevanstech.com/?p=690#comment-356</guid>
		<description>I guess there is no way around the whole bundling issue if it represents savings from the Bells of the world. What about being locked into a contract or the fact that customers of Rogers will be dependent on one network which will deny them one of great attributes of VoIP, portability. This might change once the Rogers/ Sprint integration is completed, but for my dime, I like to travel with my number.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess there is no way around the whole bundling issue if it represents savings from the Bells of the world. What about being locked into a contract or the fact that customers of Rogers will be dependent on one network which will deny them one of great attributes of VoIP, portability. This might change once the Rogers/ Sprint integration is completed, but for my dime, I like to travel with my number.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/06/28/rogers-voip-plans-2/#comment-355</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://markevanstech.com/?p=690#comment-355</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;...would probably lure me away from Sprint&lt;/em&gt;
Which is, ironically, owned by Rogers :) Is the cannibalization of their own business offset by the fact that they&#39;re moving the customer (in this case, you) off the PSTN, which is, ultimately, owned by Bell?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>&#8230;would probably lure me away from Sprint</em><br />
Which is, ironically, owned by Rogers <img src='http://www.markevanstech.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> Is the cannibalization of their own business offset by the fact that they&#39;re moving the customer (in this case, you) off the PSTN, which is, ultimately, owned by Bell?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
