<?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: The SEP Search Report	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/search-news-2011w25.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/search-news-2011w25.html?utm_source=feed&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=feed</link>
	<description>Canada&#039;s Search and Social Media Authority</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 19:24:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ruud Hein		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/search-news-2011w25.html/comment-page-1#comment-80162</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ruud Hein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com/?p=16773#comment-80162</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/search-news-2011w25.html/comment-page-1#comment-80157&quot;&gt;Ryan@Web Developer&lt;/a&gt;.

I&#039;m right there hoping with you, Ryan.

The issue is easy to make confusing while phrases like &quot;metered access&quot; just seem to make common sense: seems only fair ISP&#039;s should/could charge more for certain things. Of course, in fact, we&#039;re talking about limited, restricted web access the default. Scary stuff.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/search-news-2011w25.html/comment-page-1#comment-80157" data-wpel-link="internal">Ryan@Web Developer</a>.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m right there hoping with you, Ryan.</p>
<p>The issue is easy to make confusing while phrases like &#8220;metered access&#8221; just seem to make common sense: seems only fair ISP&#8217;s should/could charge more for certain things. Of course, in fact, we&#8217;re talking about limited, restricted web access the default. Scary stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ryan@Web Developer		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/search-news-2011w25.html/comment-page-1#comment-80157</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan@Web Developer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:20:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com/?p=16773#comment-80157</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;Such a law will forbid Internet providers from blocking certain Internet services and site, charging extra for them or slowing their delivery.&quot;

I am really happy to hear that some countries have started passing the Net Neutrality Laws.  Hopefully they set the tone, and the United States and Canada won&#039;t be far behind!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Such a law will forbid Internet providers from blocking certain Internet services and site, charging extra for them or slowing their delivery.&#8221;</p>
<p>I am really happy to hear that some countries have started passing the Net Neutrality Laws.  Hopefully they set the tone, and the United States and Canada won&#8217;t be far behind!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
