<?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:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FT.com&#8217;s price hike</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/09/ft-coms-price-hike/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/09/ft-coms-price-hike/</link>
	<description>A slice of lime in the soda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:01:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: KTodd</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/09/ft-coms-price-hike/comment-page-1/#comment-11894</link>
		<dc:creator>KTodd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2537#comment-11894</guid>
		<description>I think you could probably maintain a separate blog about the bizarre behavior of the FT&#039;s online policies. Last year they put on a promotion for university students that allowed me a year&#039;s worth of premium online content in exchange for becoming a &quot;fan&quot; of FT on facebook. Of course, when the year&#039;s worth of free content was up and I was faced with the prospect of shelling out around $100 per year on top of my $200 yearly print subscription, I decided to take my web-news needs elsewhere. I would be interested to see how many print subscribers actually pay the additional fee for the online subscription.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you could probably maintain a separate blog about the bizarre behavior of the FT&#8217;s online policies. Last year they put on a promotion for university students that allowed me a year&#8217;s worth of premium online content in exchange for becoming a &#8220;fan&#8221; of FT on facebook. Of course, when the year&#8217;s worth of free content was up and I was faced with the prospect of shelling out around $100 per year on top of my $200 yearly print subscription, I decided to take my web-news needs elsewhere. I would be interested to see how many print subscribers actually pay the additional fee for the online subscription.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gstern</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/09/ft-coms-price-hike/comment-page-1/#comment-11887</link>
		<dc:creator>gstern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:55:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2537#comment-11887</guid>
		<description>The Kindle sub price is going up too. This appeared in my inbox a couple days ago:

As a Kindle subscriber to the The Financial Times, you might like to know of a price change. ffective February 6th, 2010 the price of The Financial Times has changed to $14.99/month for new subscribers.

As an existing subscriber to The Financial Times you will continue to be billed at the previous rate of $9.99/month for one more year (until February 6th, 2011) after which you will be billed at the monthly rate then in effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Kindle sub price is going up too. This appeared in my inbox a couple days ago:</p>
<p>As a Kindle subscriber to the The Financial Times, you might like to know of a price change. ffective February 6th, 2010 the price of The Financial Times has changed to $14.99/month for new subscribers.</p>
<p>As an existing subscriber to The Financial Times you will continue to be billed at the previous rate of $9.99/month for one more year (until February 6th, 2011) after which you will be billed at the monthly rate then in effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
