<?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: Traffic.com to power Garmin Mobile 20</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gpsreview.net/trafficcom-to-power-garmin-mobile-20/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gpsreview.net/trafficcom-to-power-garmin-mobile-20/</link>
	<description>GPS Reviews for Garmin, Magellan, TomTom, and other GPS Systems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:27:52 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: GPS Review</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsreview.net/trafficcom-to-power-garmin-mobile-20/#comment-4231</link>
		<dc:creator>GPS Review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsreview.net/trafficcom-to-power-garmin-mobile-20/#comment-4231</guid>
		<description>BWeb - I think the reason might be in the title. FM-Traffic travels over the FM radio band and therefore you would need to integrate a  FM receiver with your smartphone. Most smartphones don&#039;t come with an FM receiver.

However with traffic.com services I suspect the information is traveling over the smartphone&#039;s existing data connection. Therefore a hardware traffic receiver would not be necessary. I could be wrong, but that is my suspicion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BWeb &#8211; I think the reason might be in the title. FM-Traffic travels over the FM radio band and therefore you would need to integrate a  FM receiver with your smartphone. Most smartphones don&#8217;t come with an FM receiver.</p>
<p>However with traffic.com services I suspect the information is traveling over the smartphone&#8217;s existing data connection. Therefore a hardware traffic receiver would not be necessary. I could be wrong, but that is my suspicion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BWeb</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsreview.net/trafficcom-to-power-garmin-mobile-20/#comment-4230</link>
		<dc:creator>BWeb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:44:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsreview.net/trafficcom-to-power-garmin-mobile-20/#comment-4230</guid>
		<description>Short ads in exchange for free, _reliable_ traffic reports seems reasonable. 

Perhaps I&#039;m ignorant, but why go with traffic.com and not Clear Channel&#039;s FM-Traffic Message Channel â€” already in use with many Garmin products?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Short ads in exchange for free, _reliable_ traffic reports seems reasonable. </p>
<p>Perhaps I&#8217;m ignorant, but why go with traffic.com and not Clear Channel&#8217;s FM-Traffic Message Channel â€” already in use with many Garmin products?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CellphoneSavant</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsreview.net/trafficcom-to-power-garmin-mobile-20/#comment-4023</link>
		<dc:creator>CellphoneSavant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsreview.net/trafficcom-to-power-garmin-mobile-20/#comment-4023</guid>
		<description>I appreciate the info on the Garmin Mobile 20 software.  I am new to your blog and I really love it.  I look forward to your future posts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appreciate the info on the Garmin Mobile 20 software.  I am new to your blog and I really love it.  I look forward to your future posts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
