<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_27_1955206</id>
	<title>Using WiMAX To Replace a Phone?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243412340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:vig@gatech.edu" rel="nofollow">vigmeister</a> writes <i>"I've decided to explore the possibility of <a href="http://www.lazyelegance.com/">using a netbook/MID as a phone</a> while eschewing the services of a cellphone provider. Now that Atlanta (where I live) has WiMAX from Clear, I ought to be connected to the Internet everywhere within the city (once I sign up). Theoretically, this should mean that I will be able to use my netbook as a cell phone. Of course, there are some very real issues to overcome and I am simply putting this experiment together to see if it is something that is realistically possible.
This could possibly extend to uncapped 3G connections (if they exist any more) as well. Are there any obvious problems you would foresee? Is there anything I have missed or any other questions I should attempt to answer in this 'experiment' of mine? A major issue is, of course, the fact that my pseudo-netbook has to be carried everywhere and always left on."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>vigmeister writes " I 've decided to explore the possibility of using a netbook/MID as a phone while eschewing the services of a cellphone provider .
Now that Atlanta ( where I live ) has WiMAX from Clear , I ought to be connected to the Internet everywhere within the city ( once I sign up ) .
Theoretically , this should mean that I will be able to use my netbook as a cell phone .
Of course , there are some very real issues to overcome and I am simply putting this experiment together to see if it is something that is realistically possible .
This could possibly extend to uncapped 3G connections ( if they exist any more ) as well .
Are there any obvious problems you would foresee ?
Is there anything I have missed or any other questions I should attempt to answer in this 'experiment ' of mine ?
A major issue is , of course , the fact that my pseudo-netbook has to be carried everywhere and always left on .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vigmeister writes "I've decided to explore the possibility of using a netbook/MID as a phone while eschewing the services of a cellphone provider.
Now that Atlanta (where I live) has WiMAX from Clear, I ought to be connected to the Internet everywhere within the city (once I sign up).
Theoretically, this should mean that I will be able to use my netbook as a cell phone.
Of course, there are some very real issues to overcome and I am simply putting this experiment together to see if it is something that is realistically possible.
This could possibly extend to uncapped 3G connections (if they exist any more) as well.
Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?
Is there anything I have missed or any other questions I should attempt to answer in this 'experiment' of mine?
A major issue is, of course, the fact that my pseudo-netbook has to be carried everywhere and always left on.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115229</id>
	<title>Re:911 Service</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1243419300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but it need not be e911 which is what would be needed to enable the location of a mobile device. Of course I don't think e911 works all that well at all. The other day I called 911 because some idiot was towing a car at very slow speed without warning lights at midnight, I spent several minutes explaining where I was and where I last saw the offending vehicle despite having a brand new Blackberry with e911 capabilities. I was talking to the highway patrol dispatcher which you would assume would be the first group to get e911 capabilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but it need not be e911 which is what would be needed to enable the location of a mobile device .
Of course I do n't think e911 works all that well at all .
The other day I called 911 because some idiot was towing a car at very slow speed without warning lights at midnight , I spent several minutes explaining where I was and where I last saw the offending vehicle despite having a brand new Blackberry with e911 capabilities .
I was talking to the highway patrol dispatcher which you would assume would be the first group to get e911 capabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but it need not be e911 which is what would be needed to enable the location of a mobile device.
Of course I don't think e911 works all that well at all.
The other day I called 911 because some idiot was towing a car at very slow speed without warning lights at midnight, I spent several minutes explaining where I was and where I last saw the offending vehicle despite having a brand new Blackberry with e911 capabilities.
I was talking to the highway patrol dispatcher which you would assume would be the first group to get e911 capabilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28120065</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243541340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you on about , just use any cellphone without a SIM in it , it should still allow you to place emergency calls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you on about , just use any cellphone without a SIM in it , it should still allow you to place emergency calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you on about , just use any cellphone without a SIM in it , it should still allow you to place emergency calls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28121215</id>
	<title>iPod Touch</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1243510200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just want to know if I can use an iPod Touch as a wifi phone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want to know if I can use an iPod Touch as a wifi phone : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want to know if I can use an iPod Touch as a wifi phone :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28121161</id>
	<title>Re:Done it</title>
	<author>muftak</author>
	<datestamp>1243509660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Child Porn Lawn Bowling? How does that work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Child Porn Lawn Bowling ?
How does that work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child Porn Lawn Bowling?
How does that work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114683</id>
	<title>Wimax phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243417500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like this idea, but I am more enamored by the idea of a Wimax enabled phone. HTC will be offering a Wimax Android phone soon I believe. This is cool, because the it's carriers can't lock down the phone since it's OSS. A even cooler solution would be deploy your own Wimax router at home and have free Internet/Voip service miles from home. When you are out of range you could use a prepaid phone..

I do think laptop Wimax Voip solution would be good especially for outgoing calls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this idea , but I am more enamored by the idea of a Wimax enabled phone .
HTC will be offering a Wimax Android phone soon I believe .
This is cool , because the it 's carriers ca n't lock down the phone since it 's OSS .
A even cooler solution would be deploy your own Wimax router at home and have free Internet/Voip service miles from home .
When you are out of range you could use a prepaid phone. . I do think laptop Wimax Voip solution would be good especially for outgoing calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this idea, but I am more enamored by the idea of a Wimax enabled phone.
HTC will be offering a Wimax Android phone soon I believe.
This is cool, because the it's carriers can't lock down the phone since it's OSS.
A even cooler solution would be deploy your own Wimax router at home and have free Internet/Voip service miles from home.
When you are out of range you could use a prepaid phone..

I do think laptop Wimax Voip solution would be good especially for outgoing calls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114391</id>
	<title>Dorian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe there will be too many retransmissions on Clear's network to make mobile voice a good choice unless they are somehow prioritizing the packets for you.</p><p>Fixed voice may be workable though...fewer reflections and no roaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there will be too many retransmissions on Clear 's network to make mobile voice a good choice unless they are somehow prioritizing the packets for you.Fixed voice may be workable though...fewer reflections and no roaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there will be too many retransmissions on Clear's network to make mobile voice a good choice unless they are somehow prioritizing the packets for you.Fixed voice may be workable though...fewer reflections and no roaming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117533</id>
	<title>There's always the cheap solution.</title>
	<author>Akir</author>
	<datestamp>1243430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>take your cell phone and duct-tape it to your netbook. Voila!<br>
Honestly, though, trying to replace your working and well-proven cell phone, and tryingt to use two very unstable technologies in it's place, is extremely stupid. Netbooks and all laptops have the terrible condition of high breakability, and WIMAX isn't everywhere. In fact, I've never even been to a place that had WIMAX service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>take your cell phone and duct-tape it to your netbook .
Voila ! Honestly , though , trying to replace your working and well-proven cell phone , and tryingt to use two very unstable technologies in it 's place , is extremely stupid .
Netbooks and all laptops have the terrible condition of high breakability , and WIMAX is n't everywhere .
In fact , I 've never even been to a place that had WIMAX service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>take your cell phone and duct-tape it to your netbook.
Voila!
Honestly, though, trying to replace your working and well-proven cell phone, and tryingt to use two very unstable technologies in it's place, is extremely stupid.
Netbooks and all laptops have the terrible condition of high breakability, and WIMAX isn't everywhere.
In fact, I've never even been to a place that had WIMAX service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114427</id>
	<title>Forwarding</title>
	<author>Aram Fingal</author>
	<datestamp>1243416420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think an important thing to consider is the ability to forward your number.  I'm thinking of doing that in general.  If I have one number which I can forward different places, I can give that out to people who want to call me and I can have it forwarded to a prepaid cell phone, my work phone or other devices as needed at any particular time.  It makes your idea much more practical and I think it's how people will do things in the future.  It also helps enable more competition in the market for mobile phone devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think an important thing to consider is the ability to forward your number .
I 'm thinking of doing that in general .
If I have one number which I can forward different places , I can give that out to people who want to call me and I can have it forwarded to a prepaid cell phone , my work phone or other devices as needed at any particular time .
It makes your idea much more practical and I think it 's how people will do things in the future .
It also helps enable more competition in the market for mobile phone devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think an important thing to consider is the ability to forward your number.
I'm thinking of doing that in general.
If I have one number which I can forward different places, I can give that out to people who want to call me and I can have it forwarded to a prepaid cell phone, my work phone or other devices as needed at any particular time.
It makes your idea much more practical and I think it's how people will do things in the future.
It also helps enable more competition in the market for mobile phone devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115439</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong tool for the wrong job.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243419900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends. I live in Portland, Oregon and tried this with Clear, Skype, and call-forwarding.

</p><p>For me personally (and I assume at least multiple other people reading this website), I primarily use my cell phone at home and at work. It works reasonably well in this situation assuming you have good coverage at both ends. The battery life is a non-issue because it is primarily plugged in. I don't answer my phone when driving anyway, so most of my friends will leave a voicemail.

</p><p>The biggest issue is network latency. It is like having a conversation over (forgive me) NAT-blocked Xbox Live. There is a very noticeable lag in the conversation.

</p><p>When going out, I used my cell phone for texts. You can have Skype transcribe your voicemails and <a href="http://www.skype.com/allfeatures/voicemail-to-text/" title="skype.com">SMS you with their contents</a> [skype.com]. Then you can respond via email/SMS.

</p><p>All in all it worked decently, although it was fairly involved to set up. I stopped using it in the end because of the lag, the fact that Clear wouldn't support the Nokia n810, and finally I got tired of lugging the netbook around. It was an interesting experiment and you could probably make do with it, but it is not very practical just yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends .
I live in Portland , Oregon and tried this with Clear , Skype , and call-forwarding .
For me personally ( and I assume at least multiple other people reading this website ) , I primarily use my cell phone at home and at work .
It works reasonably well in this situation assuming you have good coverage at both ends .
The battery life is a non-issue because it is primarily plugged in .
I do n't answer my phone when driving anyway , so most of my friends will leave a voicemail .
The biggest issue is network latency .
It is like having a conversation over ( forgive me ) NAT-blocked Xbox Live .
There is a very noticeable lag in the conversation .
When going out , I used my cell phone for texts .
You can have Skype transcribe your voicemails and SMS you with their contents [ skype.com ] .
Then you can respond via email/SMS .
All in all it worked decently , although it was fairly involved to set up .
I stopped using it in the end because of the lag , the fact that Clear would n't support the Nokia n810 , and finally I got tired of lugging the netbook around .
It was an interesting experiment and you could probably make do with it , but it is not very practical just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends.
I live in Portland, Oregon and tried this with Clear, Skype, and call-forwarding.
For me personally (and I assume at least multiple other people reading this website), I primarily use my cell phone at home and at work.
It works reasonably well in this situation assuming you have good coverage at both ends.
The battery life is a non-issue because it is primarily plugged in.
I don't answer my phone when driving anyway, so most of my friends will leave a voicemail.
The biggest issue is network latency.
It is like having a conversation over (forgive me) NAT-blocked Xbox Live.
There is a very noticeable lag in the conversation.
When going out, I used my cell phone for texts.
You can have Skype transcribe your voicemails and SMS you with their contents [skype.com].
Then you can respond via email/SMS.
All in all it worked decently, although it was fairly involved to set up.
I stopped using it in the end because of the lag, the fact that Clear wouldn't support the Nokia n810, and finally I got tired of lugging the netbook around.
It was an interesting experiment and you could probably make do with it, but it is not very practical just yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114599</id>
	<title>lots of problems...</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1243417140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?</p></div><p>Battery life is going to be a big one.  Netbooks have better battery life than, say, full-size laptops...  But it still isn't much compared to your average cell phone.  Especially since you're going to have to keep the thing powered up at all times.  No sleep, no hibernate, nada.  And wireless connectivity typically drains the battery faster.</p><p>You'll want some kind of headset/earpiece/whatever...  Unless you're just going to do the speakerphone thing all the time.  If you go with bluetooth that will be another wirless connection, which will drain your battery faster.</p><p>Dialing 911 will be an issue.  I don't know what you plan on using to terminate your end of the call...  Skype?  Some generic SIP provider?  But you'll want to make sure they've got some way of handling 911 calls.</p><p>Also, depending on who's terminating your end of the call, voicemail and whatnot could be an issue.  If you wander out of coverage, or run out of batteries, or drop your netbook down a flight of stairs what'll happen?  Will people get voicemail?  Or will it just ring forever?</p><p>And that raises the question of coverage...  You indicate that there's city-wide WiMAX now...  But cell phones can roam nation-wide.  If you travel much this could be a real issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee ? Battery life is going to be a big one .
Netbooks have better battery life than , say , full-size laptops... But it still is n't much compared to your average cell phone .
Especially since you 're going to have to keep the thing powered up at all times .
No sleep , no hibernate , nada .
And wireless connectivity typically drains the battery faster.You 'll want some kind of headset/earpiece/whatever... Unless you 're just going to do the speakerphone thing all the time .
If you go with bluetooth that will be another wirless connection , which will drain your battery faster.Dialing 911 will be an issue .
I do n't know what you plan on using to terminate your end of the call... Skype ? Some generic SIP provider ?
But you 'll want to make sure they 've got some way of handling 911 calls.Also , depending on who 's terminating your end of the call , voicemail and whatnot could be an issue .
If you wander out of coverage , or run out of batteries , or drop your netbook down a flight of stairs what 'll happen ?
Will people get voicemail ?
Or will it just ring forever ? And that raises the question of coverage... You indicate that there 's city-wide WiMAX now... But cell phones can roam nation-wide .
If you travel much this could be a real issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?Battery life is going to be a big one.
Netbooks have better battery life than, say, full-size laptops...  But it still isn't much compared to your average cell phone.
Especially since you're going to have to keep the thing powered up at all times.
No sleep, no hibernate, nada.
And wireless connectivity typically drains the battery faster.You'll want some kind of headset/earpiece/whatever...  Unless you're just going to do the speakerphone thing all the time.
If you go with bluetooth that will be another wirless connection, which will drain your battery faster.Dialing 911 will be an issue.
I don't know what you plan on using to terminate your end of the call...  Skype?  Some generic SIP provider?
But you'll want to make sure they've got some way of handling 911 calls.Also, depending on who's terminating your end of the call, voicemail and whatnot could be an issue.
If you wander out of coverage, or run out of batteries, or drop your netbook down a flight of stairs what'll happen?
Will people get voicemail?
Or will it just ring forever?And that raises the question of coverage...  You indicate that there's city-wide WiMAX now...  But cell phones can roam nation-wide.
If you travel much this could be a real issue.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114629</id>
	<title>N810 Wimax Edition</title>
	<author>Simon80</author>
	<datestamp>1243417200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably a better choice than a netbook, since it's closer to cell phone size. Battery life is probably still an issue, however. I'm also not sure how possible it is to obtain one anymore, so you probably shouldn't procrastinate.</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia\_N810#Nokia\_N810\_WiMAX\_Edition" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia\_N810#Nokia\_N810\_WiMAX\_Edition</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably a better choice than a netbook , since it 's closer to cell phone size .
Battery life is probably still an issue , however .
I 'm also not sure how possible it is to obtain one anymore , so you probably should n't procrastinate .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia \ _N810 # Nokia \ _N810 \ _WiMAX \ _Edition [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably a better choice than a netbook, since it's closer to cell phone size.
Battery life is probably still an issue, however.
I'm also not sure how possible it is to obtain one anymore, so you probably shouldn't procrastinate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia\_N810#Nokia\_N810\_WiMAX\_Edition [wikipedia.org] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114551</id>
	<title>Re:911 Service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243416960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If VOIP is being offered a as service then the voice provider is required to implement 911.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If VOIP is being offered a as service then the voice provider is required to implement 911 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If VOIP is being offered a as service then the voice provider is required to implement 911.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114387</id>
	<title>Problems</title>
	<author>rob1980</author>
	<datestamp>1243416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?</i> <br> <br>
How are you going to dial 911?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee ?
How are you going to dial 911 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?
How are you going to dial 911?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28119915</id>
	<title>Hopefully Informational</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok,</p><p>I'll bite.  I have eMobile 3G wireless and a small netbook.  The old one was 8.1/384, which had issues staying connected on skype.  Specifically the outbound UDP buffer would fill up.  I suspect that 384 is plenty enough but in areas with worse signals it might get much less than that for periods of time long enough to cause issues...</p><p>They recently switched to HSUPA which has now 8.1/5.8, which is more than enough to keep skype happy (even skype video!)  I have a netbook, and yes, now I can use it while walking around outside, on the train, wherever.  In fact, this one even is slim enough to fit in my pocket of a coat AND it has bluetooth, making it more realistic to use than most... but a few issues:<br>a. you need to set windows (or whatever) to NOT sleep when you close the lid if you want it to be able to close the laptop and carry it around while talking.<br>b. obviously the battery won't last as long as a cell phone, but if you keep the screen off and the HDD spun down it should last a while<br>c. When you get an incoming call, you might have to open the laptop to answer it.  To make an outcoming call you certainly will, unless you have one of those USB skype handsets or something.</p><p>WiMax.. the speed is better but the coverage is not nearly as good, so I expect as you are walking around it has a much greater chance of cutting out.  probably better to use stationary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok,I 'll bite .
I have eMobile 3G wireless and a small netbook .
The old one was 8.1/384 , which had issues staying connected on skype .
Specifically the outbound UDP buffer would fill up .
I suspect that 384 is plenty enough but in areas with worse signals it might get much less than that for periods of time long enough to cause issues...They recently switched to HSUPA which has now 8.1/5.8 , which is more than enough to keep skype happy ( even skype video !
) I have a netbook , and yes , now I can use it while walking around outside , on the train , wherever .
In fact , this one even is slim enough to fit in my pocket of a coat AND it has bluetooth , making it more realistic to use than most... but a few issues : a. you need to set windows ( or whatever ) to NOT sleep when you close the lid if you want it to be able to close the laptop and carry it around while talking.b .
obviously the battery wo n't last as long as a cell phone , but if you keep the screen off and the HDD spun down it should last a whilec .
When you get an incoming call , you might have to open the laptop to answer it .
To make an outcoming call you certainly will , unless you have one of those USB skype handsets or something.WiMax.. the speed is better but the coverage is not nearly as good , so I expect as you are walking around it has a much greater chance of cutting out .
probably better to use stationary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok,I'll bite.
I have eMobile 3G wireless and a small netbook.
The old one was 8.1/384, which had issues staying connected on skype.
Specifically the outbound UDP buffer would fill up.
I suspect that 384 is plenty enough but in areas with worse signals it might get much less than that for periods of time long enough to cause issues...They recently switched to HSUPA which has now 8.1/5.8, which is more than enough to keep skype happy (even skype video!
)  I have a netbook, and yes, now I can use it while walking around outside, on the train, wherever.
In fact, this one even is slim enough to fit in my pocket of a coat AND it has bluetooth, making it more realistic to use than most... but a few issues:a. you need to set windows (or whatever) to NOT sleep when you close the lid if you want it to be able to close the laptop and carry it around while talking.b.
obviously the battery won't last as long as a cell phone, but if you keep the screen off and the HDD spun down it should last a whilec.
When you get an incoming call, you might have to open the laptop to answer it.
To make an outcoming call you certainly will, unless you have one of those USB skype handsets or something.WiMax.. the speed is better but the coverage is not nearly as good, so I expect as you are walking around it has a much greater chance of cutting out.
probably better to use stationary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355</id>
	<title>911 Service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243416180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of voip services don't support 911 calls, which is something you can ignore 'most of the time' but would certainly want in some situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of voip services do n't support 911 calls , which is something you can ignore 'most of the time ' but would certainly want in some situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of voip services don't support 911 calls, which is something you can ignore 'most of the time' but would certainly want in some situations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114459</id>
	<title>Answered your own question</title>
	<author>SashaMan</author>
	<datestamp>1243416600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say:</p><p><i>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?</i></p><p>and then a sentence later:</p><p><i>A major issue is, of course, the fact that my pseudo-netbook has to be carried everywhere and left always on.</i></p><p>I would consider this a pretty big obvious problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say : Are there any obvious problems you would foresee ? and then a sentence later : A major issue is , of course , the fact that my pseudo-netbook has to be carried everywhere and left always on.I would consider this a pretty big obvious problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say:Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?and then a sentence later:A major issue is, of course, the fact that my pseudo-netbook has to be carried everywhere and left always on.I would consider this a pretty big obvious problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114495</id>
	<title>Does Clear allow VOIP?</title>
	<author>Sean0michael</author>
	<datestamp>1243416720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I  use Clearwire's regular wireless internet here in Seattle. They block Skype traffic to promote their own VIOP plan for an extra $10-15/month. They might not let you use your netbook as a cell phone without ponying up extra $$.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Clearwire 's regular wireless internet here in Seattle .
They block Skype traffic to promote their own VIOP plan for an extra $ 10-15/month .
They might not let you use your netbook as a cell phone without ponying up extra $ $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I  use Clearwire's regular wireless internet here in Seattle.
They block Skype traffic to promote their own VIOP plan for an extra $10-15/month.
They might not let you use your netbook as a cell phone without ponying up extra $$.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114377</id>
	<title>You're delusional</title>
	<author>realmolo</author>
	<datestamp>1243416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't *honestly* think that you're going to get WiMAX coverage everywhere you go, do you? WiMAX isn't magic. It has most of the same limitations that regular 802.11 b/g has. It's an *improvement*, but you still aren't going to get good signal inside of most public buildings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't * honestly * think that you 're going to get WiMAX coverage everywhere you go , do you ?
WiMAX is n't magic .
It has most of the same limitations that regular 802.11 b/g has .
It 's an * improvement * , but you still are n't going to get good signal inside of most public buildings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't *honestly* think that you're going to get WiMAX coverage everywhere you go, do you?
WiMAX isn't magic.
It has most of the same limitations that regular 802.11 b/g has.
It's an *improvement*, but you still aren't going to get good signal inside of most public buildings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114471</id>
	<title>Ubiquity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243416660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't you see phones that only support the 3G protocols?
<p>
Because they're not ubiquitous.  You will end up somewhere where coverage isn't so great for your new protocol.  If you can handoff to an older protocol, you will keep your connection.  So this is why even a few years ago you could get Verizon phones that still supported AMPS, why every phone that supports EV-DO also supports 1X (and older standards), and why every phone with WCDMA/HSDPA/HSUPA/etc still supports plain old GSM/GPRS/EDGE.
</p><p>
It's also why it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a WiMAX only phone.  You need at least WiMAX+GSM, or WiMAX+CDMA1X.  You need to be able to hand off to the older interfaces.  And probably you want to support everything... WiMAX when it's available, HSDPA or WCDMA when that's available but WiMAX isn't, or GSM/GPRS/EDGE when that's all that's available.
</p><p>
Or maybe you never leave downtown Atlanta.  Then maybe WiMAX-only would be fine, assuming you trust the reliability of the relatively new network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you see phones that only support the 3G protocols ?
Because they 're not ubiquitous .
You will end up somewhere where coverage is n't so great for your new protocol .
If you can handoff to an older protocol , you will keep your connection .
So this is why even a few years ago you could get Verizon phones that still supported AMPS , why every phone that supports EV-DO also supports 1X ( and older standards ) , and why every phone with WCDMA/HSDPA/HSUPA/etc still supports plain old GSM/GPRS/EDGE .
It 's also why it does n't make a lot of sense to have a WiMAX only phone .
You need at least WiMAX + GSM , or WiMAX + CDMA1X .
You need to be able to hand off to the older interfaces .
And probably you want to support everything... WiMAX when it 's available , HSDPA or WCDMA when that 's available but WiMAX is n't , or GSM/GPRS/EDGE when that 's all that 's available .
Or maybe you never leave downtown Atlanta .
Then maybe WiMAX-only would be fine , assuming you trust the reliability of the relatively new network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you see phones that only support the 3G protocols?
Because they're not ubiquitous.
You will end up somewhere where coverage isn't so great for your new protocol.
If you can handoff to an older protocol, you will keep your connection.
So this is why even a few years ago you could get Verizon phones that still supported AMPS, why every phone that supports EV-DO also supports 1X (and older standards), and why every phone with WCDMA/HSDPA/HSUPA/etc still supports plain old GSM/GPRS/EDGE.
It's also why it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a WiMAX only phone.
You need at least WiMAX+GSM, or WiMAX+CDMA1X.
You need to be able to hand off to the older interfaces.
And probably you want to support everything... WiMAX when it's available, HSDPA or WCDMA when that's available but WiMAX isn't, or GSM/GPRS/EDGE when that's all that's available.
Or maybe you never leave downtown Atlanta.
Then maybe WiMAX-only would be fine, assuming you trust the reliability of the relatively new network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035</id>
	<title>Re:Problem?  Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1243418700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>911 is overrated.<br>The chances that you are going to really, life-or-death, need it are pretty small.<br>Maybe if you live with a bunch of people who've already got medical conditions - maybe.<br>But I'm pretty confident that even in almost all of those cases, a delay of a couple of minutes wouldn't make a bit of difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>911 is overrated.The chances that you are going to really , life-or-death , need it are pretty small.Maybe if you live with a bunch of people who 've already got medical conditions - maybe.But I 'm pretty confident that even in almost all of those cases , a delay of a couple of minutes would n't make a bit of difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>911 is overrated.The chances that you are going to really, life-or-death, need it are pretty small.Maybe if you live with a bunch of people who've already got medical conditions - maybe.But I'm pretty confident that even in almost all of those cases, a delay of a couple of minutes wouldn't make a bit of difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114485</id>
	<title>Coming Soon</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1243416720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I would first and foremost look at their coverage map for Atlanta, and see all the sections, even in the middle of the city, that are marked as "coming soon", and make darn sure that I would get a signal in the areas I needed it.  One thing i've noticed with sprint(who owns a big chunk of clear), is their coverage maps (and I'm assuming all the companies do) Lie on the maps.  just cause the map says its good signal there, doesn't mean it really is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I would first and foremost look at their coverage map for Atlanta , and see all the sections , even in the middle of the city , that are marked as " coming soon " , and make darn sure that I would get a signal in the areas I needed it .
One thing i 've noticed with sprint ( who owns a big chunk of clear ) , is their coverage maps ( and I 'm assuming all the companies do ) Lie on the maps .
just cause the map says its good signal there , does n't mean it really is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I would first and foremost look at their coverage map for Atlanta, and see all the sections, even in the middle of the city, that are marked as "coming soon", and make darn sure that I would get a signal in the areas I needed it.
One thing i've noticed with sprint(who owns a big chunk of clear), is their coverage maps (and I'm assuming all the companies do) Lie on the maps.
just cause the map says its good signal there, doesn't mean it really is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625</id>
	<title>Problem?   Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243417200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?</p></div><p>"Oh my god, someone call 9-1-1!"</p><p>"Hang on, let me get my computer out of suspend...</p><p>And put my headset on...</p><p>Ok, I am dialing...</p><p>Hello, yes, emergency-- What?  You are the 9-1-1 dispatch center where?  Tulsa?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee ?
" Oh my god , someone call 9-1-1 !
" " Hang on , let me get my computer out of suspend...And put my headset on...Ok , I am dialing...Hello , yes , emergency-- What ?
You are the 9-1-1 dispatch center where ?
Tulsa ? "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any obvious problems you would foresee?
"Oh my god, someone call 9-1-1!
""Hang on, let me get my computer out of suspend...And put my headset on...Ok, I am dialing...Hello, yes, emergency-- What?
You are the 9-1-1 dispatch center where?
Tulsa?"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115011</id>
	<title>Re:911 Service</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1243418700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're mobile, you wouldn't care if 911 is supported - the operator wouldn't have your location.  You'd carry around your old cell phone with no contract or service for that job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're mobile , you would n't care if 911 is supported - the operator would n't have your location .
You 'd carry around your old cell phone with no contract or service for that job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're mobile, you wouldn't care if 911 is supported - the operator wouldn't have your location.
You'd carry around your old cell phone with no contract or service for that job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114783</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>Nick Number</author>
	<datestamp>1243417860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Snark aside, under extreme stress (such as that which might prompt a person to call 911), dialing can indeed be a problem.
<br> <br>
A chapter of Malcolm Gladwell's book <i>Blink</i> examines how people can make seemingly obvious errors in situations where they feel threatened.  Their "animal brain" kicks in, and higher functions are pushed aside.  As a result, would-be callers often hit the wrong numbers, forget to hit Send, etc.
<br> <br>
One expert recommended that everyone spend some time practicing dialing 911 so that their brains are adequately prepared to do it under stress.  It's an odd image but it might be a good idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Snark aside , under extreme stress ( such as that which might prompt a person to call 911 ) , dialing can indeed be a problem .
A chapter of Malcolm Gladwell 's book Blink examines how people can make seemingly obvious errors in situations where they feel threatened .
Their " animal brain " kicks in , and higher functions are pushed aside .
As a result , would-be callers often hit the wrong numbers , forget to hit Send , etc .
One expert recommended that everyone spend some time practicing dialing 911 so that their brains are adequately prepared to do it under stress .
It 's an odd image but it might be a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Snark aside, under extreme stress (such as that which might prompt a person to call 911), dialing can indeed be a problem.
A chapter of Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink examines how people can make seemingly obvious errors in situations where they feel threatened.
Their "animal brain" kicks in, and higher functions are pushed aside.
As a result, would-be callers often hit the wrong numbers, forget to hit Send, etc.
One expert recommended that everyone spend some time practicing dialing 911 so that their brains are adequately prepared to do it under stress.
It's an odd image but it might be a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116813</id>
	<title>Re:Ubiquity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243426020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another way to view this fundamental  wrong-tool-for-the-job issue is in considering the information rate you need to support for a phone call, by comparing a 2-way audio channel at ~10 kbps with a 3G data channel at whatever you call 3G but lots more than 10 kbps.
  This "3G overhead" in both up and downlink directions requires a better radio path than for the same audio call, everything else equal. Less energy needs to be transmitted for the audio call. While protocols can play games with this fundamental fact (as does EVDO by forking over the *entire* base station carrier to one user at a time and time-slicing (oversubscribing)) the fundamental service, there's no free lunch. Your limited battery and antenna size limit the range at which you can communicate with a given hot-spot/cell-site and requires that there be higher site density to serve a given user base.

This means that a WiMax solution will fundamentally be more expensive than an old voice-only solution. In the end (whenever it all catches up with the user) this will be more expensive. Simultaneous higher data rates to all users (3G) takes more capacity/coverage than 2G. You can borrow coverage from capacity and vice-versa but someone has to pay and in the WiMax case payment will probably be initially in the form of reduced coverage area and more expensive plans. If it hasn't already hit the wall as in the case of 3G (notice how US coverage is only a few percent of the geography compared to 2G?) it will definitely do so with 4G. WiMax can throttle down to something around 1 Mbps but not a lot lower. There's 100:1 (20 dB) difference in energy delivery requirements between these two rates. This fundamental system cost is going to keep it from being an effective replacement for audio-only communications.

n6gn</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another way to view this fundamental wrong-tool-for-the-job issue is in considering the information rate you need to support for a phone call , by comparing a 2-way audio channel at ~ 10 kbps with a 3G data channel at whatever you call 3G but lots more than 10 kbps .
This " 3G overhead " in both up and downlink directions requires a better radio path than for the same audio call , everything else equal .
Less energy needs to be transmitted for the audio call .
While protocols can play games with this fundamental fact ( as does EVDO by forking over the * entire * base station carrier to one user at a time and time-slicing ( oversubscribing ) ) the fundamental service , there 's no free lunch .
Your limited battery and antenna size limit the range at which you can communicate with a given hot-spot/cell-site and requires that there be higher site density to serve a given user base .
This means that a WiMax solution will fundamentally be more expensive than an old voice-only solution .
In the end ( whenever it all catches up with the user ) this will be more expensive .
Simultaneous higher data rates to all users ( 3G ) takes more capacity/coverage than 2G .
You can borrow coverage from capacity and vice-versa but someone has to pay and in the WiMax case payment will probably be initially in the form of reduced coverage area and more expensive plans .
If it has n't already hit the wall as in the case of 3G ( notice how US coverage is only a few percent of the geography compared to 2G ?
) it will definitely do so with 4G .
WiMax can throttle down to something around 1 Mbps but not a lot lower .
There 's 100 : 1 ( 20 dB ) difference in energy delivery requirements between these two rates .
This fundamental system cost is going to keep it from being an effective replacement for audio-only communications .
n6gn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another way to view this fundamental  wrong-tool-for-the-job issue is in considering the information rate you need to support for a phone call, by comparing a 2-way audio channel at ~10 kbps with a 3G data channel at whatever you call 3G but lots more than 10 kbps.
This "3G overhead" in both up and downlink directions requires a better radio path than for the same audio call, everything else equal.
Less energy needs to be transmitted for the audio call.
While protocols can play games with this fundamental fact (as does EVDO by forking over the *entire* base station carrier to one user at a time and time-slicing (oversubscribing)) the fundamental service, there's no free lunch.
Your limited battery and antenna size limit the range at which you can communicate with a given hot-spot/cell-site and requires that there be higher site density to serve a given user base.
This means that a WiMax solution will fundamentally be more expensive than an old voice-only solution.
In the end (whenever it all catches up with the user) this will be more expensive.
Simultaneous higher data rates to all users (3G) takes more capacity/coverage than 2G.
You can borrow coverage from capacity and vice-versa but someone has to pay and in the WiMax case payment will probably be initially in the form of reduced coverage area and more expensive plans.
If it hasn't already hit the wall as in the case of 3G (notice how US coverage is only a few percent of the geography compared to 2G?
) it will definitely do so with 4G.
WiMax can throttle down to something around 1 Mbps but not a lot lower.
There's 100:1 (20 dB) difference in energy delivery requirements between these two rates.
This fundamental system cost is going to keep it from being an effective replacement for audio-only communications.
n6gn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28118495</id>
	<title>Tower Hopping?</title>
	<author>Edward Nardella</author>
	<datestamp>1243438200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where I am there is no tower hopping protocol implemented for Wi-Max the tech rep said that if I were driving through traffic I might be lucky to connect 30 seconds before I am out of range.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I am there is no tower hopping protocol implemented for Wi-Max the tech rep said that if I were driving through traffic I might be lucky to connect 30 seconds before I am out of range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I am there is no tower hopping protocol implemented for Wi-Max the tech rep said that if I were driving through traffic I might be lucky to connect 30 seconds before I am out of range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117199</id>
	<title>Your Atlanta WiMAX is from Clearwire</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1243428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Atlanta WiMAX is from Clearwire:</p><p>They charge an extra $25/month to unblock VoIP, and they are currently only trialing in Portland, Oregon right now:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.fiercevoip.com/story/clearwire-tests-wimax-mobile-voip-phones/2009-03-20" title="fiercevoip.com">http://www.fiercevoip.com/story/clearwire-tests-wimax-mobile-voip-phones/2009-03-20</a> [fiercevoip.com]</p><p>If you want VoIP from their service, you will need to use their routers and their software, which apparently makes a TCP connection to a back-end server, and then VoIPs from there (this also lets them comply with CALEA wire-tap orders from the authorities by making sure your connection is in the clear, the same way it is for AIM internally to the AOL servers).</p><p>For the people talking about 911, the 911 service in Mobile phones is on a different, higher-power, prioritized frequency supporting triangulation of the signal source, rather than trusting a GPS in the phone.  Since Clearwire is talking to handset vendors about hand-off between WiMAX and the  proprietary cell networks, it's pretty clear that they are not intending to position themselves as a cellular service competitor, which probably means both vendor agreements and that the VoIP-enabled handset, when used to dial 911, will go through the standard cellular network.</p><p>The most likely vendor agreement would be a "network sparing" agreement that kept you off VoIP if a cellular network was available to be used instead, which would be used to lock you into a cellular service contract, just like any other cell phone (why would they give up their business model if they didn't have to?).</p><p>If your Netbook runs Windows, then you might be lucky enough for it to run Clearwire's proprietary VoIP software; if you are on Linux, you are out of luck (the articles I read on this didn't mention Mac OS X, so using the "corporate rule of lazy", that's probably not supported either.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Atlanta WiMAX is from Clearwire : They charge an extra $ 25/month to unblock VoIP , and they are currently only trialing in Portland , Oregon right now :         http : //www.fiercevoip.com/story/clearwire-tests-wimax-mobile-voip-phones/2009-03-20 [ fiercevoip.com ] If you want VoIP from their service , you will need to use their routers and their software , which apparently makes a TCP connection to a back-end server , and then VoIPs from there ( this also lets them comply with CALEA wire-tap orders from the authorities by making sure your connection is in the clear , the same way it is for AIM internally to the AOL servers ) .For the people talking about 911 , the 911 service in Mobile phones is on a different , higher-power , prioritized frequency supporting triangulation of the signal source , rather than trusting a GPS in the phone .
Since Clearwire is talking to handset vendors about hand-off between WiMAX and the proprietary cell networks , it 's pretty clear that they are not intending to position themselves as a cellular service competitor , which probably means both vendor agreements and that the VoIP-enabled handset , when used to dial 911 , will go through the standard cellular network.The most likely vendor agreement would be a " network sparing " agreement that kept you off VoIP if a cellular network was available to be used instead , which would be used to lock you into a cellular service contract , just like any other cell phone ( why would they give up their business model if they did n't have to ?
) .If your Netbook runs Windows , then you might be lucky enough for it to run Clearwire 's proprietary VoIP software ; if you are on Linux , you are out of luck ( the articles I read on this did n't mention Mac OS X , so using the " corporate rule of lazy " , that 's probably not supported either.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Atlanta WiMAX is from Clearwire:They charge an extra $25/month to unblock VoIP, and they are currently only trialing in Portland, Oregon right now:
        http://www.fiercevoip.com/story/clearwire-tests-wimax-mobile-voip-phones/2009-03-20 [fiercevoip.com]If you want VoIP from their service, you will need to use their routers and their software, which apparently makes a TCP connection to a back-end server, and then VoIPs from there (this also lets them comply with CALEA wire-tap orders from the authorities by making sure your connection is in the clear, the same way it is for AIM internally to the AOL servers).For the people talking about 911, the 911 service in Mobile phones is on a different, higher-power, prioritized frequency supporting triangulation of the signal source, rather than trusting a GPS in the phone.
Since Clearwire is talking to handset vendors about hand-off between WiMAX and the  proprietary cell networks, it's pretty clear that they are not intending to position themselves as a cellular service competitor, which probably means both vendor agreements and that the VoIP-enabled handset, when used to dial 911, will go through the standard cellular network.The most likely vendor agreement would be a "network sparing" agreement that kept you off VoIP if a cellular network was available to be used instead, which would be used to lock you into a cellular service contract, just like any other cell phone (why would they give up their business model if they didn't have to?
).If your Netbook runs Windows, then you might be lucky enough for it to run Clearwire's proprietary VoIP software; if you are on Linux, you are out of luck (the articles I read on this didn't mention Mac OS X, so using the "corporate rule of lazy", that's probably not supported either.-- Terry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115471</id>
	<title>Re:911 Service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243420020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually a lot of them *do* provide 911 services. Besides VoIP providers recently being granted interconnection rights for PSAP access, which solved many of the initial problems, basic 911 access is now required on consumer VoIP lines and any differences from wireline 911 must be disclosed:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip911.html" title="fcc.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip911.html</a> [fcc.gov]</p><p>In metro Atlanta he's likely to have full access to an appropriate PSAP, so his only real limitation is that they will get his home address rather than his current location. That may be annoying if you're not in a position to communicate your location, but it seemed to be good enough for cell phones for several decades -- it's only recently that any mobile voice service provides detailed, up-to-date location information for emergency calls. And depending on the provider and capabilities of the netbook it may even be possible to provide location updates on a regular basis to ensure that his current location *is* transmitted to the PSAP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually a lot of them * do * provide 911 services .
Besides VoIP providers recently being granted interconnection rights for PSAP access , which solved many of the initial problems , basic 911 access is now required on consumer VoIP lines and any differences from wireline 911 must be disclosed :         http : //www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip911.html [ fcc.gov ] In metro Atlanta he 's likely to have full access to an appropriate PSAP , so his only real limitation is that they will get his home address rather than his current location .
That may be annoying if you 're not in a position to communicate your location , but it seemed to be good enough for cell phones for several decades -- it 's only recently that any mobile voice service provides detailed , up-to-date location information for emergency calls .
And depending on the provider and capabilities of the netbook it may even be possible to provide location updates on a regular basis to ensure that his current location * is * transmitted to the PSAP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually a lot of them *do* provide 911 services.
Besides VoIP providers recently being granted interconnection rights for PSAP access, which solved many of the initial problems, basic 911 access is now required on consumer VoIP lines and any differences from wireline 911 must be disclosed:
        http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip911.html [fcc.gov]In metro Atlanta he's likely to have full access to an appropriate PSAP, so his only real limitation is that they will get his home address rather than his current location.
That may be annoying if you're not in a position to communicate your location, but it seemed to be good enough for cell phones for several decades -- it's only recently that any mobile voice service provides detailed, up-to-date location information for emergency calls.
And depending on the provider and capabilities of the netbook it may even be possible to provide location updates on a regular basis to ensure that his current location *is* transmitted to the PSAP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116627</id>
	<title>Easy... works great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243425000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://lifehacker.com/378511/turn-your-ipod-touch-into-an-iphone</p><p>Of cause there is Skype as well (Skype-In, Skype-Out) and Gizmo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //lifehacker.com/378511/turn-your-ipod-touch-into-an-iphoneOf cause there is Skype as well ( Skype-In , Skype-Out ) and Gizmo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://lifehacker.com/378511/turn-your-ipod-touch-into-an-iphoneOf cause there is Skype as well (Skype-In, Skype-Out) and Gizmo</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115277</id>
	<title>It wouldn't be that bad</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1243419480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems like the arguments against this can be put in 3 categories.  911, battery life and coverage.
<br> <br>
I would think that if you are viewing this as a "cell"phone replacement then it would obviously fail on all 3.
<br> <br>
I remember being able to live without a cellphone.  In fact, I miss it.  I find it very annoying that in our cellphone enamoured society my friends and relatives feel "entitled" to talk to me whenever, wherever I might be.  I don't want to talk to someone as I go through the checkout line in the grocery store.  I find it annoying to try to understand someone who will not speak up when I am driving my Jeep. It's loud in there. Let alone the safety issues!  I'd rather call people back when it's convenient for me.  Just like I would have with an answering machine and a landline about 12 years ago.  Does this make me old?  I am only 29.
<br> <br>
That in mind I too have considered what the author is asking though I would use a more portable form, some sort of PDA rather than a netbook.
<br> <br>
I would keep separate power adapters in my office at work, one at home and a third in my car.  Most of the time I would be in one of those places and could plug it in.  Don't want to be tethered to the plug?  Use bluetooth! If I don't get a signal in my car then oh-well.  I know how to change a tire! That about takes care of the power problem. It just doesn't have to be on every moment I am not in one of those places.  If I need to make a call, that's when I would turn it on and use the battery.
<br> <br>
As for coverage... wifi at home and work are easy.  Your mileage will vary at work but I doubt many on this site don't have it at home. Anywhere else it works... that's just a bonus.
<br> <br>
Think you have too much of a social life to not be always connected?  Do you think you will miss too much because you're out?  I think not... you are on Slashdot!  Seriously though, I was a college student with one of the busiest lives I knew just before I got my first cellphone.  Missing calls didn't stop me, if I missed it then I was already busy!  If I missed too many calls then maybe I would have ended up at home, but then I wouldn't miss the next call.  See how that works?!
<br> <br>
Now, 911.  This issue has been brought up against every form of VoIP since the begining.  I have to ask... does it really matter that much?  Honestly, I don't know the answer to this but don't the 911 operators have the ability to transfer to one another quickly?  If not then this is a problem the public should be crying to see addressed!  What if a call was coming in via radio or some other third party method where the person making the call is not in the same local as the emergency.  Hasn't there always been a need for 911 calls to be transfered?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like the arguments against this can be put in 3 categories .
911 , battery life and coverage .
I would think that if you are viewing this as a " cell " phone replacement then it would obviously fail on all 3 .
I remember being able to live without a cellphone .
In fact , I miss it .
I find it very annoying that in our cellphone enamoured society my friends and relatives feel " entitled " to talk to me whenever , wherever I might be .
I do n't want to talk to someone as I go through the checkout line in the grocery store .
I find it annoying to try to understand someone who will not speak up when I am driving my Jeep .
It 's loud in there .
Let alone the safety issues !
I 'd rather call people back when it 's convenient for me .
Just like I would have with an answering machine and a landline about 12 years ago .
Does this make me old ?
I am only 29 .
That in mind I too have considered what the author is asking though I would use a more portable form , some sort of PDA rather than a netbook .
I would keep separate power adapters in my office at work , one at home and a third in my car .
Most of the time I would be in one of those places and could plug it in .
Do n't want to be tethered to the plug ?
Use bluetooth !
If I do n't get a signal in my car then oh-well .
I know how to change a tire !
That about takes care of the power problem .
It just does n't have to be on every moment I am not in one of those places .
If I need to make a call , that 's when I would turn it on and use the battery .
As for coverage... wifi at home and work are easy .
Your mileage will vary at work but I doubt many on this site do n't have it at home .
Anywhere else it works... that 's just a bonus .
Think you have too much of a social life to not be always connected ?
Do you think you will miss too much because you 're out ?
I think not... you are on Slashdot !
Seriously though , I was a college student with one of the busiest lives I knew just before I got my first cellphone .
Missing calls did n't stop me , if I missed it then I was already busy !
If I missed too many calls then maybe I would have ended up at home , but then I would n't miss the next call .
See how that works ? !
Now , 911 .
This issue has been brought up against every form of VoIP since the begining .
I have to ask... does it really matter that much ?
Honestly , I do n't know the answer to this but do n't the 911 operators have the ability to transfer to one another quickly ?
If not then this is a problem the public should be crying to see addressed !
What if a call was coming in via radio or some other third party method where the person making the call is not in the same local as the emergency .
Has n't there always been a need for 911 calls to be transfered ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like the arguments against this can be put in 3 categories.
911, battery life and coverage.
I would think that if you are viewing this as a "cell"phone replacement then it would obviously fail on all 3.
I remember being able to live without a cellphone.
In fact, I miss it.
I find it very annoying that in our cellphone enamoured society my friends and relatives feel "entitled" to talk to me whenever, wherever I might be.
I don't want to talk to someone as I go through the checkout line in the grocery store.
I find it annoying to try to understand someone who will not speak up when I am driving my Jeep.
It's loud in there.
Let alone the safety issues!
I'd rather call people back when it's convenient for me.
Just like I would have with an answering machine and a landline about 12 years ago.
Does this make me old?
I am only 29.
That in mind I too have considered what the author is asking though I would use a more portable form, some sort of PDA rather than a netbook.
I would keep separate power adapters in my office at work, one at home and a third in my car.
Most of the time I would be in one of those places and could plug it in.
Don't want to be tethered to the plug?
Use bluetooth!
If I don't get a signal in my car then oh-well.
I know how to change a tire!
That about takes care of the power problem.
It just doesn't have to be on every moment I am not in one of those places.
If I need to make a call, that's when I would turn it on and use the battery.
As for coverage... wifi at home and work are easy.
Your mileage will vary at work but I doubt many on this site don't have it at home.
Anywhere else it works... that's just a bonus.
Think you have too much of a social life to not be always connected?
Do you think you will miss too much because you're out?
I think not... you are on Slashdot!
Seriously though, I was a college student with one of the busiest lives I knew just before I got my first cellphone.
Missing calls didn't stop me, if I missed it then I was already busy!
If I missed too many calls then maybe I would have ended up at home, but then I wouldn't miss the next call.
See how that works?!
Now, 911.
This issue has been brought up against every form of VoIP since the begining.
I have to ask... does it really matter that much?
Honestly, I don't know the answer to this but don't the 911 operators have the ability to transfer to one another quickly?
If not then this is a problem the public should be crying to see addressed!
What if a call was coming in via radio or some other third party method where the person making the call is not in the same local as the emergency.
Hasn't there always been a need for 911 calls to be transfered?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114989</id>
	<title>WiMax isn't as 'full coverage' as you might think.</title>
	<author>Anonymous Freak</author>
	<datestamp>1243418580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Portland, Oregon, also has WiMax through Clear.  There are decently large sections of Portland (including my house,) that do not have WiMax coverage; and larger sections with very spotty coverage.  Admittedly, Portland is a much "hillier" city than Atlanta, but it only stands to reason that some parts of Atlanta would have coverage that leaves much to be desired, as well.</p><p>The 911 problem others mention can be resolved by picking a VoIP provider that has 911 service; or by manually bookmarking your local phone number for emergency dispatch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Portland , Oregon , also has WiMax through Clear .
There are decently large sections of Portland ( including my house , ) that do not have WiMax coverage ; and larger sections with very spotty coverage .
Admittedly , Portland is a much " hillier " city than Atlanta , but it only stands to reason that some parts of Atlanta would have coverage that leaves much to be desired , as well.The 911 problem others mention can be resolved by picking a VoIP provider that has 911 service ; or by manually bookmarking your local phone number for emergency dispatch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Portland, Oregon, also has WiMax through Clear.
There are decently large sections of Portland (including my house,) that do not have WiMax coverage; and larger sections with very spotty coverage.
Admittedly, Portland is a much "hillier" city than Atlanta, but it only stands to reason that some parts of Atlanta would have coverage that leaves much to be desired, as well.The 911 problem others mention can be resolved by picking a VoIP provider that has 911 service; or by manually bookmarking your local phone number for emergency dispatch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28118127</id>
	<title>Your biggest problem is CSMA and VOIP</title>
	<author>TrdrJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1243435140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cell carriers used scheduled access to the wireless channel, which provides guarantees on bandwidth and latency so that your speech is understandable.  802.11 provides random access, which is great for bursty Web traffic but terrible for voice when multiple people use it simultaneously (and undoubtedly you would not be the only one using VOIP over your WiMax AP).
<br> <br>

For example, an 802.11b network can handle ~140 simultaneous Skype calls in theory, but only about 6 in practice.  For a more detailed analysis, see <a href="http://www.usenix.org/events/nsdi09/tech/full\_papers/verkaik/verkaik.pdf" title="usenix.org" rel="nofollow"> this paper</a> [usenix.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell carriers used scheduled access to the wireless channel , which provides guarantees on bandwidth and latency so that your speech is understandable .
802.11 provides random access , which is great for bursty Web traffic but terrible for voice when multiple people use it simultaneously ( and undoubtedly you would not be the only one using VOIP over your WiMax AP ) .
For example , an 802.11b network can handle ~ 140 simultaneous Skype calls in theory , but only about 6 in practice .
For a more detailed analysis , see this paper [ usenix.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell carriers used scheduled access to the wireless channel, which provides guarantees on bandwidth and latency so that your speech is understandable.
802.11 provides random access, which is great for bursty Web traffic but terrible for voice when multiple people use it simultaneously (and undoubtedly you would not be the only one using VOIP over your WiMax AP).
For example, an 802.11b network can handle ~140 simultaneous Skype calls in theory, but only about 6 in practice.
For a more detailed analysis, see  this paper [usenix.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114407</id>
	<title>Wrong tool for the wrong job.</title>
	<author>eudaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1243416360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you barely use your cellphone, you'll find that the netbook's battery is<br>your biggest limiting factor.  Particularly if you use a bluetooth headset so you aren't walking around<br>with a cabled headset plugged into the netbook.  There are 802.11 based SIP phones that can serve the same purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you barely use your cellphone , you 'll find that the netbook 's battery isyour biggest limiting factor .
Particularly if you use a bluetooth headset so you are n't walking aroundwith a cabled headset plugged into the netbook .
There are 802.11 based SIP phones that can serve the same purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you barely use your cellphone, you'll find that the netbook's battery isyour biggest limiting factor.
Particularly if you use a bluetooth headset so you aren't walking aroundwith a cabled headset plugged into the netbook.
There are 802.11 based SIP phones that can serve the same purpose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114493</id>
	<title>May want to wait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243416720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To use a netbook as a true phone replacement, you need battery life of 24 hours (what happens if a call comes in while you are switching battery packs?) Also, what is the battery life of your bluetooth  headset? In addition, I believe most netbooks shut themselves down when the lid is closed; you need to either figure out a way to defeat this or figure out a way to carry it around with the lid open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To use a netbook as a true phone replacement , you need battery life of 24 hours ( what happens if a call comes in while you are switching battery packs ?
) Also , what is the battery life of your bluetooth headset ?
In addition , I believe most netbooks shut themselves down when the lid is closed ; you need to either figure out a way to defeat this or figure out a way to carry it around with the lid open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To use a netbook as a true phone replacement, you need battery life of 24 hours (what happens if a call comes in while you are switching battery packs?
) Also, what is the battery life of your bluetooth  headset?
In addition, I believe most netbooks shut themselves down when the lid is closed; you need to either figure out a way to defeat this or figure out a way to carry it around with the lid open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115179</id>
	<title>Re:Problem?  Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>asynchronous13</author>
	<datestamp>1243419180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hello, yes, emergency-- What?  You are the 9-1-1 dispatch center where?  Tulsa?"</p></div><p>Or just dial 404-658-6666, which is the direct line to City of Atlanta 911. (Useful to know when your cell phone happens to connect to a tower outside the city limits, and 911 routes your call to the county emergency services, but the county won't send anyone to your address, because you live inside the city limits, and your call is disconnected when the county operators attempt to transfer you to the correct call center<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... four times in a row<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....  )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , yes , emergency-- What ?
You are the 9-1-1 dispatch center where ?
Tulsa ? " Or just dial 404-658-6666 , which is the direct line to City of Atlanta 911 .
( Useful to know when your cell phone happens to connect to a tower outside the city limits , and 911 routes your call to the county emergency services , but the county wo n't send anyone to your address , because you live inside the city limits , and your call is disconnected when the county operators attempt to transfer you to the correct call center ..... four times in a row ..... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, yes, emergency-- What?
You are the 9-1-1 dispatch center where?
Tulsa?"Or just dial 404-658-6666, which is the direct line to City of Atlanta 911.
(Useful to know when your cell phone happens to connect to a tower outside the city limits, and 911 routes your call to the county emergency services, but the county won't send anyone to your address, because you live inside the city limits, and your call is disconnected when the county operators attempt to transfer you to the correct call center ..... four times in a row .....  )
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114433</id>
	<title>Battery Life</title>
	<author>StarWreck</author>
	<datestamp>1243416480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having to leave the netbook on with an ACTIVE WiMAX connection.  Enjoy your cell phone with a 2 hour battery life, when not using it to talk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having to leave the netbook on with an ACTIVE WiMAX connection .
Enjoy your cell phone with a 2 hour battery life , when not using it to talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having to leave the netbook on with an ACTIVE WiMAX connection.
Enjoy your cell phone with a 2 hour battery life, when not using it to talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28118961</id>
	<title>Why a laptop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243442580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not instead of carring your netbook around, get a wifi enabled phone (Omnia).  Just shut the phone feature off and enable wireless and work it that way.  This way you don't have to lug a laptop around all day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not instead of carring your netbook around , get a wifi enabled phone ( Omnia ) .
Just shut the phone feature off and enable wireless and work it that way .
This way you do n't have to lug a laptop around all day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not instead of carring your netbook around, get a wifi enabled phone (Omnia).
Just shut the phone feature off and enable wireless and work it that way.
This way you don't have to lug a laptop around all day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28123151</id>
	<title>No Roaming.</title>
	<author>jddj</author>
	<datestamp>1243523100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have had this discussion with Clear already. You can roam anywhere on their networks - as long as you're in Atlanta or Portland Oregon, the two cities where they have a presence.</p><p>Was thinking about WiMax as a solution to mobile connectivity for my laptop, until I realized I'd have to set up different service in the different cities where I want to work (and would have to wait until some of those cities have WiMax in place). FAIL.</p><p>Not like I want to pay for 3G, either.</p><p>I figure in 10 years, a lot of this gets sorted out. I'll put the MacBook Pro on standby 'till then, k?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have had this discussion with Clear already .
You can roam anywhere on their networks - as long as you 're in Atlanta or Portland Oregon , the two cities where they have a presence.Was thinking about WiMax as a solution to mobile connectivity for my laptop , until I realized I 'd have to set up different service in the different cities where I want to work ( and would have to wait until some of those cities have WiMax in place ) .
FAIL.Not like I want to pay for 3G , either.I figure in 10 years , a lot of this gets sorted out .
I 'll put the MacBook Pro on standby 'till then , k ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have had this discussion with Clear already.
You can roam anywhere on their networks - as long as you're in Atlanta or Portland Oregon, the two cities where they have a presence.Was thinking about WiMax as a solution to mobile connectivity for my laptop, until I realized I'd have to set up different service in the different cities where I want to work (and would have to wait until some of those cities have WiMax in place).
FAIL.Not like I want to pay for 3G, either.I figure in 10 years, a lot of this gets sorted out.
I'll put the MacBook Pro on standby 'till then, k?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117613</id>
	<title>Problem? Calling Captain Obvious.</title>
	<author>aoeu</author>
	<datestamp>1243431180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My three year old cell phone weighs three ounces and has a battery life of almost a week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My three year old cell phone weighs three ounces and has a battery life of almost a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My three year old cell phone weighs three ounces and has a battery life of almost a week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115251</id>
	<title>Too many naysayers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243419360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may be wrong, but it doesn't sound like they're ready to cancel their cell service.  This seems like a great experiment, and you should definitely go for it.  You'll run into some of the limitations described above, but this could be a viable solution down the road, with the right modifications.  Do it, document it, and have fun with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be wrong , but it does n't sound like they 're ready to cancel their cell service .
This seems like a great experiment , and you should definitely go for it .
You 'll run into some of the limitations described above , but this could be a viable solution down the road , with the right modifications .
Do it , document it , and have fun with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be wrong, but it doesn't sound like they're ready to cancel their cell service.
This seems like a great experiment, and you should definitely go for it.
You'll run into some of the limitations described above, but this could be a viable solution down the road, with the right modifications.
Do it, document it, and have fun with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114877</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1243418220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First, you press the "9" key. Then, you press the "1" key. Finally, you press the "1" key one last time.</p><p>Dialing isn't the problem, it's getting connected to the operator that is the problem.</p></div></blockquote><p>While you are being sarcastic (and knew exactly what he meant) you should try to also actually inform him of the problem:</p><p>In order to "dial 911" over VOIP and get connected, the VOIP provider needs to be able to route your call to a PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point).  The challenge is knowing which PSAP actually applies to you.  You need to inform your VOIP provider of your location so they can choose the appropriate PSAP.  Of course, that is if they even offer E911 service at all.  Most VOIP providers don't seem to offer it at all right now.  When you sign up for service, you need to be aware if they offer it.  Most of the time it seems to be just a dollar or two more.</p><p>I would expect the vast majority of the so-called "free" SIP providers don't even offer E911.  Which I would also expect would be the most popular choice for people choosing this method of communication as "cheap" seems to be the whole reason they are doing it.</p><p>Your other challenge is that you are wireless in this scenario.  There is a scheduled deployment, and progressive requirements for cell phone carriers to provide accurate location information to the PSAP when they connect the call.  They obviously know which one is closest since they known which cell tower you are communicating to.  That's how they get the correct PSAP for you.  However, the PSAP wants to know WHERE you are much more accurately so they can send an ambulance right to you instead of forming a search party.</p><p>In this scenario, you are not connecting to a cell phone tower that can triangulate your position automatically or choose the appropriate PSAP.  You are using a netbook, or some other device, connected to a wireless Internet connection.  AFAIK, there are no technologies or methodologies in place for you to transmit your current location (assuming you even have GPS on the device) to your VOIP provider, which would then provided to the PSAP.</p><p>If you contract for E911 service with a VOIP provider in San Fransisco, use your San Fransisco address with E911, and then make an emergency call while in Los Angeles....  you will be connected to a PSAP in San Fransisco.</p><p>So the first challenge is just getting the E911 service with your VOIP provider.  The PROBLEM is going to be getting accurate location information transmitted to the PSAP when you are connected, or connected to the appropriate PSAP in the first place.</p><p>Logic would tell you that while talking to the emergency operator you can just tell here where you are.  Unfortunately, if you are 100 or 3000 miles away from him/her it is going to be quite difficult for them to transfer you to the appropriate PSAP.  It would certainly take some time, which most people talking to 911 don't have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you press the " 9 " key .
Then , you press the " 1 " key .
Finally , you press the " 1 " key one last time.Dialing is n't the problem , it 's getting connected to the operator that is the problem.While you are being sarcastic ( and knew exactly what he meant ) you should try to also actually inform him of the problem : In order to " dial 911 " over VOIP and get connected , the VOIP provider needs to be able to route your call to a PSAP ( Public Safety Answering Point ) .
The challenge is knowing which PSAP actually applies to you .
You need to inform your VOIP provider of your location so they can choose the appropriate PSAP .
Of course , that is if they even offer E911 service at all .
Most VOIP providers do n't seem to offer it at all right now .
When you sign up for service , you need to be aware if they offer it .
Most of the time it seems to be just a dollar or two more.I would expect the vast majority of the so-called " free " SIP providers do n't even offer E911 .
Which I would also expect would be the most popular choice for people choosing this method of communication as " cheap " seems to be the whole reason they are doing it.Your other challenge is that you are wireless in this scenario .
There is a scheduled deployment , and progressive requirements for cell phone carriers to provide accurate location information to the PSAP when they connect the call .
They obviously know which one is closest since they known which cell tower you are communicating to .
That 's how they get the correct PSAP for you .
However , the PSAP wants to know WHERE you are much more accurately so they can send an ambulance right to you instead of forming a search party.In this scenario , you are not connecting to a cell phone tower that can triangulate your position automatically or choose the appropriate PSAP .
You are using a netbook , or some other device , connected to a wireless Internet connection .
AFAIK , there are no technologies or methodologies in place for you to transmit your current location ( assuming you even have GPS on the device ) to your VOIP provider , which would then provided to the PSAP.If you contract for E911 service with a VOIP provider in San Fransisco , use your San Fransisco address with E911 , and then make an emergency call while in Los Angeles.... you will be connected to a PSAP in San Fransisco.So the first challenge is just getting the E911 service with your VOIP provider .
The PROBLEM is going to be getting accurate location information transmitted to the PSAP when you are connected , or connected to the appropriate PSAP in the first place.Logic would tell you that while talking to the emergency operator you can just tell here where you are .
Unfortunately , if you are 100 or 3000 miles away from him/her it is going to be quite difficult for them to transfer you to the appropriate PSAP .
It would certainly take some time , which most people talking to 911 do n't have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you press the "9" key.
Then, you press the "1" key.
Finally, you press the "1" key one last time.Dialing isn't the problem, it's getting connected to the operator that is the problem.While you are being sarcastic (and knew exactly what he meant) you should try to also actually inform him of the problem:In order to "dial 911" over VOIP and get connected, the VOIP provider needs to be able to route your call to a PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point).
The challenge is knowing which PSAP actually applies to you.
You need to inform your VOIP provider of your location so they can choose the appropriate PSAP.
Of course, that is if they even offer E911 service at all.
Most VOIP providers don't seem to offer it at all right now.
When you sign up for service, you need to be aware if they offer it.
Most of the time it seems to be just a dollar or two more.I would expect the vast majority of the so-called "free" SIP providers don't even offer E911.
Which I would also expect would be the most popular choice for people choosing this method of communication as "cheap" seems to be the whole reason they are doing it.Your other challenge is that you are wireless in this scenario.
There is a scheduled deployment, and progressive requirements for cell phone carriers to provide accurate location information to the PSAP when they connect the call.
They obviously know which one is closest since they known which cell tower you are communicating to.
That's how they get the correct PSAP for you.
However, the PSAP wants to know WHERE you are much more accurately so they can send an ambulance right to you instead of forming a search party.In this scenario, you are not connecting to a cell phone tower that can triangulate your position automatically or choose the appropriate PSAP.
You are using a netbook, or some other device, connected to a wireless Internet connection.
AFAIK, there are no technologies or methodologies in place for you to transmit your current location (assuming you even have GPS on the device) to your VOIP provider, which would then provided to the PSAP.If you contract for E911 service with a VOIP provider in San Fransisco, use your San Fransisco address with E911, and then make an emergency call while in Los Angeles....  you will be connected to a PSAP in San Fransisco.So the first challenge is just getting the E911 service with your VOIP provider.
The PROBLEM is going to be getting accurate location information transmitted to the PSAP when you are connected, or connected to the appropriate PSAP in the first place.Logic would tell you that while talking to the emergency operator you can just tell here where you are.
Unfortunately, if you are 100 or 3000 miles away from him/her it is going to be quite difficult for them to transfer you to the appropriate PSAP.
It would certainly take some time, which most people talking to 911 don't have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28119861</id>
	<title>I did this last year with an EE PC 701 &amp; Nokia</title>
	<author>Wonderkid</author>
	<datestamp>1243451760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And found Skype to be very reliable on my 3.6 yo 7.2Mbps Vodafone 3G connection on the EE PC. The only downsides were obvious: a) It's still a very bulky phone. b) You look a right dork talking to your computer in a coffee shop, unless you have a headset, and even then, it's fairly unsociable. I suppose the solution is to carry a Skype handset with you at all times too! c) Here in the UK you can buy from 3 (network) a mobile/cell phone with built in WiFi and use that.

Now, this is where it gets interesting! The Nokia E71 plus Fring was excellent using the included free data allowance thought Vodafone. The call quality was BETTER across Fring and Vodafone's data than making a conventional voice call. The only downsides to all this was as someone else has mentioned, the battery life is massively reduced because your phone and data connection has to be 'on' all the time. However, with wearable solar panels, one day, this problem will be dealt with. We're just a few years away from making mobile always on VOiP a reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And found Skype to be very reliable on my 3.6 yo 7.2Mbps Vodafone 3G connection on the EE PC .
The only downsides were obvious : a ) It 's still a very bulky phone .
b ) You look a right dork talking to your computer in a coffee shop , unless you have a headset , and even then , it 's fairly unsociable .
I suppose the solution is to carry a Skype handset with you at all times too !
c ) Here in the UK you can buy from 3 ( network ) a mobile/cell phone with built in WiFi and use that .
Now , this is where it gets interesting !
The Nokia E71 plus Fring was excellent using the included free data allowance thought Vodafone .
The call quality was BETTER across Fring and Vodafone 's data than making a conventional voice call .
The only downsides to all this was as someone else has mentioned , the battery life is massively reduced because your phone and data connection has to be 'on ' all the time .
However , with wearable solar panels , one day , this problem will be dealt with .
We 're just a few years away from making mobile always on VOiP a reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And found Skype to be very reliable on my 3.6 yo 7.2Mbps Vodafone 3G connection on the EE PC.
The only downsides were obvious: a) It's still a very bulky phone.
b) You look a right dork talking to your computer in a coffee shop, unless you have a headset, and even then, it's fairly unsociable.
I suppose the solution is to carry a Skype handset with you at all times too!
c) Here in the UK you can buy from 3 (network) a mobile/cell phone with built in WiFi and use that.
Now, this is where it gets interesting!
The Nokia E71 plus Fring was excellent using the included free data allowance thought Vodafone.
The call quality was BETTER across Fring and Vodafone's data than making a conventional voice call.
The only downsides to all this was as someone else has mentioned, the battery life is massively reduced because your phone and data connection has to be 'on' all the time.
However, with wearable solar panels, one day, this problem will be dealt with.
We're just a few years away from making mobile always on VOiP a reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28164581</id>
	<title>Re:911 Service</title>
	<author>LandGator</author>
	<datestamp>1243794600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clear's VOIP service does offer Enhanced 911.

Now, using 3rd party voice over a WiMAX connection? Not reliable. My connection, two blocks from one tower (suburbs of Portland, OR), and a quarter-mile from another, nosedives randomly at night. No connection = no Officer Friendly or Fire Marshal Bill when needed.

I still pay for a landline just for 911 reliability
  (and, monitor my landline regularly to make sure the local telco, Qworst, formerly known as US Worst, does not put a 'pair gain' box on it to let then share the copper pair with a neighbor so they can deliver two dial tones over one copper pair - that takes batteries, and batteries fail).

I also keep a two-way radio in the house, with the instructions for 911 access through the local repeater on a plastic tag.

The universe is not friendly, and enough humans are also not friendly, for me to consider artful paranoia as a potentially life-saving interesting hobby.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clear 's VOIP service does offer Enhanced 911 .
Now , using 3rd party voice over a WiMAX connection ?
Not reliable .
My connection , two blocks from one tower ( suburbs of Portland , OR ) , and a quarter-mile from another , nosedives randomly at night .
No connection = no Officer Friendly or Fire Marshal Bill when needed .
I still pay for a landline just for 911 reliability ( and , monitor my landline regularly to make sure the local telco , Qworst , formerly known as US Worst , does not put a 'pair gain ' box on it to let then share the copper pair with a neighbor so they can deliver two dial tones over one copper pair - that takes batteries , and batteries fail ) .
I also keep a two-way radio in the house , with the instructions for 911 access through the local repeater on a plastic tag .
The universe is not friendly , and enough humans are also not friendly , for me to consider artful paranoia as a potentially life-saving interesting hobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clear's VOIP service does offer Enhanced 911.
Now, using 3rd party voice over a WiMAX connection?
Not reliable.
My connection, two blocks from one tower (suburbs of Portland, OR), and a quarter-mile from another, nosedives randomly at night.
No connection = no Officer Friendly or Fire Marshal Bill when needed.
I still pay for a landline just for 911 reliability
  (and, monitor my landline regularly to make sure the local telco, Qworst, formerly known as US Worst, does not put a 'pair gain' box on it to let then share the copper pair with a neighbor so they can deliver two dial tones over one copper pair - that takes batteries, and batteries fail).
I also keep a two-way radio in the house, with the instructions for 911 access through the local repeater on a plastic tag.
The universe is not friendly, and enough humans are also not friendly, for me to consider artful paranoia as a potentially life-saving interesting hobby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115145</id>
	<title>Wireless is STILL quite unreliable</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1243419060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wireless technologies depend too heavily on environmental conditions for good quality of service.  I don't know how reliable WiMAX is in actual deployments, but every wireless data technology I have seen so far suffers from a variety of problems associated with being wireless.  I can't say that WiMAX has managed to overcome the problem of being wireless, but I seriously doubt it.  My point here is that trying to do VOIP over a wireless link will not likely be reliable or acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wireless technologies depend too heavily on environmental conditions for good quality of service .
I do n't know how reliable WiMAX is in actual deployments , but every wireless data technology I have seen so far suffers from a variety of problems associated with being wireless .
I ca n't say that WiMAX has managed to overcome the problem of being wireless , but I seriously doubt it .
My point here is that trying to do VOIP over a wireless link will not likely be reliable or acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wireless technologies depend too heavily on environmental conditions for good quality of service.
I don't know how reliable WiMAX is in actual deployments, but every wireless data technology I have seen so far suffers from a variety of problems associated with being wireless.
I can't say that WiMAX has managed to overcome the problem of being wireless, but I seriously doubt it.
My point here is that trying to do VOIP over a wireless link will not likely be reliable or acceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114699</id>
	<title>Re:May want to wait</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1243417560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a call comes in as you are switching batteries, same thing happens as when you are in a blackout spot with regular phone.  The caller doesn't get through and they call back later.  I don't think something like this would be used  as an always on, get a call every half hour type of phone.  But more as a replacement for people who are on pay as you go service, who may only use it for outgoing calls, or may only receive 1 or 2 calls a day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a call comes in as you are switching batteries , same thing happens as when you are in a blackout spot with regular phone .
The caller does n't get through and they call back later .
I do n't think something like this would be used as an always on , get a call every half hour type of phone .
But more as a replacement for people who are on pay as you go service , who may only use it for outgoing calls , or may only receive 1 or 2 calls a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a call comes in as you are switching batteries, same thing happens as when you are in a blackout spot with regular phone.
The caller doesn't get through and they call back later.
I don't think something like this would be used  as an always on, get a call every half hour type of phone.
But more as a replacement for people who are on pay as you go service, who may only use it for outgoing calls, or may only receive 1 or 2 calls a day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116101</id>
	<title>Re:Problem? Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1243422180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 911 fixation is a real concern for mass replacement of a existing technology that had 911, no concern for just a few people wondering around a big city, they'll likely run into a cell phone user often.  Obviously once VOIP looked to be replacing a significant amount of phones, 911 needed addressed to move forward there.<br>Since most in-active cell phones can dial 911, it is a free solution to keep the old cell charged in the car, small compromise for a person willing to lug around a laptop 24/7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 911 fixation is a real concern for mass replacement of a existing technology that had 911 , no concern for just a few people wondering around a big city , they 'll likely run into a cell phone user often .
Obviously once VOIP looked to be replacing a significant amount of phones , 911 needed addressed to move forward there.Since most in-active cell phones can dial 911 , it is a free solution to keep the old cell charged in the car , small compromise for a person willing to lug around a laptop 24/7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 911 fixation is a real concern for mass replacement of a existing technology that had 911, no concern for just a few people wondering around a big city, they'll likely run into a cell phone user often.
Obviously once VOIP looked to be replacing a significant amount of phones, 911 needed addressed to move forward there.Since most in-active cell phones can dial 911, it is a free solution to keep the old cell charged in the car, small compromise for a person willing to lug around a laptop 24/7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114403</id>
	<title>Pack an extension cord</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243416300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even the most frugal netbooks don't run a whole day on battery power if a wireless network module is in active use. In my experience, 3G is a little less heavy on the battery than 802.11g. It still cuts the battery life of my Asus 901 by 20\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the most frugal netbooks do n't run a whole day on battery power if a wireless network module is in active use .
In my experience , 3G is a little less heavy on the battery than 802.11g .
It still cuts the battery life of my Asus 901 by 20 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the most frugal netbooks don't run a whole day on battery power if a wireless network module is in active use.
In my experience, 3G is a little less heavy on the battery than 802.11g.
It still cuts the battery life of my Asus 901 by 20\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117505</id>
	<title>The devices for this are coming to market (+links)</title>
	<author>Ryandav</author>
	<datestamp>1243430460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was at CTIA this year looking for Wimax enabled devices and release schedules, here are some relevant links from people I saw on the show floor:</p><p><a href="http://www.runcom.com/sitefiles/1/3310/19046.asp" title="runcom.com">http://www.runcom.com/sitefiles/1/3310/19046.asp</a> [runcom.com] </p><p>Go to the part about Wimax Phones.  There are also Wimax video IP phones and wimax based surveillance systems shown there, see a product announcement here from Feb.</p><p><a href="https://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3042555" title="istockanalyst.com">https://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3042555</a> [istockanalyst.com]</p><p>I don't see details on their site, but the handset I have a flyer for was called the Sting, and was dual mode Wimax/GSM.</p><p>Also saw one called the wiofone:  <a href="http://www.wimax.com/commentary/blog/blog-2008/wimax-blog-wimax-desktop-phone" title="wimax.com">http://www.wimax.com/commentary/blog/blog-2008/wimax-blog-wimax-desktop-phone</a> [wimax.com] </p><p>Placeholder website here: <a href="http://wioline.com/" title="wioline.com">http://wioline.com/</a> [wioline.com] </p><p>Samsung was also present displaying a number of devices with embedded Wimax chipsets in them, intended to use VoIP as part of the connectivity, such as the PDA (SCH-M830 and M8200), an UMPC or 2 (all of which were Windows based devices), and some standard laptops with wimax chipsets in them.</p><p>It's a chicken-and-egg problem still, since the devices will become more common when there's more coverage, more markets, and more possible subscribers, but people will fund the growth of the network when there are devices available which use it.  It seems pretty obvious from investments that Intel/Motorola et al are both trying hard to lock in a future where many devices will have embedded wimax chipsets simply included as bluetooth and wifi chipsets are today.  And not just laptops, but cars, washing machines, refrigerators, anything that would benefit from network access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was at CTIA this year looking for Wimax enabled devices and release schedules , here are some relevant links from people I saw on the show floor : http : //www.runcom.com/sitefiles/1/3310/19046.asp [ runcom.com ] Go to the part about Wimax Phones .
There are also Wimax video IP phones and wimax based surveillance systems shown there , see a product announcement here from Feb.https : //www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3042555 [ istockanalyst.com ] I do n't see details on their site , but the handset I have a flyer for was called the Sting , and was dual mode Wimax/GSM.Also saw one called the wiofone : http : //www.wimax.com/commentary/blog/blog-2008/wimax-blog-wimax-desktop-phone [ wimax.com ] Placeholder website here : http : //wioline.com/ [ wioline.com ] Samsung was also present displaying a number of devices with embedded Wimax chipsets in them , intended to use VoIP as part of the connectivity , such as the PDA ( SCH-M830 and M8200 ) , an UMPC or 2 ( all of which were Windows based devices ) , and some standard laptops with wimax chipsets in them.It 's a chicken-and-egg problem still , since the devices will become more common when there 's more coverage , more markets , and more possible subscribers , but people will fund the growth of the network when there are devices available which use it .
It seems pretty obvious from investments that Intel/Motorola et al are both trying hard to lock in a future where many devices will have embedded wimax chipsets simply included as bluetooth and wifi chipsets are today .
And not just laptops , but cars , washing machines , refrigerators , anything that would benefit from network access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was at CTIA this year looking for Wimax enabled devices and release schedules, here are some relevant links from people I saw on the show floor:http://www.runcom.com/sitefiles/1/3310/19046.asp [runcom.com] Go to the part about Wimax Phones.
There are also Wimax video IP phones and wimax based surveillance systems shown there, see a product announcement here from Feb.https://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3042555 [istockanalyst.com]I don't see details on their site, but the handset I have a flyer for was called the Sting, and was dual mode Wimax/GSM.Also saw one called the wiofone:  http://www.wimax.com/commentary/blog/blog-2008/wimax-blog-wimax-desktop-phone [wimax.com] Placeholder website here: http://wioline.com/ [wioline.com] Samsung was also present displaying a number of devices with embedded Wimax chipsets in them, intended to use VoIP as part of the connectivity, such as the PDA (SCH-M830 and M8200), an UMPC or 2 (all of which were Windows based devices), and some standard laptops with wimax chipsets in them.It's a chicken-and-egg problem still, since the devices will become more common when there's more coverage, more markets, and more possible subscribers, but people will fund the growth of the network when there are devices available which use it.
It seems pretty obvious from investments that Intel/Motorola et al are both trying hard to lock in a future where many devices will have embedded wimax chipsets simply included as bluetooth and wifi chipsets are today.
And not just laptops, but cars, washing machines, refrigerators, anything that would benefit from network access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114847</id>
	<title>Latency?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243418100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a possibility of latency issues?<br>I (my workplace) uses one of the local wireless internet providers and I've seen ping times (3 pings, average time recorded, done every 5 minutes to the default gateway, www.yahoo.com, and www.google.com ) and the extremes go from 50-60 ms to 3000 ms over the course of a day. (Yes, all three increase and decrease at the same times). You can tell when there are more people active (late afternoon to about midnight) because the ping times go to crap (500+ regularly, those times are were the 2000-3000 show up), and when people go to bed (2:00 to 8:00 are the lowest normally).</p><p>I've looked at our bandwidth use and there is no correlation between in/out and ping times. (Yes, that was my first thought when the high pings showed up. I've looked and our bandwidth doesn't seem to have an effect on the ping times.)</p><p>Average ping times over the course of several days is around 120 ms IIRC (been a while since I've looked, might have been 90ish, but it was kinda high in any case) as opposed to my local home which is using a DSL connection which averages  40-50 ms. (Min about 35-40, max about 400) (High uploads are most likely to effect the ping times at home, although some QOS on the firewall has fixed that)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a possibility of latency issues ? I ( my workplace ) uses one of the local wireless internet providers and I 've seen ping times ( 3 pings , average time recorded , done every 5 minutes to the default gateway , www.yahoo.com , and www.google.com ) and the extremes go from 50-60 ms to 3000 ms over the course of a day .
( Yes , all three increase and decrease at the same times ) .
You can tell when there are more people active ( late afternoon to about midnight ) because the ping times go to crap ( 500 + regularly , those times are were the 2000-3000 show up ) , and when people go to bed ( 2 : 00 to 8 : 00 are the lowest normally ) .I 've looked at our bandwidth use and there is no correlation between in/out and ping times .
( Yes , that was my first thought when the high pings showed up .
I 've looked and our bandwidth does n't seem to have an effect on the ping times .
) Average ping times over the course of several days is around 120 ms IIRC ( been a while since I 've looked , might have been 90ish , but it was kinda high in any case ) as opposed to my local home which is using a DSL connection which averages 40-50 ms. ( Min about 35-40 , max about 400 ) ( High uploads are most likely to effect the ping times at home , although some QOS on the firewall has fixed that )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a possibility of latency issues?I (my workplace) uses one of the local wireless internet providers and I've seen ping times (3 pings, average time recorded, done every 5 minutes to the default gateway, www.yahoo.com, and www.google.com ) and the extremes go from 50-60 ms to 3000 ms over the course of a day.
(Yes, all three increase and decrease at the same times).
You can tell when there are more people active (late afternoon to about midnight) because the ping times go to crap (500+ regularly, those times are were the 2000-3000 show up), and when people go to bed (2:00 to 8:00 are the lowest normally).I've looked at our bandwidth use and there is no correlation between in/out and ping times.
(Yes, that was my first thought when the high pings showed up.
I've looked and our bandwidth doesn't seem to have an effect on the ping times.
)Average ping times over the course of several days is around 120 ms IIRC (been a while since I've looked, might have been 90ish, but it was kinda high in any case) as opposed to my local home which is using a DSL connection which averages  40-50 ms. (Min about 35-40, max about 400) (High uploads are most likely to effect the ping times at home, although some QOS on the firewall has fixed that)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28118863</id>
	<title>Using 3G.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243441560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My company sells a 3G voice encryption system ( http://www.secvoice.com.br ) and our system works nicely with 3G networks, the quality is fine. Probably the main problem WiMax will have is with the quality of service, like signal coverage and so on.<br>Another problem is fine tuning the system to optimize the battery use, because if the system is not fine tuned, the battery will discharge with few hours of use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My company sells a 3G voice encryption system ( http : //www.secvoice.com.br ) and our system works nicely with 3G networks , the quality is fine .
Probably the main problem WiMax will have is with the quality of service , like signal coverage and so on.Another problem is fine tuning the system to optimize the battery use , because if the system is not fine tuned , the battery will discharge with few hours of use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company sells a 3G voice encryption system ( http://www.secvoice.com.br ) and our system works nicely with 3G networks, the quality is fine.
Probably the main problem WiMax will have is with the quality of service, like signal coverage and so on.Another problem is fine tuning the system to optimize the battery use, because if the system is not fine tuned, the battery will discharge with few hours of use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28129109</id>
	<title>Drops</title>
	<author>anotherslashfan</author>
	<datestamp>1243544340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're going to be "mobile" while on a call, you might have issues with your connections/calls-dropping as you move from tower-to-tower. We have experienced this in-house dealing with TCP-type applications. They lose the handshake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to be " mobile " while on a call , you might have issues with your connections/calls-dropping as you move from tower-to-tower .
We have experienced this in-house dealing with TCP-type applications .
They lose the handshake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to be "mobile" while on a call, you might have issues with your connections/calls-dropping as you move from tower-to-tower.
We have experienced this in-house dealing with TCP-type applications.
They lose the handshake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115223</id>
	<title>there are a few limitations</title>
	<author>snoig</author>
	<datestamp>1243419300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the same thing when I saw that my PPC phone supported wifi.  However, the battery on the phone has a very limited life when I have both wifi and bluetooth running.  I'm lucky if I can get half an hour out of a fully charged battery.

Also, the problem with non-EVDO wireless ISP's is that they are really designed for fixed wireless, not roaming.  If you think you see to many dead zones with your cell phone, wait until you try WiMax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the same thing when I saw that my PPC phone supported wifi .
However , the battery on the phone has a very limited life when I have both wifi and bluetooth running .
I 'm lucky if I can get half an hour out of a fully charged battery .
Also , the problem with non-EVDO wireless ISP 's is that they are really designed for fixed wireless , not roaming .
If you think you see to many dead zones with your cell phone , wait until you try WiMax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the same thing when I saw that my PPC phone supported wifi.
However, the battery on the phone has a very limited life when I have both wifi and bluetooth running.
I'm lucky if I can get half an hour out of a fully charged battery.
Also, the problem with non-EVDO wireless ISP's is that they are really designed for fixed wireless, not roaming.
If you think you see to many dead zones with your cell phone, wait until you try WiMax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28123367</id>
	<title>Use the N810 Wimax tablet as a SIP/Skype phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243524060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have used thwe regular N810 and use 3.5G via my phone. And I always call using Skype or the Google voice program which is built in and the calls are clear and it is a great alternative. Of course since I already have a phone it doesnt make sense for me for domestic calls - but all international calls I use the N810.</p><p>The batter life on the N800/N810  series is great - in fact phenomenal. It stays on all day long - thjere is no suspend and restart needed. Charge it every other day. The N810 wimax version is your chioce as a SIP/SKYPE phone. In fact for video calls you can also use Gizmo on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have used thwe regular N810 and use 3.5G via my phone .
And I always call using Skype or the Google voice program which is built in and the calls are clear and it is a great alternative .
Of course since I already have a phone it doesnt make sense for me for domestic calls - but all international calls I use the N810.The batter life on the N800/N810 series is great - in fact phenomenal .
It stays on all day long - thjere is no suspend and restart needed .
Charge it every other day .
The N810 wimax version is your chioce as a SIP/SKYPE phone .
In fact for video calls you can also use Gizmo on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have used thwe regular N810 and use 3.5G via my phone.
And I always call using Skype or the Google voice program which is built in and the calls are clear and it is a great alternative.
Of course since I already have a phone it doesnt make sense for me for domestic calls - but all international calls I use the N810.The batter life on the N800/N810  series is great - in fact phenomenal.
It stays on all day long - thjere is no suspend and restart needed.
Charge it every other day.
The N810 wimax version is your chioce as a SIP/SKYPE phone.
In fact for video calls you can also use Gizmo on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28118801</id>
	<title>don't drop it down</title>
	<author>v4vijayakumar</author>
	<datestamp>1243440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I will be able to use my netbook as a cell phone</p></div><p>if you carry your netbook wherever you go, then chances are high for you to drop it down. is your netbook that tough ?!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will be able to use my netbook as a cell phoneif you carry your netbook wherever you go , then chances are high for you to drop it down .
is your netbook that tough ? !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will be able to use my netbook as a cell phoneif you carry your netbook wherever you go, then chances are high for you to drop it down.
is your netbook that tough ?!
:)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115999</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong tool for the wrong job.</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1243421820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could work well as a semi-portable, meaning the rig goes in a small briefcase between home and work, so you get free long distance in both locations and can downgrade your cel to pay per use.</p><p>That's exactly what I take on tour with my band.  I just hook up my VOIP adapter through my laptop* and I have my landline at every venue and hotel room with wi-fi.  I just use my cel as a pager and for texts.  I'm 2000mi from home right now, and I just got off the phone with my mom over a lousy 1Mbps connection, no problems.</p><p>* Often the VOIP adapter needs to be patched through an ethernet switch or router to cooperate with the laptop, no big deal though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could work well as a semi-portable , meaning the rig goes in a small briefcase between home and work , so you get free long distance in both locations and can downgrade your cel to pay per use.That 's exactly what I take on tour with my band .
I just hook up my VOIP adapter through my laptop * and I have my landline at every venue and hotel room with wi-fi .
I just use my cel as a pager and for texts .
I 'm 2000mi from home right now , and I just got off the phone with my mom over a lousy 1Mbps connection , no problems .
* Often the VOIP adapter needs to be patched through an ethernet switch or router to cooperate with the laptop , no big deal though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could work well as a semi-portable, meaning the rig goes in a small briefcase between home and work, so you get free long distance in both locations and can downgrade your cel to pay per use.That's exactly what I take on tour with my band.
I just hook up my VOIP adapter through my laptop* and I have my landline at every venue and hotel room with wi-fi.
I just use my cel as a pager and for texts.
I'm 2000mi from home right now, and I just got off the phone with my mom over a lousy 1Mbps connection, no problems.
* Often the VOIP adapter needs to be patched through an ethernet switch or router to cooperate with the laptop, no big deal though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114431</id>
	<title>Re:Problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243416480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, you press the "9" key. Then, you press the "1" key. Finally, you press the "1" key one last time.</p><p>Dialing isn't the problem, it's getting connected to the operator that is the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you press the " 9 " key .
Then , you press the " 1 " key .
Finally , you press the " 1 " key one last time.Dialing is n't the problem , it 's getting connected to the operator that is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you press the "9" key.
Then, you press the "1" key.
Finally, you press the "1" key one last time.Dialing isn't the problem, it's getting connected to the operator that is the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117757</id>
	<title>Re:You're delusional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243432200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>@realmolo</p><p>I you are delusional and ignorant. WiMAX has the same coverage footprint as 3G networks. So one can very well use a WiMAX cell phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ realmoloI you are delusional and ignorant .
WiMAX has the same coverage footprint as 3G networks .
So one can very well use a WiMAX cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@realmoloI you are delusional and ignorant.
WiMAX has the same coverage footprint as 3G networks.
So one can very well use a WiMAX cell phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115361</id>
	<title>Re:You're delusional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243419660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you still aren't going to get good signal inside of most public buildings.</p></div><p>Isn't that like the company motto of most cellphone providers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you still are n't going to get good signal inside of most public buildings.Is n't that like the company motto of most cellphone providers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you still aren't going to get good signal inside of most public buildings.Isn't that like the company motto of most cellphone providers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28124091</id>
	<title>Using Skype with a number from DID Worldwide</title>
	<author>Cyborganism</author>
	<datestamp>1243527480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I first moved out of my hometown to another city after graduating, my first concern was staying in touch with friends and family without using my phone to save on long distance calls. I also wanted them to be able to call me without extra costs. So here's what I did.

Using my laptop I was able to get a full "voip" line using Skype with the Skype-Out service and getting a phone number through DID Worldwide.

Skype-Out costs around 3$ a month and the DID number costs 5$ a month. This way for approx. 7$ I was able to make and receive calls through Skype.

To go a step further, you could get a Skype Phone so you won't have to carry around a netbook or a laptop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first moved out of my hometown to another city after graduating , my first concern was staying in touch with friends and family without using my phone to save on long distance calls .
I also wanted them to be able to call me without extra costs .
So here 's what I did .
Using my laptop I was able to get a full " voip " line using Skype with the Skype-Out service and getting a phone number through DID Worldwide .
Skype-Out costs around 3 $ a month and the DID number costs 5 $ a month .
This way for approx .
7 $ I was able to make and receive calls through Skype .
To go a step further , you could get a Skype Phone so you wo n't have to carry around a netbook or a laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first moved out of my hometown to another city after graduating, my first concern was staying in touch with friends and family without using my phone to save on long distance calls.
I also wanted them to be able to call me without extra costs.
So here's what I did.
Using my laptop I was able to get a full "voip" line using Skype with the Skype-Out service and getting a phone number through DID Worldwide.
Skype-Out costs around 3$ a month and the DID number costs 5$ a month.
This way for approx.
7$ I was able to make and receive calls through Skype.
To go a step further, you could get a Skype Phone so you won't have to carry around a netbook or a laptop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114421</id>
	<title>Batteries and power</title>
	<author>wsanders</author>
	<datestamp>1243416420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are going to find that, compared to cell phone makers who have pretty much figured out power management, the netbook makers are still figuring it out. But YMMV, I've only used Asuseseses and Dellses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are going to find that , compared to cell phone makers who have pretty much figured out power management , the netbook makers are still figuring it out .
But YMMV , I 've only used Asuseseses and Dellses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are going to find that, compared to cell phone makers who have pretty much figured out power management, the netbook makers are still figuring it out.
But YMMV, I've only used Asuseseses and Dellses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116287</id>
	<title>nokia n810</title>
	<author>uncreativeslashnick</author>
	<datestamp>1243423260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might get more milage out of a nokia n810 than a netbook. Mine has a battery life similar to that of my cell phone. And there's a skype client for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might get more milage out of a nokia n810 than a netbook .
Mine has a battery life similar to that of my cell phone .
And there 's a skype client for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might get more milage out of a nokia n810 than a netbook.
Mine has a battery life similar to that of my cell phone.
And there's a skype client for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115105</id>
	<title>WiMAX was designed for this, implementations lag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243418940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WiMAX was designed to handle VoIP traffic, and has specific traffic categories on the airlink for isochronous flows, like RTP and other VoIP payload streams.  Unlike something like Ethernet, which is CSMA/CD (carrier sense multiple access, with collision detection), traffic is scheduled by the carrier network.  For uplink data, your WiMAX card goes through a process of requesting bandwidth on what amounts to a hailing channel, and then gets a bandwidth allocation it can use.  In theory, a small but constant amount of bandwidth can be allocated for VoIP at the airlink level, resulting in low jitter, low latency, and low frame loss.
</p><p>
There are a couple of problems with this.
</p><p>
The first problem is that not all WiMAX cards on the market today (in fact, quite possibly none of them) have sufficient sophistication in their device drivers and microcontrollers to send the RTP (or Skype, or whatever VoIP protocol you're using) packets on an isochronous service flow while the balance of the packets travel on a general-purpose service flow.  As a result, the RTP (etc) packets have to compete with whatever else your machine is doing, either stuff you're initiating with the browser, or background things like checking email or updating the Vista weather widget, or checking for updates of one kind or another.  It doesn't help matters that no operating system has a network stack that implements the service flow concept.
</p><p>
The second problem is that low-speed isochronous flows over the WiMAX OFDMA airlink depend upon sharing a fairly large timeslot with other users transmitting simultaneously on the uplink using a different set of carriers, at least if the system is going to be economically feasible for the carrier.  Allocating an entire timeslot often enough to keep the delay below half a second or so would result in considerable wasted bandwidth, so the idea is to have users share a timeslot by have each one use only a fraction of the available carriers.  Decoding the resulting burst at the base station then depends upon maintaining orthogonality between OFDM carriers, which means that <i>exact</i> frequency synchronization is required between multiple users.  While each user's WiMAX card synchronizes its clock with the base station, doppler shift due to changes in speed or direction or a changing multipath environment can change the received frequency at the base station enough to compromise orthogonality and make the burst impossible to decode.
</p><p>
The result of all this is, from your perspective, is that your VoIP traffic could be jittery and have long delays and high packet loss, especially when the carrier's network is heavily loaded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WiMAX was designed to handle VoIP traffic , and has specific traffic categories on the airlink for isochronous flows , like RTP and other VoIP payload streams .
Unlike something like Ethernet , which is CSMA/CD ( carrier sense multiple access , with collision detection ) , traffic is scheduled by the carrier network .
For uplink data , your WiMAX card goes through a process of requesting bandwidth on what amounts to a hailing channel , and then gets a bandwidth allocation it can use .
In theory , a small but constant amount of bandwidth can be allocated for VoIP at the airlink level , resulting in low jitter , low latency , and low frame loss .
There are a couple of problems with this .
The first problem is that not all WiMAX cards on the market today ( in fact , quite possibly none of them ) have sufficient sophistication in their device drivers and microcontrollers to send the RTP ( or Skype , or whatever VoIP protocol you 're using ) packets on an isochronous service flow while the balance of the packets travel on a general-purpose service flow .
As a result , the RTP ( etc ) packets have to compete with whatever else your machine is doing , either stuff you 're initiating with the browser , or background things like checking email or updating the Vista weather widget , or checking for updates of one kind or another .
It does n't help matters that no operating system has a network stack that implements the service flow concept .
The second problem is that low-speed isochronous flows over the WiMAX OFDMA airlink depend upon sharing a fairly large timeslot with other users transmitting simultaneously on the uplink using a different set of carriers , at least if the system is going to be economically feasible for the carrier .
Allocating an entire timeslot often enough to keep the delay below half a second or so would result in considerable wasted bandwidth , so the idea is to have users share a timeslot by have each one use only a fraction of the available carriers .
Decoding the resulting burst at the base station then depends upon maintaining orthogonality between OFDM carriers , which means that exact frequency synchronization is required between multiple users .
While each user 's WiMAX card synchronizes its clock with the base station , doppler shift due to changes in speed or direction or a changing multipath environment can change the received frequency at the base station enough to compromise orthogonality and make the burst impossible to decode .
The result of all this is , from your perspective , is that your VoIP traffic could be jittery and have long delays and high packet loss , especially when the carrier 's network is heavily loaded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WiMAX was designed to handle VoIP traffic, and has specific traffic categories on the airlink for isochronous flows, like RTP and other VoIP payload streams.
Unlike something like Ethernet, which is CSMA/CD (carrier sense multiple access, with collision detection), traffic is scheduled by the carrier network.
For uplink data, your WiMAX card goes through a process of requesting bandwidth on what amounts to a hailing channel, and then gets a bandwidth allocation it can use.
In theory, a small but constant amount of bandwidth can be allocated for VoIP at the airlink level, resulting in low jitter, low latency, and low frame loss.
There are a couple of problems with this.
The first problem is that not all WiMAX cards on the market today (in fact, quite possibly none of them) have sufficient sophistication in their device drivers and microcontrollers to send the RTP (or Skype, or whatever VoIP protocol you're using) packets on an isochronous service flow while the balance of the packets travel on a general-purpose service flow.
As a result, the RTP (etc) packets have to compete with whatever else your machine is doing, either stuff you're initiating with the browser, or background things like checking email or updating the Vista weather widget, or checking for updates of one kind or another.
It doesn't help matters that no operating system has a network stack that implements the service flow concept.
The second problem is that low-speed isochronous flows over the WiMAX OFDMA airlink depend upon sharing a fairly large timeslot with other users transmitting simultaneously on the uplink using a different set of carriers, at least if the system is going to be economically feasible for the carrier.
Allocating an entire timeslot often enough to keep the delay below half a second or so would result in considerable wasted bandwidth, so the idea is to have users share a timeslot by have each one use only a fraction of the available carriers.
Decoding the resulting burst at the base station then depends upon maintaining orthogonality between OFDM carriers, which means that exact frequency synchronization is required between multiple users.
While each user's WiMAX card synchronizes its clock with the base station, doppler shift due to changes in speed or direction or a changing multipath environment can change the received frequency at the base station enough to compromise orthogonality and make the burst impossible to decode.
The result of all this is, from your perspective, is that your VoIP traffic could be jittery and have long delays and high packet loss, especially when the carrier's network is heavily loaded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28127927</id>
	<title>Google Voice / grandcentral</title>
	<author>curri</author>
	<datestamp>1243540980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google will give you a free incoming number, and transfer (actually, reroute/repeat) to any number you choose (and many more goodies)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will give you a free incoming number , and transfer ( actually , reroute/repeat ) to any number you choose ( and many more goodies )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will give you a free incoming number, and transfer (actually, reroute/repeat) to any number you choose (and many more goodies)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116385</id>
	<title>Re:You're delusional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243423800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Canada has a WiMAX network that covers just about the same network as cell phones. Each cell tower (from Rogers and Bell) is also part of a nationwide WiMAX network.</p><p>Unfortunately you have to use their proprietary modem or usb dongle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Canada has a WiMAX network that covers just about the same network as cell phones .
Each cell tower ( from Rogers and Bell ) is also part of a nationwide WiMAX network.Unfortunately you have to use their proprietary modem or usb dongle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Canada has a WiMAX network that covers just about the same network as cell phones.
Each cell tower (from Rogers and Bell) is also part of a nationwide WiMAX network.Unfortunately you have to use their proprietary modem or usb dongle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116711</id>
	<title>Nope...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243425300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No I can't think of any problems.  Reportedly ~60ms pings, and plenty high enough speeds.  If it delivers as promised -- if the coverage isn't as good as promised, well, then you'll have phone service with all these gaps in it.  Do realize, a lot of wimax is deployed in the 1700/2100mhz spectrum, and I think Clearwire had some 2.5ghz too, the in-building penetration will be more similar to 1900mhz service than to 850.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No I ca n't think of any problems .
Reportedly ~ 60ms pings , and plenty high enough speeds .
If it delivers as promised -- if the coverage is n't as good as promised , well , then you 'll have phone service with all these gaps in it .
Do realize , a lot of wimax is deployed in the 1700/2100mhz spectrum , and I think Clearwire had some 2.5ghz too , the in-building penetration will be more similar to 1900mhz service than to 850 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No I can't think of any problems.
Reportedly ~60ms pings, and plenty high enough speeds.
If it delivers as promised -- if the coverage isn't as good as promised, well, then you'll have phone service with all these gaps in it.
Do realize, a lot of wimax is deployed in the 1700/2100mhz spectrum, and I think Clearwire had some 2.5ghz too, the in-building penetration will be more similar to 1900mhz service than to 850.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115259</id>
	<title>Re:Does Clear allow VOIP?</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1243419420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having worked for Clearwire Tech Support in the past (less than a year ago) I can tell you this is complete garbage.  They used to filter the ports that VOIP used, but even then you could call up Clearwire and ask them to unblock them for a 3rd party VOIP service, but unless something drastic has changed since I left (I doubt it), they stopped filtering VOIP ports for 3rd party VOIP over a year ago.</p><p>Having said that, I can also tell you that 3rd party VOIP did not work well in many cases with Clearwire's legacy service.  Of course, it may work much better with WiMax, but a lot of that depends on how good of a signal you get, and this can vary quite a bit in a particular market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked for Clearwire Tech Support in the past ( less than a year ago ) I can tell you this is complete garbage .
They used to filter the ports that VOIP used , but even then you could call up Clearwire and ask them to unblock them for a 3rd party VOIP service , but unless something drastic has changed since I left ( I doubt it ) , they stopped filtering VOIP ports for 3rd party VOIP over a year ago.Having said that , I can also tell you that 3rd party VOIP did not work well in many cases with Clearwire 's legacy service .
Of course , it may work much better with WiMax , but a lot of that depends on how good of a signal you get , and this can vary quite a bit in a particular market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked for Clearwire Tech Support in the past (less than a year ago) I can tell you this is complete garbage.
They used to filter the ports that VOIP used, but even then you could call up Clearwire and ask them to unblock them for a 3rd party VOIP service, but unless something drastic has changed since I left (I doubt it), they stopped filtering VOIP ports for 3rd party VOIP over a year ago.Having said that, I can also tell you that 3rd party VOIP did not work well in many cases with Clearwire's legacy service.
Of course, it may work much better with WiMax, but a lot of that depends on how good of a signal you get, and this can vary quite a bit in a particular market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116729</id>
	<title>Why bother?</title>
	<author>ukoda</author>
	<datestamp>1243425420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I heard about WiMax I was excited about the idea of long range WiFi as that's what the name and technology implied.  But reality killed that when I found it was licensed space so could not be freely used like WiFi and name was a classic case of false advertising.  I'm not sure who owns the spectrum where you are but the cases I have heard of are all telcos are buying the rights.  Given the screw every cent you can out of the customer attitude of telcos in this part of the world it's clear that WiMax will offer nothing that G3 doesn't already.  I couldn't care less what happens to WiMax, it's just another acronym in the soup of big business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I heard about WiMax I was excited about the idea of long range WiFi as that 's what the name and technology implied .
But reality killed that when I found it was licensed space so could not be freely used like WiFi and name was a classic case of false advertising .
I 'm not sure who owns the spectrum where you are but the cases I have heard of are all telcos are buying the rights .
Given the screw every cent you can out of the customer attitude of telcos in this part of the world it 's clear that WiMax will offer nothing that G3 does n't already .
I could n't care less what happens to WiMax , it 's just another acronym in the soup of big business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I heard about WiMax I was excited about the idea of long range WiFi as that's what the name and technology implied.
But reality killed that when I found it was licensed space so could not be freely used like WiFi and name was a classic case of false advertising.
I'm not sure who owns the spectrum where you are but the cases I have heard of are all telcos are buying the rights.
Given the screw every cent you can out of the customer attitude of telcos in this part of the world it's clear that WiMax will offer nothing that G3 doesn't already.
I couldn't care less what happens to WiMax, it's just another acronym in the soup of big business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114371</id>
	<title>Er...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243416180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the fact that you'll be walking around talking into a very slim brick?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the fact that you 'll be walking around talking into a very slim brick ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the fact that you'll be walking around talking into a very slim brick?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115529</id>
	<title>Re:May want to wait</title>
	<author>harryandthehenderson</author>
	<datestamp>1243420200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In addition, I believe most netbooks shut themselves down when the lid is closed; you need to either figure out a way to defeat this or figure out a way to carry it around with the lid open.</p></div><p>You mean like going to the power management settings and unchecking the box that says to sleep when closed?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , I believe most netbooks shut themselves down when the lid is closed ; you need to either figure out a way to defeat this or figure out a way to carry it around with the lid open.You mean like going to the power management settings and unchecking the box that says to sleep when closed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, I believe most netbooks shut themselves down when the lid is closed; you need to either figure out a way to defeat this or figure out a way to carry it around with the lid open.You mean like going to the power management settings and unchecking the box that says to sleep when closed?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115405</id>
	<title>Re:Problem? Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>raju1kabir</author>
	<datestamp>1243419780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, the 911 fixation is a pretty lame objection. What's the chance of being in an emergency situation where there is nobody else and no other phone around? In my many years I sure haven't seen it. I think this obsession with 911 availability that always crops up in voip discussions is just another consequence of the TV news-driven mass hysteria that's taken over the US psyche. The world really ain't that scary, folks.

</p><p>Now, the battery life and the ungainly size, those are serious problems and I'd think they'd make it an obvious non-starter right out of the gate.

</p><p>I have a netbook with wimax, and I use it when I go down to the corner bar to shoot the shit with the local drunkards but need to stay in touch with work (since work is an international call away and voip is cheaper than using my cell phone). The limited battery life is actually a good thing in this case; when the battery dies, it's time to pay up and go home.

</p><p>Lots of people laugh at it but sitting at a table in a comfortable space it's fine. Trying to use it walking down the street or in a crowded shop would be absurd. You'd need a very particular kind of life to make this your primary phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , the 911 fixation is a pretty lame objection .
What 's the chance of being in an emergency situation where there is nobody else and no other phone around ?
In my many years I sure have n't seen it .
I think this obsession with 911 availability that always crops up in voip discussions is just another consequence of the TV news-driven mass hysteria that 's taken over the US psyche .
The world really ai n't that scary , folks .
Now , the battery life and the ungainly size , those are serious problems and I 'd think they 'd make it an obvious non-starter right out of the gate .
I have a netbook with wimax , and I use it when I go down to the corner bar to shoot the shit with the local drunkards but need to stay in touch with work ( since work is an international call away and voip is cheaper than using my cell phone ) .
The limited battery life is actually a good thing in this case ; when the battery dies , it 's time to pay up and go home .
Lots of people laugh at it but sitting at a table in a comfortable space it 's fine .
Trying to use it walking down the street or in a crowded shop would be absurd .
You 'd need a very particular kind of life to make this your primary phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, the 911 fixation is a pretty lame objection.
What's the chance of being in an emergency situation where there is nobody else and no other phone around?
In my many years I sure haven't seen it.
I think this obsession with 911 availability that always crops up in voip discussions is just another consequence of the TV news-driven mass hysteria that's taken over the US psyche.
The world really ain't that scary, folks.
Now, the battery life and the ungainly size, those are serious problems and I'd think they'd make it an obvious non-starter right out of the gate.
I have a netbook with wimax, and I use it when I go down to the corner bar to shoot the shit with the local drunkards but need to stay in touch with work (since work is an international call away and voip is cheaper than using my cell phone).
The limited battery life is actually a good thing in this case; when the battery dies, it's time to pay up and go home.
Lots of people laugh at it but sitting at a table in a comfortable space it's fine.
Trying to use it walking down the street or in a crowded shop would be absurd.
You'd need a very particular kind of life to make this your primary phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116187</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing like a phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243422720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even phone lines that are disconnected can call 911 can't they? At least I'm pretty sure that's the case here in the uk (though it's 999 rather than 911)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even phone lines that are disconnected can call 911 ca n't they ?
At least I 'm pretty sure that 's the case here in the uk ( though it 's 999 rather than 911 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even phone lines that are disconnected can call 911 can't they?
At least I'm pretty sure that's the case here in the uk (though it's 999 rather than 911)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117141</id>
	<title>Re:Problem?  Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>loshwomp</author>
	<datestamp>1243428060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Hang on, let me get my computer out of suspend...</p><p>And put my headset on...</p></div><p>I'm going to put on my robe and wizard hat...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hang on , let me get my computer out of suspend...And put my headset on...I 'm going to put on my robe and wizard hat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hang on, let me get my computer out of suspend...And put my headset on...I'm going to put on my robe and wizard hat...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114579</id>
	<title>Done it</title>
	<author>technicalandsocial</author>
	<datestamp>1243417020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CP Lawn Bowling Club in Victoria, BC has done this. WiMAX -&gt; Buffalo AP -&gt; Linksys PAP2T -&gt; SIP provider. Bringing the monthly bill from $54/month with Telus on copper pair, to $35/month for unlimited long distance and broadband/wifi as well. <a href="http://cplawnbowling.org/" title="cplawnbowling.org" rel="nofollow">http://cplawnbowling.org/</a> [cplawnbowling.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CP Lawn Bowling Club in Victoria , BC has done this .
WiMAX - &gt; Buffalo AP - &gt; Linksys PAP2T - &gt; SIP provider .
Bringing the monthly bill from $ 54/month with Telus on copper pair , to $ 35/month for unlimited long distance and broadband/wifi as well .
http : //cplawnbowling.org/ [ cplawnbowling.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CP Lawn Bowling Club in Victoria, BC has done this.
WiMAX -&gt; Buffalo AP -&gt; Linksys PAP2T -&gt; SIP provider.
Bringing the monthly bill from $54/month with Telus on copper pair, to $35/month for unlimited long distance and broadband/wifi as well.
http://cplawnbowling.org/ [cplawnbowling.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115309</id>
	<title>Nothing like a phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243419540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always theorized that there's nothing like a good, old-fashioned PHONE. I've known people want to get rid of their phone lines because "I'll just use Skype and the neighbor's wi-fi".</p><p>One word here: reliability. I don't want my phone line to be reliant on either [1] the electrical main working at my home, or [2] my computer being powered on and working.</p><p>Back in my landline-only days, I always had a cordless and corded phone, so I could make and receive calls during a power failure. Now that I'm cell-only, the problem is taken care of, as long as I keep my phone charged.</p><p>"Honey, call 911! The neighbor's house in on fire!"</p><p>"I can't! I've been mooching their wi-fi and the fire already destroyed their WAP, so I can't Skype!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always theorized that there 's nothing like a good , old-fashioned PHONE .
I 've known people want to get rid of their phone lines because " I 'll just use Skype and the neighbor 's wi-fi " .One word here : reliability .
I do n't want my phone line to be reliant on either [ 1 ] the electrical main working at my home , or [ 2 ] my computer being powered on and working.Back in my landline-only days , I always had a cordless and corded phone , so I could make and receive calls during a power failure .
Now that I 'm cell-only , the problem is taken care of , as long as I keep my phone charged .
" Honey , call 911 !
The neighbor 's house in on fire !
" " I ca n't !
I 've been mooching their wi-fi and the fire already destroyed their WAP , so I ca n't Skype !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always theorized that there's nothing like a good, old-fashioned PHONE.
I've known people want to get rid of their phone lines because "I'll just use Skype and the neighbor's wi-fi".One word here: reliability.
I don't want my phone line to be reliant on either [1] the electrical main working at my home, or [2] my computer being powered on and working.Back in my landline-only days, I always had a cordless and corded phone, so I could make and receive calls during a power failure.
Now that I'm cell-only, the problem is taken care of, as long as I keep my phone charged.
"Honey, call 911!
The neighbor's house in on fire!
""I can't!
I've been mooching their wi-fi and the fire already destroyed their WAP, so I can't Skype!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115407</id>
	<title>Latency?</title>
	<author>BlueScreenOfTOM</author>
	<datestamp>1243419780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised I'm seeing not a lot of comments here about latency issues.  I live in Baltimore and I also happen to live in an area where we're stuck with a single provider for broadband internet (a condo with an exclusive contract to a horrible, horrible ISP.  No, not Comcast or Verizon... MDU Communications).  Before WiMAX came along, I had no option but to stick with the horrible ISP or deal with dial up.  When I found out WiMAX was available where I live, I was excited.  I went to one of their booths at a mall and played with it, but I was a little concerned with the latency.  I was pinging google and wasn't getting a response for ~250ms.  This isn't horrible for such a service, but even MDU gives me less than half that for most sites.
<br>
<br>
You might want to stop by a WiMAX booth in a mall like I did and try and make a few calls and make sure everything works as expected.  They let me do pretty much whatever I wanted (in fact, the sales guy pretty much left me alone).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised I 'm seeing not a lot of comments here about latency issues .
I live in Baltimore and I also happen to live in an area where we 're stuck with a single provider for broadband internet ( a condo with an exclusive contract to a horrible , horrible ISP .
No , not Comcast or Verizon... MDU Communications ) .
Before WiMAX came along , I had no option but to stick with the horrible ISP or deal with dial up .
When I found out WiMAX was available where I live , I was excited .
I went to one of their booths at a mall and played with it , but I was a little concerned with the latency .
I was pinging google and was n't getting a response for ~ 250ms .
This is n't horrible for such a service , but even MDU gives me less than half that for most sites .
You might want to stop by a WiMAX booth in a mall like I did and try and make a few calls and make sure everything works as expected .
They let me do pretty much whatever I wanted ( in fact , the sales guy pretty much left me alone ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised I'm seeing not a lot of comments here about latency issues.
I live in Baltimore and I also happen to live in an area where we're stuck with a single provider for broadband internet (a condo with an exclusive contract to a horrible, horrible ISP.
No, not Comcast or Verizon... MDU Communications).
Before WiMAX came along, I had no option but to stick with the horrible ISP or deal with dial up.
When I found out WiMAX was available where I live, I was excited.
I went to one of their booths at a mall and played with it, but I was a little concerned with the latency.
I was pinging google and wasn't getting a response for ~250ms.
This isn't horrible for such a service, but even MDU gives me less than half that for most sites.
You might want to stop by a WiMAX booth in a mall like I did and try and make a few calls and make sure everything works as expected.
They let me do pretty much whatever I wanted (in fact, the sales guy pretty much left me alone).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28120165</id>
	<title>Using WiMAX To Replace a Phone?</title>
	<author>ronrontan</author>
	<datestamp>1243542480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"while eschewing the services of a cellphone provider" =&gt; obvious problem: You need a phone number from a cellphone provider.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" while eschewing the services of a cellphone provider " = &gt; obvious problem : You need a phone number from a cellphone provider .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"while eschewing the services of a cellphone provider" =&gt; obvious problem: You need a phone number from a cellphone provider.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116943</id>
	<title>Re:Problem? Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>atraintocry</author>
	<datestamp>1243426800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The chances that you are going to really, life-or-death, need it are pretty small.</p></div><p>Yeah, but when you do, it's life-or-death.</p><p>Or to put it in Slashdot terms: I don't keep backups because I expect my hard drives to crash all the time, I keep them because just one crash would be very, very bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The chances that you are going to really , life-or-death , need it are pretty small.Yeah , but when you do , it 's life-or-death.Or to put it in Slashdot terms : I do n't keep backups because I expect my hard drives to crash all the time , I keep them because just one crash would be very , very bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chances that you are going to really, life-or-death, need it are pretty small.Yeah, but when you do, it's life-or-death.Or to put it in Slashdot terms: I don't keep backups because I expect my hard drives to crash all the time, I keep them because just one crash would be very, very bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114731</id>
	<title>MID?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243417680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't familiar with MID, so I googled it. I have my doubts that your Modesto Irrigation District will function as a telephone, and anyway it doesn't look very portable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't familiar with MID , so I googled it .
I have my doubts that your Modesto Irrigation District will function as a telephone , and anyway it does n't look very portable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't familiar with MID, so I googled it.
I have my doubts that your Modesto Irrigation District will function as a telephone, and anyway it doesn't look very portable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115589</id>
	<title>Re:Problem? Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>shakah</author>
	<datestamp>1243420380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW, I work for a telephony provider and we see approximately 1 call per day to emergency services per 1k lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , I work for a telephony provider and we see approximately 1 call per day to emergency services per 1k lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, I work for a telephony provider and we see approximately 1 call per day to emergency services per 1k lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114703</id>
	<title>As a desktop phone, sure</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1243417620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I would use the Google Voice service to try your laptop first and then fall back to a cheap pay-as-you-go cellphone number, for all the times when you don't have your laptop conveniently available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I would use the Google Voice service to try your laptop first and then fall back to a cheap pay-as-you-go cellphone number , for all the times when you do n't have your laptop conveniently available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I would use the Google Voice service to try your laptop first and then fall back to a cheap pay-as-you-go cellphone number, for all the times when you don't have your laptop conveniently available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115647</id>
	<title>Coverage, battery, QoS and Telco policy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243420620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Across the air interface - WiMAX can support VoIP calls without problems.  There are two scheduler types that are good for this - UGS (Unsolicited Grant Service best for G.711 codecs and no voice activity detection) and ERT-PS (Enhanced Realtime Polling Service - good for compressed codecs that do silence supression).  Even with an unloaded WiMAX cell the Best Effort scheduler type isn't so hot due to the SS BW-request, BS grant, SS transmit sequence for uplink traffic which means there is a fair bit of one way latency and jitter in the uplink direction.  All scheduling activities get controlled by the Base Station which is good, however most service providers will over subscribe the best effort data queues meaning that you probably want to avoid BE traffic.</p><p>If configured to do so, the WiMAX network can support dynamic service flow creation, so when your SIP message says that a call needs to be set up, the controller will find out if the user's profile supports QoS and whether or not there is bandwidth available on the air interface, a service flow for the RTP stream can be created for the duration of the call - however it is unlikely that the service provider would allow that for competitors voice calls and things like Skype would be battling other customers traffic in the BE queues, giving a richer experience if you use the network providers voice services.</p><p>WiMAX is smart enough to change which radio modulation scheme is used (QPSK 1/2, QPSK 3/4, 16QAM 1/2, 16QAM 3/4 in the uplink direction for instance) depending on packet error rate (mainly impacted by signal quality though signal strength is also impact) so in poorer conditions a more robust but less efficient scheme is used.  Even so, there may be a point where coverage just isnt reliable enough for a phone call to work even with signal coverage (some of this may depend on codec selection)</p><p>It is unlikely that WiMAX will give ubiquitous coverage, so having a netbook as your primary portable communications device may not be a good idea if you always need to make/recieve calls on the fly.  That said, with client based Mobile IP and multiple access technologies WiFi/WiMAX/CDMA your applications can be unaware of which connection is in use at the time which might be good enough for some purposes (continuous shell sessions), however it would seem unlikely that such a thing would be good for voice with acceptable quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Across the air interface - WiMAX can support VoIP calls without problems .
There are two scheduler types that are good for this - UGS ( Unsolicited Grant Service best for G.711 codecs and no voice activity detection ) and ERT-PS ( Enhanced Realtime Polling Service - good for compressed codecs that do silence supression ) .
Even with an unloaded WiMAX cell the Best Effort scheduler type is n't so hot due to the SS BW-request , BS grant , SS transmit sequence for uplink traffic which means there is a fair bit of one way latency and jitter in the uplink direction .
All scheduling activities get controlled by the Base Station which is good , however most service providers will over subscribe the best effort data queues meaning that you probably want to avoid BE traffic.If configured to do so , the WiMAX network can support dynamic service flow creation , so when your SIP message says that a call needs to be set up , the controller will find out if the user 's profile supports QoS and whether or not there is bandwidth available on the air interface , a service flow for the RTP stream can be created for the duration of the call - however it is unlikely that the service provider would allow that for competitors voice calls and things like Skype would be battling other customers traffic in the BE queues , giving a richer experience if you use the network providers voice services.WiMAX is smart enough to change which radio modulation scheme is used ( QPSK 1/2 , QPSK 3/4 , 16QAM 1/2 , 16QAM 3/4 in the uplink direction for instance ) depending on packet error rate ( mainly impacted by signal quality though signal strength is also impact ) so in poorer conditions a more robust but less efficient scheme is used .
Even so , there may be a point where coverage just isnt reliable enough for a phone call to work even with signal coverage ( some of this may depend on codec selection ) It is unlikely that WiMAX will give ubiquitous coverage , so having a netbook as your primary portable communications device may not be a good idea if you always need to make/recieve calls on the fly .
That said , with client based Mobile IP and multiple access technologies WiFi/WiMAX/CDMA your applications can be unaware of which connection is in use at the time which might be good enough for some purposes ( continuous shell sessions ) , however it would seem unlikely that such a thing would be good for voice with acceptable quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Across the air interface - WiMAX can support VoIP calls without problems.
There are two scheduler types that are good for this - UGS (Unsolicited Grant Service best for G.711 codecs and no voice activity detection) and ERT-PS (Enhanced Realtime Polling Service - good for compressed codecs that do silence supression).
Even with an unloaded WiMAX cell the Best Effort scheduler type isn't so hot due to the SS BW-request, BS grant, SS transmit sequence for uplink traffic which means there is a fair bit of one way latency and jitter in the uplink direction.
All scheduling activities get controlled by the Base Station which is good, however most service providers will over subscribe the best effort data queues meaning that you probably want to avoid BE traffic.If configured to do so, the WiMAX network can support dynamic service flow creation, so when your SIP message says that a call needs to be set up, the controller will find out if the user's profile supports QoS and whether or not there is bandwidth available on the air interface, a service flow for the RTP stream can be created for the duration of the call - however it is unlikely that the service provider would allow that for competitors voice calls and things like Skype would be battling other customers traffic in the BE queues, giving a richer experience if you use the network providers voice services.WiMAX is smart enough to change which radio modulation scheme is used (QPSK 1/2, QPSK 3/4, 16QAM 1/2, 16QAM 3/4 in the uplink direction for instance) depending on packet error rate (mainly impacted by signal quality though signal strength is also impact) so in poorer conditions a more robust but less efficient scheme is used.
Even so, there may be a point where coverage just isnt reliable enough for a phone call to work even with signal coverage (some of this may depend on codec selection)It is unlikely that WiMAX will give ubiquitous coverage, so having a netbook as your primary portable communications device may not be a good idea if you always need to make/recieve calls on the fly.
That said, with client based Mobile IP and multiple access technologies WiFi/WiMAX/CDMA your applications can be unaware of which connection is in use at the time which might be good enough for some purposes (continuous shell sessions), however it would seem unlikely that such a thing would be good for voice with acceptable quality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116019</id>
	<title>Use 3G.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243421880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been considering this, and through my research. Most capped 3G connections (data plans) are still cheaper than cellphone service if all you want to use is voip. Skype doesn't use too much bandwidth. 2000 minutes of talking on skype is about 1GB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been considering this , and through my research .
Most capped 3G connections ( data plans ) are still cheaper than cellphone service if all you want to use is voip .
Skype does n't use too much bandwidth .
2000 minutes of talking on skype is about 1GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been considering this, and through my research.
Most capped 3G connections (data plans) are still cheaper than cellphone service if all you want to use is voip.
Skype doesn't use too much bandwidth.
2000 minutes of talking on skype is about 1GB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117535</id>
	<title>Re:May want to wait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why 24 hours?  Does the battery magically refresh after 24 hours?  He only needs battery life while he's away from a power outlet.</p><p>Most laptops also go to sleep when you close the lid; that's a fairly easy thing to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why 24 hours ?
Does the battery magically refresh after 24 hours ?
He only needs battery life while he 's away from a power outlet.Most laptops also go to sleep when you close the lid ; that 's a fairly easy thing to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why 24 hours?
Does the battery magically refresh after 24 hours?
He only needs battery life while he's away from a power outlet.Most laptops also go to sleep when you close the lid; that's a fairly easy thing to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117019</id>
	<title>Re:You're delusional</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1243427400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ca...ear...m...ow?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca...ear...m...ow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ca...ear...m...ow?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117393</id>
	<title>Re:Problem? Naaaaaah</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1243429740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use an unactivated cell phone that uses traditional services (CDMA, GSM, etc). Use that to dial 911. Also why can't a VOIP client look at say a client's IP to figure out their location? I have banner ads letting me know that singles are in my area and I should act immediately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use an unactivated cell phone that uses traditional services ( CDMA , GSM , etc ) .
Use that to dial 911 .
Also why ca n't a VOIP client look at say a client 's IP to figure out their location ?
I have banner ads letting me know that singles are in my area and I should act immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use an unactivated cell phone that uses traditional services (CDMA, GSM, etc).
Use that to dial 911.
Also why can't a VOIP client look at say a client's IP to figure out their location?
I have banner ads letting me know that singles are in my area and I should act immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115405</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28164581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28121161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28127927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28120065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_1955206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28121215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28164581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115405
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117393
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28127927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28121161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28117019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28116187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28115259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28120065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_1955206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_1955206.28114731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
