<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_2150205</id>
	<title>Senators To Examine Exclusive Handset Deals</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245159240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.itworld.com/" rel="nofollow">narramissic</a> writes <i>"Based on a request that a group of rural operators sent <a href="http://itworld.com/government/69373/senators-examine-exclusive-handset-deals">asking the FCC to examine the practice of handset exclusivity</a>, four members of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet sent a <a href="http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=314462">letter</a> to the FCC expressing their concern. Small operators, like U.S. Cellular <a href="http://www.rca-usa.org/associations/6491/files/exclusive-handset-reply-comment-summary.pdf">argue</a> (PDF) that 'exclusive handset contracts divide wireless customers into haves and have nots.' But nationwide operators, including Verizon, <a href="http://www.rca-usa.org/associations/6491/files/summary-of-comments-in-rm-11497-020409.pdf">maintain</a> (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.' The Commerce Committee expects to hold a hearing on the issue tomorrow."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>narramissic writes " Based on a request that a group of rural operators sent asking the FCC to examine the practice of handset exclusivity , four members of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications , Technology and the Internet sent a letter to the FCC expressing their concern .
Small operators , like U.S. Cellular argue ( PDF ) that 'exclusive handset contracts divide wireless customers into haves and have nots .
' But nationwide operators , including Verizon , maintain ( PDF ) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets .
' The Commerce Committee expects to hold a hearing on the issue tomorrow .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>narramissic writes "Based on a request that a group of rural operators sent asking the FCC to examine the practice of handset exclusivity, four members of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet sent a letter to the FCC expressing their concern.
Small operators, like U.S. Cellular argue (PDF) that 'exclusive handset contracts divide wireless customers into haves and have nots.
' But nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.
' The Commerce Committee expects to hold a hearing on the issue tomorrow.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359745</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245241860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not.  They all use Asian contract manufacturers.  Verizon is a fucking liar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not .
They all use Asian contract manufacturers .
Verizon is a fucking liar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not.
They all use Asian contract manufacturers.
Verizon is a fucking liar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358363</id>
	<title>Ugh!</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1245181620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole cell phone market and carriers is overall pretty twisted and generally nasty.  I kept myself willfully ignorant of most of it until recently.  (I was happy in my ignorance too...sigh.)  But my old Palm IIIc was not going to live forever so I thought it was time to finally update my knowledge on ultra-mobile computing.</p><p>What I found out right away was that what I really wanted was a Nokia n810 but that it was not going to be a phone.  Nor was it going to be online unless I was tethered or on Wifi.  Not a huge deal given that those were the only real major downsides.  And to make a long story short I did finally end up with a n810 which I love.  My biggest complaint is that it is a little big &amp; heavy but overall I'm very pleased.</p><p>But at a point the new n810's were out of stock everywhere.  I looked around for a used one but it was slow going so I thought I should look at a smartphone option vs my old setup, dumbphone &amp; PDA.  Both setups have their pros and cons and at some point I might go smartphone &amp; tablet (I guess calling the Nokia devices PDAs felt passe.) but I digress.</p><p>Finally getting to my point here when I looked at the options with smartphones I got pretty annoyed pretty quick.  The fact that they mask the price of the devices with rebates and contract requirements is not good.  The fact that not only are not all of the devices available on all the carriers but that each carrier can have their own set of rules on how the devices will function is annoying.  Nevermind that even if you do have a device that can be used by multiple carriers most if not all of them won't turn it on unless it has their tag on it.</p><p>None the less I eventually found a smartphone that I thought I could live with and set about trying to negotiate upgrading my old phone to that with my carrier.  I felt like I had walked into the sleezyest of used car dealerships with 'Mark' written on my forehead in glowing ink.  The idea that I did not want to upgrade to a plan that was 2 to 3 times what I was currently paying for the privilege of using this phone resulted in political levels of feigned outrage.</p><p>In fact when I would be asked about what I was looking for and outline my needs the idea that I don't spend half my day texting seemed downright shocking to these reps.  The fact that what I really wanted was a block on all texting on my account had them looking for wooden stakes.  For kicks I went to an AT&amp;T rep at one point and worked in the term 'jailbreaking' as often as I could into our conversation.  To his credit he did what he could to sell me but developed an unhealthy tick in his left eye.</p><p>To me the whole cell carrier/phone business needs a lot of work because from top to bottom it's a mess right now.  Hopefully that a light is being shown on some of their nonsense will clean some of it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole cell phone market and carriers is overall pretty twisted and generally nasty .
I kept myself willfully ignorant of most of it until recently .
( I was happy in my ignorance too...sigh .
) But my old Palm IIIc was not going to live forever so I thought it was time to finally update my knowledge on ultra-mobile computing.What I found out right away was that what I really wanted was a Nokia n810 but that it was not going to be a phone .
Nor was it going to be online unless I was tethered or on Wifi .
Not a huge deal given that those were the only real major downsides .
And to make a long story short I did finally end up with a n810 which I love .
My biggest complaint is that it is a little big &amp; heavy but overall I 'm very pleased.But at a point the new n810 's were out of stock everywhere .
I looked around for a used one but it was slow going so I thought I should look at a smartphone option vs my old setup , dumbphone &amp; PDA .
Both setups have their pros and cons and at some point I might go smartphone &amp; tablet ( I guess calling the Nokia devices PDAs felt passe .
) but I digress.Finally getting to my point here when I looked at the options with smartphones I got pretty annoyed pretty quick .
The fact that they mask the price of the devices with rebates and contract requirements is not good .
The fact that not only are not all of the devices available on all the carriers but that each carrier can have their own set of rules on how the devices will function is annoying .
Nevermind that even if you do have a device that can be used by multiple carriers most if not all of them wo n't turn it on unless it has their tag on it.None the less I eventually found a smartphone that I thought I could live with and set about trying to negotiate upgrading my old phone to that with my carrier .
I felt like I had walked into the sleezyest of used car dealerships with 'Mark ' written on my forehead in glowing ink .
The idea that I did not want to upgrade to a plan that was 2 to 3 times what I was currently paying for the privilege of using this phone resulted in political levels of feigned outrage.In fact when I would be asked about what I was looking for and outline my needs the idea that I do n't spend half my day texting seemed downright shocking to these reps. The fact that what I really wanted was a block on all texting on my account had them looking for wooden stakes .
For kicks I went to an AT&amp;T rep at one point and worked in the term 'jailbreaking ' as often as I could into our conversation .
To his credit he did what he could to sell me but developed an unhealthy tick in his left eye.To me the whole cell carrier/phone business needs a lot of work because from top to bottom it 's a mess right now .
Hopefully that a light is being shown on some of their nonsense will clean some of it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole cell phone market and carriers is overall pretty twisted and generally nasty.
I kept myself willfully ignorant of most of it until recently.
(I was happy in my ignorance too...sigh.
)  But my old Palm IIIc was not going to live forever so I thought it was time to finally update my knowledge on ultra-mobile computing.What I found out right away was that what I really wanted was a Nokia n810 but that it was not going to be a phone.
Nor was it going to be online unless I was tethered or on Wifi.
Not a huge deal given that those were the only real major downsides.
And to make a long story short I did finally end up with a n810 which I love.
My biggest complaint is that it is a little big &amp; heavy but overall I'm very pleased.But at a point the new n810's were out of stock everywhere.
I looked around for a used one but it was slow going so I thought I should look at a smartphone option vs my old setup, dumbphone &amp; PDA.
Both setups have their pros and cons and at some point I might go smartphone &amp; tablet (I guess calling the Nokia devices PDAs felt passe.
) but I digress.Finally getting to my point here when I looked at the options with smartphones I got pretty annoyed pretty quick.
The fact that they mask the price of the devices with rebates and contract requirements is not good.
The fact that not only are not all of the devices available on all the carriers but that each carrier can have their own set of rules on how the devices will function is annoying.
Nevermind that even if you do have a device that can be used by multiple carriers most if not all of them won't turn it on unless it has their tag on it.None the less I eventually found a smartphone that I thought I could live with and set about trying to negotiate upgrading my old phone to that with my carrier.
I felt like I had walked into the sleezyest of used car dealerships with 'Mark' written on my forehead in glowing ink.
The idea that I did not want to upgrade to a plan that was 2 to 3 times what I was currently paying for the privilege of using this phone resulted in political levels of feigned outrage.In fact when I would be asked about what I was looking for and outline my needs the idea that I don't spend half my day texting seemed downright shocking to these reps.  The fact that what I really wanted was a block on all texting on my account had them looking for wooden stakes.
For kicks I went to an AT&amp;T rep at one point and worked in the term 'jailbreaking' as often as I could into our conversation.
To his credit he did what he could to sell me but developed an unhealthy tick in his left eye.To me the whole cell carrier/phone business needs a lot of work because from top to bottom it's a mess right now.
Hopefully that a light is being shown on some of their nonsense will clean some of it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356527</id>
	<title>"Innovative", as in having features disabled?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um... yeah..  carriers would never disable features on cellphones, now would they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... yeah.. carriers would never disable features on cellphones , now would they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... yeah..  carriers would never disable features on cellphones, now would they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357147</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>Brickwall</author>
	<datestamp>1245168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, this again misses the point. You clearly don't understand that network modifications might need to be made, changes to billing systems, etc., all of which cost money. A CDMA network is as different from a TDSM one as a highway is from a railroad. So Union Pacific should demand that GM - well, maybe Toyota - build cars that can on railways as well? Or, since that example is backward from this case, let's turn it around - GM should demand that UP change their signals, sidings, billing, etc., so their "dual" cars could run on UP's tracks? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , this again misses the point .
You clearly do n't understand that network modifications might need to be made , changes to billing systems , etc. , all of which cost money .
A CDMA network is as different from a TDSM one as a highway is from a railroad .
So Union Pacific should demand that GM - well , maybe Toyota - build cars that can on railways as well ?
Or , since that example is backward from this case , let 's turn it around - GM should demand that UP change their signals , sidings , billing , etc. , so their " dual " cars could run on UP 's tracks ?
Yeah , that makes a lot of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, this again misses the point.
You clearly don't understand that network modifications might need to be made, changes to billing systems, etc., all of which cost money.
A CDMA network is as different from a TDSM one as a highway is from a railroad.
So Union Pacific should demand that GM - well, maybe Toyota - build cars that can on railways as well?
Or, since that example is backward from this case, let's turn it around - GM should demand that UP change their signals, sidings, billing, etc., so their "dual" cars could run on UP's tracks?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358377</id>
	<title>I find it odd that Verizon is taking that stance</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1245181740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, it seems like they're truly on the losing end of the whole "exlusive handset" thing.  In fact, when I hear people decrying iphone on AT&amp;T, Verizon is one of the names I hear most frequently as the network they'd much rather have it on.  I mean sure, Verizon had some decent phones -- but everyone these days wants a smart phone and verizon has almost nothing to offer in that department aside from a few "meh" Blackberries (which aren't all that exclusive).  Sprint has the Instinct and Pre, T-Mobile has the G1, and AT&amp;T, of course, has the Iphone.  Verizon has  . .  . Nada for smart phones?</p><p>I don't know if this is just Verizon truly standing on principle (which seems unlikely), or simply the old guard of Verizon executives not realizing that the tide of exclusivity has actually turned against them in the last year or so and that they really no longer benefit from the idea of handset exclusivity since their rivals currently benefit far more it.  Perhaps they're assuming that manufacturers of GSM devices wouldn't necessarily make CDMA versions if there was no exclusivity contracts.  I can sorta see how their position might make financial sense if they only gained access to the Palm Pre and not the iphone due to lack of CDMA iphone.</p><p> I've got to imagine that if every Phone was available on every network tomorrow, Verizon would be in far stronger market position by being able to offer the Iphone than they would be by losing exclusivity on whatever junk they currently have. Their plans are cheaper, and their 3g coverage is superior to AT&amp;T's (at least from my experience).  I just can't imagine AT&amp;T could compete with other providers for iphone contracts on a level playing field.  Worse still, the cost of exclusivity just gets dumped on the customer.  Iphone plans are about 20 bucks more per month than a similar plan for any other phone would run you . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , it seems like they 're truly on the losing end of the whole " exlusive handset " thing .
In fact , when I hear people decrying iphone on AT&amp;T , Verizon is one of the names I hear most frequently as the network they 'd much rather have it on .
I mean sure , Verizon had some decent phones -- but everyone these days wants a smart phone and verizon has almost nothing to offer in that department aside from a few " meh " Blackberries ( which are n't all that exclusive ) .
Sprint has the Instinct and Pre , T-Mobile has the G1 , and AT&amp;T , of course , has the Iphone .
Verizon has .
. .
Nada for smart phones ? I do n't know if this is just Verizon truly standing on principle ( which seems unlikely ) , or simply the old guard of Verizon executives not realizing that the tide of exclusivity has actually turned against them in the last year or so and that they really no longer benefit from the idea of handset exclusivity since their rivals currently benefit far more it .
Perhaps they 're assuming that manufacturers of GSM devices would n't necessarily make CDMA versions if there was no exclusivity contracts .
I can sorta see how their position might make financial sense if they only gained access to the Palm Pre and not the iphone due to lack of CDMA iphone .
I 've got to imagine that if every Phone was available on every network tomorrow , Verizon would be in far stronger market position by being able to offer the Iphone than they would be by losing exclusivity on whatever junk they currently have .
Their plans are cheaper , and their 3g coverage is superior to AT&amp;T 's ( at least from my experience ) .
I just ca n't imagine AT&amp;T could compete with other providers for iphone contracts on a level playing field .
Worse still , the cost of exclusivity just gets dumped on the customer .
Iphone plans are about 20 bucks more per month than a similar plan for any other phone would run you .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, it seems like they're truly on the losing end of the whole "exlusive handset" thing.
In fact, when I hear people decrying iphone on AT&amp;T, Verizon is one of the names I hear most frequently as the network they'd much rather have it on.
I mean sure, Verizon had some decent phones -- but everyone these days wants a smart phone and verizon has almost nothing to offer in that department aside from a few "meh" Blackberries (which aren't all that exclusive).
Sprint has the Instinct and Pre, T-Mobile has the G1, and AT&amp;T, of course, has the Iphone.
Verizon has  .
.  .
Nada for smart phones?I don't know if this is just Verizon truly standing on principle (which seems unlikely), or simply the old guard of Verizon executives not realizing that the tide of exclusivity has actually turned against them in the last year or so and that they really no longer benefit from the idea of handset exclusivity since their rivals currently benefit far more it.
Perhaps they're assuming that manufacturers of GSM devices wouldn't necessarily make CDMA versions if there was no exclusivity contracts.
I can sorta see how their position might make financial sense if they only gained access to the Palm Pre and not the iphone due to lack of CDMA iphone.
I've got to imagine that if every Phone was available on every network tomorrow, Verizon would be in far stronger market position by being able to offer the Iphone than they would be by losing exclusivity on whatever junk they currently have.
Their plans are cheaper, and their 3g coverage is superior to AT&amp;T's (at least from my experience).
I just can't imagine AT&amp;T could compete with other providers for iphone contracts on a level playing field.
Worse still, the cost of exclusivity just gets dumped on the customer.
Iphone plans are about 20 bucks more per month than a similar plan for any other phone would run you .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356563</id>
	<title>Here's a game..</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1245163440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Name one innovative handset developed by carriers such as Sprint, AT&amp;T, et all.</p><p>Nokia, RIM, Apple and (previously) Motorola have developed all the 'innovative handsets'.</p><p>What'd sprint give us?</p><p>Rebranded, OEM, disposable turds</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name one innovative handset developed by carriers such as Sprint , AT&amp;T , et all.Nokia , RIM , Apple and ( previously ) Motorola have developed all the 'innovative handsets'.What 'd sprint give us ? Rebranded , OEM , disposable turds</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name one innovative handset developed by carriers such as Sprint, AT&amp;T, et all.Nokia, RIM, Apple and (previously) Motorola have developed all the 'innovative handsets'.What'd sprint give us?Rebranded, OEM, disposable turds</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357245</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1245169080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trains and cars?  Minimal changes need to be made to the cellular systems to support new models (that are similar to existing models) and monitor usage.  This isn't 1993.

</p><p>You are talking more about forcing a CDMA network into allowing my 802.11a adapter on, because hell, they both provide data.  I get your analogy now.  As soon as UP starts allowing GM cars on their tracks and not Toyota, then you would make sense.

</p><p>It's less of a forcing GM onto UP, but if they'll allow GM on UP rails only if GM won't also sell to Southern Pacific, then that's why SP would call foul (any sort of rail spacing aside, I'm not a train enthusiast).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trains and cars ?
Minimal changes need to be made to the cellular systems to support new models ( that are similar to existing models ) and monitor usage .
This is n't 1993 .
You are talking more about forcing a CDMA network into allowing my 802.11a adapter on , because hell , they both provide data .
I get your analogy now .
As soon as UP starts allowing GM cars on their tracks and not Toyota , then you would make sense .
It 's less of a forcing GM onto UP , but if they 'll allow GM on UP rails only if GM wo n't also sell to Southern Pacific , then that 's why SP would call foul ( any sort of rail spacing aside , I 'm not a train enthusiast ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trains and cars?
Minimal changes need to be made to the cellular systems to support new models (that are similar to existing models) and monitor usage.
This isn't 1993.
You are talking more about forcing a CDMA network into allowing my 802.11a adapter on, because hell, they both provide data.
I get your analogy now.
As soon as UP starts allowing GM cars on their tracks and not Toyota, then you would make sense.
It's less of a forcing GM onto UP, but if they'll allow GM on UP rails only if GM won't also sell to Southern Pacific, then that's why SP would call foul (any sort of rail spacing aside, I'm not a train enthusiast).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503</id>
	<title>Binding Contracts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" Small operators, like U.S. Cellular argue (PDF) that 'exclusive handset contracts divide wireless customers into haves and have nots.' But nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.'"</p><p>So I can use a U.S. Cellular phone under contract in any other compatiable network?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Small operators , like U.S. Cellular argue ( PDF ) that 'exclusive handset contracts divide wireless customers into haves and have nots .
' But nationwide operators , including Verizon , maintain ( PDF ) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets .
' " So I can use a U.S. Cellular phone under contract in any other compatiable network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Small operators, like U.S. Cellular argue (PDF) that 'exclusive handset contracts divide wireless customers into haves and have nots.
' But nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.
'"So I can use a U.S. Cellular phone under contract in any other compatiable network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358035</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245178080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like the banks developed "innovative financial products".<br>Hey that worked!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like the banks developed " innovative financial products " .Hey that worked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like the banks developed "innovative financial products".Hey that worked!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28362335</id>
	<title>I think Apple is behind this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider... at the last WWDC, Apple took a lot of ribbing about AT&amp;T being slow to add MMS and tethering.  iPhone users complain about slowness, dropped calls, etc.  Apple is stuck in its agreement until 2010 unless it can convince AT&amp;T to let go, which AT&amp;T won't do because the iPhone brings in too many customers and locks them in once they're there (ignoring jailbreaking and such).</p><p>Not too coincidentally, Sprint just announced an exclusive deal for the Palm Pre, and already offers the Blackberry.  This makes it a purveyor of the two biggest competitors to the iPhone.  There is a waiting list at many Sprint stores to get the Pre, which shows that Sprint is on to something.  But the Pre needs work to be a serious competitor to the iPhone, though the Pre is a nice phone already.  If Palm was forced to drop the exclusive with Sprint, it would have to focus effort on modifying the phone to work on other carriers, slowing the addition of new features and applications (which means it would be less effective at competing with the iPhone).  So killing exclusive handset deals might actually hurt the Pre.  But it HELPS the iPhone, since it allows Apple to move the phone to more carriers (something that Apple's been doing internationally, so adding more U.S. carriers ought to be relatively trivial).</p><p>Then there's Sprint.  It's one of very few networks that can't use the current iPhone, which is GSM-based while Sprint's network is CDMA-based.  Taking away Sprint's exclusivity for the Pre would hurt one of its best chances for survival and success in the coming months.  Killing off Sprint and the other CDMA carriers saves Apple lots of expense in having to create a CDMA-based iPhone model.</p><p>There's an old saying that if you want to know what's really going on, follow the money.  While killing off exclusivity deals would help small carriers and the consumer, we all know lobbyists and politicians rarely pay more than lip service to small business (even though they should) and consumers (even though we elect them).  So the question is, where does the "real money" in this deal go?</p><p>Let's see... Apple gets out of its AT&amp;T deal without penalty, saving face and selling lots more iPhones on more U.S. networks (without losing overseas exclusivity).   Development of the most-likely rival to the iPhone is set back by a need to support more carriers, which benefits Apple and the iPhone.  Severing the exclusive deal between Sprint and Palm sticks a knife into Sprint, which was already in trouble anyway, and which just happens to offer the two best alternatives to the iPhone.  Looks like lots of money flows Apple's way if this goes through, and Apple loses nothing if it doesn't.</p><p>Just to make the tinfoil hat scenario complete... Consider that Al Gore (former Democratic Vice President of the U.S.) is on the Apple Board of Directors, and that this particular anti-exclusivity effort is headed by fellow Democrat John Kerry.  It doesn't take too much of a paranoid fantasy to imagine Apple management going to Al Gore and asking for help getting out of the AT&amp;T deal early, Gore calling up his old buddy John, and John suddenly "noticing" all these letters he's been getting from small carriers over the years wanting an end to exclusive handset deals.</p><p>Al Gore connection not enough?  Consider also that Apple CEO Steve Jobs was a consultant on the John Kerry campaign.  Don't believe me?  Search on Google for "Did Apple contribute to John Kerry campaign" and see what you get.</p><p>I'd like to think that Apple and Steve Jobs aren't that "evil" but this timing is awfully coincidental...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider... at the last WWDC , Apple took a lot of ribbing about AT&amp;T being slow to add MMS and tethering .
iPhone users complain about slowness , dropped calls , etc .
Apple is stuck in its agreement until 2010 unless it can convince AT&amp;T to let go , which AT&amp;T wo n't do because the iPhone brings in too many customers and locks them in once they 're there ( ignoring jailbreaking and such ) .Not too coincidentally , Sprint just announced an exclusive deal for the Palm Pre , and already offers the Blackberry .
This makes it a purveyor of the two biggest competitors to the iPhone .
There is a waiting list at many Sprint stores to get the Pre , which shows that Sprint is on to something .
But the Pre needs work to be a serious competitor to the iPhone , though the Pre is a nice phone already .
If Palm was forced to drop the exclusive with Sprint , it would have to focus effort on modifying the phone to work on other carriers , slowing the addition of new features and applications ( which means it would be less effective at competing with the iPhone ) .
So killing exclusive handset deals might actually hurt the Pre .
But it HELPS the iPhone , since it allows Apple to move the phone to more carriers ( something that Apple 's been doing internationally , so adding more U.S. carriers ought to be relatively trivial ) .Then there 's Sprint .
It 's one of very few networks that ca n't use the current iPhone , which is GSM-based while Sprint 's network is CDMA-based .
Taking away Sprint 's exclusivity for the Pre would hurt one of its best chances for survival and success in the coming months .
Killing off Sprint and the other CDMA carriers saves Apple lots of expense in having to create a CDMA-based iPhone model.There 's an old saying that if you want to know what 's really going on , follow the money .
While killing off exclusivity deals would help small carriers and the consumer , we all know lobbyists and politicians rarely pay more than lip service to small business ( even though they should ) and consumers ( even though we elect them ) .
So the question is , where does the " real money " in this deal go ? Let 's see... Apple gets out of its AT&amp;T deal without penalty , saving face and selling lots more iPhones on more U.S. networks ( without losing overseas exclusivity ) .
Development of the most-likely rival to the iPhone is set back by a need to support more carriers , which benefits Apple and the iPhone .
Severing the exclusive deal between Sprint and Palm sticks a knife into Sprint , which was already in trouble anyway , and which just happens to offer the two best alternatives to the iPhone .
Looks like lots of money flows Apple 's way if this goes through , and Apple loses nothing if it does n't.Just to make the tinfoil hat scenario complete... Consider that Al Gore ( former Democratic Vice President of the U.S. ) is on the Apple Board of Directors , and that this particular anti-exclusivity effort is headed by fellow Democrat John Kerry .
It does n't take too much of a paranoid fantasy to imagine Apple management going to Al Gore and asking for help getting out of the AT&amp;T deal early , Gore calling up his old buddy John , and John suddenly " noticing " all these letters he 's been getting from small carriers over the years wanting an end to exclusive handset deals.Al Gore connection not enough ?
Consider also that Apple CEO Steve Jobs was a consultant on the John Kerry campaign .
Do n't believe me ?
Search on Google for " Did Apple contribute to John Kerry campaign " and see what you get.I 'd like to think that Apple and Steve Jobs are n't that " evil " but this timing is awfully coincidental.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider... at the last WWDC, Apple took a lot of ribbing about AT&amp;T being slow to add MMS and tethering.
iPhone users complain about slowness, dropped calls, etc.
Apple is stuck in its agreement until 2010 unless it can convince AT&amp;T to let go, which AT&amp;T won't do because the iPhone brings in too many customers and locks them in once they're there (ignoring jailbreaking and such).Not too coincidentally, Sprint just announced an exclusive deal for the Palm Pre, and already offers the Blackberry.
This makes it a purveyor of the two biggest competitors to the iPhone.
There is a waiting list at many Sprint stores to get the Pre, which shows that Sprint is on to something.
But the Pre needs work to be a serious competitor to the iPhone, though the Pre is a nice phone already.
If Palm was forced to drop the exclusive with Sprint, it would have to focus effort on modifying the phone to work on other carriers, slowing the addition of new features and applications (which means it would be less effective at competing with the iPhone).
So killing exclusive handset deals might actually hurt the Pre.
But it HELPS the iPhone, since it allows Apple to move the phone to more carriers (something that Apple's been doing internationally, so adding more U.S. carriers ought to be relatively trivial).Then there's Sprint.
It's one of very few networks that can't use the current iPhone, which is GSM-based while Sprint's network is CDMA-based.
Taking away Sprint's exclusivity for the Pre would hurt one of its best chances for survival and success in the coming months.
Killing off Sprint and the other CDMA carriers saves Apple lots of expense in having to create a CDMA-based iPhone model.There's an old saying that if you want to know what's really going on, follow the money.
While killing off exclusivity deals would help small carriers and the consumer, we all know lobbyists and politicians rarely pay more than lip service to small business (even though they should) and consumers (even though we elect them).
So the question is, where does the "real money" in this deal go?Let's see... Apple gets out of its AT&amp;T deal without penalty, saving face and selling lots more iPhones on more U.S. networks (without losing overseas exclusivity).
Development of the most-likely rival to the iPhone is set back by a need to support more carriers, which benefits Apple and the iPhone.
Severing the exclusive deal between Sprint and Palm sticks a knife into Sprint, which was already in trouble anyway, and which just happens to offer the two best alternatives to the iPhone.
Looks like lots of money flows Apple's way if this goes through, and Apple loses nothing if it doesn't.Just to make the tinfoil hat scenario complete... Consider that Al Gore (former Democratic Vice President of the U.S.) is on the Apple Board of Directors, and that this particular anti-exclusivity effort is headed by fellow Democrat John Kerry.
It doesn't take too much of a paranoid fantasy to imagine Apple management going to Al Gore and asking for help getting out of the AT&amp;T deal early, Gore calling up his old buddy John, and John suddenly "noticing" all these letters he's been getting from small carriers over the years wanting an end to exclusive handset deals.Al Gore connection not enough?
Consider also that Apple CEO Steve Jobs was a consultant on the John Kerry campaign.
Don't believe me?
Search on Google for "Did Apple contribute to John Kerry campaign" and see what you get.I'd like to think that Apple and Steve Jobs aren't that "evil" but this timing is awfully coincidental...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357767</id>
	<title>Re:Free Market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently you do not know what a free market is. I suspect you vote Democrat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you do not know what a free market is .
I suspect you vote Democrat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you do not know what a free market is.
I suspect you vote Democrat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357181</id>
	<title>Exclusivity ONLY for limited time.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245168480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't we just get an exclusivity for LIMITED amount of time, say 3 or 6 months?</p><p>There is so many new phones on the market that a 6 months old headset is already old and out of fashion (unless it's the iFruit one), and then there is absolutely NO POINT of having it exclusive for one network only.</p><p>I know that the idea of exclusivity is basically to grab customers from other networks, as almost everyone has a mobile phone nowadays (and some people have more than one handset).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we just get an exclusivity for LIMITED amount of time , say 3 or 6 months ? There is so many new phones on the market that a 6 months old headset is already old and out of fashion ( unless it 's the iFruit one ) , and then there is absolutely NO POINT of having it exclusive for one network only.I know that the idea of exclusivity is basically to grab customers from other networks , as almost everyone has a mobile phone nowadays ( and some people have more than one handset ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we just get an exclusivity for LIMITED amount of time, say 3 or 6 months?There is so many new phones on the market that a 6 months old headset is already old and out of fashion (unless it's the iFruit one), and then there is absolutely NO POINT of having it exclusive for one network only.I know that the idea of exclusivity is basically to grab customers from other networks, as almost everyone has a mobile phone nowadays (and some people have more than one handset).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356929</id>
	<title>Re:Binding Contracts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245166260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US Cellular appears to be a CDMA network from my spot-checks, so they couldn't use a stock IPhone on their network if they wanted.</p><p>That's part of the battle right now - even US GSM phones from T-Mobile vs ATT aren't 3G-compatible, nor compatible with CDMA networks (Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular).</p><p>Doug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US Cellular appears to be a CDMA network from my spot-checks , so they could n't use a stock IPhone on their network if they wanted.That 's part of the battle right now - even US GSM phones from T-Mobile vs ATT are n't 3G-compatible , nor compatible with CDMA networks ( Verizon , Sprint , US Cellular ) .Doug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US Cellular appears to be a CDMA network from my spot-checks, so they couldn't use a stock IPhone on their network if they wanted.That's part of the battle right now - even US GSM phones from T-Mobile vs ATT aren't 3G-compatible, nor compatible with CDMA networks (Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular).Doug</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358647</id>
	<title>Carriers need to do ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing they were setup to do carry the signals if a phone works on net1 it should also work on net2 and 3 and 4 ect this is one of the reasons i hope that Apples i phone will fail in the long run because it is tied to certain carriers only i do not purchase a phone unless it can be unlocked and work no matter whose sim i insert , you should not be forced to change your phone because you are pissed with a certain carrier i was there with T-Mobile so canned there sim in went an orange sim back for what cost i think it was 4.5 sterling and in a few seconds (the beauty of a fully unlocked 4 band phone)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing they were setup to do carry the signals if a phone works on net1 it should also work on net2 and 3 and 4 ect this is one of the reasons i hope that Apples i phone will fail in the long run because it is tied to certain carriers only i do not purchase a phone unless it can be unlocked and work no matter whose sim i insert , you should not be forced to change your phone because you are pissed with a certain carrier i was there with T-Mobile so canned there sim in went an orange sim back for what cost i think it was 4.5 sterling and in a few seconds ( the beauty of a fully unlocked 4 band phone )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing they were setup to do carry the signals if a phone works on net1 it should also work on net2 and 3 and 4 ect this is one of the reasons i hope that Apples i phone will fail in the long run because it is tied to certain carriers only i do not purchase a phone unless it can be unlocked and work no matter whose sim i insert , you should not be forced to change your phone because you are pissed with a certain carrier i was there with T-Mobile so canned there sim in went an orange sim back for what cost i think it was 4.5 sterling and in a few seconds (the beauty of a fully unlocked 4 band phone)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28369519</id>
	<title>Whaddya mean, "turds"?</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1245258900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had one for a minute, and I couldn't hear shit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had one for a minute , and I could n't hear shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had one for a minute, and I couldn't hear shit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357831</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1245175620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The carriers exert a LOT of influence over the manufacturers. Carrier says "give us that phone but remove the WiFi chip and disable the GPS please". Manufacturer has to say "yes" else carrier says "OK, then, we wont sell your phones"</p><p>Only manufacturers at this point that MIGHT be able to say NO to carriers would be RIM (because the Blackberry is so important to business customers and unlike Windows Mobile there is no alternative supplier) and Apple (who has a phone so hot that AT&amp;T cant afford not to keep carrying it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The carriers exert a LOT of influence over the manufacturers .
Carrier says " give us that phone but remove the WiFi chip and disable the GPS please " .
Manufacturer has to say " yes " else carrier says " OK , then , we wont sell your phones " Only manufacturers at this point that MIGHT be able to say NO to carriers would be RIM ( because the Blackberry is so important to business customers and unlike Windows Mobile there is no alternative supplier ) and Apple ( who has a phone so hot that AT&amp;T cant afford not to keep carrying it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The carriers exert a LOT of influence over the manufacturers.
Carrier says "give us that phone but remove the WiFi chip and disable the GPS please".
Manufacturer has to say "yes" else carrier says "OK, then, we wont sell your phones"Only manufacturers at this point that MIGHT be able to say NO to carriers would be RIM (because the Blackberry is so important to business customers and unlike Windows Mobile there is no alternative supplier) and Apple (who has a phone so hot that AT&amp;T cant afford not to keep carrying it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356781</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Sucks But I'm stuck on a contract</title>
	<author>kelnos</author>
	<datestamp>1245165000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC they give you 30 days from your contract start date to change your mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC they give you 30 days from your contract start date to change your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC they give you 30 days from your contract start date to change your mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356571</id>
	<title>Carriers R not devolopers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought only Apple and Palm developed innovative handsets?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought only Apple and Palm developed innovative handsets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought only Apple and Palm developed innovative handsets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356977</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245166680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if you caught my comments on a previously posted related topic, but handset manufacturers currently serve the interests of the carriers, NOT the end users.</p><p>This practice is merely exemplified by exclusivity contracts such as the iPhone or Palm Pre. The real issue here is that handset success is based largely on the whims of the carriers, not on functionality or usability. Exclusivity is a byproduct of the common subsidized handset for reduced contract rates system we have in the US. If this practice were ended, so too would be exclusivity deals.</p><p>If you'll notice, there are now just a few "classes" of handsets, all with very similar functionality based on the desires of the largest carriers. Tying handset purchases to carrier contracts needs to end!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if you caught my comments on a previously posted related topic , but handset manufacturers currently serve the interests of the carriers , NOT the end users.This practice is merely exemplified by exclusivity contracts such as the iPhone or Palm Pre .
The real issue here is that handset success is based largely on the whims of the carriers , not on functionality or usability .
Exclusivity is a byproduct of the common subsidized handset for reduced contract rates system we have in the US .
If this practice were ended , so too would be exclusivity deals.If you 'll notice , there are now just a few " classes " of handsets , all with very similar functionality based on the desires of the largest carriers .
Tying handset purchases to carrier contracts needs to end !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if you caught my comments on a previously posted related topic, but handset manufacturers currently serve the interests of the carriers, NOT the end users.This practice is merely exemplified by exclusivity contracts such as the iPhone or Palm Pre.
The real issue here is that handset success is based largely on the whims of the carriers, not on functionality or usability.
Exclusivity is a byproduct of the common subsidized handset for reduced contract rates system we have in the US.
If this practice were ended, so too would be exclusivity deals.If you'll notice, there are now just a few "classes" of handsets, all with very similar functionality based on the desires of the largest carriers.
Tying handset purchases to carrier contracts needs to end!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356603</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>Octorian</author>
	<datestamp>1245163680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They sure seem to want to make all the customers think that they are.  Heck, all their marketing seems to be about the "phones they offer" almost more so than the "service they provide".</p><p>People need to wake up and realize that their beloved phones come from Apple, RIM, HTC, Palm, Nokia, etc, and *not* from AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or Sprint.</p><p>Of course in the US its a little more complicated in that every carrier seems to use a different radio technology, sometimes with overlap and sometimes without.  (i.e. AT&amp;T and T-Mobile are both GSM, but diverge for 3G)  And of all the hot smartphones, it seems like only RIM actually cares about supporting all carriers and radio technologies (for the most part, as the Storm is an exception, sorta).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They sure seem to want to make all the customers think that they are .
Heck , all their marketing seems to be about the " phones they offer " almost more so than the " service they provide " .People need to wake up and realize that their beloved phones come from Apple , RIM , HTC , Palm , Nokia , etc , and * not * from AT&amp;T , T-Mobile , Verizon , or Sprint.Of course in the US its a little more complicated in that every carrier seems to use a different radio technology , sometimes with overlap and sometimes without .
( i.e. AT&amp;T and T-Mobile are both GSM , but diverge for 3G ) And of all the hot smartphones , it seems like only RIM actually cares about supporting all carriers and radio technologies ( for the most part , as the Storm is an exception , sorta ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sure seem to want to make all the customers think that they are.
Heck, all their marketing seems to be about the "phones they offer" almost more so than the "service they provide".People need to wake up and realize that their beloved phones come from Apple, RIM, HTC, Palm, Nokia, etc, and *not* from AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or Sprint.Of course in the US its a little more complicated in that every carrier seems to use a different radio technology, sometimes with overlap and sometimes without.
(i.e. AT&amp;T and T-Mobile are both GSM, but diverge for 3G)  And of all the hot smartphones, it seems like only RIM actually cares about supporting all carriers and radio technologies (for the most part, as the Storm is an exception, sorta).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356561</id>
	<title>Just a shakedown scheme....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Senators in question are probably trolling for campaign contributions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Senators in question are probably trolling for campaign contributions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Senators in question are probably trolling for campaign contributions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359077</id>
	<title>WTF</title>
	<author>thomasw\_lrd</author>
	<datestamp>1245233160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when do wireless carriers make phones?  I thought they just carried them.</p><p>Yes, I'm karma whoring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when do wireless carriers make phones ?
I thought they just carried them.Yes , I 'm karma whoring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when do wireless carriers make phones?
I thought they just carried them.Yes, I'm karma whoring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28360309</id>
	<title>Re:Binding Contracts.</title>
	<author>Lachlan Hunt</author>
	<datestamp>1245246780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I can use a U.S. Cellular phone under contract in any other compatiable network?</p></div><p>In an ideal world, yes, and in other countries it's possible to get handsets independently of any contract, (or by getting one on a pre-paid plan and then paying a relatively small unlocking fee when the credit runs out). You're then free to get a contract with any carrier and use any SIM card. This is how it works in Australia, and is why, if and when I do a new iPhone 3G S, I will be buying it there, instead of going through AT&amp;T when I move to the US later this year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I can use a U.S. Cellular phone under contract in any other compatiable network ? In an ideal world , yes , and in other countries it 's possible to get handsets independently of any contract , ( or by getting one on a pre-paid plan and then paying a relatively small unlocking fee when the credit runs out ) .
You 're then free to get a contract with any carrier and use any SIM card .
This is how it works in Australia , and is why , if and when I do a new iPhone 3G S , I will be buying it there , instead of going through AT&amp;T when I move to the US later this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can use a U.S. Cellular phone under contract in any other compatiable network?In an ideal world, yes, and in other countries it's possible to get handsets independently of any contract, (or by getting one on a pre-paid plan and then paying a relatively small unlocking fee when the credit runs out).
You're then free to get a contract with any carrier and use any SIM card.
This is how it works in Australia, and is why, if and when I do a new iPhone 3G S, I will be buying it there, instead of going through AT&amp;T when I move to the US later this year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358047</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Sucks But I'm stuck on a contract</title>
	<author>edmudama</author>
	<datestamp>1245178200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you honestly feel ~2 years of grief and frustration is worth less than $200?  Then by all means, don't cancel, stand up for your principles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you honestly feel ~ 2 years of grief and frustration is worth less than $ 200 ?
Then by all means , do n't cancel , stand up for your principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you honestly feel ~2 years of grief and frustration is worth less than $200?
Then by all means, don't cancel, stand up for your principles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359939</id>
	<title>Equalization of Opportunity Bill</title>
	<author>Weeksauce</author>
	<datestamp>1245243900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This kind of reminds me of the "Equalization of Opportunity Bill." If you can't swim then maybe you don't belong in the pool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of reminds me of the " Equalization of Opportunity Bill .
" If you ca n't swim then maybe you do n't belong in the pool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of reminds me of the "Equalization of Opportunity Bill.
" If you can't swim then maybe you don't belong in the pool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356573</id>
	<title>T-Mobile Sucks But I'm stuck on a contract</title>
	<author>bit trollent</author>
	<datestamp>1245163440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>T-Mobile Sucks But I'm stuck on a contract. Investigate that.</p><p>They never mentioned that they would have dead zones all over the place. At work, at bars, friends houses - everywhere. T-Mobile has little dead zones all over the place.</p><p>If they aren't going to provide the service they promised i.e. a working cell phone, then I shouldn't be bound to their contract.</p><p>But here I am, stuck in 1985 on a cell phone contract that would penalize me $200 for leaving the worst cell phone service I've used in 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile Sucks But I 'm stuck on a contract .
Investigate that.They never mentioned that they would have dead zones all over the place .
At work , at bars , friends houses - everywhere .
T-Mobile has little dead zones all over the place.If they are n't going to provide the service they promised i.e .
a working cell phone , then I should n't be bound to their contract.But here I am , stuck in 1985 on a cell phone contract that would penalize me $ 200 for leaving the worst cell phone service I 've used in 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>T-Mobile Sucks But I'm stuck on a contract.
Investigate that.They never mentioned that they would have dead zones all over the place.
At work, at bars, friends houses - everywhere.
T-Mobile has little dead zones all over the place.If they aren't going to provide the service they promised i.e.
a working cell phone, then I shouldn't be bound to their contract.But here I am, stuck in 1985 on a cell phone contract that would penalize me $200 for leaving the worst cell phone service I've used in 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28360205</id>
	<title>Verizon actually cripples their phones!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is that not only don't carriers develop the phones, some of them (verizon being the worst offender) actually cripple the ones they market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is that not only do n't carriers develop the phones , some of them ( verizon being the worst offender ) actually cripple the ones they market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is that not only don't carriers develop the phones, some of them (verizon being the worst offender) actually cripple the ones they market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28362067</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>kbrannen</author>
	<datestamp>1245256380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The carriers exert a LOT of influence over the manufacturers. Carrier says "give us that phone but remove the WiFi chip and disable the GPS please". Manufacturer has to say "yes" else carrier says "OK, then, we wont sell your phones"</p></div><p>As someone who works for a handset manufacturer, I can tell you that is far more true than most people thing. The "operators" tells us what to put in a phone. The general public is really losing out on innovation.

</p><p>I don't know that it's government's job to step into this, but the only real solution is to split sales of handsets and service; or in reality, split the tying of handsets and service together. It's useful to consumers to get the service and handsets at the same time, but when they are tied together in a contract is when everyone loses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The carriers exert a LOT of influence over the manufacturers .
Carrier says " give us that phone but remove the WiFi chip and disable the GPS please " .
Manufacturer has to say " yes " else carrier says " OK , then , we wont sell your phones " As someone who works for a handset manufacturer , I can tell you that is far more true than most people thing .
The " operators " tells us what to put in a phone .
The general public is really losing out on innovation .
I do n't know that it 's government 's job to step into this , but the only real solution is to split sales of handsets and service ; or in reality , split the tying of handsets and service together .
It 's useful to consumers to get the service and handsets at the same time , but when they are tied together in a contract is when everyone loses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The carriers exert a LOT of influence over the manufacturers.
Carrier says "give us that phone but remove the WiFi chip and disable the GPS please".
Manufacturer has to say "yes" else carrier says "OK, then, we wont sell your phones"As someone who works for a handset manufacturer, I can tell you that is far more true than most people thing.
The "operators" tells us what to put in a phone.
The general public is really losing out on innovation.
I don't know that it's government's job to step into this, but the only real solution is to split sales of handsets and service; or in reality, split the tying of handsets and service together.
It's useful to consumers to get the service and handsets at the same time, but when they are tied together in a contract is when everyone loses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</id>
	<title>Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.'</p><p>I wasn't aware that the carriers were in the business of manufacturing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets .
'I was n't aware that the carriers were in the business of manufacturing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.
'I wasn't aware that the carriers were in the business of manufacturing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28360587</id>
	<title>Re:Binding Contracts.</title>
	<author>weszz</author>
	<datestamp>1245248460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say yes. if it's a CDMA phone, call up their call center and give them the code under the battery and they can add it.</p><p>I worked for the Cell back when they made the move from TDMA to CDMA, and that's how it worked then, back then the Cell also didn't lock their phones and were pretty open, no idea how they are now, but their phones still are lagging WAY behind the bigger names...</p><p>As the Touch Pro 2 comes out, they come out with the Touch Pro 1. and that's how they work... best coverage in northern illinois/south wisconsin, but their phones are just bad...</p><p>it was a good company to work for until they bought PrimeCo though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say yes .
if it 's a CDMA phone , call up their call center and give them the code under the battery and they can add it.I worked for the Cell back when they made the move from TDMA to CDMA , and that 's how it worked then , back then the Cell also did n't lock their phones and were pretty open , no idea how they are now , but their phones still are lagging WAY behind the bigger names...As the Touch Pro 2 comes out , they come out with the Touch Pro 1. and that 's how they work... best coverage in northern illinois/south wisconsin , but their phones are just bad...it was a good company to work for until they bought PrimeCo though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say yes.
if it's a CDMA phone, call up their call center and give them the code under the battery and they can add it.I worked for the Cell back when they made the move from TDMA to CDMA, and that's how it worked then, back then the Cell also didn't lock their phones and were pretty open, no idea how they are now, but their phones still are lagging WAY behind the bigger names...As the Touch Pro 2 comes out, they come out with the Touch Pro 1. and that's how they work... best coverage in northern illinois/south wisconsin, but their phones are just bad...it was a good company to work for until they bought PrimeCo though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28369325</id>
	<title>True innovation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So carriers would not be motivated to create innovative handsets???</p><p>Is this a problem?  I mean, when I get a new cell phone, the first thing I always want to do is go out and reflash it with a non-crippled firmware because my carrier chose to "innovate" by disabling the truly innovative features the manufacturer provided, and instead load it up with private branding, and ring-tone store applications that I don't want or need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So carriers would not be motivated to create innovative handsets ? ?
? Is this a problem ?
I mean , when I get a new cell phone , the first thing I always want to do is go out and reflash it with a non-crippled firmware because my carrier chose to " innovate " by disabling the truly innovative features the manufacturer provided , and instead load it up with private branding , and ring-tone store applications that I do n't want or need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So carriers would not be motivated to create innovative handsets??
?Is this a problem?
I mean, when I get a new cell phone, the first thing I always want to do is go out and reflash it with a non-crippled firmware because my carrier chose to "innovate" by disabling the truly innovative features the manufacturer provided, and instead load it up with private branding, and ring-tone store applications that I don't want or need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361917</id>
	<title>What Congress should really be investigating. . .</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1245255660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion, a far bigger problem than handset exlcusivity deals, is the practice of charging customers the same price for cell phone service whether or not they are or are not getting a contract for a phone. Most of the carriers will let you buy phones outright, and even pay month-to-month for service. The problem is, I'm paying the same monthly-fee as if I were on the contract. So, it ends up being financially stupid to buy a phone outright, because you're just paying an extra $200-$300 (in most cases), but not paying less for service than the people whose phones are subsidized by the contracts.</p><p>If I'm not getting my phone subsidized, I should be seeing about a $10/mo discount on my service. But, no.</p><p>Get rid of that nonsense, and also give people the legal right to modify their phones to unlock them from the original network, and you've solved the 'exclusivity' problem in the simplest possible fashion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , a far bigger problem than handset exlcusivity deals , is the practice of charging customers the same price for cell phone service whether or not they are or are not getting a contract for a phone .
Most of the carriers will let you buy phones outright , and even pay month-to-month for service .
The problem is , I 'm paying the same monthly-fee as if I were on the contract .
So , it ends up being financially stupid to buy a phone outright , because you 're just paying an extra $ 200- $ 300 ( in most cases ) , but not paying less for service than the people whose phones are subsidized by the contracts.If I 'm not getting my phone subsidized , I should be seeing about a $ 10/mo discount on my service .
But , no.Get rid of that nonsense , and also give people the legal right to modify their phones to unlock them from the original network , and you 've solved the 'exclusivity ' problem in the simplest possible fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, a far bigger problem than handset exlcusivity deals, is the practice of charging customers the same price for cell phone service whether or not they are or are not getting a contract for a phone.
Most of the carriers will let you buy phones outright, and even pay month-to-month for service.
The problem is, I'm paying the same monthly-fee as if I were on the contract.
So, it ends up being financially stupid to buy a phone outright, because you're just paying an extra $200-$300 (in most cases), but not paying less for service than the people whose phones are subsidized by the contracts.If I'm not getting my phone subsidized, I should be seeing about a $10/mo discount on my service.
But, no.Get rid of that nonsense, and also give people the legal right to modify their phones to unlock them from the original network, and you've solved the 'exclusivity' problem in the simplest possible fashion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28362111</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've seen, carriers are mostly interested in making sure that innovative handset features can be disabled by the carrier, either permanently or until the customer coughs up extra cash.</p><p>What they REALLY don't want is innovative handsets that let the user make full use of the service they've contracted for in the way that they want to.</p><p>God forbid someone should load up a 3 note ringtone without paying for it! Worst of all, of course would be if they use WiFi and VoIP rather than their precious minutes when at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen , carriers are mostly interested in making sure that innovative handset features can be disabled by the carrier , either permanently or until the customer coughs up extra cash.What they REALLY do n't want is innovative handsets that let the user make full use of the service they 've contracted for in the way that they want to.God forbid someone should load up a 3 note ringtone without paying for it !
Worst of all , of course would be if they use WiFi and VoIP rather than their precious minutes when at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen, carriers are mostly interested in making sure that innovative handset features can be disabled by the carrier, either permanently or until the customer coughs up extra cash.What they REALLY don't want is innovative handsets that let the user make full use of the service they've contracted for in the way that they want to.God forbid someone should load up a 3 note ringtone without paying for it!
Worst of all, of course would be if they use WiFi and VoIP rather than their precious minutes when at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359927</id>
	<title>What bullshit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245243720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive <b>to develop</b> and promote innovative handsets</p></div><p>Carriers don't develop shit, they sell it. Who do they think they're kidding?</p><p>And no reason to promote "innovative" handsets? Here's a reason... YOU want the money the customer pays for it, instead of it going to $GENERIC\_OTHER\_CARRIER.</p><p>Oh my gods. We actually want them to compete on <i>quality of service</i>??? Have we all gone MAD?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsetsCarriers do n't develop shit , they sell it .
Who do they think they 're kidding ? And no reason to promote " innovative " handsets ?
Here 's a reason... YOU want the money the customer pays for it , instead of it going to $ GENERIC \ _OTHER \ _CARRIER.Oh my gods .
We actually want them to compete on quality of service ? ? ?
Have we all gone MAD ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsetsCarriers don't develop shit, they sell it.
Who do they think they're kidding?And no reason to promote "innovative" handsets?
Here's a reason... YOU want the money the customer pays for it, instead of it going to $GENERIC\_OTHER\_CARRIER.Oh my gods.
We actually want them to compete on quality of service???
Have we all gone MAD?
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361367</id>
	<title>Thank you Verizon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245252900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No if's or but's about it carriers are hindering the advancement of handsets or more appropriately mobile handheld interface consoles.  Yes they may be saving us a few bucks here and there by having exclusive partnerships with manufactures and investing in research and development, but at the cost of providing the consumer the choice of having one single mobile device that can connect to any carrier (for a fee) or any WLAN, tether to any computer, act as a remote to your TV and entertainment system, or be a game controller with your personal stored game stats.  The possibilities are only limited by the need of large national carriers to control and get paid for each and every unique way one could use such a device.</p><p>I believe we could be heading to a time when we all have just one handheld mobile device of a design of our choosing that can act as our own personal ubiquitous interface device to the various systems and networks we chose to access during the course of our daily lives.  The only true obstacle to this progress is the need for large carriers to control and get paid for each and every possible function of a device.</p><p>Carrier captured handsets are in the long run extremely destructive to innovation and progress.</p><p>So yes, 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.', is exactly what the Commerce Committee needs to enforce.  I would like to thank Verizon for stating the obvious and openly admitting they need/want to control handset innovation and progress without any open competition.</p><p>Verizon's own assertions are why senators must act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No if 's or but 's about it carriers are hindering the advancement of handsets or more appropriately mobile handheld interface consoles .
Yes they may be saving us a few bucks here and there by having exclusive partnerships with manufactures and investing in research and development , but at the cost of providing the consumer the choice of having one single mobile device that can connect to any carrier ( for a fee ) or any WLAN , tether to any computer , act as a remote to your TV and entertainment system , or be a game controller with your personal stored game stats .
The possibilities are only limited by the need of large national carriers to control and get paid for each and every unique way one could use such a device.I believe we could be heading to a time when we all have just one handheld mobile device of a design of our choosing that can act as our own personal ubiquitous interface device to the various systems and networks we chose to access during the course of our daily lives .
The only true obstacle to this progress is the need for large carriers to control and get paid for each and every possible function of a device.Carrier captured handsets are in the long run extremely destructive to innovation and progress.So yes , 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets .
' , is exactly what the Commerce Committee needs to enforce .
I would like to thank Verizon for stating the obvious and openly admitting they need/want to control handset innovation and progress without any open competition.Verizon 's own assertions are why senators must act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No if's or but's about it carriers are hindering the advancement of handsets or more appropriately mobile handheld interface consoles.
Yes they may be saving us a few bucks here and there by having exclusive partnerships with manufactures and investing in research and development, but at the cost of providing the consumer the choice of having one single mobile device that can connect to any carrier (for a fee) or any WLAN, tether to any computer, act as a remote to your TV and entertainment system, or be a game controller with your personal stored game stats.
The possibilities are only limited by the need of large national carriers to control and get paid for each and every unique way one could use such a device.I believe we could be heading to a time when we all have just one handheld mobile device of a design of our choosing that can act as our own personal ubiquitous interface device to the various systems and networks we chose to access during the course of our daily lives.
The only true obstacle to this progress is the need for large carriers to control and get paid for each and every possible function of a device.Carrier captured handsets are in the long run extremely destructive to innovation and progress.So yes, 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.
', is exactly what the Commerce Committee needs to enforce.
I would like to thank Verizon for stating the obvious and openly admitting they need/want to control handset innovation and progress without any open competition.Verizon's own assertions are why senators must act.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356569</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the nationwide operators like the idea of exclusivity agreements, then those agreements are probably a Bad Idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the nationwide operators like the idea of exclusivity agreements , then those agreements are probably a Bad Idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the nationwide operators like the idea of exclusivity agreements, then those agreements are probably a Bad Idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358395</id>
	<title>Re:"Innovative", as in having features disabled?</title>
	<author>gaspar ilom</author>
	<datestamp>1245181920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a something regulators should consider:</p><p>Do any service providers disable *bluetooth* on their handsets?</p><p>Why?   Surely, bluetooth capabilities don't cause an extra burden of technology they need to support, since bluetooth doesn't impact the provider's wireless network, right?    (like, say, transferring a photo from your phone to your laptop?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a something regulators should consider : Do any service providers disable * bluetooth * on their handsets ? Why ?
Surely , bluetooth capabilities do n't cause an extra burden of technology they need to support , since bluetooth does n't impact the provider 's wireless network , right ?
( like , say , transferring a photo from your phone to your laptop ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a something regulators should consider:Do any service providers disable *bluetooth* on their handsets?Why?
Surely, bluetooth capabilities don't cause an extra burden of technology they need to support, since bluetooth doesn't impact the provider's wireless network, right?
(like, say, transferring a photo from your phone to your laptop?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359875</id>
	<title>Re:Backwards Argument?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in order to maintain their current level of <b>mediocre</b> offerings.</p></div><p>You give them too much credit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in order to maintain their current level of mediocre offerings.You give them too much credit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in order to maintain their current level of mediocre offerings.You give them too much credit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356559</id>
	<title>Backwards Argument?</title>
	<author>MidnightBrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1245163380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that in the absence of exclusivity agreements the carriers would have greater incentive to introduce new features because they wouldn't be allowed to dictate terms to handset manufacturers in order to maintain their current level of mediocre offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that in the absence of exclusivity agreements the carriers would have greater incentive to introduce new features because they would n't be allowed to dictate terms to handset manufacturers in order to maintain their current level of mediocre offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that in the absence of exclusivity agreements the carriers would have greater incentive to introduce new features because they wouldn't be allowed to dictate terms to handset manufacturers in order to maintain their current level of mediocre offerings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357847</id>
	<title>Yeah right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245175800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suck it BITCHES. Let's see the situation here in India. Generally nearly every handset is unlocked and you can change providers willy-nilly (aside from the background check they do on you cause OMG terrorists use cell phones).  And guess what? We pay full price for our handsets no cheap cell phones like in the US. Then again we have plans that are like lifetime based and even the companies sticking to old tech like CDMA give incentives like free calls to any other mobile on the CDMA network so it all works out well.<br>Here's the kicker. The iPhone. That shit was bound to exclusive carriers, Airtel and Vodafone. You had to buy a package deal with one or the other to get the iPhone. They even did this for the iPhone 3G [i]when we didn't have 3G in the country[/i] and I'm damn sure none of those numbnuts who bought it are ever going to use the internet on their shiny gadget.<br>But that's not enough for teh greedy bastards. Along with being tied to the networks they charged EXTRA for the privilege of having an iPhone, they charged double of what Americans paid AND it was bound to their networks. And people bought it. They were charging 10k more than the black market that had unlocked iPhones for sale and a week after the black market raised their prices cause the commercial ones were getting away with the ridiculous price!<br>FUCK YOU BITCHES for complaing that they need a monopoly to justify innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suck it BITCHES .
Let 's see the situation here in India .
Generally nearly every handset is unlocked and you can change providers willy-nilly ( aside from the background check they do on you cause OMG terrorists use cell phones ) .
And guess what ?
We pay full price for our handsets no cheap cell phones like in the US .
Then again we have plans that are like lifetime based and even the companies sticking to old tech like CDMA give incentives like free calls to any other mobile on the CDMA network so it all works out well.Here 's the kicker .
The iPhone .
That shit was bound to exclusive carriers , Airtel and Vodafone .
You had to buy a package deal with one or the other to get the iPhone .
They even did this for the iPhone 3G [ i ] when we did n't have 3G in the country [ /i ] and I 'm damn sure none of those numbnuts who bought it are ever going to use the internet on their shiny gadget.But that 's not enough for teh greedy bastards .
Along with being tied to the networks they charged EXTRA for the privilege of having an iPhone , they charged double of what Americans paid AND it was bound to their networks .
And people bought it .
They were charging 10k more than the black market that had unlocked iPhones for sale and a week after the black market raised their prices cause the commercial ones were getting away with the ridiculous price ! FUCK YOU BITCHES for complaing that they need a monopoly to justify innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suck it BITCHES.
Let's see the situation here in India.
Generally nearly every handset is unlocked and you can change providers willy-nilly (aside from the background check they do on you cause OMG terrorists use cell phones).
And guess what?
We pay full price for our handsets no cheap cell phones like in the US.
Then again we have plans that are like lifetime based and even the companies sticking to old tech like CDMA give incentives like free calls to any other mobile on the CDMA network so it all works out well.Here's the kicker.
The iPhone.
That shit was bound to exclusive carriers, Airtel and Vodafone.
You had to buy a package deal with one or the other to get the iPhone.
They even did this for the iPhone 3G [i]when we didn't have 3G in the country[/i] and I'm damn sure none of those numbnuts who bought it are ever going to use the internet on their shiny gadget.But that's not enough for teh greedy bastards.
Along with being tied to the networks they charged EXTRA for the privilege of having an iPhone, they charged double of what Americans paid AND it was bound to their networks.
And people bought it.
They were charging 10k more than the black market that had unlocked iPhones for sale and a week after the black market raised their prices cause the commercial ones were getting away with the ridiculous price!FUCK YOU BITCHES for complaing that they need a monopoly to justify innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28363721</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1245264000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it's that the highway toll operators should not be able to forbid Toyota from making a car that works on UP's tracks.  Right now, the Bay Area Toll Authority says, "Toyota, you are not allowed to sell Corollas that can run on anything but our toll roads, not even ones that run on other people's toll roads, never mind railroad tracks."  Notice how the RAZR had several versions, one that worked on each type of network, and can be used on any carrier?  Right now, it is okay for carriers to forbid that, and the small carriers are objecting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's that the highway toll operators should not be able to forbid Toyota from making a car that works on UP 's tracks .
Right now , the Bay Area Toll Authority says , " Toyota , you are not allowed to sell Corollas that can run on anything but our toll roads , not even ones that run on other people 's toll roads , never mind railroad tracks .
" Notice how the RAZR had several versions , one that worked on each type of network , and can be used on any carrier ?
Right now , it is okay for carriers to forbid that , and the small carriers are objecting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's that the highway toll operators should not be able to forbid Toyota from making a car that works on UP's tracks.
Right now, the Bay Area Toll Authority says, "Toyota, you are not allowed to sell Corollas that can run on anything but our toll roads, not even ones that run on other people's toll roads, never mind railroad tracks.
"  Notice how the RAZR had several versions, one that worked on each type of network, and can be used on any carrier?
Right now, it is okay for carriers to forbid that, and the small carriers are objecting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361181</id>
	<title>at the same time, on another continent...</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1245251880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Europe is trying to tell Belgium that it should abolish the ban on linked sales, and thus allow this kind of exclusivity deals. Since when did you lot get your hands on our common sense ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Europe is trying to tell Belgium that it should abolish the ban on linked sales , and thus allow this kind of exclusivity deals .
Since when did you lot get your hands on our common sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Europe is trying to tell Belgium that it should abolish the ban on linked sales, and thus allow this kind of exclusivity deals.
Since when did you lot get your hands on our common sense ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357393</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers != Manufacturers</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1245170340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I wasn't aware that the carriers were in the business of manufacturing..."</p><p>Oh, yes they ARE.  Or rather, they dictate what features will be available in the handsets they sell.  in particular, they dictate what the handsets WON'T do.  They keep their customers from having the ability to load ringtones, download information, upload music, etc.  Anything the providers think they can charge for, they keep the handsets from being able to do via any connectivity outside of communication with the carrier.</p><p>Carriers routinely tell manufacturers to cripple their offerings.  The manufacturers do it, because if they didn't they'd have to look elsewhere for distribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I was n't aware that the carriers were in the business of manufacturing... " Oh , yes they ARE .
Or rather , they dictate what features will be available in the handsets they sell .
in particular , they dictate what the handsets WO N'T do .
They keep their customers from having the ability to load ringtones , download information , upload music , etc .
Anything the providers think they can charge for , they keep the handsets from being able to do via any connectivity outside of communication with the carrier.Carriers routinely tell manufacturers to cripple their offerings .
The manufacturers do it , because if they did n't they 'd have to look elsewhere for distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I wasn't aware that the carriers were in the business of manufacturing..."Oh, yes they ARE.
Or rather, they dictate what features will be available in the handsets they sell.
in particular, they dictate what the handsets WON'T do.
They keep their customers from having the ability to load ringtones, download information, upload music, etc.
Anything the providers think they can charge for, they keep the handsets from being able to do via any connectivity outside of communication with the carrier.Carriers routinely tell manufacturers to cripple their offerings.
The manufacturers do it, because if they didn't they'd have to look elsewhere for distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357079</id>
	<title>Re:Binding Contracts.</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1245167400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets</i></p><p>I'll buy "promote" but when was the last time a wireless carrier ever "developed" a handset?  And no, I don't count taking a good handset someone else made and crippling all of its features with a shitty firmware overwrite that turns the phone to crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsetsI 'll buy " promote " but when was the last time a wireless carrier ever " developed " a handset ?
And no , I do n't count taking a good handset someone else made and crippling all of its features with a shitty firmware overwrite that turns the phone to crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsetsI'll buy "promote" but when was the last time a wireless carrier ever "developed" a handset?
And no, I don't count taking a good handset someone else made and crippling all of its features with a shitty firmware overwrite that turns the phone to crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361575</id>
	<title>You have no right to a phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I would prefer it if I could use any handset on any network that supports it (CDMA vs GSM).. which you can to a large extent if you buy the phone and switch the SIM card on GSM (My friend has a G1 on AT&amp;T) my problem with this idea is the idea that one has a right to whichever handset they want.. you have no right to a phone period. Leave the government out of this and vote with your feet. You don't like AT&amp;Ts network, but still want an iPhone? Well, buy one and put it on another GSM network or don't get one. Make your choice, but you have no right to an iPhone, let alone an iPhone on the network of your choice. Quit whining. Forcing a change here would violate contract law and freedom of association.</p><p>The legitimate function of government is protecting our rights, not making your wishes come true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I would prefer it if I could use any handset on any network that supports it ( CDMA vs GSM ) .. which you can to a large extent if you buy the phone and switch the SIM card on GSM ( My friend has a G1 on AT&amp;T ) my problem with this idea is the idea that one has a right to whichever handset they want.. you have no right to a phone period .
Leave the government out of this and vote with your feet .
You do n't like AT&amp;Ts network , but still want an iPhone ?
Well , buy one and put it on another GSM network or do n't get one .
Make your choice , but you have no right to an iPhone , let alone an iPhone on the network of your choice .
Quit whining .
Forcing a change here would violate contract law and freedom of association.The legitimate function of government is protecting our rights , not making your wishes come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I would prefer it if I could use any handset on any network that supports it (CDMA vs GSM).. which you can to a large extent if you buy the phone and switch the SIM card on GSM (My friend has a G1 on AT&amp;T) my problem with this idea is the idea that one has a right to whichever handset they want.. you have no right to a phone period.
Leave the government out of this and vote with your feet.
You don't like AT&amp;Ts network, but still want an iPhone?
Well, buy one and put it on another GSM network or don't get one.
Make your choice, but you have no right to an iPhone, let alone an iPhone on the network of your choice.
Quit whining.
Forcing a change here would violate contract law and freedom of association.The legitimate function of government is protecting our rights, not making your wishes come true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357055</id>
	<title>Free Market?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1245167220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.'</i></p><p>Why are wireless carriers involved in the development and promotion of innovative handsets? Isn't the free market supposed to motivate handset developers to develop and promote innovative handsets?</p><p>Or do the wireless carriers not believe in the free market? I, for one, think the free market is a pretty good thing. You know, when it genuinely lets the purse-holder freely decide.</p><p>Aren't these the same corporations who cry "free market" every time the government tries to regulate them?</p><p>Perhaps, and I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but just maybe; the wireless carriers actually are not objective supporters of the free market? Maybe what they want is not the free market, but laissez-faire capitalism. But then must we not ask, without a free market, how can laissez faire capitalism seek efficiency?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But nationwide operators , including Verizon , maintain ( PDF ) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets .
'Why are wireless carriers involved in the development and promotion of innovative handsets ?
Is n't the free market supposed to motivate handset developers to develop and promote innovative handsets ? Or do the wireless carriers not believe in the free market ?
I , for one , think the free market is a pretty good thing .
You know , when it genuinely lets the purse-holder freely decide.Are n't these the same corporations who cry " free market " every time the government tries to regulate them ? Perhaps , and I do n't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here , but just maybe ; the wireless carriers actually are not objective supporters of the free market ?
Maybe what they want is not the free market , but laissez-faire capitalism .
But then must we not ask , without a free market , how can laissez faire capitalism seek efficiency ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.
'Why are wireless carriers involved in the development and promotion of innovative handsets?
Isn't the free market supposed to motivate handset developers to develop and promote innovative handsets?Or do the wireless carriers not believe in the free market?
I, for one, think the free market is a pretty good thing.
You know, when it genuinely lets the purse-holder freely decide.Aren't these the same corporations who cry "free market" every time the government tries to regulate them?Perhaps, and I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but just maybe; the wireless carriers actually are not objective supporters of the free market?
Maybe what they want is not the free market, but laissez-faire capitalism.
But then must we not ask, without a free market, how can laissez faire capitalism seek efficiency?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357137</id>
	<title>letter to whom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245167940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why on earth would any reasonable person expect a letter to the FCC to accomplish <i>anything</i>?  I've tried to contact the FCC before and they just respond with the same canned response every time, telling me they cannot do anything.  Might as well send a letter to Santa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth would any reasonable person expect a letter to the FCC to accomplish anything ?
I 've tried to contact the FCC before and they just respond with the same canned response every time , telling me they can not do anything .
Might as well send a letter to Santa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth would any reasonable person expect a letter to the FCC to accomplish anything?
I've tried to contact the FCC before and they just respond with the same canned response every time, telling me they cannot do anything.
Might as well send a letter to Santa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361715</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, they suck.  Pay phones were SO much better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they suck .
Pay phones were SO much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they suck.
Pay phones were SO much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357953</id>
	<title>I use to be a technician for U.S. Cellular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are 100\% C.D.M.A 1x evdo, but have bumped up their data network since I left from what I understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are 100 \ % C.D.M.A 1x evdo , but have bumped up their data network since I left from what I understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are 100\% C.D.M.A 1x evdo, but have bumped up their data network since I left from what I understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356567</id>
	<title>What a crock</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1245163440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a technical level American carriers care only that the phones pass GCF. If they want to bring innovation into this, they are going to have to argue that somehow the business model itself is innovative, but I don't think that is what they are saying.</p><p>What is important in exclusivity is that users don't have a choice of carriers if they want to buy a specific phone. If you want the iPhone, you're stuck with AT&amp;T, for example. But that doesn't bring any innovation to the phones themselves.</p><p>Unlocking the phones isn't any better, though, technologically speaking. With a choice of carriers, you end up with a lot of choice, but the phones on the market are still the same old dreck. The reason for this is because the innovation must happen at the phone maker level. To support this, operating system vendors need to also be innovative. And to make sure that innovative operating systems can run, advanced chips are necessary.</p><p>But none of that involves the carriers. Carriers are merely the pipes: A necessary component, but a wholly replaceable part. From a technical innovation standpoint, these guys are the road system. Cars are what we consider innovative, roads are only considered when they suck. And frankly, American cellular carriers suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a technical level American carriers care only that the phones pass GCF .
If they want to bring innovation into this , they are going to have to argue that somehow the business model itself is innovative , but I do n't think that is what they are saying.What is important in exclusivity is that users do n't have a choice of carriers if they want to buy a specific phone .
If you want the iPhone , you 're stuck with AT&amp;T , for example .
But that does n't bring any innovation to the phones themselves.Unlocking the phones is n't any better , though , technologically speaking .
With a choice of carriers , you end up with a lot of choice , but the phones on the market are still the same old dreck .
The reason for this is because the innovation must happen at the phone maker level .
To support this , operating system vendors need to also be innovative .
And to make sure that innovative operating systems can run , advanced chips are necessary.But none of that involves the carriers .
Carriers are merely the pipes : A necessary component , but a wholly replaceable part .
From a technical innovation standpoint , these guys are the road system .
Cars are what we consider innovative , roads are only considered when they suck .
And frankly , American cellular carriers suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a technical level American carriers care only that the phones pass GCF.
If they want to bring innovation into this, they are going to have to argue that somehow the business model itself is innovative, but I don't think that is what they are saying.What is important in exclusivity is that users don't have a choice of carriers if they want to buy a specific phone.
If you want the iPhone, you're stuck with AT&amp;T, for example.
But that doesn't bring any innovation to the phones themselves.Unlocking the phones isn't any better, though, technologically speaking.
With a choice of carriers, you end up with a lot of choice, but the phones on the market are still the same old dreck.
The reason for this is because the innovation must happen at the phone maker level.
To support this, operating system vendors need to also be innovative.
And to make sure that innovative operating systems can run, advanced chips are necessary.But none of that involves the carriers.
Carriers are merely the pipes: A necessary component, but a wholly replaceable part.
From a technical innovation standpoint, these guys are the road system.
Cars are what we consider innovative, roads are only considered when they suck.
And frankly, American cellular carriers suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361289</id>
	<title>free market</title>
	<author>Aggrav8d</author>
	<datestamp>1245252420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.'</p></div></blockquote><p>That's fine with us!  Don't develop the handsets.  Focus on building your network's reliability and lowering your cost to consumer.  Let someone who knows what they're doing build the handsets.</p><p>What's that?  Handsets make a lot of money for you?  Well then I guess you'll have to do a better job than the 3rd party developers.  So much for less incentive!  Just when you thought you had all that nasty competition wrapped up, free market forces come along and ruin your day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nationwide operators , including Verizon , maintain ( PDF ) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets .
'That 's fine with us !
Do n't develop the handsets .
Focus on building your network 's reliability and lowering your cost to consumer .
Let someone who knows what they 're doing build the handsets.What 's that ?
Handsets make a lot of money for you ?
Well then I guess you 'll have to do a better job than the 3rd party developers .
So much for less incentive !
Just when you thought you had all that nasty competition wrapped up , free market forces come along and ruin your day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.
'That's fine with us!
Don't develop the handsets.
Focus on building your network's reliability and lowering your cost to consumer.
Let someone who knows what they're doing build the handsets.What's that?
Handsets make a lot of money for you?
Well then I guess you'll have to do a better job than the 3rd party developers.
So much for less incentive!
Just when you thought you had all that nasty competition wrapped up, free market forces come along and ruin your day.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356913</id>
	<title>Re:Backwards Argument?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245166140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I'm a bit with the Naive and silly..  I'd like to see all the carriers eventually switch using a common wireless standard/freq/whatever.  So that any phone could be used on any carrier.  *however*  I still say let AT&amp;T have their iPhone "exclusive" deal.. whatever.  If you want a cheaper iPhone.. go get an AT&amp;T contract.  If someone on Verizon wants an iPhone.. They'll need to pony up whatever zillions of dollars the retail version will then cost.   Plus maybe *everyone* can have good coverage.. not just Verizon here, T-mobile there etc..</p><p>Then it's a matter of luring people in with the better plan, or discount on the shiny new toy.  Still room for making the better product.</p><p>Or.. apparently I want to move to Europe or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm a bit with the Naive and silly.. I 'd like to see all the carriers eventually switch using a common wireless standard/freq/whatever .
So that any phone could be used on any carrier .
* however * I still say let AT&amp;T have their iPhone " exclusive " deal.. whatever. If you want a cheaper iPhone.. go get an AT&amp;T contract .
If someone on Verizon wants an iPhone.. They 'll need to pony up whatever zillions of dollars the retail version will then cost .
Plus maybe * everyone * can have good coverage.. not just Verizon here , T-mobile there etc..Then it 's a matter of luring people in with the better plan , or discount on the shiny new toy .
Still room for making the better product.Or.. apparently I want to move to Europe or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm a bit with the Naive and silly..  I'd like to see all the carriers eventually switch using a common wireless standard/freq/whatever.
So that any phone could be used on any carrier.
*however*  I still say let AT&amp;T have their iPhone "exclusive" deal.. whatever.  If you want a cheaper iPhone.. go get an AT&amp;T contract.
If someone on Verizon wants an iPhone.. They'll need to pony up whatever zillions of dollars the retail version will then cost.
Plus maybe *everyone* can have good coverage.. not just Verizon here, T-mobile there etc..Then it's a matter of luring people in with the better plan, or discount on the shiny new toy.
Still room for making the better product.Or.. apparently I want to move to Europe or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357471</id>
	<title>Verizon is funny.</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1245171180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.'</p></div><p>You've got to hand it to Verizon for trying to confuse the congressmen with idiot logic.
Are wireless carriers really developing innovative handsets? (or handsets at all)</p><p>I am trying to think of more than 3 revolutionary handset lines besides the iPhones, the Blackberries and Nokias.  I guess we can throw in Motorola for their early efforts and Sony Ericsson for cute design too.  But where are the carriers?  </p><p>I think Verizon is really pissing their pants because they are thinking "in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers <i>will have a harder time locking down good phones with carrier-specific crappy software.</i>"
</p><p>In theory, non-exclusive phones would also reduce the number of overall phones brought to market and increase the quality since the developers would be competing against a larger market. </p><p>Really, with non-exclusive handsets, both consumers and cell phone companies win.  Large carriers will be the only ones losing... they will have to choose between market share, profit, and handset control.  Of course, who are we kidding, nothing is going to change because they probably own half of the senate.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But nationwide operators , including Verizon , maintain ( PDF ) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets .
'You 've got to hand it to Verizon for trying to confuse the congressmen with idiot logic .
Are wireless carriers really developing innovative handsets ?
( or handsets at all ) I am trying to think of more than 3 revolutionary handset lines besides the iPhones , the Blackberries and Nokias .
I guess we can throw in Motorola for their early efforts and Sony Ericsson for cute design too .
But where are the carriers ?
I think Verizon is really pissing their pants because they are thinking " in the absence of exclusivity agreements , wireless carriers will have a harder time locking down good phones with carrier-specific crappy software .
" In theory , non-exclusive phones would also reduce the number of overall phones brought to market and increase the quality since the developers would be competing against a larger market .
Really , with non-exclusive handsets , both consumers and cell phone companies win .
Large carriers will be the only ones losing... they will have to choose between market share , profit , and handset control .
Of course , who are we kidding , nothing is going to change because they probably own half of the senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.
'You've got to hand it to Verizon for trying to confuse the congressmen with idiot logic.
Are wireless carriers really developing innovative handsets?
(or handsets at all)I am trying to think of more than 3 revolutionary handset lines besides the iPhones, the Blackberries and Nokias.
I guess we can throw in Motorola for their early efforts and Sony Ericsson for cute design too.
But where are the carriers?
I think Verizon is really pissing their pants because they are thinking "in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers will have a harder time locking down good phones with carrier-specific crappy software.
"
In theory, non-exclusive phones would also reduce the number of overall phones brought to market and increase the quality since the developers would be competing against a larger market.
Really, with non-exclusive handsets, both consumers and cell phone companies win.
Large carriers will be the only ones losing... they will have to choose between market share, profit, and handset control.
Of course, who are we kidding, nothing is going to change because they probably own half of the senate.  
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357283</id>
	<title>Follow the Money trail</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1245169440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of debating it in Senate (which exists solely for debates), why put it to Commerce Committee and why now?<br>The answer can b e got <a href="http://www.benton.org/node/22874" title="benton.org">here.</a> [benton.org] It says a former tech exec has joi ned the committee.<br>Which means he is trying to pre-empt any legislation by the Congress by putting it for consideration in the committee.<br>Which effectively kills any legislation and also protects the interests of telecoms.<br>Sneaky, disgusting and probably illegal.<br>But then the senate has a record of disgust. So nothing new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of debating it in Senate ( which exists solely for debates ) , why put it to Commerce Committee and why now ? The answer can b e got here .
[ benton.org ] It says a former tech exec has joi ned the committee.Which means he is trying to pre-empt any legislation by the Congress by putting it for consideration in the committee.Which effectively kills any legislation and also protects the interests of telecoms.Sneaky , disgusting and probably illegal.But then the senate has a record of disgust .
So nothing new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of debating it in Senate (which exists solely for debates), why put it to Commerce Committee and why now?The answer can b e got here.
[benton.org] It says a former tech exec has joi ned the committee.Which means he is trying to pre-empt any legislation by the Congress by putting it for consideration in the committee.Which effectively kills any legislation and also protects the interests of telecoms.Sneaky, disgusting and probably illegal.But then the senate has a record of disgust.
So nothing new here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356775</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245164880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Largely yes, they do suck, but a large part of that has to do with the difficulty of changing networks. Nearly all the people I call are with AT&amp;T, were I to switch carriers, I'd suddenly have to care about how many minutes I'm getting. And as hard as it is for me to believe, the reception seems to be worse than when Cingular was holding my account.<br> <br>

Phones are similar, if you're locked into a portion of the market making a more specialized phone is much less likely to turn a profit. Whereas it might do fine in the market at large, you're artificially stuck making it available network by network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Largely yes , they do suck , but a large part of that has to do with the difficulty of changing networks .
Nearly all the people I call are with AT&amp;T , were I to switch carriers , I 'd suddenly have to care about how many minutes I 'm getting .
And as hard as it is for me to believe , the reception seems to be worse than when Cingular was holding my account .
Phones are similar , if you 're locked into a portion of the market making a more specialized phone is much less likely to turn a profit .
Whereas it might do fine in the market at large , you 're artificially stuck making it available network by network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Largely yes, they do suck, but a large part of that has to do with the difficulty of changing networks.
Nearly all the people I call are with AT&amp;T, were I to switch carriers, I'd suddenly have to care about how many minutes I'm getting.
And as hard as it is for me to believe, the reception seems to be worse than when Cingular was holding my account.
Phones are similar, if you're locked into a portion of the market making a more specialized phone is much less likely to turn a profit.
Whereas it might do fine in the market at large, you're artificially stuck making it available network by network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28399927</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1245529800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm not sure what the problem was. Cell networks are built on standards. If you obey the standard, there should be no reason any other standards-respecting equipment won't talk.Maybe your company just tried to cut corners/costs and built the network half-assed?</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what the problem was .
Cell networks are built on standards .
If you obey the standard , there should be no reason any other standards-respecting equipment wo n't talk.Maybe your company just tried to cut corners/costs and built the network half-assed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what the problem was.
Cell networks are built on standards.
If you obey the standard, there should be no reason any other standards-respecting equipment won't talk.Maybe your company just tried to cut corners/costs and built the network half-assed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357273</id>
	<title>typical...</title>
	<author>whipple-spree</author>
	<datestamp>1245169380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems, when given the option, that most big business will try to strangle the hand that feeds them.

Cheap and reliable communication has been a keystone of American business, both domestic and foreign and here we are trying to catch up because business is too damn greedy/short-sighted for their own good.


Their argument has nothing to do with innovation.  It has everything to do with making money by not rolling out a more expansive, more reliable network.


Who suffers?  America does and it's not like they can just pick up their network and plop it down somewhere else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems , when given the option , that most big business will try to strangle the hand that feeds them .
Cheap and reliable communication has been a keystone of American business , both domestic and foreign and here we are trying to catch up because business is too damn greedy/short-sighted for their own good .
Their argument has nothing to do with innovation .
It has everything to do with making money by not rolling out a more expansive , more reliable network .
Who suffers ?
America does and it 's not like they can just pick up their network and plop it down somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems, when given the option, that most big business will try to strangle the hand that feeds them.
Cheap and reliable communication has been a keystone of American business, both domestic and foreign and here we are trying to catch up because business is too damn greedy/short-sighted for their own good.
Their argument has nothing to do with innovation.
It has everything to do with making money by not rolling out a more expansive, more reliable network.
Who suffers?
America does and it's not like they can just pick up their network and plop it down somewhere else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28360309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28362111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28369519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28363721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28362067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2150205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28360587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28362067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28363721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28362111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28360309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28360587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28369519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28357137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28358047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28361715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2150205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28359875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2150205.28356913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
