<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_19_2226239</id>
	<title>FCC To Probe Exclusive Mobile Deals</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245413220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>On Tuesday, we discussed news that four US Senators would be <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/16/2150205&amp;tid=266">looking into the exclusivity deals</a> between carriers and cell phone makers. Apparently, they didn't like what they heard. Reader <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/people/i-lamont550036" rel="nofollow">Ian Lamont</a> writes with an update:
<i>"The Federal Communications Commission is planning on launching an <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/06/19/fcc-probe-exclusive-mobile-handset-deals">investigation into exclusive handset deals between mobile carriers and handset makers</a>. In a speech on Thursday, acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps said the agency 'should determine whether some of these arrangements adversely restrict consumer choice or harm the development of innovative devices, and it should take appropriate action if it finds harm.' It's not hard to imagine who might be targeted &mdash; at a separate <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/06/18/senators-challenge-ts-exclusive-iphone-deal">Senate Committee on Commerce hearing on Thursday</a>, much of the discussion centered on AT&amp;T's exclusive deal to carry the iPhone. AT&amp;T claimed 'consumers benefit from exclusive deals in three ways: innovation, lower cost and more choice,' but carriers and senators from states with large rural populations disagreed, saying that their customers had no choice when it came to the iPhone &mdash; it's not available because AT&amp;Ts network doesn't reach these areas. One panelist also brought up the <a href="http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/files/media/articles/v025/v025.i3.Johnson.pdf">Carterfone precedent</a> (PDF), which concerned an 'electrical acoustic coupling device' that a man named Tom Carter developed in the 1950s to let field workers make phone calls using a radio transceiver connected to AT&amp;T's phone network. AT&amp;T, which was then a monopoly, claimed no foreign devices could be connected to its network, but lost when it challenged the Carterfone in court. The result spurred innovation such as the fax machine."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Tuesday , we discussed news that four US Senators would be looking into the exclusivity deals between carriers and cell phone makers .
Apparently , they did n't like what they heard .
Reader Ian Lamont writes with an update : " The Federal Communications Commission is planning on launching an investigation into exclusive handset deals between mobile carriers and handset makers .
In a speech on Thursday , acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps said the agency 'should determine whether some of these arrangements adversely restrict consumer choice or harm the development of innovative devices , and it should take appropriate action if it finds harm .
' It 's not hard to imagine who might be targeted    at a separate Senate Committee on Commerce hearing on Thursday , much of the discussion centered on AT&amp;T 's exclusive deal to carry the iPhone .
AT&amp;T claimed 'consumers benefit from exclusive deals in three ways : innovation , lower cost and more choice, ' but carriers and senators from states with large rural populations disagreed , saying that their customers had no choice when it came to the iPhone    it 's not available because AT&amp;Ts network does n't reach these areas .
One panelist also brought up the Carterfone precedent ( PDF ) , which concerned an 'electrical acoustic coupling device ' that a man named Tom Carter developed in the 1950s to let field workers make phone calls using a radio transceiver connected to AT&amp;T 's phone network .
AT&amp;T , which was then a monopoly , claimed no foreign devices could be connected to its network , but lost when it challenged the Carterfone in court .
The result spurred innovation such as the fax machine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Tuesday, we discussed news that four US Senators would be looking into the exclusivity deals between carriers and cell phone makers.
Apparently, they didn't like what they heard.
Reader Ian Lamont writes with an update:
"The Federal Communications Commission is planning on launching an investigation into exclusive handset deals between mobile carriers and handset makers.
In a speech on Thursday, acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps said the agency 'should determine whether some of these arrangements adversely restrict consumer choice or harm the development of innovative devices, and it should take appropriate action if it finds harm.
' It's not hard to imagine who might be targeted — at a separate Senate Committee on Commerce hearing on Thursday, much of the discussion centered on AT&amp;T's exclusive deal to carry the iPhone.
AT&amp;T claimed 'consumers benefit from exclusive deals in three ways: innovation, lower cost and more choice,' but carriers and senators from states with large rural populations disagreed, saying that their customers had no choice when it came to the iPhone — it's not available because AT&amp;Ts network doesn't reach these areas.
One panelist also brought up the Carterfone precedent (PDF), which concerned an 'electrical acoustic coupling device' that a man named Tom Carter developed in the 1950s to let field workers make phone calls using a radio transceiver connected to AT&amp;T's phone network.
AT&amp;T, which was then a monopoly, claimed no foreign devices could be connected to its network, but lost when it challenged the Carterfone in court.
The result spurred innovation such as the fax machine.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398359</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1245422700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did you notice, for example, that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?</p></div><p>While I take your meaning, I wouldn't say that Blackberries "sucked." True, they were boring business tools and not the sexy web-browsing media players that the iPhone and its successors are, but there were a few decent data-capable phones in the US before it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you notice , for example , that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that did n't suck into the US market ? While I take your meaning , I would n't say that Blackberries " sucked .
" True , they were boring business tools and not the sexy web-browsing media players that the iPhone and its successors are , but there were a few decent data-capable phones in the US before it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you notice, for example, that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?While I take your meaning, I wouldn't say that Blackberries "sucked.
" True, they were boring business tools and not the sexy web-browsing media players that the iPhone and its successors are, but there were a few decent data-capable phones in the US before it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397975</id>
	<title>Everybody thought the iPhone will fail 3 years ago</title>
	<author>deanston</author>
	<datestamp>1245419580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody cared until somebody started making bank. Then all of sudden everybody wants a piece of the pie.
<p>
Maybe exclusive deals should be like drug patents - must expire after some time. Make it 3 years or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody cared until somebody started making bank .
Then all of sudden everybody wants a piece of the pie .
Maybe exclusive deals should be like drug patents - must expire after some time .
Make it 3 years or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody cared until somebody started making bank.
Then all of sudden everybody wants a piece of the pie.
Maybe exclusive deals should be like drug patents - must expire after some time.
Make it 3 years or so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401769</id>
	<title>Re:This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>wfolta</author>
	<datestamp>1245512400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.<br>More stores selling more phones has to lead to lower prices</p></div><p>This sounds like a recipe for lowest-common-denominator phones... like we had before the iPhone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.More stores selling more phones has to lead to lower pricesThis sounds like a recipe for lowest-common-denominator phones... like we had before the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.More stores selling more phones has to lead to lower pricesThis sounds like a recipe for lowest-common-denominator phones... like we had before the iPhone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398299</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>oneplus999</author>
	<datestamp>1245422100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does that mean if we chip in to buy them some PS3s or some 360s we might get rid of these ridiculous console-exclusivity deals?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean if we chip in to buy them some PS3s or some 360s we might get rid of these ridiculous console-exclusivity deals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean if we chip in to buy them some PS3s or some 360s we might get rid of these ridiculous console-exclusivity deals?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398411</id>
	<title>Cheaper my ass.</title>
	<author>DynamiteNeon</author>
	<datestamp>1245423240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I save at least $50 on T-mobile using an iPhone and unlocking it (my wife has one also, so it's a shared plan).  ATT has taken advantage of the iPhone to tack on the $30 data plan per phone, which is quite a bit more expensive than most other plans with similar service.</p><p>I haven't fully decided if the iPhone penetration has reached a point where the government should be regulating them, but for ATT to argue that their deal really helps make things cheaper is bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I save at least $ 50 on T-mobile using an iPhone and unlocking it ( my wife has one also , so it 's a shared plan ) .
ATT has taken advantage of the iPhone to tack on the $ 30 data plan per phone , which is quite a bit more expensive than most other plans with similar service.I have n't fully decided if the iPhone penetration has reached a point where the government should be regulating them , but for ATT to argue that their deal really helps make things cheaper is bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I save at least $50 on T-mobile using an iPhone and unlocking it (my wife has one also, so it's a shared plan).
ATT has taken advantage of the iPhone to tack on the $30 data plan per phone, which is quite a bit more expensive than most other plans with similar service.I haven't fully decided if the iPhone penetration has reached a point where the government should be regulating them, but for ATT to argue that their deal really helps make things cheaper is bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28403733</id>
	<title>Re:This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1245529620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably because, as in all the examples you have listed, no one wants to dangle an adapter that weighs more than the phone, to the cell phone, to get what you claim the others do.</p><p>I can't plug my TV into a single cable company to take advantage of their services, i need a converter box that ONLY works with them.</p><p>I can't plug my computer into any internet service.  I need a modem/router/bridge device that generally only works with their service.</p><p>Only the land line (POTS) phone is a ligit example, and you have to remember for the first few decades of the phone company, that was no possible either.  It took major government intervention to allow it, on the scale that I doubt we will ever see again in this country.</p><p>That is why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because , as in all the examples you have listed , no one wants to dangle an adapter that weighs more than the phone , to the cell phone , to get what you claim the others do.I ca n't plug my TV into a single cable company to take advantage of their services , i need a converter box that ONLY works with them.I ca n't plug my computer into any internet service .
I need a modem/router/bridge device that generally only works with their service.Only the land line ( POTS ) phone is a ligit example , and you have to remember for the first few decades of the phone company , that was no possible either .
It took major government intervention to allow it , on the scale that I doubt we will ever see again in this country.That is why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because, as in all the examples you have listed, no one wants to dangle an adapter that weighs more than the phone, to the cell phone, to get what you claim the others do.I can't plug my TV into a single cable company to take advantage of their services, i need a converter box that ONLY works with them.I can't plug my computer into any internet service.
I need a modem/router/bridge device that generally only works with their service.Only the land line (POTS) phone is a ligit example, and you have to remember for the first few decades of the phone company, that was no possible either.
It took major government intervention to allow it, on the scale that I doubt we will ever see again in this country.That is why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400971</id>
	<title>Re:This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1245504420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I can buy a computer from *any* company and then get Internet from *any* provider I want."
<p>
Ah but wouldn't the <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/05/attnetbooks/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">cellphone companies love to see that change.</a> [wired.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I can buy a computer from * any * company and then get Internet from * any * provider I want .
" Ah but would n't the cellphone companies love to see that change .
[ wired.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I can buy a computer from *any* company and then get Internet from *any* provider I want.
"

Ah but wouldn't the cellphone companies love to see that change.
[wired.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398619</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>Foodie</author>
	<datestamp>1245425700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or for some senator to have their, or one of their family member's identity stolen... will be fun to see what happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or for some senator to have their , or one of their family member 's identity stolen... will be fun to see what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or for some senator to have their, or one of their family member's identity stolen... will be fun to see what happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398779</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1245427260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what about people that want an iphone and use it with any number of carriers, i might want to use it with tracfone service,</htmltext>
<tokenext>what about people that want an iphone and use it with any number of carriers , i might want to use it with tracfone service,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about people that want an iphone and use it with any number of carriers, i might want to use it with tracfone service,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398381</id>
	<title>Re:This should've happened years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as an iPhone owner  i'd like to pose a thought specifically re: iPhone and AT&amp;T service. I live in the NY,NJ,PA tri-state area where AT&amp;T has less than reputable service. (in much of the US AT&amp;T has fairly good coverage) i've been with AT&amp;T for over 10 years (from Cingular) in multiple locations in the US. i've never had any issues whatsoever with my phone service until i got my iPhone. now i will be the first to admit i \_really\_ like my iPhone, i like it enough to spell it with a capital "P" and lowercase "i". i dont even capitalize myself when i say 'i'. that being said, the iPhone has dropped calls more times than i possibly can fathom! i'm sure i've dropped over 250 calls minimum in the past 8 months or so that i've had the device. prior to this, i've only ever dropped 1 call in 10 \_years\_ with AT&amp;T. i am dissatisfied with AT&amp;T service plans but i have to recognize there is a possiblity that the iPhone itself has some real issues, it may be just the way it works with AT&amp;T service (if anyone has any experince with other carriers, O2, the canadian one or whatever please ceel free to add your experience.) it may be the device, either way i wont know for sure till i can take my iPhone to another carrier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as an iPhone owner i 'd like to pose a thought specifically re : iPhone and AT&amp;T service .
I live in the NY,NJ,PA tri-state area where AT&amp;T has less than reputable service .
( in much of the US AT&amp;T has fairly good coverage ) i 've been with AT&amp;T for over 10 years ( from Cingular ) in multiple locations in the US .
i 've never had any issues whatsoever with my phone service until i got my iPhone .
now i will be the first to admit i \ _really \ _ like my iPhone , i like it enough to spell it with a capital " P " and lowercase " i " .
i dont even capitalize myself when i say 'i' .
that being said , the iPhone has dropped calls more times than i possibly can fathom !
i 'm sure i 've dropped over 250 calls minimum in the past 8 months or so that i 've had the device .
prior to this , i 've only ever dropped 1 call in 10 \ _years \ _ with AT&amp;T .
i am dissatisfied with AT&amp;T service plans but i have to recognize there is a possiblity that the iPhone itself has some real issues , it may be just the way it works with AT&amp;T service ( if anyone has any experince with other carriers , O2 , the canadian one or whatever please ceel free to add your experience .
) it may be the device , either way i wont know for sure till i can take my iPhone to another carrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as an iPhone owner  i'd like to pose a thought specifically re: iPhone and AT&amp;T service.
I live in the NY,NJ,PA tri-state area where AT&amp;T has less than reputable service.
(in much of the US AT&amp;T has fairly good coverage) i've been with AT&amp;T for over 10 years (from Cingular) in multiple locations in the US.
i've never had any issues whatsoever with my phone service until i got my iPhone.
now i will be the first to admit i \_really\_ like my iPhone, i like it enough to spell it with a capital "P" and lowercase "i".
i dont even capitalize myself when i say 'i'.
that being said, the iPhone has dropped calls more times than i possibly can fathom!
i'm sure i've dropped over 250 calls minimum in the past 8 months or so that i've had the device.
prior to this, i've only ever dropped 1 call in 10 \_years\_ with AT&amp;T.
i am dissatisfied with AT&amp;T service plans but i have to recognize there is a possiblity that the iPhone itself has some real issues, it may be just the way it works with AT&amp;T service (if anyone has any experince with other carriers, O2, the canadian one or whatever please ceel free to add your experience.
) it may be the device, either way i wont know for sure till i can take my iPhone to another carrier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398045</id>
	<title>Doesn't Anyone Remember?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple first went to Verizon but was turned down. AT&amp;T was the only company that would let them do the iPhone, so they got it. Now everyone is crying foul because AT&amp;T is stealing millions of customers. AT&amp;T has every right to keep their deal with Apple. Just wait a few more years and the iPhone will be open for everyone, just as iTuned came to the PC. Apple's best interest is to sell the iPhone everywhere but has an obligation to repay AT&amp;T for making all this possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple first went to Verizon but was turned down .
AT&amp;T was the only company that would let them do the iPhone , so they got it .
Now everyone is crying foul because AT&amp;T is stealing millions of customers .
AT&amp;T has every right to keep their deal with Apple .
Just wait a few more years and the iPhone will be open for everyone , just as iTuned came to the PC .
Apple 's best interest is to sell the iPhone everywhere but has an obligation to repay AT&amp;T for making all this possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple first went to Verizon but was turned down.
AT&amp;T was the only company that would let them do the iPhone, so they got it.
Now everyone is crying foul because AT&amp;T is stealing millions of customers.
AT&amp;T has every right to keep their deal with Apple.
Just wait a few more years and the iPhone will be open for everyone, just as iTuned came to the PC.
Apple's best interest is to sell the iPhone everywhere but has an obligation to repay AT&amp;T for making all this possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400147</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>bemymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245490320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As far as smartphones go, i hear rumors that AT&amp;T is finally coming out with an android phone this summer, and it has a *QVGA* screen!? WTF? That is horrible. the iphone and g1 have TWICE as many pixels! Why go backwards!?"</p><p>You are aware of the fact that the 320x480 that the iPhone and most Android phones use (IIRC) is also quite a step back from the VGA and WVGA (800x480) resolutions that have become pretty much standard on Windows Mobile-based phones, right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I've actually been wondering why that is - are capacitive screens harder to produce with high pixel densities?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As far as smartphones go , i hear rumors that AT&amp;T is finally coming out with an android phone this summer , and it has a * QVGA * screen ! ?
WTF ? That is horrible .
the iphone and g1 have TWICE as many pixels !
Why go backwards ! ?
" You are aware of the fact that the 320x480 that the iPhone and most Android phones use ( IIRC ) is also quite a step back from the VGA and WVGA ( 800x480 ) resolutions that have become pretty much standard on Windows Mobile-based phones , right ?
: ) I 've actually been wondering why that is - are capacitive screens harder to produce with high pixel densities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As far as smartphones go, i hear rumors that AT&amp;T is finally coming out with an android phone this summer, and it has a *QVGA* screen!?
WTF? That is horrible.
the iphone and g1 have TWICE as many pixels!
Why go backwards!?
"You are aware of the fact that the 320x480 that the iPhone and most Android phones use (IIRC) is also quite a step back from the VGA and WVGA (800x480) resolutions that have become pretty much standard on Windows Mobile-based phones, right?
:)I've actually been wondering why that is - are capacitive screens harder to produce with high pixel densities?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398985</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245429720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why Congress has a (publicly funded) medical plan, the likes of which the insurance industry will fight to keep away from the rest of us.</p><p>We need a law that says: Members of Congress gets the worst plan/deal/discount available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why Congress has a ( publicly funded ) medical plan , the likes of which the insurance industry will fight to keep away from the rest of us.We need a law that says : Members of Congress gets the worst plan/deal/discount available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why Congress has a (publicly funded) medical plan, the likes of which the insurance industry will fight to keep away from the rest of us.We need a law that says: Members of Congress gets the worst plan/deal/discount available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398207</id>
	<title>It's called Capitalism - suck on it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boo hoo, I'm a small wireless provider and I couldn't afford to outbid AT&amp;T... Now I can't make money off of ONE specific phone out of the MANY MANY phones already available to me.</p><p>Waaah, I'm a typical American consumer and I feel (notice I didn't say think - because they don't) that it is MY RIGHT to have an iPhone... Since I am on a different network, I can't buy one... it isn't FAIR....</p><p>Cry me a river.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boo hoo , I 'm a small wireless provider and I could n't afford to outbid AT&amp;T... Now I ca n't make money off of ONE specific phone out of the MANY MANY phones already available to me.Waaah , I 'm a typical American consumer and I feel ( notice I did n't say think - because they do n't ) that it is MY RIGHT to have an iPhone... Since I am on a different network , I ca n't buy one... it is n't FAIR....Cry me a river .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boo hoo, I'm a small wireless provider and I couldn't afford to outbid AT&amp;T... Now I can't make money off of ONE specific phone out of the MANY MANY phones already available to me.Waaah, I'm a typical American consumer and I feel (notice I didn't say think - because they don't) that it is MY RIGHT to have an iPhone... Since I am on a different network, I can't buy one... it isn't FAIR....Cry me a river.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28402705</id>
	<title>Re:This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>Iguanadon</author>
	<datestamp>1245521160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can buy *any* TV I want then get cable or dish service from *any* provider I want.</p><p>I can buy a computer from *any* company and then get Internet from *any* provider I want.</p><p>I can buy a land-line phone from *any* phone maker and then get phone service from *any* provider I want.</p></div><p>Cable: exclusivity deals with towns, limited, if any selection </p><p>Internet: exclusivity deals with towns, limited, if any selection </p><p>Phone: exclusivity deals with towns, limited, if any selection </p><p>Not to mention these three are usually the same company... </p><p>I get your point though, I currently have an iPhone from AT&amp;T, but I'm doing some development work on the G1, which conveniently supports all the 3G bands but AT&amp;Ts, and the iPhone supports all the 3G bands but T-Mobile's...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can buy * any * TV I want then get cable or dish service from * any * provider I want.I can buy a computer from * any * company and then get Internet from * any * provider I want.I can buy a land-line phone from * any * phone maker and then get phone service from * any * provider I want.Cable : exclusivity deals with towns , limited , if any selection Internet : exclusivity deals with towns , limited , if any selection Phone : exclusivity deals with towns , limited , if any selection Not to mention these three are usually the same company... I get your point though , I currently have an iPhone from AT&amp;T , but I 'm doing some development work on the G1 , which conveniently supports all the 3G bands but AT&amp;Ts , and the iPhone supports all the 3G bands but T-Mobile 's.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can buy *any* TV I want then get cable or dish service from *any* provider I want.I can buy a computer from *any* company and then get Internet from *any* provider I want.I can buy a land-line phone from *any* phone maker and then get phone service from *any* provider I want.Cable: exclusivity deals with towns, limited, if any selection Internet: exclusivity deals with towns, limited, if any selection Phone: exclusivity deals with towns, limited, if any selection Not to mention these three are usually the same company... I get your point though, I currently have an iPhone from AT&amp;T, but I'm doing some development work on the G1, which conveniently supports all the 3G bands but AT&amp;Ts, and the iPhone supports all the 3G bands but T-Mobile's...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398197</id>
	<title>One out of three ain't bad...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245421020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>AT&amp;T claimed 'consumers benefit from exclusive deals in three ways: innovation, lower cost and more choice,' </i> While guaranteeing monopoly rents to AT&amp;T for anyone that wants an iPhone may actually provide more funding for innovation, economies of scale dictate that more iPhones could be sold if they were allowed on any network, thus lowering unit cost. The contention that less choice = more choice is truly Orwellian. Perhaps AT&amp;T should use as their new slogan, "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T claimed 'consumers benefit from exclusive deals in three ways : innovation , lower cost and more choice, ' While guaranteeing monopoly rents to AT&amp;T for anyone that wants an iPhone may actually provide more funding for innovation , economies of scale dictate that more iPhones could be sold if they were allowed on any network , thus lowering unit cost .
The contention that less choice = more choice is truly Orwellian .
Perhaps AT&amp;T should use as their new slogan , " War is Peace ; Freedom is Slavery ; Ignorance is Strength .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T claimed 'consumers benefit from exclusive deals in three ways: innovation, lower cost and more choice,'  While guaranteeing monopoly rents to AT&amp;T for anyone that wants an iPhone may actually provide more funding for innovation, economies of scale dictate that more iPhones could be sold if they were allowed on any network, thus lowering unit cost.
The contention that less choice = more choice is truly Orwellian.
Perhaps AT&amp;T should use as their new slogan, "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>geekboy642</author>
	<datestamp>1245418440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suggested mod: +5, Sad but true.</p><p>What needs to happen is some senators need to get cancer, and have their insurance company deny coverage based on them mis-reporting their weight 15 years prior. We'll see some shit change real damn fast when that finally happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suggested mod : + 5 , Sad but true.What needs to happen is some senators need to get cancer , and have their insurance company deny coverage based on them mis-reporting their weight 15 years prior .
We 'll see some shit change real damn fast when that finally happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suggested mod: +5, Sad but true.What needs to happen is some senators need to get cancer, and have their insurance company deny coverage based on them mis-reporting their weight 15 years prior.
We'll see some shit change real damn fast when that finally happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28406483</id>
	<title>This is only a political shake down for more ...</title>
	<author>Jerry</author>
	<datestamp>1245507600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bribes,,,,er,,,"campaign contributions".   As soon as the right palms get enough greese on them this "issue" will go away faster than due on the morning grass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bribes,,,,er,, , " campaign contributions " .
As soon as the right palms get enough greese on them this " issue " will go away faster than due on the morning grass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bribes,,,,er,,,"campaign contributions".
As soon as the right palms get enough greese on them this "issue" will go away faster than due on the morning grass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791</id>
	<title>Well, my 2 cents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The carterfone and that whole line of reasoning has nothing to do with the iphone on competitor networks. I'm not sure what point is trying to be made, like as if the iPhone being able to work on Verizon would lead to some amazing innovation we're missing out on because of an exclusivity deal? I don't think I follow that one. I just don't get it, sorry. It's apples and oranges</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The carterfone and that whole line of reasoning has nothing to do with the iphone on competitor networks .
I 'm not sure what point is trying to be made , like as if the iPhone being able to work on Verizon would lead to some amazing innovation we 're missing out on because of an exclusivity deal ?
I do n't think I follow that one .
I just do n't get it , sorry .
It 's apples and oranges</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The carterfone and that whole line of reasoning has nothing to do with the iphone on competitor networks.
I'm not sure what point is trying to be made, like as if the iPhone being able to work on Verizon would lead to some amazing innovation we're missing out on because of an exclusivity deal?
I don't think I follow that one.
I just don't get it, sorry.
It's apples and oranges</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398099</id>
	<title>Re:enforcement of antitrust laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have not come across any "body" that attempts to lobby, write to local congressman/senators or follow legal channels to help enforce consumer antitrust.</p><p>Read: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div\_stats/211491.htm<br>Quoted:<br>"There are three main ways in which the federal antitrust laws are enforced: criminal and civil enforcement actions brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, civil enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and lawsuits brought by private parties asserting damage claims."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have not come across any " body " that attempts to lobby , write to local congressman/senators or follow legal channels to help enforce consumer antitrust.Read : http : //www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div \ _stats/211491.htmQuoted : " There are three main ways in which the federal antitrust laws are enforced : criminal and civil enforcement actions brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice , civil enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and lawsuits brought by private parties asserting damage claims .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have not come across any "body" that attempts to lobby, write to local congressman/senators or follow legal channels to help enforce consumer antitrust.Read: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div\_stats/211491.htmQuoted:"There are three main ways in which the federal antitrust laws are enforced: criminal and civil enforcement actions brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, civil enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and lawsuits brought by private parties asserting damage claims.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398075</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>In response, Roth argued that exclusive deals enable innovation because the operator and manufacturer share the risk. He suggested that operators will ask manufacturers for certain features on phones but manufacturers will often only do so if the operator agrees to buy a certain number of phones, he said.</i> </p><p>Corporate trusts are not <i>supposed</i> to decide what features go into products. That is one of the reasons that anti-trust regulation exists. Picking features and rewarding risk takers is the exclusive domain of <i>the silent hand of the market</i>. If you want to share the risk and get some exposure, then buy corporate bonds or non-voting shares from the handset manufacturer that pleases you. It is not a cartel or lateral monopoly's prerogative to manipulate decisions about product features.</p><p>The reason it is not the prerogative of trusts, cartels, or monopolies is because they are worse at it than the free market. Demonstrably so:</p><p>Did you notice, for example, that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?</p><p>Did you notice that the second acceptable smartphone came from a search engine company that had also never done cellular before?</p><p>Did you notice that that second smartphone got relegated to a third tier provider because the big boys were too busy sucking each others dicks to be bothered with an innovative product?</p><p>Did you notice that prior to the iPhone, America had just about the crappiest phones in the entire first world? Tiny little Taiwan was about a decade ahead of where we would be today were it not for Apple -- a complete outsider to your supposedly "innovative" little idiocracy.</p><p>You guys have been using your cartel to sit on your lazy, incompetent asses. Just like the auto manufacturers, except that Southeast Asian companies have a much harder time getting variances for cell towers than you, you fat, lazy fucks, so they haven't managed to kick your ass all up and down like they did to the auto makers.</p><p>I understand that you want to dictate features and restrain trade, but as it turns out, the free market(*) is a more efficient solution. So shove your transparent cartel rationalization up your ass and get out of my face.</p><p>Well, that's what the Senators should have said, anyway.</p><p>* Not laissez-faire, not anarchy: Adam Smith's free market, including regulation of anti-competitive behavior. Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me.</p></div><p>+1 awesome.</p><p>The US cellular market still blows. It was terrible years ago and it will be forever unless something changes! I switched away from verizon because their selection was shit, and instead now I have AT&amp;T, whose network blows compared to verizon. But I still don't have 3G on my damn phone because I want android and AT&amp;T is too into the iPhone love to agree to do anything with android. I could switch to t-mobile but now my work is paying for AT&amp;T, so I'm stuck with EDGE only on my unlocked G1 even though my *FLIP PHONE* 4 years ago had 3G! I used to stream the daily show!</p><p>If the manufacturers weren't so damn entangled with the carriers, they wouldn't be able to keep selling the complete shit they call most phones and there might be some real innovation to get consumer interest! I mean really, look at any cheap phone today and tell me what, if any, features it has over a cheap phone from 4 years ago!? They have pretty much stopped developing things on that end.</p><p>As far as smartphones go, i hear rumors that AT&amp;T is finally coming out with an android phone this summer, and it has a *QVGA* screen!? WTF? That is horrible. the iphone and g1 have TWICE as many pixels! Why go backwards!?</p><p>That may not be true but either way, the US cellular market is just shit and I would LOVE for something to change!<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In response , Roth argued that exclusive deals enable innovation because the operator and manufacturer share the risk .
He suggested that operators will ask manufacturers for certain features on phones but manufacturers will often only do so if the operator agrees to buy a certain number of phones , he said .
Corporate trusts are not supposed to decide what features go into products .
That is one of the reasons that anti-trust regulation exists .
Picking features and rewarding risk takers is the exclusive domain of the silent hand of the market .
If you want to share the risk and get some exposure , then buy corporate bonds or non-voting shares from the handset manufacturer that pleases you .
It is not a cartel or lateral monopoly 's prerogative to manipulate decisions about product features.The reason it is not the prerogative of trusts , cartels , or monopolies is because they are worse at it than the free market .
Demonstrably so : Did you notice , for example , that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that did n't suck into the US market ? Did you notice that the second acceptable smartphone came from a search engine company that had also never done cellular before ? Did you notice that that second smartphone got relegated to a third tier provider because the big boys were too busy sucking each others dicks to be bothered with an innovative product ? Did you notice that prior to the iPhone , America had just about the crappiest phones in the entire first world ?
Tiny little Taiwan was about a decade ahead of where we would be today were it not for Apple -- a complete outsider to your supposedly " innovative " little idiocracy.You guys have been using your cartel to sit on your lazy , incompetent asses .
Just like the auto manufacturers , except that Southeast Asian companies have a much harder time getting variances for cell towers than you , you fat , lazy fucks , so they have n't managed to kick your ass all up and down like they did to the auto makers.I understand that you want to dictate features and restrain trade , but as it turns out , the free market ( * ) is a more efficient solution .
So shove your transparent cartel rationalization up your ass and get out of my face.Well , that 's what the Senators should have said , anyway .
* Not laissez-faire , not anarchy : Adam Smith 's free market , including regulation of anti-competitive behavior .
Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me. + 1 awesome.The US cellular market still blows .
It was terrible years ago and it will be forever unless something changes !
I switched away from verizon because their selection was shit , and instead now I have AT&amp;T , whose network blows compared to verizon .
But I still do n't have 3G on my damn phone because I want android and AT&amp;T is too into the iPhone love to agree to do anything with android .
I could switch to t-mobile but now my work is paying for AT&amp;T , so I 'm stuck with EDGE only on my unlocked G1 even though my * FLIP PHONE * 4 years ago had 3G !
I used to stream the daily show ! If the manufacturers were n't so damn entangled with the carriers , they would n't be able to keep selling the complete shit they call most phones and there might be some real innovation to get consumer interest !
I mean really , look at any cheap phone today and tell me what , if any , features it has over a cheap phone from 4 years ago ! ?
They have pretty much stopped developing things on that end.As far as smartphones go , i hear rumors that AT&amp;T is finally coming out with an android phone this summer , and it has a * QVGA * screen ! ?
WTF ? That is horrible .
the iphone and g1 have TWICE as many pixels !
Why go backwards !
? That may not be true but either way , the US cellular market is just shit and I would LOVE for something to change ! -Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In response, Roth argued that exclusive deals enable innovation because the operator and manufacturer share the risk.
He suggested that operators will ask manufacturers for certain features on phones but manufacturers will often only do so if the operator agrees to buy a certain number of phones, he said.
Corporate trusts are not supposed to decide what features go into products.
That is one of the reasons that anti-trust regulation exists.
Picking features and rewarding risk takers is the exclusive domain of the silent hand of the market.
If you want to share the risk and get some exposure, then buy corporate bonds or non-voting shares from the handset manufacturer that pleases you.
It is not a cartel or lateral monopoly's prerogative to manipulate decisions about product features.The reason it is not the prerogative of trusts, cartels, or monopolies is because they are worse at it than the free market.
Demonstrably so:Did you notice, for example, that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?Did you notice that the second acceptable smartphone came from a search engine company that had also never done cellular before?Did you notice that that second smartphone got relegated to a third tier provider because the big boys were too busy sucking each others dicks to be bothered with an innovative product?Did you notice that prior to the iPhone, America had just about the crappiest phones in the entire first world?
Tiny little Taiwan was about a decade ahead of where we would be today were it not for Apple -- a complete outsider to your supposedly "innovative" little idiocracy.You guys have been using your cartel to sit on your lazy, incompetent asses.
Just like the auto manufacturers, except that Southeast Asian companies have a much harder time getting variances for cell towers than you, you fat, lazy fucks, so they haven't managed to kick your ass all up and down like they did to the auto makers.I understand that you want to dictate features and restrain trade, but as it turns out, the free market(*) is a more efficient solution.
So shove your transparent cartel rationalization up your ass and get out of my face.Well, that's what the Senators should have said, anyway.
* Not laissez-faire, not anarchy: Adam Smith's free market, including regulation of anti-competitive behavior.
Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me.+1 awesome.The US cellular market still blows.
It was terrible years ago and it will be forever unless something changes!
I switched away from verizon because their selection was shit, and instead now I have AT&amp;T, whose network blows compared to verizon.
But I still don't have 3G on my damn phone because I want android and AT&amp;T is too into the iPhone love to agree to do anything with android.
I could switch to t-mobile but now my work is paying for AT&amp;T, so I'm stuck with EDGE only on my unlocked G1 even though my *FLIP PHONE* 4 years ago had 3G!
I used to stream the daily show!If the manufacturers weren't so damn entangled with the carriers, they wouldn't be able to keep selling the complete shit they call most phones and there might be some real innovation to get consumer interest!
I mean really, look at any cheap phone today and tell me what, if any, features it has over a cheap phone from 4 years ago!?
They have pretty much stopped developing things on that end.As far as smartphones go, i hear rumors that AT&amp;T is finally coming out with an android phone this summer, and it has a *QVGA* screen!?
WTF? That is horrible.
the iphone and g1 have TWICE as many pixels!
Why go backwards!
?That may not be true but either way, the US cellular market is just shit and I would LOVE for something to change!-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400843</id>
	<title>Stop complaining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245501900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Want an iPhone, then get one and unlock it on your carrier..simple..

It's not just the iPhone, every carrier has exclusive deals..Blackberry Storm is Verizon only, but i'm not whining about that..

Your probably the same people that download movies with bit torrent so you don't have to pay for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want an iPhone , then get one and unlock it on your carrier..simple. . It 's not just the iPhone , every carrier has exclusive deals..Blackberry Storm is Verizon only , but i 'm not whining about that. . Your probably the same people that download movies with bit torrent so you do n't have to pay for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want an iPhone, then get one and unlock it on your carrier..simple..

It's not just the iPhone, every carrier has exclusive deals..Blackberry Storm is Verizon only, but i'm not whining about that..

Your probably the same people that download movies with bit torrent so you don't have to pay for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400965</id>
	<title>Re:This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245504360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from cable card and Tivo, see how easy it is to use your own DVR or receiver for either cable/satellite. I'm shocked the FCC didn't attempt to auction off the HD spectrum for private use similar to the 700mhz band that netted them quite the sum of money from Verizon Wireless and AT&amp;T Mobility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from cable card and Tivo , see how easy it is to use your own DVR or receiver for either cable/satellite .
I 'm shocked the FCC did n't attempt to auction off the HD spectrum for private use similar to the 700mhz band that netted them quite the sum of money from Verizon Wireless and AT&amp;T Mobility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from cable card and Tivo, see how easy it is to use your own DVR or receiver for either cable/satellite.
I'm shocked the FCC didn't attempt to auction off the HD spectrum for private use similar to the 700mhz band that netted them quite the sum of money from Verizon Wireless and AT&amp;T Mobility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397839</id>
	<title>Ok, so you could also get it on T-Mobile</title>
	<author>Reality Master 201</author>
	<datestamp>1245418200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really much of an improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really much of an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really much of an improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399273</id>
	<title>While you're at it...</title>
	<author>keraneuology</author>
	<datestamp>1245433320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do something about Verizon saying "you may not use a smart phone without paying $30/month above and beyond your voice plan for data even if you don't want to use our data network".  The phones have WiFi - that's what I want.  Period.  I don't want data.  I want a smart phone and I don't want to sure the web using your network.  That should be my right to choose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do something about Verizon saying " you may not use a smart phone without paying $ 30/month above and beyond your voice plan for data even if you do n't want to use our data network " .
The phones have WiFi - that 's what I want .
Period. I do n't want data .
I want a smart phone and I do n't want to sure the web using your network .
That should be my right to choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do something about Verizon saying "you may not use a smart phone without paying $30/month above and beyond your voice plan for data even if you don't want to use our data network".
The phones have WiFi - that's what I want.
Period.  I don't want data.
I want a smart phone and I don't want to sure the web using your network.
That should be my right to choose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397765</id>
	<title>This should've happened years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never understood why you could only use certain phones with certain carriers.  I've never used an iphone before until yesterday and I really liked it, but was extremely dismayed by being stuck with AT&amp;T.</p><p>I've talked with coworkers and friends in the area who use AT&amp;T and most of their responses are about how crappy it is.</p><p>Therefore no iphone for me until I can choose another carrier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood why you could only use certain phones with certain carriers .
I 've never used an iphone before until yesterday and I really liked it , but was extremely dismayed by being stuck with AT&amp;T.I 've talked with coworkers and friends in the area who use AT&amp;T and most of their responses are about how crappy it is.Therefore no iphone for me until I can choose another carrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood why you could only use certain phones with certain carriers.
I've never used an iphone before until yesterday and I really liked it, but was extremely dismayed by being stuck with AT&amp;T.I've talked with coworkers and friends in the area who use AT&amp;T and most of their responses are about how crappy it is.Therefore no iphone for me until I can choose another carrier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397961</id>
	<title>Re:Well, my 2 cents</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245419340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is you should be able to sue any phone on any system.<br>Just like carterfone helped make it so you could use the phones system regardless of who made your telephone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is you should be able to sue any phone on any system.Just like carterfone helped make it so you could use the phones system regardless of who made your telephone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is you should be able to sue any phone on any system.Just like carterfone helped make it so you could use the phones system regardless of who made your telephone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401185</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>arb phd slp</author>
	<datestamp>1245507420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got Verizon because it was the only company that covered where I worked up in the mountains in NH. I didn't realize it was the same in metro DC.</p><p>I just got the free POS phone that doesn't do anything except make voice calls and TXT. I just had to get used to the idea that I could never demand anything of my phone except for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got Verizon because it was the only company that covered where I worked up in the mountains in NH .
I did n't realize it was the same in metro DC.I just got the free POS phone that does n't do anything except make voice calls and TXT .
I just had to get used to the idea that I could never demand anything of my phone except for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got Verizon because it was the only company that covered where I worked up in the mountains in NH.
I didn't realize it was the same in metro DC.I just got the free POS phone that doesn't do anything except make voice calls and TXT.
I just had to get used to the idea that I could never demand anything of my phone except for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399817</id>
	<title>Mods on crack, as usual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is not a troll; what he says is exactly what happened.  No other carrier was willing to work with Apple on features like visual voicemail, unlimited data transfer, or end user activation, and no other carrier would have agreed to give up any say in what applications would be allowed to run.</p><p>People forget just how crippled cell phones were before the iPhone.  Carriers insisted on turning off GPS, Bluetooth, and other features that were already supported in hardware on the phones they sold in their own stores.</p><p>At the time, AT&amp;T's service was dead last in consumer satisfaction surveys.  My understanding is that they were literally Apple's last resort; all of the other carriers had told them to get lost.  AT&amp;T wisely saw the iPhone as a way to get their act together and regain lost prestige in the marketplace.</p><p>I'm not exactly an AT&amp;T fanboy, but that's the way it went down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is not a troll ; what he says is exactly what happened .
No other carrier was willing to work with Apple on features like visual voicemail , unlimited data transfer , or end user activation , and no other carrier would have agreed to give up any say in what applications would be allowed to run.People forget just how crippled cell phones were before the iPhone .
Carriers insisted on turning off GPS , Bluetooth , and other features that were already supported in hardware on the phones they sold in their own stores.At the time , AT&amp;T 's service was dead last in consumer satisfaction surveys .
My understanding is that they were literally Apple 's last resort ; all of the other carriers had told them to get lost .
AT&amp;T wisely saw the iPhone as a way to get their act together and regain lost prestige in the marketplace.I 'm not exactly an AT&amp;T fanboy , but that 's the way it went down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is not a troll; what he says is exactly what happened.
No other carrier was willing to work with Apple on features like visual voicemail, unlimited data transfer, or end user activation, and no other carrier would have agreed to give up any say in what applications would be allowed to run.People forget just how crippled cell phones were before the iPhone.
Carriers insisted on turning off GPS, Bluetooth, and other features that were already supported in hardware on the phones they sold in their own stores.At the time, AT&amp;T's service was dead last in consumer satisfaction surveys.
My understanding is that they were literally Apple's last resort; all of the other carriers had told them to get lost.
AT&amp;T wisely saw the iPhone as a way to get their act together and regain lost prestige in the marketplace.I'm not exactly an AT&amp;T fanboy, but that's the way it went down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398233</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>andy1307</author>
	<datestamp>1245421320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd be surprised at how close this is to the truth. Verizon is the only network that works in the DC metro. There are a lot of people on the hill who would love to get an iphone on Verizon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be surprised at how close this is to the truth .
Verizon is the only network that works in the DC metro .
There are a lot of people on the hill who would love to get an iphone on Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be surprised at how close this is to the truth.
Verizon is the only network that works in the DC metro.
There are a lot of people on the hill who would love to get an iphone on Verizon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400355</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1245494100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how much of Slashdot lambastes vendor lock in of handsets unless it's Apple who is making said handsets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how much of Slashdot lambastes vendor lock in of handsets unless it 's Apple who is making said handsets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how much of Slashdot lambastes vendor lock in of handsets unless it's Apple who is making said handsets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398889</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this only 3, Funny?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this only 3 , Funny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this only 3, Funny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399091</id>
	<title>Re:This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1245431160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.</p></div><p>I've done that. An unlocked Motorola RAZR.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Then choose your carrier.</p></div><p>I can do that (within limits). I can choose AT&amp;T or T-Mobile here in the USA, or throw a prepaid chip in it in Europe.
</p><p>Why Apple needed to cut any kind of deal with AT&amp;T I never understood. Anything with GPRS voice plus a data plan should work. Just sell the phones at Apple stores and tell the customers to walk around the corner to an AT&amp;T reseller for the chip. Or T-Mobile. Maybe build two prorocol models to support Verizon, etc. as well. If AT&amp;T tries to claim that they must exclude 'unapproved' equipment from ther network, even whan it complies with protocol specifications, then the Justice department can jump down their throats.
</p><p>One thing that Apple missed was the ability to let third parties run the backends for spacialized data services for iPhones. This is whare Blackberry grabbed the corporate market. For security reasons, many corporations would like to 'lock down' a device to work with their own IT services, only purchasing voice and data services from network providers. The iPhone/AT&amp;T lockin has deprived Apple from this rather lucrative market. Quite a few businesses might like to host their apps on iPhones, but to date are unable to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.I 've done that .
An unlocked Motorola RAZR.2 .
Then choose your carrier.I can do that ( within limits ) .
I can choose AT&amp;T or T-Mobile here in the USA , or throw a prepaid chip in it in Europe .
Why Apple needed to cut any kind of deal with AT&amp;T I never understood .
Anything with GPRS voice plus a data plan should work .
Just sell the phones at Apple stores and tell the customers to walk around the corner to an AT&amp;T reseller for the chip .
Or T-Mobile .
Maybe build two prorocol models to support Verizon , etc .
as well .
If AT&amp;T tries to claim that they must exclude 'unapproved ' equipment from ther network , even whan it complies with protocol specifications , then the Justice department can jump down their throats .
One thing that Apple missed was the ability to let third parties run the backends for spacialized data services for iPhones .
This is whare Blackberry grabbed the corporate market .
For security reasons , many corporations would like to 'lock down ' a device to work with their own IT services , only purchasing voice and data services from network providers .
The iPhone/AT&amp;T lockin has deprived Apple from this rather lucrative market .
Quite a few businesses might like to host their apps on iPhones , but to date are unable to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.I've done that.
An unlocked Motorola RAZR.2.
Then choose your carrier.I can do that (within limits).
I can choose AT&amp;T or T-Mobile here in the USA, or throw a prepaid chip in it in Europe.
Why Apple needed to cut any kind of deal with AT&amp;T I never understood.
Anything with GPRS voice plus a data plan should work.
Just sell the phones at Apple stores and tell the customers to walk around the corner to an AT&amp;T reseller for the chip.
Or T-Mobile.
Maybe build two prorocol models to support Verizon, etc.
as well.
If AT&amp;T tries to claim that they must exclude 'unapproved' equipment from ther network, even whan it complies with protocol specifications, then the Justice department can jump down their throats.
One thing that Apple missed was the ability to let third parties run the backends for spacialized data services for iPhones.
This is whare Blackberry grabbed the corporate market.
For security reasons, many corporations would like to 'lock down' a device to work with their own IT services, only purchasing voice and data services from network providers.
The iPhone/AT&amp;T lockin has deprived Apple from this rather lucrative market.
Quite a few businesses might like to host their apps on iPhones, but to date are unable to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28402681</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245520920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not quite sure how you jumped to the conclusion that there was any "Gay" reference there.<br>.<br>Granted, the OP's comment was extremely crude, however, the message from the context was that they were too busy trying to make alliances with the giant in the room to figure out that there was a possibly better lilliputian to make alliances with.<br>.<br>Way to jump to conclusions there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not quite sure how you jumped to the conclusion that there was any " Gay " reference there..Granted , the OP 's comment was extremely crude , however , the message from the context was that they were too busy trying to make alliances with the giant in the room to figure out that there was a possibly better lilliputian to make alliances with..Way to jump to conclusions there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not quite sure how you jumped to the conclusion that there was any "Gay" reference there..Granted, the OP's comment was extremely crude, however, the message from the context was that they were too busy trying to make alliances with the giant in the room to figure out that there was a possibly better lilliputian to make alliances with..Way to jump to conclusions there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398121</id>
	<title>Why not the FTC or the DOJ?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1245420420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has nothing to do with spectrum, and is not the FCC's jurisdiction.  The FTC should be investigating this - and in 2006.</p><p>(Unrelated - why does my Karma bonus not work any longer?  My Karma is Excellent)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has nothing to do with spectrum , and is not the FCC 's jurisdiction .
The FTC should be investigating this - and in 2006 .
( Unrelated - why does my Karma bonus not work any longer ?
My Karma is Excellent )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has nothing to do with spectrum, and is not the FCC's jurisdiction.
The FTC should be investigating this - and in 2006.
(Unrelated - why does my Karma bonus not work any longer?
My Karma is Excellent)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399849</id>
	<title>Re:This should've happened years ago</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1245528600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never understood why you could only use certain phones with certain carriers. I've never used an iphone before until yesterday and I really liked it, but was extremely dismayed by being stuck with AT&amp;T.</p></div><p>I can't speak for all situations but for the iPhone I believe you should ask Steve Jobs why he wanted to stick with AT&amp;T and why AT&amp;T let it happen. AT&amp;T wasn't his first choice but it ended up being the only choice to get the iPhone. I bet the carriers and the phone manufacturers make some type of deals where it is somehow beneficial to only sell phones through specific carriers rather than all of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood why you could only use certain phones with certain carriers .
I 've never used an iphone before until yesterday and I really liked it , but was extremely dismayed by being stuck with AT&amp;T.I ca n't speak for all situations but for the iPhone I believe you should ask Steve Jobs why he wanted to stick with AT&amp;T and why AT&amp;T let it happen .
AT&amp;T was n't his first choice but it ended up being the only choice to get the iPhone .
I bet the carriers and the phone manufacturers make some type of deals where it is somehow beneficial to only sell phones through specific carriers rather than all of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood why you could only use certain phones with certain carriers.
I've never used an iphone before until yesterday and I really liked it, but was extremely dismayed by being stuck with AT&amp;T.I can't speak for all situations but for the iPhone I believe you should ask Steve Jobs why he wanted to stick with AT&amp;T and why AT&amp;T let it happen.
AT&amp;T wasn't his first choice but it ended up being the only choice to get the iPhone.
I bet the carriers and the phone manufacturers make some type of deals where it is somehow beneficial to only sell phones through specific carriers rather than all of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</id>
	<title>So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>hansonc</author>
	<datestamp>1245417180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Four Senators want iPhones but don't want to leave Verizon...</p><p>As with everything, until it inconveniences a Senator directly they don't see it as a problem</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Four Senators want iPhones but do n't want to leave Verizon...As with everything , until it inconveniences a Senator directly they do n't see it as a problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Four Senators want iPhones but don't want to leave Verizon...As with everything, until it inconveniences a Senator directly they don't see it as a problem</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398257</id>
	<title>Big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing will become of it. Sure there will be some smoke blown to make it look good. But to many positions in the FCC are owned by corporations. That is apparent with the way they have treated telecommunications over the past 20 years. Face it, like Obama, the FCC is just another one of our government agencies that is a whore to corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing will become of it .
Sure there will be some smoke blown to make it look good .
But to many positions in the FCC are owned by corporations .
That is apparent with the way they have treated telecommunications over the past 20 years .
Face it , like Obama , the FCC is just another one of our government agencies that is a whore to corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing will become of it.
Sure there will be some smoke blown to make it look good.
But to many positions in the FCC are owned by corporations.
That is apparent with the way they have treated telecommunications over the past 20 years.
Face it, like Obama, the FCC is just another one of our government agencies that is a whore to corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398617</id>
	<title>Re:Well, my 2 cents</title>
	<author>wgoodman</author>
	<datestamp>1245425700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>there's actually a legal reason you can't use your old phone on their networks.. all newer phones have to be trackable by the police incase you call 911 and don't know where you are.  Otherwise i'm sure they'd be happy to let you do it.  that way you're paying the higher monthly cost that's there to subsidize newer phones, but you're not using a new phone.  that's win-win for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's actually a legal reason you ca n't use your old phone on their networks.. all newer phones have to be trackable by the police incase you call 911 and do n't know where you are .
Otherwise i 'm sure they 'd be happy to let you do it .
that way you 're paying the higher monthly cost that 's there to subsidize newer phones , but you 're not using a new phone .
that 's win-win for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's actually a legal reason you can't use your old phone on their networks.. all newer phones have to be trackable by the police incase you call 911 and don't know where you are.
Otherwise i'm sure they'd be happy to let you do it.
that way you're paying the higher monthly cost that's there to subsidize newer phones, but you're not using a new phone.
that's win-win for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397671</id>
	<title>Anally probe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, yet another first post for me, first post god!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yet another first post for me , first post god !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yet another first post for me, first post god!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399343</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1245434520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>them lying about their weight is the easy part, but how do you give someone cancer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>them lying about their weight is the easy part , but how do you give someone cancer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>them lying about their weight is the easy part, but how do you give someone cancer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399815</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen, brother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , brother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, brother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398013</id>
	<title>Re:Well, my 2 cents</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245419760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the idea is that when ATT didn't service an area where service was needed, it not just temporarily, and their rules prohibited the connection of outside devices to it's phone network was shot down in court because it harmed customers.</p><p>Much to the same here, ATT or any cell carrier not servicing some areas and locking the devices out from service there, it has the same effect as locking out competitors. We have to remember, as long as the cell phone companies use the wireless spectrum, they have to operate for the public's need or benefit. It's a condition of their license. They can do it at a profit but when they fail to provide to enough of the public, then the same concept applies that drove the carter phone ruling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the idea is that when ATT did n't service an area where service was needed , it not just temporarily , and their rules prohibited the connection of outside devices to it 's phone network was shot down in court because it harmed customers.Much to the same here , ATT or any cell carrier not servicing some areas and locking the devices out from service there , it has the same effect as locking out competitors .
We have to remember , as long as the cell phone companies use the wireless spectrum , they have to operate for the public 's need or benefit .
It 's a condition of their license .
They can do it at a profit but when they fail to provide to enough of the public , then the same concept applies that drove the carter phone ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the idea is that when ATT didn't service an area where service was needed, it not just temporarily, and their rules prohibited the connection of outside devices to it's phone network was shot down in court because it harmed customers.Much to the same here, ATT or any cell carrier not servicing some areas and locking the devices out from service there, it has the same effect as locking out competitors.
We have to remember, as long as the cell phone companies use the wireless spectrum, they have to operate for the public's need or benefit.
It's a condition of their license.
They can do it at a profit but when they fail to provide to enough of the public, then the same concept applies that drove the carter phone ruling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397729</id>
	<title>beyond the rural issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's AT&amp;Ts recent withdrawal of the iPhone from Pay As You Go availability.</p><p>Basically, if you want an iPhone on an affordable plan, you can't get it, because AT&amp;T doesn't offer PAYG and because affordable operators like MetroPCS can't offer one either (yes, I realize MetroPCS isn't GSM, it's just an example).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's AT&amp;Ts recent withdrawal of the iPhone from Pay As You Go availability.Basically , if you want an iPhone on an affordable plan , you ca n't get it , because AT&amp;T does n't offer PAYG and because affordable operators like MetroPCS ca n't offer one either ( yes , I realize MetroPCS is n't GSM , it 's just an example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's AT&amp;Ts recent withdrawal of the iPhone from Pay As You Go availability.Basically, if you want an iPhone on an affordable plan, you can't get it, because AT&amp;T doesn't offer PAYG and because affordable operators like MetroPCS can't offer one either (yes, I realize MetroPCS isn't GSM, it's just an example).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399191</id>
	<title>Precedent</title>
	<author>eldridgea</author>
	<datestamp>1245432240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Originally Ma Bell got sued because you could only connect Bell telephones to your landline - nothing else would work.
It was decided this was anti competitive.
Now all of a sudden carriers *can* decide what devices we use? I think there's precedent for this.

Verizon may not manufacture my phone, but there is a Verizon logo on the back of *every* phone I can choose.
That seems like an unnecessary amount of control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Originally Ma Bell got sued because you could only connect Bell telephones to your landline - nothing else would work .
It was decided this was anti competitive .
Now all of a sudden carriers * can * decide what devices we use ?
I think there 's precedent for this .
Verizon may not manufacture my phone , but there is a Verizon logo on the back of * every * phone I can choose .
That seems like an unnecessary amount of control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Originally Ma Bell got sued because you could only connect Bell telephones to your landline - nothing else would work.
It was decided this was anti competitive.
Now all of a sudden carriers *can* decide what devices we use?
I think there's precedent for this.
Verizon may not manufacture my phone, but there is a Verizon logo on the back of *every* phone I can choose.
That seems like an unnecessary amount of control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221</id>
	<title>Re:This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1245421260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know...</p><ul> <li> I can buy *any* TV I want then get cable or dish service from *any* provider I want.</li><li><br>I can buy a computer from *any* company and then get Internet from *any* provider I want.</li><li><br>I can buy a land-line phone from *any* phone maker and then get phone service from *any* provider I want.</li></ul><p>It does make one wonder why the only exception is my cell phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know... I can buy * any * TV I want then get cable or dish service from * any * provider I want.I can buy a computer from * any * company and then get Internet from * any * provider I want.I can buy a land-line phone from * any * phone maker and then get phone service from * any * provider I want.It does make one wonder why the only exception is my cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know...  I can buy *any* TV I want then get cable or dish service from *any* provider I want.I can buy a computer from *any* company and then get Internet from *any* provider I want.I can buy a land-line phone from *any* phone maker and then get phone service from *any* provider I want.It does make one wonder why the only exception is my cell phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399181</id>
	<title>Fax machine</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1245432060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fax machine was invented long before the Carterphone issue. It even predates the telephone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fax machine was invented long before the Carterphone issue .
It even predates the telephone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fax machine was invented long before the Carterphone issue.
It even predates the telephone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401229</id>
	<title>You're retarded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245507780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What hav eyou seen that the government does well, besides starting wars? I've got government health care and it's damn near killed me. Believe me, the quality of medicine does drop if the practicioners can't be sued. While we do need tort reform, government health care will only make the problems worse and more expensive. Next time you think about goverment health care, remember your last trip to the DMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What hav eyou seen that the government does well , besides starting wars ?
I 've got government health care and it 's damn near killed me .
Believe me , the quality of medicine does drop if the practicioners ca n't be sued .
While we do need tort reform , government health care will only make the problems worse and more expensive .
Next time you think about goverment health care , remember your last trip to the DMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What hav eyou seen that the government does well, besides starting wars?
I've got government health care and it's damn near killed me.
Believe me, the quality of medicine does drop if the practicioners can't be sued.
While we do need tort reform, government health care will only make the problems worse and more expensive.
Next time you think about goverment health care, remember your last trip to the DMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398315</id>
	<title>Re:Well, my 2 cents</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245422160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really isn't that difficult to understand: the customer should have any and all options.  No decision made by a manufacturer or by a vendor should lock the customer down, in any way, shape, or form.  It's my $100 bucks, or $500 bucks - I should get the phone of my choice, I should get to pick my carrier, and I should be able to pick the plan that fits MY needs, as opposed to the plan that the vendor is trying to push.  It's the concept of "free market" that everyone gives lip service to, but instead of implementing a free market, every phone company wants to lock people in, or out, of their piece of the market.</p><p>If I want an iPhone of verizon, it's my decision.  If I want it on AT&amp;T, that's my decision.  If I want to pull out the cell phone I bought 6 years ago, and have it connected to either of the two, neither one should lock me out.</p><p>All of the plans available today are abusive, in one way or another.  And, that includes those damned two year contracts.  If I want service NOW, knowing that I won't need it six months from now, that is MY decision, not theirs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really is n't that difficult to understand : the customer should have any and all options .
No decision made by a manufacturer or by a vendor should lock the customer down , in any way , shape , or form .
It 's my $ 100 bucks , or $ 500 bucks - I should get the phone of my choice , I should get to pick my carrier , and I should be able to pick the plan that fits MY needs , as opposed to the plan that the vendor is trying to push .
It 's the concept of " free market " that everyone gives lip service to , but instead of implementing a free market , every phone company wants to lock people in , or out , of their piece of the market.If I want an iPhone of verizon , it 's my decision .
If I want it on AT&amp;T , that 's my decision .
If I want to pull out the cell phone I bought 6 years ago , and have it connected to either of the two , neither one should lock me out.All of the plans available today are abusive , in one way or another .
And , that includes those damned two year contracts .
If I want service NOW , knowing that I wo n't need it six months from now , that is MY decision , not theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really isn't that difficult to understand: the customer should have any and all options.
No decision made by a manufacturer or by a vendor should lock the customer down, in any way, shape, or form.
It's my $100 bucks, or $500 bucks - I should get the phone of my choice, I should get to pick my carrier, and I should be able to pick the plan that fits MY needs, as opposed to the plan that the vendor is trying to push.
It's the concept of "free market" that everyone gives lip service to, but instead of implementing a free market, every phone company wants to lock people in, or out, of their piece of the market.If I want an iPhone of verizon, it's my decision.
If I want it on AT&amp;T, that's my decision.
If I want to pull out the cell phone I bought 6 years ago, and have it connected to either of the two, neither one should lock me out.All of the plans available today are abusive, in one way or another.
And, that includes those damned two year contracts.
If I want service NOW, knowing that I won't need it six months from now, that is MY decision, not theirs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397825</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Four Senators want iPhones <b>but don't want to leave Verizon...</b> </p><p>As with everything, until it inconveniences a Senator directly they don't see it as a problem</p></div><p>Good God, we're all screwed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Four Senators want iPhones but do n't want to leave Verizon... As with everything , until it inconveniences a Senator directly they do n't see it as a problemGood God , we 're all screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Four Senators want iPhones but don't want to leave Verizon... As with everything, until it inconveniences a Senator directly they don't see it as a problemGood God, we're all screwed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398059</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>actionbastard</author>
	<datestamp>1245420060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone mentioned it in the Tuesday posting comments that all they are looking for is campaign contributions. While I do despise the contract agreements that one has to enter into to use a cellphone; -pay-as-you-go plans not withstanding- whatever happened to month-to-month or usage-based billing? FCOL, that's how it was done nearly <i>twenty</i> years ago when I had my first cellphone. It worked then, why not now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone mentioned it in the Tuesday posting comments that all they are looking for is campaign contributions .
While I do despise the contract agreements that one has to enter into to use a cellphone ; -pay-as-you-go plans not withstanding- whatever happened to month-to-month or usage-based billing ?
FCOL , that 's how it was done nearly twenty years ago when I had my first cellphone .
It worked then , why not now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone mentioned it in the Tuesday posting comments that all they are looking for is campaign contributions.
While I do despise the contract agreements that one has to enter into to use a cellphone; -pay-as-you-go plans not withstanding- whatever happened to month-to-month or usage-based billing?
FCOL, that's how it was done nearly twenty years ago when I had my first cellphone.
It worked then, why not now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398191</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1245420960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except for the nasty gay reference (why...?) that was well-written.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the nasty gay reference ( why... ?
) that was well-written .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the nasty gay reference (why...?
) that was well-written.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873</id>
	<title>It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In response, Roth argued that exclusive deals enable innovation because the operator and manufacturer share the risk. He suggested that operators will ask manufacturers for certain features on phones but manufacturers will often only do so if the operator agrees to buy a certain number of phones, he said.</i></p><p>Corporate trusts are not <i>supposed</i> to decide what features go into products. That is one of the reasons that anti-trust regulation exists. Picking features and rewarding risk takers is the exclusive domain of <i>the silent hand of the market</i>. If you want to share the risk and get some exposure, then buy corporate bonds or non-voting shares from the handset manufacturer that pleases you. It is not a cartel or lateral monopoly's prerogative to manipulate decisions about product features.</p><p>The reason it is not the prerogative of trusts, cartels, or monopolies is because they are worse at it than the free market. Demonstrably so:</p><p>Did you notice, for example, that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?</p><p>Did you notice that the second acceptable smartphone came from a search engine company that had also never done cellular before?</p><p>Did you notice that that second smartphone got relegated to a third tier provider because the big boys were too busy sucking each others dicks to be bothered with an innovative product?</p><p>Did you notice that prior to the iPhone, America had just about the crappiest phones in the entire first world? Tiny little Taiwan was about a decade ahead of where we would be today were it not for Apple -- a complete outsider to your supposedly "innovative" little idiocracy.</p><p>You guys have been using your cartel to sit on your lazy, incompetent asses. Just like the auto manufacturers, except that Southeast Asian companies have a much harder time getting variances for cell towers than you, you fat, lazy fucks, so they haven't managed to kick your ass all up and down like they did to the auto makers.</p><p>I understand that you want to dictate features and restrain trade, but as it turns out, the free market(*) is a more efficient solution. So shove your transparent cartel rationalization up your ass and get out of my face.</p><p>Well, that's what the Senators should have said, anyway.</p><p>* Not laissez-faire, not anarchy: Adam Smith's free market, including regulation of anti-competitive behavior. Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In response , Roth argued that exclusive deals enable innovation because the operator and manufacturer share the risk .
He suggested that operators will ask manufacturers for certain features on phones but manufacturers will often only do so if the operator agrees to buy a certain number of phones , he said.Corporate trusts are not supposed to decide what features go into products .
That is one of the reasons that anti-trust regulation exists .
Picking features and rewarding risk takers is the exclusive domain of the silent hand of the market .
If you want to share the risk and get some exposure , then buy corporate bonds or non-voting shares from the handset manufacturer that pleases you .
It is not a cartel or lateral monopoly 's prerogative to manipulate decisions about product features.The reason it is not the prerogative of trusts , cartels , or monopolies is because they are worse at it than the free market .
Demonstrably so : Did you notice , for example , that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that did n't suck into the US market ? Did you notice that the second acceptable smartphone came from a search engine company that had also never done cellular before ? Did you notice that that second smartphone got relegated to a third tier provider because the big boys were too busy sucking each others dicks to be bothered with an innovative product ? Did you notice that prior to the iPhone , America had just about the crappiest phones in the entire first world ?
Tiny little Taiwan was about a decade ahead of where we would be today were it not for Apple -- a complete outsider to your supposedly " innovative " little idiocracy.You guys have been using your cartel to sit on your lazy , incompetent asses .
Just like the auto manufacturers , except that Southeast Asian companies have a much harder time getting variances for cell towers than you , you fat , lazy fucks , so they have n't managed to kick your ass all up and down like they did to the auto makers.I understand that you want to dictate features and restrain trade , but as it turns out , the free market ( * ) is a more efficient solution .
So shove your transparent cartel rationalization up your ass and get out of my face.Well , that 's what the Senators should have said , anyway .
* Not laissez-faire , not anarchy : Adam Smith 's free market , including regulation of anti-competitive behavior .
Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response, Roth argued that exclusive deals enable innovation because the operator and manufacturer share the risk.
He suggested that operators will ask manufacturers for certain features on phones but manufacturers will often only do so if the operator agrees to buy a certain number of phones, he said.Corporate trusts are not supposed to decide what features go into products.
That is one of the reasons that anti-trust regulation exists.
Picking features and rewarding risk takers is the exclusive domain of the silent hand of the market.
If you want to share the risk and get some exposure, then buy corporate bonds or non-voting shares from the handset manufacturer that pleases you.
It is not a cartel or lateral monopoly's prerogative to manipulate decisions about product features.The reason it is not the prerogative of trusts, cartels, or monopolies is because they are worse at it than the free market.
Demonstrably so:Did you notice, for example, that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?Did you notice that the second acceptable smartphone came from a search engine company that had also never done cellular before?Did you notice that that second smartphone got relegated to a third tier provider because the big boys were too busy sucking each others dicks to be bothered with an innovative product?Did you notice that prior to the iPhone, America had just about the crappiest phones in the entire first world?
Tiny little Taiwan was about a decade ahead of where we would be today were it not for Apple -- a complete outsider to your supposedly "innovative" little idiocracy.You guys have been using your cartel to sit on your lazy, incompetent asses.
Just like the auto manufacturers, except that Southeast Asian companies have a much harder time getting variances for cell towers than you, you fat, lazy fucks, so they haven't managed to kick your ass all up and down like they did to the auto makers.I understand that you want to dictate features and restrain trade, but as it turns out, the free market(*) is a more efficient solution.
So shove your transparent cartel rationalization up your ass and get out of my face.Well, that's what the Senators should have said, anyway.
* Not laissez-faire, not anarchy: Adam Smith's free market, including regulation of anti-competitive behavior.
Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399207</id>
	<title>Carterphone led to purchased phones and ...</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1245432420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The carterfone and that whole line of reasoning has nothing to do with the iphone on competitor networks.</i></p><p>Carterphone is directly applicable.</p><p>The carterphone decision is specifically about letting people buy phone equipment of their own choice and requiring the phone companies to let them attach it to the network, rather than renting the limited choice of company-provided equipment.</p><p>It led to the "foreign attachments tariffs" and in two steps to the type-approval process, where any equipment that would meet the standards for interoperability could be certified by a lab hired by the manufacturer, then bought and connected by a customer.</p><p>(It also led to long-distance service competition, antitrust litigation, and the breakup of the AT&amp;T monopoly:  MCI was formed, strung microwave links between cities, hooked 'em up to local phone lines, and let people bypass the AT&amp;T long-distance service by dialing a local number then a customer ID and a long-distance number.  AT&amp;T sued, MCI counter-sued on antitrust and won, Southern Pacific Railroad strung fiber beside the tracks for their train signals and formed Sprint to sell the extra bandwidth on their network,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p><p>Carterphone was about breaking an anticompetitive tie-in between a network provider and its captive equipment supplier - with wireline rather than wireless equipment.  Yes, in this case the bite is on the other carriers more than on the customers of the offending carrier (though the tiny General Telephone company, with its smal islands of local-phone customers, couldn't get Western Electric phones back then - a similar situation).  So though the precedent won't transfer directly, IMHO the comparison is still apt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The carterfone and that whole line of reasoning has nothing to do with the iphone on competitor networks.Carterphone is directly applicable.The carterphone decision is specifically about letting people buy phone equipment of their own choice and requiring the phone companies to let them attach it to the network , rather than renting the limited choice of company-provided equipment.It led to the " foreign attachments tariffs " and in two steps to the type-approval process , where any equipment that would meet the standards for interoperability could be certified by a lab hired by the manufacturer , then bought and connected by a customer .
( It also led to long-distance service competition , antitrust litigation , and the breakup of the AT&amp;T monopoly : MCI was formed , strung microwave links between cities , hooked 'em up to local phone lines , and let people bypass the AT&amp;T long-distance service by dialing a local number then a customer ID and a long-distance number .
AT&amp;T sued , MCI counter-sued on antitrust and won , Southern Pacific Railroad strung fiber beside the tracks for their train signals and formed Sprint to sell the extra bandwidth on their network , ... ) Carterphone was about breaking an anticompetitive tie-in between a network provider and its captive equipment supplier - with wireline rather than wireless equipment .
Yes , in this case the bite is on the other carriers more than on the customers of the offending carrier ( though the tiny General Telephone company , with its smal islands of local-phone customers , could n't get Western Electric phones back then - a similar situation ) .
So though the precedent wo n't transfer directly , IMHO the comparison is still apt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The carterfone and that whole line of reasoning has nothing to do with the iphone on competitor networks.Carterphone is directly applicable.The carterphone decision is specifically about letting people buy phone equipment of their own choice and requiring the phone companies to let them attach it to the network, rather than renting the limited choice of company-provided equipment.It led to the "foreign attachments tariffs" and in two steps to the type-approval process, where any equipment that would meet the standards for interoperability could be certified by a lab hired by the manufacturer, then bought and connected by a customer.
(It also led to long-distance service competition, antitrust litigation, and the breakup of the AT&amp;T monopoly:  MCI was formed, strung microwave links between cities, hooked 'em up to local phone lines, and let people bypass the AT&amp;T long-distance service by dialing a local number then a customer ID and a long-distance number.
AT&amp;T sued, MCI counter-sued on antitrust and won, Southern Pacific Railroad strung fiber beside the tracks for their train signals and formed Sprint to sell the extra bandwidth on their network, ...)Carterphone was about breaking an anticompetitive tie-in between a network provider and its captive equipment supplier - with wireline rather than wireless equipment.
Yes, in this case the bite is on the other carriers more than on the customers of the offending carrier (though the tiny General Telephone company, with its smal islands of local-phone customers, couldn't get Western Electric phones back then - a similar situation).
So though the precedent won't transfer directly, IMHO the comparison is still apt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398093</id>
	<title>Frist 4ysot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">our abil1ty to THIS vERY MOMENT, it was fun. If I'm code.' Don't Sales and so on,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>our abil1ty to THIS vERY MOMENT , it was fun .
If I 'm code .
' Do n't Sales and so on , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our abil1ty to THIS vERY MOMENT, it was fun.
If I'm code.
' Don't Sales and so on, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398025</id>
	<title>only 1/2 the story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Innovation is only 1/2 the rule "tho shalt not adversely restrict consumer choice" is the other 1/2. The carterphone decision can illustrate both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Innovation is only 1/2 the rule " tho shalt not adversely restrict consumer choice " is the other 1/2 .
The carterphone decision can illustrate both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innovation is only 1/2 the rule "tho shalt not adversely restrict consumer choice" is the other 1/2.
The carterphone decision can illustrate both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398189</id>
	<title>ROFL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tag: SuddenOutBreakOfCommonSense - awesome!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tag : SuddenOutBreakOfCommonSense - awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tag: SuddenOutBreakOfCommonSense - awesome!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398347</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't pay for insurance coverage... it's just free medical care with highly prioritized and preferential treatment.  That's one of the big problems with healthcare -- legislators never see the problem because they never experience it and those who have quickly forget it once they enter that arena.</p><p>Senators do get some pretty nasty health problems if you will recall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't pay for insurance coverage... it 's just free medical care with highly prioritized and preferential treatment .
That 's one of the big problems with healthcare -- legislators never see the problem because they never experience it and those who have quickly forget it once they enter that arena.Senators do get some pretty nasty health problems if you will recall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't pay for insurance coverage... it's just free medical care with highly prioritized and preferential treatment.
That's one of the big problems with healthcare -- legislators never see the problem because they never experience it and those who have quickly forget it once they enter that arena.Senators do get some pretty nasty health problems if you will recall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399257</id>
	<title>If two cells can hear your phone...</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1245433140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>all newer phones have to be trackable by the police incase you call 911 and don't know where you are.</i></p><p>If three cells can hear your phone (and they have the necessary equipment to agree on timing and cooperatively measure it) they can locate you within feet.  Better than remotely-interrogatable GPS in the phone.</p><p>If two cells can hear your phone (and ditto) and understand the delay of the phone model's response to a ping, they can do the same but put you in one of two spots - where you are and the mirror-image point with the line between the cells as a mirror.  (Actually on a vertical circle which intersects the ground at those two points - so you could look a tad farther away than you are if you are hang-gliding or on a skyscraper roof.)  If they don't have a good measure of ping time they can still spot you on a hyperbola.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all newer phones have to be trackable by the police incase you call 911 and do n't know where you are.If three cells can hear your phone ( and they have the necessary equipment to agree on timing and cooperatively measure it ) they can locate you within feet .
Better than remotely-interrogatable GPS in the phone.If two cells can hear your phone ( and ditto ) and understand the delay of the phone model 's response to a ping , they can do the same but put you in one of two spots - where you are and the mirror-image point with the line between the cells as a mirror .
( Actually on a vertical circle which intersects the ground at those two points - so you could look a tad farther away than you are if you are hang-gliding or on a skyscraper roof .
) If they do n't have a good measure of ping time they can still spot you on a hyperbola .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all newer phones have to be trackable by the police incase you call 911 and don't know where you are.If three cells can hear your phone (and they have the necessary equipment to agree on timing and cooperatively measure it) they can locate you within feet.
Better than remotely-interrogatable GPS in the phone.If two cells can hear your phone (and ditto) and understand the delay of the phone model's response to a ping, they can do the same but put you in one of two spots - where you are and the mirror-image point with the line between the cells as a mirror.
(Actually on a vertical circle which intersects the ground at those two points - so you could look a tad farther away than you are if you are hang-gliding or on a skyscraper roof.
)  If they don't have a good measure of ping time they can still spot you on a hyperbola.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399419</id>
	<title>Re:This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245435480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see the person making the claim 'consumer benefits' explain what he/she knows, then put in Jail for flat out lying.</p><p>Iphone clones are $70 in China right Now. True, the screen brightness is not as good.</p><p>Given phone compainies paid 'up front' for exclusivity, this damm well proves the consumer is being shafted. A copy of the 'salespersons' guide will be rich with examples singing fat profit margins and lock-in.</p><p>In Australia, they charge 55 cents a MEGABYTE, safe that no-one can undercut them. In a years time it will be lsss, but the 'premium' in economics, or the resource rent, figures into the price 'no entry'. Vey obvious, and very easy to calculate consumer disadvantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see the person making the claim 'consumer benefits ' explain what he/she knows , then put in Jail for flat out lying.Iphone clones are $ 70 in China right Now .
True , the screen brightness is not as good.Given phone compainies paid 'up front ' for exclusivity , this damm well proves the consumer is being shafted .
A copy of the 'salespersons ' guide will be rich with examples singing fat profit margins and lock-in.In Australia , they charge 55 cents a MEGABYTE , safe that no-one can undercut them .
In a years time it will be lsss , but the 'premium ' in economics , or the resource rent , figures into the price 'no entry' .
Vey obvious , and very easy to calculate consumer disadvantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see the person making the claim 'consumer benefits' explain what he/she knows, then put in Jail for flat out lying.Iphone clones are $70 in China right Now.
True, the screen brightness is not as good.Given phone compainies paid 'up front' for exclusivity, this damm well proves the consumer is being shafted.
A copy of the 'salespersons' guide will be rich with examples singing fat profit margins and lock-in.In Australia, they charge 55 cents a MEGABYTE, safe that no-one can undercut them.
In a years time it will be lsss, but the 'premium' in economics, or the resource rent, figures into the price 'no entry'.
Vey obvious, and very easy to calculate consumer disadvantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945</id>
	<title>This is what I'd like to see</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1245419220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.<br>More stores selling more phones has to lead to lower prices<br><br>2. Then choose your carrier.<br>Kill the link between phone brand &amp; model and the company that provides your service. And for God's sake kill those 2-year contract extensions!<br><br>Maybe these Senators are on the right path -<br>there's a first time for everything.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.More stores selling more phones has to lead to lower prices2 .
Then choose your carrier.Kill the link between phone brand &amp; model and the company that provides your service .
And for God 's sake kill those 2-year contract extensions ! Maybe these Senators are on the right path -there 's a first time for everything .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Be able to buy your phone from anybody who sells them.More stores selling more phones has to lead to lower prices2.
Then choose your carrier.Kill the link between phone brand &amp; model and the company that provides your service.
And for God's sake kill those 2-year contract extensions!Maybe these Senators are on the right path -there's a first time for everything.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397733</id>
	<title>phirst phallis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can touch my winkie for a dollar</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can touch my winkie for a dollar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can touch my winkie for a dollar</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400033</id>
	<title>I wish them luck..</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1245488460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK, whole departments are deployed to ensure the offerings can never be like-for-like compared - AFAIK that's partly to withhold that opportunity for customers but more so that regulation doesn't get much grip.</p><p>If they want to drill through that game I wish them luck - they're up against years of well practised obfuscation..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK , whole departments are deployed to ensure the offerings can never be like-for-like compared - AFAIK that 's partly to withhold that opportunity for customers but more so that regulation does n't get much grip.If they want to drill through that game I wish them luck - they 're up against years of well practised obfuscation. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK, whole departments are deployed to ensure the offerings can never be like-for-like compared - AFAIK that's partly to withhold that opportunity for customers but more so that regulation doesn't get much grip.If they want to drill through that game I wish them luck - they're up against years of well practised obfuscation..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28404845</id>
	<title>Quick, call the Whaaambulance.</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1245496860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm American, I have a "right" to have an iPhone!  Another brand phone with similar features won't do, I insist on the Apple (TM) iPhone(TM)!  Whaaa!  I'm calling my senator!</p><p>What a bunch of fucking crybabies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm American , I have a " right " to have an iPhone !
Another brand phone with similar features wo n't do , I insist on the Apple ( TM ) iPhone ( TM ) !
Whaaa ! I 'm calling my senator ! What a bunch of fucking crybabies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm American, I have a "right" to have an iPhone!
Another brand phone with similar features won't do, I insist on the Apple (TM) iPhone(TM)!
Whaaa!  I'm calling my senator!What a bunch of fucking crybabies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398627</id>
	<title>Re:Well, my 2 cents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245425820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want an iPhone on Verizon, that's certainly within your legal rights.  All you have to do is solder CDMA baseband hardware in place of the current baseband hardware, jailbreak the phone, binary patch the low-level code that interacts with the baseband hardware to work correctly with the CDMA baseband hardware, then convince Verizon to allow the device on their network.  Surprisingly, that last part is <b>not</b> the most difficult part....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p><p>If you want an iPhone on a more realistic network like T-Mobile, that's also within your legal rights.  Purchase a phone from a country where they are sold unlocked, e.g. much of Europe.  Of course, if you want to get 3G on T-Mobile USA, you'll have to solder new baseband hardware in place of the current baseband hardware, jailbreak....</p><p>You get the idea.  Okay, so the iPhone 3G chipset is, AFAICT, technically capable of the bands T-Mobile USA uses, but it's unclear whether the OS will allow you to enable the 1700 MHz band.  If so, then you might just need to create a custom carrier settings file.  Either way, nobody has gotten both bands to work so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want an iPhone on Verizon , that 's certainly within your legal rights .
All you have to do is solder CDMA baseband hardware in place of the current baseband hardware , jailbreak the phone , binary patch the low-level code that interacts with the baseband hardware to work correctly with the CDMA baseband hardware , then convince Verizon to allow the device on their network .
Surprisingly , that last part is not the most difficult part.... : -DIf you want an iPhone on a more realistic network like T-Mobile , that 's also within your legal rights .
Purchase a phone from a country where they are sold unlocked , e.g .
much of Europe .
Of course , if you want to get 3G on T-Mobile USA , you 'll have to solder new baseband hardware in place of the current baseband hardware , jailbreak....You get the idea .
Okay , so the iPhone 3G chipset is , AFAICT , technically capable of the bands T-Mobile USA uses , but it 's unclear whether the OS will allow you to enable the 1700 MHz band .
If so , then you might just need to create a custom carrier settings file .
Either way , nobody has gotten both bands to work so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want an iPhone on Verizon, that's certainly within your legal rights.
All you have to do is solder CDMA baseband hardware in place of the current baseband hardware, jailbreak the phone, binary patch the low-level code that interacts with the baseband hardware to work correctly with the CDMA baseband hardware, then convince Verizon to allow the device on their network.
Surprisingly, that last part is not the most difficult part.... :-DIf you want an iPhone on a more realistic network like T-Mobile, that's also within your legal rights.
Purchase a phone from a country where they are sold unlocked, e.g.
much of Europe.
Of course, if you want to get 3G on T-Mobile USA, you'll have to solder new baseband hardware in place of the current baseband hardware, jailbreak....You get the idea.
Okay, so the iPhone 3G chipset is, AFAICT, technically capable of the bands T-Mobile USA uses, but it's unclear whether the OS will allow you to enable the 1700 MHz band.
If so, then you might just need to create a custom carrier settings file.
Either way, nobody has gotten both bands to work so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398935</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245429240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, just wow, which alternate reality did you post from? You're either incredible ignorant or are downright trolling.  Reality check: R&amp;M's Blackberry (yay Canada) was a hugely popular SmartPhone in the US years before Apple ever entered the market in 2007.  I wouldn't say it "sucked" compared to other SmartPhones available at the time, nor would I say it was the first descent SmartPhone available in the US.  The iPhone has had several innovations, but I think advancements in cellular battery life and miniaturization of technology had way more to do with "non-sucky" smart phones then Apple ever did.</p><p>I do agree that Asian and many other countries have more "advanced" cell phones before similar alternatives have been available in the US, but it's not some 10 year gap like you seem to think, maybe 6 months to 2 year at the most. This has more to do with differences in regulations, language barriers, and companies liking to see if products at least sell well in local markets before making huge investments deals to get them shipped worldwide. Do you think the manufactures simply don't want to make money and ignore worldwide sales potential? Would you invest a ton of cash in a cell phone line when you had an option to first see how well it sold in another market? If you were running a cellular provider's and knew their was a Taiwanese (or other) company selling a phone that would dominate all the phones currently available in the local market in terms of capabilities would you simply ignore it and give a local competitor a chance at deal with them first?</p><p>And let's get down to the root of the matter, despite you've lengthy post, you missed the biggest point, US cell phone plans (and many cell phones themselves) cost 20~90\% of what they do in most other countries for mostly the same level of service. This isn't something new, it's been this way for years.  Last time I checked, an entry level US plan runs around ~$35~45 per month, comes with 400+ minutes, and usually includes a combination of free nights, weekends, in-network calling, and incoming calls; try and find something similar in Europe,  Japan, or Taiwan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , just wow , which alternate reality did you post from ?
You 're either incredible ignorant or are downright trolling .
Reality check : R&amp;M 's Blackberry ( yay Canada ) was a hugely popular SmartPhone in the US years before Apple ever entered the market in 2007 .
I would n't say it " sucked " compared to other SmartPhones available at the time , nor would I say it was the first descent SmartPhone available in the US .
The iPhone has had several innovations , but I think advancements in cellular battery life and miniaturization of technology had way more to do with " non-sucky " smart phones then Apple ever did.I do agree that Asian and many other countries have more " advanced " cell phones before similar alternatives have been available in the US , but it 's not some 10 year gap like you seem to think , maybe 6 months to 2 year at the most .
This has more to do with differences in regulations , language barriers , and companies liking to see if products at least sell well in local markets before making huge investments deals to get them shipped worldwide .
Do you think the manufactures simply do n't want to make money and ignore worldwide sales potential ?
Would you invest a ton of cash in a cell phone line when you had an option to first see how well it sold in another market ?
If you were running a cellular provider 's and knew their was a Taiwanese ( or other ) company selling a phone that would dominate all the phones currently available in the local market in terms of capabilities would you simply ignore it and give a local competitor a chance at deal with them first ? And let 's get down to the root of the matter , despite you 've lengthy post , you missed the biggest point , US cell phone plans ( and many cell phones themselves ) cost 20 ~ 90 \ % of what they do in most other countries for mostly the same level of service .
This is n't something new , it 's been this way for years .
Last time I checked , an entry level US plan runs around ~ $ 35 ~ 45 per month , comes with 400 + minutes , and usually includes a combination of free nights , weekends , in-network calling , and incoming calls ; try and find something similar in Europe , Japan , or Taiwan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, just wow, which alternate reality did you post from?
You're either incredible ignorant or are downright trolling.
Reality check: R&amp;M's Blackberry (yay Canada) was a hugely popular SmartPhone in the US years before Apple ever entered the market in 2007.
I wouldn't say it "sucked" compared to other SmartPhones available at the time, nor would I say it was the first descent SmartPhone available in the US.
The iPhone has had several innovations, but I think advancements in cellular battery life and miniaturization of technology had way more to do with "non-sucky" smart phones then Apple ever did.I do agree that Asian and many other countries have more "advanced" cell phones before similar alternatives have been available in the US, but it's not some 10 year gap like you seem to think, maybe 6 months to 2 year at the most.
This has more to do with differences in regulations, language barriers, and companies liking to see if products at least sell well in local markets before making huge investments deals to get them shipped worldwide.
Do you think the manufactures simply don't want to make money and ignore worldwide sales potential?
Would you invest a ton of cash in a cell phone line when you had an option to first see how well it sold in another market?
If you were running a cellular provider's and knew their was a Taiwanese (or other) company selling a phone that would dominate all the phones currently available in the local market in terms of capabilities would you simply ignore it and give a local competitor a chance at deal with them first?And let's get down to the root of the matter, despite you've lengthy post, you missed the biggest point, US cell phone plans (and many cell phones themselves) cost 20~90\% of what they do in most other countries for mostly the same level of service.
This isn't something new, it's been this way for years.
Last time I checked, an entry level US plan runs around ~$35~45 per month, comes with 400+ minutes, and usually includes a combination of free nights, weekends, in-network calling, and incoming calls; try and find something similar in Europe,  Japan, or Taiwan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398743</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't Anyone Remember?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245426840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck are you smoking? AT&amp;T didn't "make this possible." They agreed to Apples deal which basically says "bend over AT&amp;T." Fucking apple fanboy queer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck are you smoking ?
AT&amp;T did n't " make this possible .
" They agreed to Apples deal which basically says " bend over AT&amp;T .
" Fucking apple fanboy queer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck are you smoking?
AT&amp;T didn't "make this possible.
" They agreed to Apples deal which basically says "bend over AT&amp;T.
" Fucking apple fanboy queer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397807</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine <b>your willy</b> being smacked until it bleeds. Sponsored by the willymedia foundation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds .
Sponsored by the willymedia foundation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds.
Sponsored by the willymedia foundation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398023</id>
	<title>Re:So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>JohnnyGTO</author>
	<datestamp>1245419820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scored 5 as Funny but 100 as sadly true!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scored 5 as Funny but 100 as sadly true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scored 5 as Funny but 100 as sadly true!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28403423</id>
	<title>Carterfone led to innovations such as the fax...</title>
	<author>Perf</author>
	<datestamp>1245526980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Carterfone precedent of 1950s.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The result spurred innovation such as the fax machine.</p></div><p>Scottish inventor Alexander Bain is often credited with the first fax patent in 1843.</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Carterfone precedent of 1950s .
... The result spurred innovation such as the fax machine.Scottish inventor Alexander Bain is often credited with the first fax patent in 1843 . http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Carterfone precedent of 1950s.
... The result spurred innovation such as the fax machine.Scottish inventor Alexander Bain is often credited with the first fax patent in 1843.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398127</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Your Prerogative</title>
	<author>Kesch</author>
	<datestamp>1245420420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* Not laissez-faire, not anarchy: Adam Smith's free market, including regulation of anti-competitive behavior. Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me</p></div><p>Thanks for pointing this out, I get so annoyed by people who assume that trying to apply free market solutions means endorsing complete anarchy. And then there are others who don't see how regulation can sometimes help make a market more free and increase competition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Not laissez-faire , not anarchy : Adam Smith 's free market , including regulation of anti-competitive behavior .
Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt meThanks for pointing this out , I get so annoyed by people who assume that trying to apply free market solutions means endorsing complete anarchy .
And then there are others who do n't see how regulation can sometimes help make a market more free and increase competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Not laissez-faire, not anarchy: Adam Smith's free market, including regulation of anti-competitive behavior.
Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt meThanks for pointing this out, I get so annoyed by people who assume that trying to apply free market solutions means endorsing complete anarchy.
And then there are others who don't see how regulation can sometimes help make a market more free and increase competition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28402681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28403733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28402705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_2226239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398617
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28402705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28403733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28402681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28401185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28400355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28397825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_2226239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28398743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_2226239.28399817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
