<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_2224231</id>
	<title>US Sets Up Emergency Multi-Band Radio Project</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1246445820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:mcooney@nww.com" rel="nofollow">coondoggie</a> writes <i>"Looking to help eliminate the dangerous and inefficient hodgepodge of communication and network technology used by emergency response personnel, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today said it had picked 14 groups from across the country to pilot an ambitious <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43196">Multi-Band Radio project</a>.

In 2008, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate awarded a $6.2 million contract to Thales Communications to demonstrate the first-ever portable radio prototype that lets emergency responders &mdash; police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel and others &mdash; communicate with partner agencies, regardless of the radio band they operate on."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " Looking to help eliminate the dangerous and inefficient hodgepodge of communication and network technology used by emergency response personnel , the US Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) today said it had picked 14 groups from across the country to pilot an ambitious Multi-Band Radio project .
In 2008 , the DHS Science and Technology Directorate awarded a $ 6.2 million contract to Thales Communications to demonstrate the first-ever portable radio prototype that lets emergency responders    police , firefighters , emergency medical personnel and others    communicate with partner agencies , regardless of the radio band they operate on .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "Looking to help eliminate the dangerous and inefficient hodgepodge of communication and network technology used by emergency response personnel, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today said it had picked 14 groups from across the country to pilot an ambitious Multi-Band Radio project.
In 2008, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate awarded a $6.2 million contract to Thales Communications to demonstrate the first-ever portable radio prototype that lets emergency responders — police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel and others — communicate with partner agencies, regardless of the radio band they operate on.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552237</id>
	<title>Does this mean we can finally get rid of the hams?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246454640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>About freaking time. Ham is a waste of valuable spectrum. First they blocked our power-line internet because it would interfere with their ancient boat anchor radios. Then our RC club had to give up the park last weekend so all the hams could come out and play IRL Fallout, with the needless waste of generator fuel and propane, and now we find out that they strung a bunch of wires in the trees that have to be removed by the district authorities before we can use the park again? A whole month wait just for one weekend of play radio? Screw hams!
Delicense em all, pull down those damn ugly antennas and put some professionals with REAL equipment in charge. Fuck this weekend warrior bullshit. If they want to talk they can use the Internet or rely on public channels like everyone else. And don't give me that experimental bullshit, all hams do anymore is buy equipment from stores and use it. No ham has built a radio in a decade. Name ONE TECHNOLOGY that hams have pioneered in the last 20 years. I'm waiting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>About freaking time .
Ham is a waste of valuable spectrum .
First they blocked our power-line internet because it would interfere with their ancient boat anchor radios .
Then our RC club had to give up the park last weekend so all the hams could come out and play IRL Fallout , with the needless waste of generator fuel and propane , and now we find out that they strung a bunch of wires in the trees that have to be removed by the district authorities before we can use the park again ?
A whole month wait just for one weekend of play radio ?
Screw hams !
Delicense em all , pull down those damn ugly antennas and put some professionals with REAL equipment in charge .
Fuck this weekend warrior bullshit .
If they want to talk they can use the Internet or rely on public channels like everyone else .
And do n't give me that experimental bullshit , all hams do anymore is buy equipment from stores and use it .
No ham has built a radio in a decade .
Name ONE TECHNOLOGY that hams have pioneered in the last 20 years .
I 'm waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About freaking time.
Ham is a waste of valuable spectrum.
First they blocked our power-line internet because it would interfere with their ancient boat anchor radios.
Then our RC club had to give up the park last weekend so all the hams could come out and play IRL Fallout, with the needless waste of generator fuel and propane, and now we find out that they strung a bunch of wires in the trees that have to be removed by the district authorities before we can use the park again?
A whole month wait just for one weekend of play radio?
Screw hams!
Delicense em all, pull down those damn ugly antennas and put some professionals with REAL equipment in charge.
Fuck this weekend warrior bullshit.
If they want to talk they can use the Internet or rely on public channels like everyone else.
And don't give me that experimental bullshit, all hams do anymore is buy equipment from stores and use it.
No ham has built a radio in a decade.
Name ONE TECHNOLOGY that hams have pioneered in the last 20 years.
I'm waiting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28560471</id>
	<title>Re:Interoperability doesn't have to be about radio</title>
	<author>kd7fds</author>
	<datestamp>1246559520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did some more reading about this radios capabilities.   On a small scale, 5 or 6 in my department might actually be useful.   It appears that they have the capability to be teamed together to field assemble a local repeater or a bridge on the fly.    There actually might be some use for that.<br> <br>They also have a link on their website to sign up for a demo radio.   I talked to my Chief and we are going to do exactly that.   Maybe in a few months, I will actually get my hands on one and can do a full review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did some more reading about this radios capabilities .
On a small scale , 5 or 6 in my department might actually be useful .
It appears that they have the capability to be teamed together to field assemble a local repeater or a bridge on the fly .
There actually might be some use for that .
They also have a link on their website to sign up for a demo radio .
I talked to my Chief and we are going to do exactly that .
Maybe in a few months , I will actually get my hands on one and can do a full review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did some more reading about this radios capabilities.
On a small scale, 5 or 6 in my department might actually be useful.
It appears that they have the capability to be teamed together to field assemble a local repeater or a bridge on the fly.
There actually might be some use for that.
They also have a link on their website to sign up for a demo radio.
I talked to my Chief and we are going to do exactly that.
Maybe in a few months, I will actually get my hands on one and can do a full review.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553999</id>
	<title>Re:They sent radios to CANADA?!</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1246471080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What are we going to do when we go to war with those french speaking queen loving northerners?!</p></div><p>French speaking? If we ever go to war with Canada, Quebec would probably take the opportunity to secede and fight against the rest of Canada.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are we going to do when we go to war with those french speaking queen loving northerners ?
! French speaking ?
If we ever go to war with Canada , Quebec would probably take the opportunity to secede and fight against the rest of Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are we going to do when we go to war with those french speaking queen loving northerners?
!French speaking?
If we ever go to war with Canada, Quebec would probably take the opportunity to secede and fight against the rest of Canada.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557777</id>
	<title>Re:This might be good</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246549680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would be nice if the DHS actually did something useful and put an end to that kind of crap.</i></p><p>Yeah, and it would be nice if I found a winning lottery ticket laying on the ground, too, but that ain't gonna happen either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if the DHS actually did something useful and put an end to that kind of crap.Yeah , and it would be nice if I found a winning lottery ticket laying on the ground , too , but that ai n't gon na happen either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if the DHS actually did something useful and put an end to that kind of crap.Yeah, and it would be nice if I found a winning lottery ticket laying on the ground, too, but that ain't gonna happen either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551703</id>
	<title>Re:Amateur Radio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, ok..</p><p>$6 million buys a lot of Vx-7rs from Yaesu (err. Vertex, Standard, Yaesu,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... seem to be a lot of mergers in the field...)</p><p>Oh.. it needs to be trunked.. AND spread spectrum?  Well, crap.  Amateurs have never experimented with either of those modes....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , ok.. $ 6 million buys a lot of Vx-7rs from Yaesu ( err .
Vertex , Standard , Yaesu , ... seem to be a lot of mergers in the field... ) Oh.. it needs to be trunked.. AND spread spectrum ?
Well , crap .
Amateurs have never experimented with either of those modes... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, ok..$6 million buys a lot of Vx-7rs from Yaesu (err.
Vertex, Standard, Yaesu, ... seem to be a lot of mergers in the field...)Oh.. it needs to be trunked.. AND spread spectrum?
Well, crap.
Amateurs have never experimented with either of those modes....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552875</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246459440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ShipCom LLC  SMART NETWORK PLATFORM (SNP) - "The SNP solution is an overlay network designed to connect non-compatible wireless and wired communications devices used by emergency responders without requiring changes in any of the currently used radio systems."  Why should you have to buy a new radio?  http://shipcom.com/SNP/Smart\%20Network\%20Platform\%20Brochure-3.pdf</p><p>Also, "The SMART NETWORK PLATFORM is based on proven telephone company central office technology.  The heart of the SNP is a customized, redundant, carrier grade central office switch manufactured by Eagle Telephonics.  Unlike IP based systems, SNP is immune to denial of service attacks."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ShipCom LLC SMART NETWORK PLATFORM ( SNP ) - " The SNP solution is an overlay network designed to connect non-compatible wireless and wired communications devices used by emergency responders without requiring changes in any of the currently used radio systems .
" Why should you have to buy a new radio ?
http : //shipcom.com/SNP/Smart \ % 20Network \ % 20Platform \ % 20Brochure-3.pdfAlso , " The SMART NETWORK PLATFORM is based on proven telephone company central office technology .
The heart of the SNP is a customized , redundant , carrier grade central office switch manufactured by Eagle Telephonics .
Unlike IP based systems , SNP is immune to denial of service attacks .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ShipCom LLC  SMART NETWORK PLATFORM (SNP) - "The SNP solution is an overlay network designed to connect non-compatible wireless and wired communications devices used by emergency responders without requiring changes in any of the currently used radio systems.
"  Why should you have to buy a new radio?
http://shipcom.com/SNP/Smart\%20Network\%20Platform\%20Brochure-3.pdfAlso, "The SMART NETWORK PLATFORM is based on proven telephone company central office technology.
The heart of the SNP is a customized, redundant, carrier grade central office switch manufactured by Eagle Telephonics.
Unlike IP based systems, SNP is immune to denial of service attacks.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553405</id>
	<title>Re:What about trunked 800Mhz systems?</title>
	<author>wv5k</author>
	<datestamp>1246464000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trunking radios are very useful a few days AFTER a disaster has occurred, and some semblence of communications discipline has been restored. Immediately after a disaster such as Katrina has happened, there is pretty much COMPLETE radio anarchy. All decent antennas for fixed station, high power, wide coverage systems have been scrubbed off their buildings. Pretty much only the mobile (car) systems are working. No centralization is possible until the cavalary shows up. DHS would do better by taking a hard look at right now, commercially available Ham Radio gear, and FORCING all the agencies to have at least one of these types of radios available. Asking for bids from contractors like Thale for brand new equipment is just going to add to the confusion, not reduce it. My two cents worth...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trunking radios are very useful a few days AFTER a disaster has occurred , and some semblence of communications discipline has been restored .
Immediately after a disaster such as Katrina has happened , there is pretty much COMPLETE radio anarchy .
All decent antennas for fixed station , high power , wide coverage systems have been scrubbed off their buildings .
Pretty much only the mobile ( car ) systems are working .
No centralization is possible until the cavalary shows up .
DHS would do better by taking a hard look at right now , commercially available Ham Radio gear , and FORCING all the agencies to have at least one of these types of radios available .
Asking for bids from contractors like Thale for brand new equipment is just going to add to the confusion , not reduce it .
My two cents worth.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trunking radios are very useful a few days AFTER a disaster has occurred, and some semblence of communications discipline has been restored.
Immediately after a disaster such as Katrina has happened, there is pretty much COMPLETE radio anarchy.
All decent antennas for fixed station, high power, wide coverage systems have been scrubbed off their buildings.
Pretty much only the mobile (car) systems are working.
No centralization is possible until the cavalary shows up.
DHS would do better by taking a hard look at right now, commercially available Ham Radio gear, and FORCING all the agencies to have at least one of these types of radios available.
Asking for bids from contractors like Thale for brand new equipment is just going to add to the confusion, not reduce it.
My two cents worth...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553091</id>
	<title>Grenada</title>
	<author>Sum0</author>
	<datestamp>1246461060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US Army and Navy had this problem...came to light during the Grenada invasion. If I remember correctly, a forward observer wound up calling in a naval artillery strike by phone via US operator because he couldn't reach the ship by radio. Might be apocryphal, but it rings true. That's when military radios became AN-PRC-77s, the AN standing for Army/Navy. Amazing it has taken the civilians another 25 years to even consider implementing this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Army and Navy had this problem...came to light during the Grenada invasion .
If I remember correctly , a forward observer wound up calling in a naval artillery strike by phone via US operator because he could n't reach the ship by radio .
Might be apocryphal , but it rings true .
That 's when military radios became AN-PRC-77s , the AN standing for Army/Navy .
Amazing it has taken the civilians another 25 years to even consider implementing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Army and Navy had this problem...came to light during the Grenada invasion.
If I remember correctly, a forward observer wound up calling in a naval artillery strike by phone via US operator because he couldn't reach the ship by radio.
Might be apocryphal, but it rings true.
That's when military radios became AN-PRC-77s, the AN standing for Army/Navy.
Amazing it has taken the civilians another 25 years to even consider implementing this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551669</id>
	<title>Re:Amateur Radio</title>
	<author>Starlon</author>
	<datestamp>1246451220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's wrong with HAM fanatics? They were geeks before geeks were cool. I remember my Dad bouncing radio signals of the Moon. That was cooler than Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with HAM fanatics ?
They were geeks before geeks were cool .
I remember my Dad bouncing radio signals of the Moon .
That was cooler than Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with HAM fanatics?
They were geeks before geeks were cool.
I remember my Dad bouncing radio signals of the Moon.
That was cooler than Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557815</id>
	<title>Re:Grenada</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246549860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Might be apocryphal</i></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbreak\_ridge" title="wikipedia.org">Heartbreak Ridge</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might be apocryphalHeartbreak Ridge [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might be apocryphalHeartbreak Ridge [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551609</id>
	<title>Smart Radio Challenge</title>
	<author>colsandurz45</author>
	<datestamp>1246450920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This year's Smart Radio Challenge is quite similar to this initiative

<a href="http://www.radiochallenge.org/09SampleProblem.html" title="radiochallenge.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.radiochallenge.org/09SampleProblem.html</a> [radiochallenge.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This year 's Smart Radio Challenge is quite similar to this initiative http : //www.radiochallenge.org/09SampleProblem.html [ radiochallenge.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This year's Smart Radio Challenge is quite similar to this initiative

http://www.radiochallenge.org/09SampleProblem.html [radiochallenge.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551833</id>
	<title>Re:What about trunked 800Mhz systems?</title>
	<author>hax4bux</author>
	<datestamp>1246452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trunked systems are an OK start, but they depend on a repeater infrastructure that might not be available (never existed, destroyed by an event, obstructed by terrain, etc).  Also, there are fleet management issues that need some attention along w/vendor interoperability.</p><p>Some of the more cynical comments are probably also true (i.e. pork award to various subs, power grabs, etc).  Sad since the whole project is about sharing resources in a disaster.  And of course, since this is our friendly public servants at DHS, they will want some encryption lest those pesky citizens leak in.</p><p>It is true that SDR makes the de/modulation easy.  It is the rest of the infrastructure that needs some work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trunked systems are an OK start , but they depend on a repeater infrastructure that might not be available ( never existed , destroyed by an event , obstructed by terrain , etc ) .
Also , there are fleet management issues that need some attention along w/vendor interoperability.Some of the more cynical comments are probably also true ( i.e .
pork award to various subs , power grabs , etc ) .
Sad since the whole project is about sharing resources in a disaster .
And of course , since this is our friendly public servants at DHS , they will want some encryption lest those pesky citizens leak in.It is true that SDR makes the de/modulation easy .
It is the rest of the infrastructure that needs some work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trunked systems are an OK start, but they depend on a repeater infrastructure that might not be available (never existed, destroyed by an event, obstructed by terrain, etc).
Also, there are fleet management issues that need some attention along w/vendor interoperability.Some of the more cynical comments are probably also true (i.e.
pork award to various subs, power grabs, etc).
Sad since the whole project is about sharing resources in a disaster.
And of course, since this is our friendly public servants at DHS, they will want some encryption lest those pesky citizens leak in.It is true that SDR makes the de/modulation easy.
It is the rest of the infrastructure that needs some work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552035</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1246453320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why don't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades. Amateur Radio operators.</p></div><p>Mostly because nobody under the age of 35 even knows what it is, let alone has an interest in it. It's a dying hobby, partly because of expense, mostly because we've let two entire generations slip past the net and failed to educate them on the importance of being trained and ready for an emergency, which is the major public service amateur radio offers.</p><p>If I handed the average 20-something a mobile amateur radio (like you can still buy at Radioshack), think they'd be able to find a voice on the other end before the battery died? There's something to be said for that -- if it doesn't have a USB port or a LCD screen, it's probably junk... And they'd be right, until a flood wipes out the cell towers, internet, electricity, and the bridges. Then I bet knowing how to use a radio would be pretty cool, huh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades .
Amateur Radio operators.Mostly because nobody under the age of 35 even knows what it is , let alone has an interest in it .
It 's a dying hobby , partly because of expense , mostly because we 've let two entire generations slip past the net and failed to educate them on the importance of being trained and ready for an emergency , which is the major public service amateur radio offers.If I handed the average 20-something a mobile amateur radio ( like you can still buy at Radioshack ) , think they 'd be able to find a voice on the other end before the battery died ?
There 's something to be said for that -- if it does n't have a USB port or a LCD screen , it 's probably junk... And they 'd be right , until a flood wipes out the cell towers , internet , electricity , and the bridges .
Then I bet knowing how to use a radio would be pretty cool , huh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades.
Amateur Radio operators.Mostly because nobody under the age of 35 even knows what it is, let alone has an interest in it.
It's a dying hobby, partly because of expense, mostly because we've let two entire generations slip past the net and failed to educate them on the importance of being trained and ready for an emergency, which is the major public service amateur radio offers.If I handed the average 20-something a mobile amateur radio (like you can still buy at Radioshack), think they'd be able to find a voice on the other end before the battery died?
There's something to be said for that -- if it doesn't have a USB port or a LCD screen, it's probably junk... And they'd be right, until a flood wipes out the cell towers, internet, electricity, and the bridges.
Then I bet knowing how to use a radio would be pretty cool, huh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551421</id>
	<title>Savage Love</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246449960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear <a href="mailto:mail@savagelove.net" title="mailto" rel="nofollow">Savage Love</a> [mailto]:</p><p>I am a 51 year old male who is into hardcore scat. I meet men at Linux user groups for turd binges and human toiletry on a monthly basis.</p><p>My longtime physician recently retired and I'm having trouble finding another one who is willing to prescribe the appropriate antibiotics and parasite medications that are essential for this kind of lifestyle. All of the general practitioners I've talked to tell me to stop my "potentially life-threatening activities" and won't discuss long-term care.</p><p>Dan, I need a doc who's willing to work with me in my shit-struggle and give me the pills necessary to continue exploring Linux hippie ass. Do you recommend any certain kind of doctor or even individuals? I'm quite wealthy and am willing to travel nationally for this care.</p><p>Thanks,<br>
&nbsp; <a href="mailto:esr@catb.org" title="mailto" rel="nofollow">Eric S. Raymond</a> [mailto] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Savage Love [ mailto ] : I am a 51 year old male who is into hardcore scat .
I meet men at Linux user groups for turd binges and human toiletry on a monthly basis.My longtime physician recently retired and I 'm having trouble finding another one who is willing to prescribe the appropriate antibiotics and parasite medications that are essential for this kind of lifestyle .
All of the general practitioners I 've talked to tell me to stop my " potentially life-threatening activities " and wo n't discuss long-term care.Dan , I need a doc who 's willing to work with me in my shit-struggle and give me the pills necessary to continue exploring Linux hippie ass .
Do you recommend any certain kind of doctor or even individuals ?
I 'm quite wealthy and am willing to travel nationally for this care.Thanks ,   Eric S. Raymond [ mailto ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Savage Love [mailto]:I am a 51 year old male who is into hardcore scat.
I meet men at Linux user groups for turd binges and human toiletry on a monthly basis.My longtime physician recently retired and I'm having trouble finding another one who is willing to prescribe the appropriate antibiotics and parasite medications that are essential for this kind of lifestyle.
All of the general practitioners I've talked to tell me to stop my "potentially life-threatening activities" and won't discuss long-term care.Dan, I need a doc who's willing to work with me in my shit-struggle and give me the pills necessary to continue exploring Linux hippie ass.
Do you recommend any certain kind of doctor or even individuals?
I'm quite wealthy and am willing to travel nationally for this care.Thanks,
  Eric S. Raymond [mailto] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551659</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1246451160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the money in that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the money in that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the money in that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552171</id>
	<title>Re:Waste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>acrobg</author>
	<datestamp>1246454160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HAMs are allowed to encrypt according to a protocol than can be decrpted by a readily available, published method.  The exception to this is for satellite control signals, which can be encrypted however.

And this is one reason why morse code (CW) is often used with emergency communications.  Many amateurs involved in emergency communications know it, btu the general public passing by won't know what all the dots and dashes mean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HAMs are allowed to encrypt according to a protocol than can be decrpted by a readily available , published method .
The exception to this is for satellite control signals , which can be encrypted however .
And this is one reason why morse code ( CW ) is often used with emergency communications .
Many amateurs involved in emergency communications know it , btu the general public passing by wo n't know what all the dots and dashes mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAMs are allowed to encrypt according to a protocol than can be decrpted by a readily available, published method.
The exception to this is for satellite control signals, which can be encrypted however.
And this is one reason why morse code (CW) is often used with emergency communications.
Many amateurs involved in emergency communications know it, btu the general public passing by won't know what all the dots and dashes mean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552689</id>
	<title>This is a big problem</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1246458240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a ham.  We worked with an Airshow a few years back.  We coordinated between NYSP (155 mhz), the local fire brigade (46 mhz), the County Sheriff (46? mhz).  The ambulance crew was on still another frequency.

While this clearly was not an emergency, the person between them all was a ham, relaying messages between the agencies.  All the ham equipment at the main table cost less than one walkie talkie from the mighty motorola.

Some cop cars will have channels from adjoining jurisdictions, but it is patchwork and if you are on VHF and your other agency is on UHF, there will have to be phone calls between dispatchers to co ordinate.

See, an agency has a budget.  They then get sold by Motorola the best and latest, no matter what the actual needs of the agency are.  This results in everyone having different stuff as they all buy at different times.  Once an agency gets working radio, they almost never change it, as it can be a life or death thing.  Bureaucratic Ossification takes over.

Here in NY, there was an attempt by Tyco to come up with an IP radio system.  It was met with great distrust by the police and other agencies that were supposed to toss the patchwork radios and all use the MA/COM system.  You can easier change a service pistol on cops than their radios.

It is far, far too simple and cheap to designate a few VHF or UHF channels, in FM and have everyone program them in...we have to buy new equipment and re invent wheels.  You don't need encryption for the vast majority of "interops".  So, let's come up with a new system, at great cost...it is what Motorola is selling today.  Whether you need it or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a ham .
We worked with an Airshow a few years back .
We coordinated between NYSP ( 155 mhz ) , the local fire brigade ( 46 mhz ) , the County Sheriff ( 46 ?
mhz ) . The ambulance crew was on still another frequency .
While this clearly was not an emergency , the person between them all was a ham , relaying messages between the agencies .
All the ham equipment at the main table cost less than one walkie talkie from the mighty motorola .
Some cop cars will have channels from adjoining jurisdictions , but it is patchwork and if you are on VHF and your other agency is on UHF , there will have to be phone calls between dispatchers to co ordinate .
See , an agency has a budget .
They then get sold by Motorola the best and latest , no matter what the actual needs of the agency are .
This results in everyone having different stuff as they all buy at different times .
Once an agency gets working radio , they almost never change it , as it can be a life or death thing .
Bureaucratic Ossification takes over .
Here in NY , there was an attempt by Tyco to come up with an IP radio system .
It was met with great distrust by the police and other agencies that were supposed to toss the patchwork radios and all use the MA/COM system .
You can easier change a service pistol on cops than their radios .
It is far , far too simple and cheap to designate a few VHF or UHF channels , in FM and have everyone program them in...we have to buy new equipment and re invent wheels .
You do n't need encryption for the vast majority of " interops " .
So , let 's come up with a new system , at great cost...it is what Motorola is selling today .
Whether you need it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a ham.
We worked with an Airshow a few years back.
We coordinated between NYSP (155 mhz), the local fire brigade (46 mhz), the County Sheriff (46?
mhz).  The ambulance crew was on still another frequency.
While this clearly was not an emergency, the person between them all was a ham, relaying messages between the agencies.
All the ham equipment at the main table cost less than one walkie talkie from the mighty motorola.
Some cop cars will have channels from adjoining jurisdictions, but it is patchwork and if you are on VHF and your other agency is on UHF, there will have to be phone calls between dispatchers to co ordinate.
See, an agency has a budget.
They then get sold by Motorola the best and latest, no matter what the actual needs of the agency are.
This results in everyone having different stuff as they all buy at different times.
Once an agency gets working radio, they almost never change it, as it can be a life or death thing.
Bureaucratic Ossification takes over.
Here in NY, there was an attempt by Tyco to come up with an IP radio system.
It was met with great distrust by the police and other agencies that were supposed to toss the patchwork radios and all use the MA/COM system.
You can easier change a service pistol on cops than their radios.
It is far, far too simple and cheap to designate a few VHF or UHF channels, in FM and have everyone program them in...we have to buy new equipment and re invent wheels.
You don't need encryption for the vast majority of "interops".
So, let's come up with a new system, at great cost...it is what Motorola is selling today.
Whether you need it or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</id>
	<title>Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246450200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades. Amateur Radio operators. They have radios that operate from below 1 MHz to over 1GHz. They have been doing (without pay) emergency radio communications for a very long time now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades .
Amateur Radio operators .
They have radios that operate from below 1 MHz to over 1GHz .
They have been doing ( without pay ) emergency radio communications for a very long time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades.
Amateur Radio operators.
They have radios that operate from below 1 MHz to over 1GHz.
They have been doing (without pay) emergency radio communications for a very long time now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552477</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>atomicthumbs</author>
	<datestamp>1246456440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The low limit of ham radio operation is the 1750-meter band, which goes from 160 to 190 khz, and the high limit is the 1-mm band, from 21 to 250 gigahertz. Then we are able to operate at any frequency we want as long as it's above 275 ghz. We're all over the lace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The low limit of ham radio operation is the 1750-meter band , which goes from 160 to 190 khz , and the high limit is the 1-mm band , from 21 to 250 gigahertz .
Then we are able to operate at any frequency we want as long as it 's above 275 ghz .
We 're all over the lace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The low limit of ham radio operation is the 1750-meter band, which goes from 160 to 190 khz, and the high limit is the 1-mm band, from 21 to 250 gigahertz.
Then we are able to operate at any frequency we want as long as it's above 275 ghz.
We're all over the lace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551341</id>
	<title>Scary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dons tin foil hat...

Can it read brain waves too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dons tin foil hat.. . Can it read brain waves too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dons tin foil hat...

Can it read brain waves too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551855</id>
	<title>Re:What about trunked 800Mhz systems?</title>
	<author>DarthBart</author>
	<datestamp>1246452300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because 800Mhz isn't practical everywhere.</p><p>Put an 800Mhz system in the Texas Hill Country...you'll end up with needing a repeater site on every other hilltop.</p><p>Put an 800Mhz system in where there's lots of pine trees.  You'll discover that pine needles are about 1/4wave long at 800Mhz and make excellent attenuators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because 800Mhz is n't practical everywhere.Put an 800Mhz system in the Texas Hill Country...you 'll end up with needing a repeater site on every other hilltop.Put an 800Mhz system in where there 's lots of pine trees .
You 'll discover that pine needles are about 1/4wave long at 800Mhz and make excellent attenuators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because 800Mhz isn't practical everywhere.Put an 800Mhz system in the Texas Hill Country...you'll end up with needing a repeater site on every other hilltop.Put an 800Mhz system in where there's lots of pine trees.
You'll discover that pine needles are about 1/4wave long at 800Mhz and make excellent attenuators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553791</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who do you think developed modern communications technology?  Amateurs have traditionally taken experimental concepts and technologies and methodologies and 'played' with them until they've become viable for general use.  SSB, FM, VHF, UHF, microwave, TTY (wireless teletype, which became packet data communication... sound familiar?  we're using an advanced version of that right now on our interwebnets).  Packet plus terrestrial radio repeater networks equals cellular telephone.  Oh and encryption and satellites and... okay enough examples.  Anyway, my totally unrelated thought, $6 Million seems like a tiny amount of money to spend for R&amp;D on an all-connecting emergency comms system.  Not that I'm into wasting tax money, but hell, tens of Billions get wasted every year on who knows what with no real benefit to our country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who do you think developed modern communications technology ?
Amateurs have traditionally taken experimental concepts and technologies and methodologies and 'played ' with them until they 've become viable for general use .
SSB , FM , VHF , UHF , microwave , TTY ( wireless teletype , which became packet data communication... sound familiar ?
we 're using an advanced version of that right now on our interwebnets ) .
Packet plus terrestrial radio repeater networks equals cellular telephone .
Oh and encryption and satellites and... okay enough examples .
Anyway , my totally unrelated thought , $ 6 Million seems like a tiny amount of money to spend for R&amp;D on an all-connecting emergency comms system .
Not that I 'm into wasting tax money , but hell , tens of Billions get wasted every year on who knows what with no real benefit to our country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who do you think developed modern communications technology?
Amateurs have traditionally taken experimental concepts and technologies and methodologies and 'played' with them until they've become viable for general use.
SSB, FM, VHF, UHF, microwave, TTY (wireless teletype, which became packet data communication... sound familiar?
we're using an advanced version of that right now on our interwebnets).
Packet plus terrestrial radio repeater networks equals cellular telephone.
Oh and encryption and satellites and... okay enough examples.
Anyway, my totally unrelated thought, $6 Million seems like a tiny amount of money to spend for R&amp;D on an all-connecting emergency comms system.
Not that I'm into wasting tax money, but hell, tens of Billions get wasted every year on who knows what with no real benefit to our country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563949</id>
	<title>Re:Interoperability doesn't have to be about radio</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1246527540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess before  the NIMS, we all just had to die?.

<p>

Admittedly that is a smartass remark, but it points out a huge problem and part of the reason why we have some serious failures.

</p><p>
Too much structure!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess before the NIMS , we all just had to die ? .
Admittedly that is a smartass remark , but it points out a huge problem and part of the reason why we have some serious failures .
Too much structure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess before  the NIMS, we all just had to die?.
Admittedly that is a smartass remark, but it points out a huge problem and part of the reason why we have some serious failures.
Too much structure!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553029</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>SageMusings</author>
	<datestamp>1246460640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I imagine because this is the first step of many which will eventually allow the government to more safely take back the existing spectrum allocated for amateur use.  There are a lot of commercial interests more than willing to spend handsome sums on an auction of that spectrum.  If its felt civil authorities can manage emergency communications without HAMS, that auction is that much closer.</p><p>So, there is little reason to involve the amateur community, which is on its last legs already, i.e. aging community, dumber children less willing to learn and take the reigns, ease of world-wide comm without radio)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I imagine because this is the first step of many which will eventually allow the government to more safely take back the existing spectrum allocated for amateur use .
There are a lot of commercial interests more than willing to spend handsome sums on an auction of that spectrum .
If its felt civil authorities can manage emergency communications without HAMS , that auction is that much closer.So , there is little reason to involve the amateur community , which is on its last legs already , i.e .
aging community , dumber children less willing to learn and take the reigns , ease of world-wide comm without radio )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I imagine because this is the first step of many which will eventually allow the government to more safely take back the existing spectrum allocated for amateur use.
There are a lot of commercial interests more than willing to spend handsome sums on an auction of that spectrum.
If its felt civil authorities can manage emergency communications without HAMS, that auction is that much closer.So, there is little reason to involve the amateur community, which is on its last legs already, i.e.
aging community, dumber children less willing to learn and take the reigns, ease of world-wide comm without radio)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552421</id>
	<title>They sent radios to CANADA?!</title>
	<author>shidarin'ou</author>
	<datestamp>1246455960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Radios were sent to -Canadian Interoperability Technology Interest Group (Ottawa, ON Canada)"</p><p>Dear god. What are we going to do when we go to war with those french speaking queen loving northerners?! They will even be able to listen in on the Department of Defense frequencies! They will know our every move!</p><p>I demand that only DEFECTIVE radios are sent to Canada.</p><p>For maximum effect, I recommend that the radios only receive communications in the form of a poor impression of a Canadian accent- notably every word should be "Ay?"</p><p>(This post was a joke)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Radios were sent to -Canadian Interoperability Technology Interest Group ( Ottawa , ON Canada ) " Dear god .
What are we going to do when we go to war with those french speaking queen loving northerners ? !
They will even be able to listen in on the Department of Defense frequencies !
They will know our every move ! I demand that only DEFECTIVE radios are sent to Canada.For maximum effect , I recommend that the radios only receive communications in the form of a poor impression of a Canadian accent- notably every word should be " Ay ?
" ( This post was a joke )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Radios were sent to -Canadian Interoperability Technology Interest Group (Ottawa, ON Canada)"Dear god.
What are we going to do when we go to war with those french speaking queen loving northerners?!
They will even be able to listen in on the Department of Defense frequencies!
They will know our every move!I demand that only DEFECTIVE radios are sent to Canada.For maximum effect, I recommend that the radios only receive communications in the form of a poor impression of a Canadian accent- notably every word should be "Ay?
"(This post was a joke)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28556735</id>
	<title>Re:This is a big problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246544820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is far, far too simple and cheap to designate a few VHF or UHF channels...</p></div><p>UHF?  It's time for WHEEL OF FISH! RED SNAPPER VERY TASTY!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is far , far too simple and cheap to designate a few VHF or UHF channels...UHF ?
It 's time for WHEEL OF FISH !
RED SNAPPER VERY TASTY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is far, far too simple and cheap to designate a few VHF or UHF channels...UHF?
It's time for WHEEL OF FISH!
RED SNAPPER VERY TASTY!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553263</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean we can finally get rid of the ha</title>
	<author>psicop</author>
	<datestamp>1246462500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Valuable spectrum 'just' opened up...when do you think it'll actually have 'real' value instead of 'we might do something with this'?</p><p>Well, if you had an amateur license, you could've used the 50Mhz band and played RC with the big boys. (You probably use the 72Mhz band like 'everyone else')</p><p>Ramsey Electronics has radio kits you can assemble.</p><p>As for technology? I'm guessing the Internet Radio Linking Project/WIRES will<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/probably/ be used somehow which means we can probably expect to see a 'national information infrastructure' within the next 20 years.</p><p>And does it have to be 20 years? Because I'm pretty sure Steve Wozniak is a Ham. And there are plenty of other notable hams out there making contributions all over the place. But true amateurs, such as yourself, aren't concerned with the actual technology. (or development) They just want to use it.</p><p>73s...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Valuable spectrum 'just ' opened up...when do you think it 'll actually have 'real ' value instead of 'we might do something with this ' ? Well , if you had an amateur license , you could 've used the 50Mhz band and played RC with the big boys .
( You probably use the 72Mhz band like 'everyone else ' ) Ramsey Electronics has radio kits you can assemble.As for technology ?
I 'm guessing the Internet Radio Linking Project/WIRES will /probably/ be used somehow which means we can probably expect to see a 'national information infrastructure ' within the next 20 years.And does it have to be 20 years ?
Because I 'm pretty sure Steve Wozniak is a Ham .
And there are plenty of other notable hams out there making contributions all over the place .
But true amateurs , such as yourself , are n't concerned with the actual technology .
( or development ) They just want to use it.73s.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valuable spectrum 'just' opened up...when do you think it'll actually have 'real' value instead of 'we might do something with this'?Well, if you had an amateur license, you could've used the 50Mhz band and played RC with the big boys.
(You probably use the 72Mhz band like 'everyone else')Ramsey Electronics has radio kits you can assemble.As for technology?
I'm guessing the Internet Radio Linking Project/WIRES will /probably/ be used somehow which means we can probably expect to see a 'national information infrastructure' within the next 20 years.And does it have to be 20 years?
Because I'm pretty sure Steve Wozniak is a Ham.
And there are plenty of other notable hams out there making contributions all over the place.
But true amateurs, such as yourself, aren't concerned with the actual technology.
(or development) They just want to use it.73s...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551361</id>
	<title>Hey while they're at it...</title>
	<author>Billy the Mountain</author>
	<datestamp>1246449600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they add in an analogue television signal?</p><p>BTM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they add in an analogue television signal ? BTM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they add in an analogue television signal?BTM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313</id>
	<title>Interoperability doesn't have to be about radios.</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1246455180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a fire officer, I work closely with several other nearby towns.  We are all on different radio frequencies.  There are strategies to work well that mitigate the potential issues:</p><p>1.  For neighboring towns, we have each other's frequencies available on our own radios.</p><p>2.  When operating more distantly, we use a state wide non-repeated frequency for larger incidents to cover the incident scene, while operations command will use their repeated systems to communicate out to dispatch or with other agencies.</p><p>Number two is very important -- span of control is optimally at "5" (meaning you shouldn't be trying to manage more than 5 direct reports).  At anything above 7 you become very inefficient.   When the number of people you're trying to work directly with grows above that number you should be subdividing that span of control and instead talking to a single representation of each sector or division.   ** That means, not everyone on scene should be attempting to communicate back to a central point at all once.</p><p>The modern public safety sector is all trained (or being trained) on NIMS (National Incident Management System).  As an officer, I'm required to hold three different certifications within that program.  Firefighters, police, ems workers, town managers, and public service workers (the town guys who fix things and make your city work) are all part of the program.   The purpose of NIMS is to define and common and understandable method of managing incidents from the smallest (where I may have incident command at a car accident with one or two responding units) but that also scale up as needed to the very largest (e.g. I arrive on scene to find the reported car accident was actually caused by a train derailing and landing on the car, spilling toxic material into a river which crosses state lines).   NIMS defines common language, common command structures, and even common paperwork standards for doing things like leasing a bulldozer to build a dike or a bunch of outhouses to use at a work camp.</p><p>My point is that the radio technology is only one challenge, and one that can be solved by working together in a well coordinated manner.  More important is building and practicing the strategies to manage incidents in a coordinated manner.</p><p>If you're in the public safety sector and haven't had NIMS training yet, you will.   It is rapidly becoming a requirement for any organization receiving federal grants or other funding.   If you've heard bad things about it, ignore them.  NIMS is actually fairly simple and uses good common sense strategies (e.g. drop obscure 10 codes and speak in plain language) for most of what it does.  It is based on an incredibly successful management strategy used by the teams that run the huge wildfire operations.   Their system used something like 1/3 the number of back end support people for every front line person when compared with the military.</p><p>For our department, about 90\% of what NIMS requires was already very similar to what we were already doing.  Very little had to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a fire officer , I work closely with several other nearby towns .
We are all on different radio frequencies .
There are strategies to work well that mitigate the potential issues : 1 .
For neighboring towns , we have each other 's frequencies available on our own radios.2 .
When operating more distantly , we use a state wide non-repeated frequency for larger incidents to cover the incident scene , while operations command will use their repeated systems to communicate out to dispatch or with other agencies.Number two is very important -- span of control is optimally at " 5 " ( meaning you should n't be trying to manage more than 5 direct reports ) .
At anything above 7 you become very inefficient .
When the number of people you 're trying to work directly with grows above that number you should be subdividing that span of control and instead talking to a single representation of each sector or division .
* * That means , not everyone on scene should be attempting to communicate back to a central point at all once.The modern public safety sector is all trained ( or being trained ) on NIMS ( National Incident Management System ) .
As an officer , I 'm required to hold three different certifications within that program .
Firefighters , police , ems workers , town managers , and public service workers ( the town guys who fix things and make your city work ) are all part of the program .
The purpose of NIMS is to define and common and understandable method of managing incidents from the smallest ( where I may have incident command at a car accident with one or two responding units ) but that also scale up as needed to the very largest ( e.g .
I arrive on scene to find the reported car accident was actually caused by a train derailing and landing on the car , spilling toxic material into a river which crosses state lines ) .
NIMS defines common language , common command structures , and even common paperwork standards for doing things like leasing a bulldozer to build a dike or a bunch of outhouses to use at a work camp.My point is that the radio technology is only one challenge , and one that can be solved by working together in a well coordinated manner .
More important is building and practicing the strategies to manage incidents in a coordinated manner.If you 're in the public safety sector and have n't had NIMS training yet , you will .
It is rapidly becoming a requirement for any organization receiving federal grants or other funding .
If you 've heard bad things about it , ignore them .
NIMS is actually fairly simple and uses good common sense strategies ( e.g .
drop obscure 10 codes and speak in plain language ) for most of what it does .
It is based on an incredibly successful management strategy used by the teams that run the huge wildfire operations .
Their system used something like 1/3 the number of back end support people for every front line person when compared with the military.For our department , about 90 \ % of what NIMS requires was already very similar to what we were already doing .
Very little had to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a fire officer, I work closely with several other nearby towns.
We are all on different radio frequencies.
There are strategies to work well that mitigate the potential issues:1.
For neighboring towns, we have each other's frequencies available on our own radios.2.
When operating more distantly, we use a state wide non-repeated frequency for larger incidents to cover the incident scene, while operations command will use their repeated systems to communicate out to dispatch or with other agencies.Number two is very important -- span of control is optimally at "5" (meaning you shouldn't be trying to manage more than 5 direct reports).
At anything above 7 you become very inefficient.
When the number of people you're trying to work directly with grows above that number you should be subdividing that span of control and instead talking to a single representation of each sector or division.
** That means, not everyone on scene should be attempting to communicate back to a central point at all once.The modern public safety sector is all trained (or being trained) on NIMS (National Incident Management System).
As an officer, I'm required to hold three different certifications within that program.
Firefighters, police, ems workers, town managers, and public service workers (the town guys who fix things and make your city work) are all part of the program.
The purpose of NIMS is to define and common and understandable method of managing incidents from the smallest (where I may have incident command at a car accident with one or two responding units) but that also scale up as needed to the very largest (e.g.
I arrive on scene to find the reported car accident was actually caused by a train derailing and landing on the car, spilling toxic material into a river which crosses state lines).
NIMS defines common language, common command structures, and even common paperwork standards for doing things like leasing a bulldozer to build a dike or a bunch of outhouses to use at a work camp.My point is that the radio technology is only one challenge, and one that can be solved by working together in a well coordinated manner.
More important is building and practicing the strategies to manage incidents in a coordinated manner.If you're in the public safety sector and haven't had NIMS training yet, you will.
It is rapidly becoming a requirement for any organization receiving federal grants or other funding.
If you've heard bad things about it, ignore them.
NIMS is actually fairly simple and uses good common sense strategies (e.g.
drop obscure 10 codes and speak in plain language) for most of what it does.
It is based on an incredibly successful management strategy used by the teams that run the huge wildfire operations.
Their system used something like 1/3 the number of back end support people for every front line person when compared with the military.For our department, about 90\% of what NIMS requires was already very similar to what we were already doing.
Very little had to change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551769</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing alot of it is due to the radios being able to use DOD channels, and the level of encryption that likely incurs isn't cheap to handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing alot of it is due to the radios being able to use DOD channels , and the level of encryption that likely incurs is n't cheap to handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing alot of it is due to the radios being able to use DOD channels, and the level of encryption that likely incurs isn't cheap to handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557421</id>
	<title>Another waste of funds....</title>
	<author>belligerent0001</author>
	<datestamp>1246548120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why the DoD funded the development of the JNN. We can do this and more with a JNN, guess what...we already have it. So the DHS is just wasting more of our money. Thanks guys, as if things aren't bad enough already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why the DoD funded the development of the JNN .
We can do this and more with a JNN , guess what...we already have it .
So the DHS is just wasting more of our money .
Thanks guys , as if things are n't bad enough already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why the DoD funded the development of the JNN.
We can do this and more with a JNN, guess what...we already have it.
So the DHS is just wasting more of our money.
Thanks guys, as if things aren't bad enough already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28555591</id>
	<title>Who controls the networks?</title>
	<author>dtmos</author>
	<datestamp>1246534140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that has always puzzled me about multiband public-service radios is how access to the various networks would be managed.</p><p>Traditionally, the reason agencies have different networks on different radio channels is for efficiency and security.  By having separate networks, the firemen and the city road maintenance crews aren't bothered by each others' communications, nearly all of which are irrelevant to the other organization.  It's easy to see that the policemen usually don't want to be bothered by the water utilities guys, and that the customs people don't want their communications overheard by local law enforcement (and, likely, vice-versa).</p><p>But, with a multiband, software-defined radio, the plan is for these types to be able to communicate with each other in emergencies.  Fine -- but who lets whom on who's network, and when?  If the local water utility guy in his truck sees a water main break underneath the local customs facility, how many layers of management will he have to work through to get his radio allowed on the customs network, and how long will that take?  Technically, it's a trivial matter (once the radios are in the field, that is), but from an organizational standpoint I can see a big morass of internecine squabbling if this feature is to be used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that has always puzzled me about multiband public-service radios is how access to the various networks would be managed.Traditionally , the reason agencies have different networks on different radio channels is for efficiency and security .
By having separate networks , the firemen and the city road maintenance crews are n't bothered by each others ' communications , nearly all of which are irrelevant to the other organization .
It 's easy to see that the policemen usually do n't want to be bothered by the water utilities guys , and that the customs people do n't want their communications overheard by local law enforcement ( and , likely , vice-versa ) .But , with a multiband , software-defined radio , the plan is for these types to be able to communicate with each other in emergencies .
Fine -- but who lets whom on who 's network , and when ?
If the local water utility guy in his truck sees a water main break underneath the local customs facility , how many layers of management will he have to work through to get his radio allowed on the customs network , and how long will that take ?
Technically , it 's a trivial matter ( once the radios are in the field , that is ) , but from an organizational standpoint I can see a big morass of internecine squabbling if this feature is to be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that has always puzzled me about multiband public-service radios is how access to the various networks would be managed.Traditionally, the reason agencies have different networks on different radio channels is for efficiency and security.
By having separate networks, the firemen and the city road maintenance crews aren't bothered by each others' communications, nearly all of which are irrelevant to the other organization.
It's easy to see that the policemen usually don't want to be bothered by the water utilities guys, and that the customs people don't want their communications overheard by local law enforcement (and, likely, vice-versa).But, with a multiband, software-defined radio, the plan is for these types to be able to communicate with each other in emergencies.
Fine -- but who lets whom on who's network, and when?
If the local water utility guy in his truck sees a water main break underneath the local customs facility, how many layers of management will he have to work through to get his radio allowed on the customs network, and how long will that take?
Technically, it's a trivial matter (once the radios are in the field, that is), but from an organizational standpoint I can see a big morass of internecine squabbling if this feature is to be used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552275</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246454880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because hams don't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use.</p></div><p>Bullshit, hams <em>invented</em> a lot of those protocols.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because hams do n't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use.Bullshit , hams invented a lot of those protocols .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because hams don't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use.Bullshit, hams invented a lot of those protocols.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28558857</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>kd7fds</author>
	<datestamp>1246554600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's still a waste of money.    My podunk county dispatch center can flip a couple switch and bridge any radio channels we need to have done.    Don't need fancy handhelds to do it.  Most dispatch centers either already have bridging capability, or it can be added on for a reasonable cost.   There is no need for multiband handhelds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's still a waste of money .
My podunk county dispatch center can flip a couple switch and bridge any radio channels we need to have done .
Do n't need fancy handhelds to do it .
Most dispatch centers either already have bridging capability , or it can be added on for a reasonable cost .
There is no need for multiband handhelds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's still a waste of money.
My podunk county dispatch center can flip a couple switch and bridge any radio channels we need to have done.
Don't need fancy handhelds to do it.
Most dispatch centers either already have bridging capability, or it can be added on for a reasonable cost.
There is no need for multiband handhelds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552101</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>Obfuscant</author>
	<datestamp>1246453680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Because hams don't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use. </i> <p>
Yes, hams do use P25, in addition to D-STAR. It's not common, but there is now a P25 section in the repeater directory along with the D-STAR section.</p><p>
The goal of "interoperability" is to get rid of "many of the other digital public service protocols" and use just one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because hams do n't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use .
Yes , hams do use P25 , in addition to D-STAR .
It 's not common , but there is now a P25 section in the repeater directory along with the D-STAR section .
The goal of " interoperability " is to get rid of " many of the other digital public service protocols " and use just one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because hams don't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use.
Yes, hams do use P25, in addition to D-STAR.
It's not common, but there is now a P25 section in the repeater directory along with the D-STAR section.
The goal of "interoperability" is to get rid of "many of the other digital public service protocols" and use just one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552499</id>
	<title>This might be good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246456620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many towns and cities have been burned by spending millions on a proprietary system only to discover they can't talk to the next town over.</p><p>It would be nice if the DHS actually did something useful and put an end to that kind of crap.</p><p>This article <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/09/b1029179.html" title="americanprogress.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/09/b1029179.html</a> [americanprogress.org] from 2005 stresses the importance ans suggests using WiFi. Maybe.  But the most important aspect is "one digital protocol to rule them all", no matter what band you're on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many towns and cities have been burned by spending millions on a proprietary system only to discover they ca n't talk to the next town over.It would be nice if the DHS actually did something useful and put an end to that kind of crap.This article http : //www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/09/b1029179.html [ americanprogress.org ] from 2005 stresses the importance ans suggests using WiFi .
Maybe. But the most important aspect is " one digital protocol to rule them all " , no matter what band you 're on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many towns and cities have been burned by spending millions on a proprietary system only to discover they can't talk to the next town over.It would be nice if the DHS actually did something useful and put an end to that kind of crap.This article http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/09/b1029179.html [americanprogress.org] from 2005 stresses the importance ans suggests using WiFi.
Maybe.  But the most important aspect is "one digital protocol to rule them all", no matter what band you're on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803</id>
	<title>It can be done, at a cost</title>
	<author>DarthBart</author>
	<datestamp>1246452000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, good luck with that.  If it succeeds, it'll be a portable radio that costs $10K.  It'll have to license P25 and SmartNet from Motorola, a couple of protocols from EF Johnson, have MPT1324 (The only real open standard in commercial radio), it'll need wide and narrow band coverage of 150, 450, and 800Mhz.</p><p>Sure, it can all be done with a DSP based radio, but someone's gotta pay for the Intellectual Property to make them work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , good luck with that .
If it succeeds , it 'll be a portable radio that costs $ 10K .
It 'll have to license P25 and SmartNet from Motorola , a couple of protocols from EF Johnson , have MPT1324 ( The only real open standard in commercial radio ) , it 'll need wide and narrow band coverage of 150 , 450 , and 800Mhz.Sure , it can all be done with a DSP based radio , but someone 's got ta pay for the Intellectual Property to make them work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, good luck with that.
If it succeeds, it'll be a portable radio that costs $10K.
It'll have to license P25 and SmartNet from Motorola, a couple of protocols from EF Johnson, have MPT1324 (The only real open standard in commercial radio), it'll need wide and narrow band coverage of 150, 450, and 800Mhz.Sure, it can all be done with a DSP based radio, but someone's gotta pay for the Intellectual Property to make them work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552055</id>
	<title>Re:It can be done, at a cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246453500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Yeah, good luck with that. If it succeeds, it'll be a portable radio that costs $10K. </i> <p>
It's already succeeded. It costs $5k, base. No trunking. It's got a slick LCD display. Color. It's a brick. Heavy. Large.</p><p>
And Thales is getting a $6 million kickback after creating it, and $5k/radio to sell it (lots of federal grants are obtained with the keyword "interoperability").</p><p>
I used to think Thales was an innovator. Now I know they are just sucking at the public tit.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...it'll need wide and narrow band coverage of 150, 450, and 800Mhz.</i> </p><p>
And 700. But who's counting?</p><p>
Now, the product exists, it's being delivered, where the EMERGENCY?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , good luck with that .
If it succeeds , it 'll be a portable radio that costs $ 10K .
It 's already succeeded .
It costs $ 5k , base .
No trunking .
It 's got a slick LCD display .
Color. It 's a brick .
Heavy. Large .
And Thales is getting a $ 6 million kickback after creating it , and $ 5k/radio to sell it ( lots of federal grants are obtained with the keyword " interoperability " ) .
I used to think Thales was an innovator .
Now I know they are just sucking at the public tit .
...it 'll need wide and narrow band coverage of 150 , 450 , and 800Mhz .
And 700 .
But who 's counting ?
Now , the product exists , it 's being delivered , where the EMERGENCY ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, good luck with that.
If it succeeds, it'll be a portable radio that costs $10K.
It's already succeeded.
It costs $5k, base.
No trunking.
It's got a slick LCD display.
Color. It's a brick.
Heavy. Large.
And Thales is getting a $6 million kickback after creating it, and $5k/radio to sell it (lots of federal grants are obtained with the keyword "interoperability").
I used to think Thales was an innovator.
Now I know they are just sucking at the public tit.
...it'll need wide and narrow band coverage of 150, 450, and 800Mhz.
And 700.
But who's counting?
Now, the product exists, it's being delivered, where the EMERGENCY?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551861</id>
	<title>It'll never happen.</title>
	<author>markw365</author>
	<datestamp>1246452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, what a glorious way to waste tax dollars.  First design a system, then require everyone to get on board with it.   Price it through the roof and have a single vendor for all the gear.    So some volunteer fire dept in Iowa that is on a shoestring budget has to spend thousands to upgrade radios.  It will take years if it ever gets off the ground.  This is \_WHY\_ amateur radio works, government has too many silos and too many important people that will push their system.  Been there seen that, still paying the price.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , what a glorious way to waste tax dollars .
First design a system , then require everyone to get on board with it .
Price it through the roof and have a single vendor for all the gear .
So some volunteer fire dept in Iowa that is on a shoestring budget has to spend thousands to upgrade radios .
It will take years if it ever gets off the ground .
This is \ _WHY \ _ amateur radio works , government has too many silos and too many important people that will push their system .
Been there seen that , still paying the price .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, what a glorious way to waste tax dollars.
First design a system, then require everyone to get on board with it.
Price it through the roof and have a single vendor for all the gear.
So some volunteer fire dept in Iowa that is on a shoestring budget has to spend thousands to upgrade radios.
It will take years if it ever gets off the ground.
This is \_WHY\_ amateur radio works, government has too many silos and too many important people that will push their system.
Been there seen that, still paying the price.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551915</id>
	<title>Re:Amateur Radio</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1246452720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're just still pissed because you cant pass your license exam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're just still pissed because you cant pass your license exam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're just still pissed because you cant pass your license exam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563851</id>
	<title>Re:Grenada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US Army and Navy had this problem...came to light during the Grenada invasion. If I remember correctly, a forward observer wound up calling in a naval artillery strike by phone via US operator because he couldn't reach the ship by radio. Might be apocryphal, but it rings true. That's when military radios became AN-PRC-77s, the AN standing for Army/Navy. Amazing it has taken the civilians another 25 years to even consider implementing this.</p></div><p>Wrong.  The AN-PRC-77 radio came into service in 1968 During the Vietnam Conflict.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Army and Navy had this problem...came to light during the Grenada invasion .
If I remember correctly , a forward observer wound up calling in a naval artillery strike by phone via US operator because he could n't reach the ship by radio .
Might be apocryphal , but it rings true .
That 's when military radios became AN-PRC-77s , the AN standing for Army/Navy .
Amazing it has taken the civilians another 25 years to even consider implementing this.Wrong .
The AN-PRC-77 radio came into service in 1968 During the Vietnam Conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Army and Navy had this problem...came to light during the Grenada invasion.
If I remember correctly, a forward observer wound up calling in a naval artillery strike by phone via US operator because he couldn't reach the ship by radio.
Might be apocryphal, but it rings true.
That's when military radios became AN-PRC-77s, the AN standing for Army/Navy.
Amazing it has taken the civilians another 25 years to even consider implementing this.Wrong.
The AN-PRC-77 radio came into service in 1968 During the Vietnam Conflict.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551989</id>
	<title>Re:It can be done, at a cost</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1246453200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Intellectual Property"?</p><p>This is the Government. They government controls the police, military, and courts.</p><p>They can seize<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/anything/ in country, with the power of eminent domain. You either smile and nod, or are told to leave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Intellectual Property " ? This is the Government .
They government controls the police , military , and courts.They can seize /anything/ in country , with the power of eminent domain .
You either smile and nod , or are told to leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Intellectual Property"?This is the Government.
They government controls the police, military, and courts.They can seize /anything/ in country, with the power of eminent domain.
You either smile and nod, or are told to leave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28559159</id>
	<title>Re:Interoperability doesn't have to be about radio</title>
	<author>kd7fds</author>
	<datestamp>1246555740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, sounds like what my department does too.
<br> <br>One thing that our dispatch center added recently was bridge capability.    They can bridge a variety of different frequencies and sources so that people with handhelds don't have to have new radios to talk to someone on a different channel.   They can even bridge in phone calls to the command net on hazmat incidents, if we need to bring in State level resources<br> <br>

A couple years ago, DHS was offering a portable radio bridge device through their CEDAP program.   Small police and fire departments were eligible to get free equipment.   It would bridge between 8 different sources, ran off of AA batteries, would fit in a command rig.   Acted as a local repeater if necessary as well.   Sells retail for about 10,000.    Much cheaper solution than replacing everyone's handhelds.   <br> <br>I was annoyed to see Boise Fire is part of the pilot program.   They are the biggest department in my region.   My department really likes our $300 Vertex radios, City Council would **** a brick if we asked them for 20 new $5,000 radios.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , sounds like what my department does too .
One thing that our dispatch center added recently was bridge capability .
They can bridge a variety of different frequencies and sources so that people with handhelds do n't have to have new radios to talk to someone on a different channel .
They can even bridge in phone calls to the command net on hazmat incidents , if we need to bring in State level resources A couple years ago , DHS was offering a portable radio bridge device through their CEDAP program .
Small police and fire departments were eligible to get free equipment .
It would bridge between 8 different sources , ran off of AA batteries , would fit in a command rig .
Acted as a local repeater if necessary as well .
Sells retail for about 10,000 .
Much cheaper solution than replacing everyone 's handhelds .
I was annoyed to see Boise Fire is part of the pilot program .
They are the biggest department in my region .
My department really likes our $ 300 Vertex radios , City Council would * * * * a brick if we asked them for 20 new $ 5,000 radios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, sounds like what my department does too.
One thing that our dispatch center added recently was bridge capability.
They can bridge a variety of different frequencies and sources so that people with handhelds don't have to have new radios to talk to someone on a different channel.
They can even bridge in phone calls to the command net on hazmat incidents, if we need to bring in State level resources 

A couple years ago, DHS was offering a portable radio bridge device through their CEDAP program.
Small police and fire departments were eligible to get free equipment.
It would bridge between 8 different sources, ran off of AA batteries, would fit in a command rig.
Acted as a local repeater if necessary as well.
Sells retail for about 10,000.
Much cheaper solution than replacing everyone's handhelds.
I was annoyed to see Boise Fire is part of the pilot program.
They are the biggest department in my region.
My department really likes our $300 Vertex radios, City Council would **** a brick if we asked them for 20 new $5,000 radios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553171</id>
	<title>Re:Check with amateur operators</title>
	<author>ralewi1</author>
	<datestamp>1246461540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are two large PDFs with qualitative and quantitative system requirements <a href="http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/technology/1258\_statementof.htm" title="safecomprogram.gov" rel="nofollow">here</a> [safecomprogram.gov]. This system goes beyond "modified ham radio gear", and few ham operators carry their equipment into burning buildings, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two large PDFs with qualitative and quantitative system requirements here [ safecomprogram.gov ] .
This system goes beyond " modified ham radio gear " , and few ham operators carry their equipment into burning buildings , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two large PDFs with qualitative and quantitative system requirements here [safecomprogram.gov].
This system goes beyond "modified ham radio gear", and few ham operators carry their equipment into burning buildings, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552531</id>
	<title>Just picture this project...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246456800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then picture Obama standing there posed like the Colossus of Rhodes as his nuts explore all over your adoring face, and he has a good laugh at your expense while you sing psalms to him and offer him burnt offerings.  I've never heard of a ruler who has such contempt for their subjects since Marie Antoinette, while at the same time maintaining such loyalty.  It's amazing, really.  I wonder how long it will take for the last Obamabot to finally admit that change = more of the same with a double portion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then picture Obama standing there posed like the Colossus of Rhodes as his nuts explore all over your adoring face , and he has a good laugh at your expense while you sing psalms to him and offer him burnt offerings .
I 've never heard of a ruler who has such contempt for their subjects since Marie Antoinette , while at the same time maintaining such loyalty .
It 's amazing , really .
I wonder how long it will take for the last Obamabot to finally admit that change = more of the same with a double portion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then picture Obama standing there posed like the Colossus of Rhodes as his nuts explore all over your adoring face, and he has a good laugh at your expense while you sing psalms to him and offer him burnt offerings.
I've never heard of a ruler who has such contempt for their subjects since Marie Antoinette, while at the same time maintaining such loyalty.
It's amazing, really.
I wonder how long it will take for the last Obamabot to finally admit that change = more of the same with a double portion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552077</id>
	<title>Great, fewers band to use</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246453620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And fewer bands to jam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And fewer bands to jam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And fewer bands to jam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246451220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because hams don't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use.  They also can't encrypt their communications as many agencies have the need to do.</p><p>This is a software defined radio that can be programmed to work with any of them, and ostensibly, all of them.  Including analog FM systems that hams use.</p><p>There are many amateurs who are using their own software defined radios, so in a way, I guess you're correct.  But I doubt Motorola, GE or Ericsson are going to turn over information on their communications systems to the hams.  But they will give it to Thales...for a price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because hams do n't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use .
They also ca n't encrypt their communications as many agencies have the need to do.This is a software defined radio that can be programmed to work with any of them , and ostensibly , all of them .
Including analog FM systems that hams use.There are many amateurs who are using their own software defined radios , so in a way , I guess you 're correct .
But I doubt Motorola , GE or Ericsson are going to turn over information on their communications systems to the hams .
But they will give it to Thales...for a price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because hams don't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use.
They also can't encrypt their communications as many agencies have the need to do.This is a software defined radio that can be programmed to work with any of them, and ostensibly, all of them.
Including analog FM systems that hams use.There are many amateurs who are using their own software defined radios, so in a way, I guess you're correct.
But I doubt Motorola, GE or Ericsson are going to turn over information on their communications systems to the hams.
But they will give it to Thales...for a price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28565867</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>vonart</author>
	<datestamp>1246536540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's more 20-somethings into amateur radio than you'd think.   In fact, more than a good portion of our local ham radio club is younger than 35.

73,
K1PUP</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more 20-somethings into amateur radio than you 'd think .
In fact , more than a good portion of our local ham radio club is younger than 35 .
73 , K1PUP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more 20-somethings into amateur radio than you'd think.
In fact, more than a good portion of our local ham radio club is younger than 35.
73,
K1PUP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551897</id>
	<title>So they pay some consultants....</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1246452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Millions to do what Ham radio operators have been doing for decades.</p><p>Set up a portable cross band repeater.</p><p>Nice.  Glad to see the Government is still being stupid with money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Millions to do what Ham radio operators have been doing for decades.Set up a portable cross band repeater.Nice .
Glad to see the Government is still being stupid with money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Millions to do what Ham radio operators have been doing for decades.Set up a portable cross band repeater.Nice.
Glad to see the Government is still being stupid with money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553853</id>
	<title>dtv</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246468680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't this supposed to be part of the analog tv spectrum auction and it failed miserably?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't this supposed to be part of the analog tv spectrum auction and it failed miserably ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't this supposed to be part of the analog tv spectrum auction and it failed miserably?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552577</id>
	<title>Use that money to buy more servers for Twitter</title>
	<author>OutputLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1246457340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use that money to buy more servers for Twitter
<br> <br>
<a href="http://outputlogic.com/" title="outputlogic.com" rel="nofollow">OutputLogic</a> [outputlogic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use that money to buy more servers for Twitter OutputLogic [ outputlogic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use that money to buy more servers for Twitter
 
OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552585</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>mackinaw\_apx </author>
	<datestamp>1246457400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out the fact that Thales already released a multi-band radio called the Liberty, competitor to Motorola's APX7000.

<a href="http://www.thalesliberty.com/" title="thalesliberty.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thalesliberty.com/</a> [thalesliberty.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out the fact that Thales already released a multi-band radio called the Liberty , competitor to Motorola 's APX7000 .
http : //www.thalesliberty.com/ [ thalesliberty.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out the fact that Thales already released a multi-band radio called the Liberty, competitor to Motorola's APX7000.
http://www.thalesliberty.com/ [thalesliberty.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551459</id>
	<title>Check with amateur operators</title>
	<author>billsf</author>
	<datestamp>1246450140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The capabilities described seem to be no greater than (modified) ham radio gear. I simply don't see what all the fuss is about. Commercial products are \_\_far\_\_ cheaper and far easier to assess the bugs, including "birdies". (If you've ever used a spectrum analyser you why there called birdies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The capabilities described seem to be no greater than ( modified ) ham radio gear .
I simply do n't see what all the fuss is about .
Commercial products are \ _ \ _far \ _ \ _ cheaper and far easier to assess the bugs , including " birdies " .
( If you 've ever used a spectrum analyser you why there called birdies .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The capabilities described seem to be no greater than (modified) ham radio gear.
I simply don't see what all the fuss is about.
Commercial products are \_\_far\_\_ cheaper and far easier to assess the bugs, including "birdies".
(If you've ever used a spectrum analyser you why there called birdies.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551751</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has already been done</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1246451700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why don't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades. Amateur Radio operators. They have radios that operate from below 1 MHz to over 1GHz. They have been doing (without pay) emergency radio communications for a very long time now.</p></div><p>Because it doesn't involve a really bloated government contract with some DoD favorite that has obscenely paid lobbyists, with state-of-the-art equipment that has serious design issues but lots of shiny digital displays and lights and switches, that you can drop 5 stories and it STILL doesn't work right.<br> <br>No joke. That's why.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades .
Amateur Radio operators .
They have radios that operate from below 1 MHz to over 1GHz .
They have been doing ( without pay ) emergency radio communications for a very long time now.Because it does n't involve a really bloated government contract with some DoD favorite that has obscenely paid lobbyists , with state-of-the-art equipment that has serious design issues but lots of shiny digital displays and lights and switches , that you can drop 5 stories and it STILL does n't work right .
No joke .
That 's why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they ask the group who has been using multiband equipment for several decades.
Amateur Radio operators.
They have radios that operate from below 1 MHz to over 1GHz.
They have been doing (without pay) emergency radio communications for a very long time now.Because it doesn't involve a really bloated government contract with some DoD favorite that has obscenely paid lobbyists, with state-of-the-art equipment that has serious design issues but lots of shiny digital displays and lights and switches, that you can drop 5 stories and it STILL doesn't work right.
No joke.
That's why.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553183</id>
	<title>Bad news, Taco...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kevin Jonas is getting married.  That's one less little boy's anus for you to abuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kevin Jonas is getting married .
That 's one less little boy 's anus for you to abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kevin Jonas is getting married.
That's one less little boy's anus for you to abuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557487</id>
	<title>Re:They sent radios to CANADA?!</title>
	<author>michaelwigle</author>
	<datestamp>1246548360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>~chuckles~ Why not, we apparently like buying defective merchandise from other countries...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P <a href="http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/html/the\_hmcs\_chicoutimi\_canadas\_rebaptized\_british\_submarine.html" title="jmellon.com">http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/html/the\_hmcs\_chicoutimi\_canadas\_rebaptized\_british\_submarine.html</a> [jmellon.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>~ chuckles ~ Why not , we apparently like buying defective merchandise from other countries... : P http : //circ.jmellon.com/docs/html/the \ _hmcs \ _chicoutimi \ _canadas \ _rebaptized \ _british \ _submarine.html [ jmellon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>~chuckles~ Why not, we apparently like buying defective merchandise from other countries... :P http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/html/the\_hmcs\_chicoutimi\_canadas\_rebaptized\_british\_submarine.html [jmellon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28567183</id>
	<title>Re:Scary...</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1246545000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but you have to be very close to an antenna. Unfortunately, They have managed to turn the entire Internet infrastructure and electrical grid into one, giant, antenna.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but you have to be very close to an antenna .
Unfortunately , They have managed to turn the entire Internet infrastructure and electrical grid into one , giant , antenna .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but you have to be very close to an antenna.
Unfortunately, They have managed to turn the entire Internet infrastructure and electrical grid into one, giant, antenna.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551347</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>New government program to make us safer, managed by Homeland Security? This can only end in a very expensive disaster...</htmltext>
<tokenext>New government program to make us safer , managed by Homeland Security ?
This can only end in a very expensive disaster.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New government program to make us safer, managed by Homeland Security?
This can only end in a very expensive disaster...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28555253</id>
	<title>Another Grand Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This looks like a radio vendor grand plan to suck big bucks out of local governments across the land without actually solving the problem.</p><p>What is the incentive for a local PD or FD that is operating on, say, 39.58 Mhz or 46.06 Mhz, where these super-expensive, $6K handi-talkies conspicuously do not operate, to buy them?  Zip, that's what - they would not be used without changing the entire remainder of their system over to one of the higher-frequency VHF bands, and - guess what - those frequencies are ALREADY crowded so that adding more users to it will increase interference between users which will diminish efficiency instead of enhance it.</p><p>So when the next disaster blows through an area, either a huge midwest tornado, or a coastal hurricane, a big earthquake wherever, it won't matter, there will still be a whole host of non-participants in the radio nets because there will not have been enough money to buy these super-expensive radios for the local VFD, or the small-town PD who's main function outside of the very rare massive regional emergencies is simply grabbing speeders that are passing thru and shaking them down for their operating expenses.</p><p>What they probably should be looking at is a versatile repeating system that DOES cover all bands including 30 - 50 Mhz, only needs to be bought for maybe 2 - 3 sites with very tall antenna towers in a county that would provide real value by linking their own PD and FD with other services, including possibly private survices such as mountain rescue and private ambulance, etc. and do so by simply buying a few radios that perform for all players.</p><p>In short, they need to work on the CHEAPEST solution to the problem, instead of the exact opposite which seems to be what they're doing here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This looks like a radio vendor grand plan to suck big bucks out of local governments across the land without actually solving the problem.What is the incentive for a local PD or FD that is operating on , say , 39.58 Mhz or 46.06 Mhz , where these super-expensive , $ 6K handi-talkies conspicuously do not operate , to buy them ?
Zip , that 's what - they would not be used without changing the entire remainder of their system over to one of the higher-frequency VHF bands , and - guess what - those frequencies are ALREADY crowded so that adding more users to it will increase interference between users which will diminish efficiency instead of enhance it.So when the next disaster blows through an area , either a huge midwest tornado , or a coastal hurricane , a big earthquake wherever , it wo n't matter , there will still be a whole host of non-participants in the radio nets because there will not have been enough money to buy these super-expensive radios for the local VFD , or the small-town PD who 's main function outside of the very rare massive regional emergencies is simply grabbing speeders that are passing thru and shaking them down for their operating expenses.What they probably should be looking at is a versatile repeating system that DOES cover all bands including 30 - 50 Mhz , only needs to be bought for maybe 2 - 3 sites with very tall antenna towers in a county that would provide real value by linking their own PD and FD with other services , including possibly private survices such as mountain rescue and private ambulance , etc .
and do so by simply buying a few radios that perform for all players.In short , they need to work on the CHEAPEST solution to the problem , instead of the exact opposite which seems to be what they 're doing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looks like a radio vendor grand plan to suck big bucks out of local governments across the land without actually solving the problem.What is the incentive for a local PD or FD that is operating on, say, 39.58 Mhz or 46.06 Mhz, where these super-expensive, $6K handi-talkies conspicuously do not operate, to buy them?
Zip, that's what - they would not be used without changing the entire remainder of their system over to one of the higher-frequency VHF bands, and - guess what - those frequencies are ALREADY crowded so that adding more users to it will increase interference between users which will diminish efficiency instead of enhance it.So when the next disaster blows through an area, either a huge midwest tornado, or a coastal hurricane, a big earthquake wherever, it won't matter, there will still be a whole host of non-participants in the radio nets because there will not have been enough money to buy these super-expensive radios for the local VFD, or the small-town PD who's main function outside of the very rare massive regional emergencies is simply grabbing speeders that are passing thru and shaking them down for their operating expenses.What they probably should be looking at is a versatile repeating system that DOES cover all bands including 30 - 50 Mhz, only needs to be bought for maybe 2 - 3 sites with very tall antenna towers in a county that would provide real value by linking their own PD and FD with other services, including possibly private survices such as mountain rescue and private ambulance, etc.
and do so by simply buying a few radios that perform for all players.In short, they need to work on the CHEAPEST solution to the problem, instead of the exact opposite which seems to be what they're doing here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563859</id>
	<title>Re:It can be done, at a cost</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1246527240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or they can use 5 Hams who are happy to do it for nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they can use 5 Hams who are happy to do it for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they can use 5 Hams who are happy to do it for nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551911</id>
	<title>Re:It can be done, at a cost</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246452660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sure, it can all be done with a DSP based radio, but someone's gotta pay for the Intellectual Property to make them work.</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't that the point?<br> <br>Then our government can mandate that first responders need to have these units in order to receive DHS funding, and every municipality will cough up the funds (it's for the children!).  <br> <br>That's how business works, my friend.  You lean on your friends in high places to 'do a good thing' which coincidentally just happens to align with your interests.  Everyone wins!<br> <br>I'm feeling pretty cynical right now, but you just *know* that someone in the DHS had lunch/cocktails/a game of golf with someone from Motorola or EF Johnson or one of their proxies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it can all be done with a DSP based radio , but someone 's got ta pay for the Intellectual Property to make them work.Is n't that the point ?
Then our government can mandate that first responders need to have these units in order to receive DHS funding , and every municipality will cough up the funds ( it 's for the children ! ) .
That 's how business works , my friend .
You lean on your friends in high places to 'do a good thing ' which coincidentally just happens to align with your interests .
Everyone wins !
I 'm feeling pretty cynical right now , but you just * know * that someone in the DHS had lunch/cocktails/a game of golf with someone from Motorola or EF Johnson or one of their proxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it can all be done with a DSP based radio, but someone's gotta pay for the Intellectual Property to make them work.Isn't that the point?
Then our government can mandate that first responders need to have these units in order to receive DHS funding, and every municipality will cough up the funds (it's for the children!).
That's how business works, my friend.
You lean on your friends in high places to 'do a good thing' which coincidentally just happens to align with your interests.
Everyone wins!
I'm feeling pretty cynical right now, but you just *know* that someone in the DHS had lunch/cocktails/a game of golf with someone from Motorola or EF Johnson or one of their proxies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551783</id>
	<title>Oh god, no!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246451880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Department of Homeland Security only gives the kiss of death to public works projects. Here's what's going to happen; A bunch of committees will be called, and they're going to make a whole bunch of suggestions about what it "should" do. Each organization will want to have at least one feature included, a vote, etc. Tens (possibly hundreds) of millions will be lost doing this. It'll be filed under "R&amp;D costs". At least a third of those suggestions will be crap or impossible/unfeasible to implement. It'll be recycled a few times on the General Schedule before some hapless corporation wins the contract. Then all hell breaks loose as delays in the project force reductions in scope, and the process of defining "core features" begins. By this point, everyone will be pointing fingers, and it'll be half-implemented and broken in many places. The project's surviving assets will be quietly transferred after a GAO inquiry regarding cost overruns and lack of deliverables -- just ahead of a congressional committee being called on the matter. Two years later, someone gets the idea that the US should have a multi-band radio project...</p><p>I only say this, because they've tried it with different scopes <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/26/sauron\_sbinet\_wifi\_tower\_snafu\_bluff/" title="theregister.co.uk">over</a> [theregister.co.uk] and <a href="http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/2005/08/dhs-wireless-funding-misappropriated.html" title="blogspot.com">over</a> [blogspot.com] and <a href="http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/dhs-wireless-worry" title="securitymanagement.com">over</a> [securitymanagement.com] and <a href="http://www.govtech.com/em/403605" title="govtech.com">over</a> [govtech.com] again. Their technology department is understaffed due to high turnover and leadership problems.</p><p>Fundamentally, these things never leave the pilot phase, or if they do, they face deployment problems because the requirements are so obtuse and ambitious that existing technology can't adapt. Even if it can, bureaucratic problems usually end a project before it sees wide-scale deployment due to reluctance to adopt new technology and failures in leadership -- namely, not communicating with people in the field before trying to put something there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Department of Homeland Security only gives the kiss of death to public works projects .
Here 's what 's going to happen ; A bunch of committees will be called , and they 're going to make a whole bunch of suggestions about what it " should " do .
Each organization will want to have at least one feature included , a vote , etc .
Tens ( possibly hundreds ) of millions will be lost doing this .
It 'll be filed under " R&amp;D costs " .
At least a third of those suggestions will be crap or impossible/unfeasible to implement .
It 'll be recycled a few times on the General Schedule before some hapless corporation wins the contract .
Then all hell breaks loose as delays in the project force reductions in scope , and the process of defining " core features " begins .
By this point , everyone will be pointing fingers , and it 'll be half-implemented and broken in many places .
The project 's surviving assets will be quietly transferred after a GAO inquiry regarding cost overruns and lack of deliverables -- just ahead of a congressional committee being called on the matter .
Two years later , someone gets the idea that the US should have a multi-band radio project...I only say this , because they 've tried it with different scopes over [ theregister.co.uk ] and over [ blogspot.com ] and over [ securitymanagement.com ] and over [ govtech.com ] again .
Their technology department is understaffed due to high turnover and leadership problems.Fundamentally , these things never leave the pilot phase , or if they do , they face deployment problems because the requirements are so obtuse and ambitious that existing technology ca n't adapt .
Even if it can , bureaucratic problems usually end a project before it sees wide-scale deployment due to reluctance to adopt new technology and failures in leadership -- namely , not communicating with people in the field before trying to put something there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Department of Homeland Security only gives the kiss of death to public works projects.
Here's what's going to happen; A bunch of committees will be called, and they're going to make a whole bunch of suggestions about what it "should" do.
Each organization will want to have at least one feature included, a vote, etc.
Tens (possibly hundreds) of millions will be lost doing this.
It'll be filed under "R&amp;D costs".
At least a third of those suggestions will be crap or impossible/unfeasible to implement.
It'll be recycled a few times on the General Schedule before some hapless corporation wins the contract.
Then all hell breaks loose as delays in the project force reductions in scope, and the process of defining "core features" begins.
By this point, everyone will be pointing fingers, and it'll be half-implemented and broken in many places.
The project's surviving assets will be quietly transferred after a GAO inquiry regarding cost overruns and lack of deliverables -- just ahead of a congressional committee being called on the matter.
Two years later, someone gets the idea that the US should have a multi-band radio project...I only say this, because they've tried it with different scopes over [theregister.co.uk] and over [blogspot.com] and over [securitymanagement.com] and over [govtech.com] again.
Their technology department is understaffed due to high turnover and leadership problems.Fundamentally, these things never leave the pilot phase, or if they do, they face deployment problems because the requirements are so obtuse and ambitious that existing technology can't adapt.
Even if it can, bureaucratic problems usually end a project before it sees wide-scale deployment due to reluctance to adopt new technology and failures in leadership -- namely, not communicating with people in the field before trying to put something there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552407</id>
	<title>Encryption...</title>
	<author>msauve</author>
	<datestamp>1246455780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, if an agency is encrypting their communications, there's not much hope for any other service to talk to them, unless (obviously), they all share keys. It's doubtful, though, that the FBI is going to share their encryption keys with the local volunteer fire department. So, the assumption must be made that this solution is meant for unencrypted (which is not to say, unencoded digital) communications.<br> <br>Secondly, hams are not prohibited from using encryption. Part 97.113(a)(4) prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." There are reasons for using encryption other than to obscure the meaning - security of control links (i.e., not to obscure the meaning, but to protect that meaning from interference by others), etc., which are perfectly legal. Encryption has been used for years to protect the control links of ham satellites, with the FCC's blessing. One could use PKI to encrypt a message with their private key, and then transmit it over ham radio, provided the public key is, in fact, public, so anyone could decrypt the message.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , if an agency is encrypting their communications , there 's not much hope for any other service to talk to them , unless ( obviously ) , they all share keys .
It 's doubtful , though , that the FBI is going to share their encryption keys with the local volunteer fire department .
So , the assumption must be made that this solution is meant for unencrypted ( which is not to say , unencoded digital ) communications .
Secondly , hams are not prohibited from using encryption .
Part 97.113 ( a ) ( 4 ) prohibits " messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning .
" There are reasons for using encryption other than to obscure the meaning - security of control links ( i.e. , not to obscure the meaning , but to protect that meaning from interference by others ) , etc. , which are perfectly legal .
Encryption has been used for years to protect the control links of ham satellites , with the FCC 's blessing .
One could use PKI to encrypt a message with their private key , and then transmit it over ham radio , provided the public key is , in fact , public , so anyone could decrypt the message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, if an agency is encrypting their communications, there's not much hope for any other service to talk to them, unless (obviously), they all share keys.
It's doubtful, though, that the FBI is going to share their encryption keys with the local volunteer fire department.
So, the assumption must be made that this solution is meant for unencrypted (which is not to say, unencoded digital) communications.
Secondly, hams are not prohibited from using encryption.
Part 97.113(a)(4) prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.
" There are reasons for using encryption other than to obscure the meaning - security of control links (i.e., not to obscure the meaning, but to protect that meaning from interference by others), etc., which are perfectly legal.
Encryption has been used for years to protect the control links of ham satellites, with the FCC's blessing.
One could use PKI to encrypt a message with their private key, and then transmit it over ham radio, provided the public key is, in fact, public, so anyone could decrypt the message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551787</id>
	<title>Re:Waiste Money on what has allready been done</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1246451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Because they have a budget.  The last thing they want is a 'free' solution.
</p><p>
Going to people who are already doing it to ask for help / information is the among the last things a government bureaucrat would dare consider doing.
</p><p>
They want to pay someone to develop a technology for them.   Preferably someone who has <em>connections</em> with them (hint hint).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they have a budget .
The last thing they want is a 'free ' solution .
Going to people who are already doing it to ask for help / information is the among the last things a government bureaucrat would dare consider doing .
They want to pay someone to develop a technology for them .
Preferably someone who has connections with them ( hint hint ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Because they have a budget.
The last thing they want is a 'free' solution.
Going to people who are already doing it to ask for help / information is the among the last things a government bureaucrat would dare consider doing.
They want to pay someone to develop a technology for them.
Preferably someone who has connections with them (hint hint).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551491</id>
	<title>Amateur Radio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246450320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue the chorus of HAM fanatics appearing from out of the woodwork in 3, 2, 1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue the chorus of HAM fanatics appearing from out of the woodwork in 3 , 2 , 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue the chorus of HAM fanatics appearing from out of the woodwork in 3, 2, 1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28558953</id>
	<title>Re:Interoperability doesn't have to be about radio</title>
	<author>WOV</author>
	<datestamp>1246554960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God Yes, NIMS training was by far the most useful and relevant training I've received in the fire service...in the current era, the problem with interagency communications is not *tech*, it's *rules*, and I was thoroughly impressed by NIMS' common sense, 6th grade reading level, scalability, and "rules for new rules".

It's a very realistic framework that accomodates, among other things, the fact that you and everyone else has other things to do and to remember, that your personnel are going to have IQs from maybe 85 on up to 150, that if you don't figure out how everyone gets paid you can't figure out anything else, etc.

I kid you not, FEMA's <a href="http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is100.asp" title="fema.gov">NIMS 100 </a> [fema.gov] (or -700) training is the best free mini-MBA you could give yourself.  Pushing old, unsexy NIMS will do more than any amount of shiny radios or infinite numbers of useless "command center" RVs,</htmltext>
<tokenext>God Yes , NIMS training was by far the most useful and relevant training I 've received in the fire service...in the current era , the problem with interagency communications is not * tech * , it 's * rules * , and I was thoroughly impressed by NIMS ' common sense , 6th grade reading level , scalability , and " rules for new rules " .
It 's a very realistic framework that accomodates , among other things , the fact that you and everyone else has other things to do and to remember , that your personnel are going to have IQs from maybe 85 on up to 150 , that if you do n't figure out how everyone gets paid you ca n't figure out anything else , etc .
I kid you not , FEMA 's NIMS 100 [ fema.gov ] ( or -700 ) training is the best free mini-MBA you could give yourself .
Pushing old , unsexy NIMS will do more than any amount of shiny radios or infinite numbers of useless " command center " RVs,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God Yes, NIMS training was by far the most useful and relevant training I've received in the fire service...in the current era, the problem with interagency communications is not *tech*, it's *rules*, and I was thoroughly impressed by NIMS' common sense, 6th grade reading level, scalability, and "rules for new rules".
It's a very realistic framework that accomodates, among other things, the fact that you and everyone else has other things to do and to remember, that your personnel are going to have IQs from maybe 85 on up to 150, that if you don't figure out how everyone gets paid you can't figure out anything else, etc.
I kid you not, FEMA's NIMS 100  [fema.gov] (or -700) training is the best free mini-MBA you could give yourself.
Pushing old, unsexy NIMS will do more than any amount of shiny radios or infinite numbers of useless "command center" RVs,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28556005</id>
	<title>As a small-town volunteer firefighter...</title>
	<author>LatencyKills</author>
	<datestamp>1246539480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is actually a pretty serious problem for us.  We began with two radios in our trucks - one for our general fire frequencies (36.64MHz primary, nearby secondaries) and local police band (something like 600MHz).  Things were good; we could go mutual aid to nearby towns and talk to them, and they could talk to us.  Then a nearby town got a federal grant and went midband, and all our trucks got a third radio.  Then another town got another federal grant and went highband - four radios.  A large fire scene, like a recent fire at a pallet recycling plant that called in 22 towns for water supply, became nothing short of absurd.  Try driving down a winding dirt road carrying 12 tons of water in a truck 34 feet long and picking the right handset out of that pile. <p>Then we got these new boxes that find the frequencies in use and let everyone talk on their native radios, except that they kind of don't work.  Guys inside substantial (steel frame) buildings can't seem to talk to anyone.  If the water hole is more than 1/2 a mile away, they're out of the loop too.  And operations that you'd like to keep on their own frequencies like water supply or medical services get sucked into the network anyway.  There's also the problem of too many people trying to talk on the radio at once and stepping all over each other.  We do need a solution to this problem, but this isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually a pretty serious problem for us .
We began with two radios in our trucks - one for our general fire frequencies ( 36.64MHz primary , nearby secondaries ) and local police band ( something like 600MHz ) .
Things were good ; we could go mutual aid to nearby towns and talk to them , and they could talk to us .
Then a nearby town got a federal grant and went midband , and all our trucks got a third radio .
Then another town got another federal grant and went highband - four radios .
A large fire scene , like a recent fire at a pallet recycling plant that called in 22 towns for water supply , became nothing short of absurd .
Try driving down a winding dirt road carrying 12 tons of water in a truck 34 feet long and picking the right handset out of that pile .
Then we got these new boxes that find the frequencies in use and let everyone talk on their native radios , except that they kind of do n't work .
Guys inside substantial ( steel frame ) buildings ca n't seem to talk to anyone .
If the water hole is more than 1/2 a mile away , they 're out of the loop too .
And operations that you 'd like to keep on their own frequencies like water supply or medical services get sucked into the network anyway .
There 's also the problem of too many people trying to talk on the radio at once and stepping all over each other .
We do need a solution to this problem , but this is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually a pretty serious problem for us.
We began with two radios in our trucks - one for our general fire frequencies (36.64MHz primary, nearby secondaries) and local police band (something like 600MHz).
Things were good; we could go mutual aid to nearby towns and talk to them, and they could talk to us.
Then a nearby town got a federal grant and went midband, and all our trucks got a third radio.
Then another town got another federal grant and went highband - four radios.
A large fire scene, like a recent fire at a pallet recycling plant that called in 22 towns for water supply, became nothing short of absurd.
Try driving down a winding dirt road carrying 12 tons of water in a truck 34 feet long and picking the right handset out of that pile.
Then we got these new boxes that find the frequencies in use and let everyone talk on their native radios, except that they kind of don't work.
Guys inside substantial (steel frame) buildings can't seem to talk to anyone.
If the water hole is more than 1/2 a mile away, they're out of the loop too.
And operations that you'd like to keep on their own frequencies like water supply or medical services get sucked into the network anyway.
There's also the problem of too many people trying to talk on the radio at once and stepping all over each other.
We do need a solution to this problem, but this isn't it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551499</id>
	<title>What about trunked 800Mhz systems?</title>
	<author>tgtanman</author>
	<datestamp>1246450380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone more familiar with the system or the DHS project know if there's any advantage to pushing this new system versus pushing a complete transition to a 800Mhz trunked frequency? It seems like many agencies are just now transitioning to the 800Mhz band to provide the same type of interoperability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone more familiar with the system or the DHS project know if there 's any advantage to pushing this new system versus pushing a complete transition to a 800Mhz trunked frequency ?
It seems like many agencies are just now transitioning to the 800Mhz band to provide the same type of interoperability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone more familiar with the system or the DHS project know if there's any advantage to pushing this new system versus pushing a complete transition to a 800Mhz trunked frequency?
It seems like many agencies are just now transitioning to the 800Mhz band to provide the same type of interoperability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551461</id>
	<title>TETRA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246450140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they just use TETRA?<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial\_Trunked\_Radio" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial\_Trunked\_Radio</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just use TETRA ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial \ _Trunked \ _Radio [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just use TETRA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial\_Trunked\_Radio [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28556613</id>
	<title>Actually...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246544160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why don't they add in an analogue television signal?</p><p>BTM</p></div><p>I think that is why they decommissioned the analog TV in the first place... Think of the money they saved by using the same frequency with the exisiting infrastructure in place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they add in an analogue television signal ? BTMI think that is why they decommissioned the analog TV in the first place... Think of the money they saved by using the same frequency with the exisiting infrastructure in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they add in an analogue television signal?BTMI think that is why they decommissioned the analog TV in the first place... Think of the money they saved by using the same frequency with the exisiting infrastructure in place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551361</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28558953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28559159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28567183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28560471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28556613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28558857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28556735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28565867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_2224231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28565867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28558857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28567183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28558953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28560471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28559159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28556735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28555253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28551361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28556613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28553091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28563851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_2224231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28552499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_2224231.28557777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
