<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_18_1240218</id>
	<title>Verizon Offers Compromise In Exclusivity Debate</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247927040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>For about a month now, Congress and the FCC have been <a href="//mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/19/2226239&amp;tid=883">investigating the exclusivity deals</a> between mobile carriers and phone makers which require that certain handsets only operate on certain networks (for example, the iPhone on AT&amp;T). Now, Verizon has volunteered a compromise to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, which would <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18phone.html?\_r=1&amp;ref=technology">allow smaller carriers access to the restricted phones</a> after a six-month delay, while continuing to block the major carriers. "From now on, when Verizon strikes a deal with a manufacturer for exclusive access to a handset, it will allow the phone be sold after six months to any carrier with fewer than 500,000 customers." In a letter to Boucher, Verizon said, "Exclusivity arrangements <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/17/verizon-wireless-ceos-letter-to-boucher/">promote competition and innovation</a> in device development and design. We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers. When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device. Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device." Many remain <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/168637/verizons\_exclusivity\_compromise\_an\_unimpressive\_gesture.html">unimpressed by Verizon's generosity</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For about a month now , Congress and the FCC have been investigating the exclusivity deals between mobile carriers and phone makers which require that certain handsets only operate on certain networks ( for example , the iPhone on AT&amp;T ) .
Now , Verizon has volunteered a compromise to Rep. Rick Boucher ( D-VA ) , chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee on Communications , Technology and the Internet , which would allow smaller carriers access to the restricted phones after a six-month delay , while continuing to block the major carriers .
" From now on , when Verizon strikes a deal with a manufacturer for exclusive access to a handset , it will allow the phone be sold after six months to any carrier with fewer than 500,000 customers .
" In a letter to Boucher , Verizon said , " Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design .
We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers .
When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device .
Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time , money and production capacity to support a particular device .
" Many remain unimpressed by Verizon 's generosity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For about a month now, Congress and the FCC have been investigating the exclusivity deals between mobile carriers and phone makers which require that certain handsets only operate on certain networks (for example, the iPhone on AT&amp;T).
Now, Verizon has volunteered a compromise to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, which would allow smaller carriers access to the restricted phones after a six-month delay, while continuing to block the major carriers.
"From now on, when Verizon strikes a deal with a manufacturer for exclusive access to a handset, it will allow the phone be sold after six months to any carrier with fewer than 500,000 customers.
" In a letter to Boucher, Verizon said, "Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.
We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers.
When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device.
Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device.
" Many remain unimpressed by Verizon's generosity.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740829</id>
	<title>Why Should Verizon Compromise At All?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247932560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These exclusivity deals are not unheard of in businesses.  These excluse phones part of what differentiates them their competitors, and hopefully draws customers.</p><p>It's not as if you couldn't get mobile phones on another carrier if you don't like this arrangement.  Consumers are not being deprived here.  The FCC is barking up the wrong tree, and Verizon shouldn't even have to offer this up.  Its yet more government meddling in business affairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These exclusivity deals are not unheard of in businesses .
These excluse phones part of what differentiates them their competitors , and hopefully draws customers.It 's not as if you could n't get mobile phones on another carrier if you do n't like this arrangement .
Consumers are not being deprived here .
The FCC is barking up the wrong tree , and Verizon should n't even have to offer this up .
Its yet more government meddling in business affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These exclusivity deals are not unheard of in businesses.
These excluse phones part of what differentiates them their competitors, and hopefully draws customers.It's not as if you couldn't get mobile phones on another carrier if you don't like this arrangement.
Consumers are not being deprived here.
The FCC is barking up the wrong tree, and Verizon shouldn't even have to offer this up.
Its yet more government meddling in business affairs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742937</id>
	<title>Re:continued crappy service &amp; coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247950200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mount everest has people on it 1 month a year, there are over a million people in maine at any given time!</p></div><p>Like duh!  The top of Mt. Everest is much closer to the satellites than anywhere in Maine would be.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mount everest has people on it 1 month a year , there are over a million people in maine at any given time ! Like duh !
The top of Mt .
Everest is much closer to the satellites than anywhere in Maine would be .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mount everest has people on it 1 month a year, there are over a million people in maine at any given time!Like duh!
The top of Mt.
Everest is much closer to the satellites than anywhere in Maine would be.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741007</id>
	<title>The arugment</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247934120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the wireless carriers, when you boil it down, offer the same thing, dial tone over a radio.</p><p>At some point, in any competitive environment you have to be able to differentiate yourself from the other carrier, so really what are the options?</p><ul>
<li>Coverage?  Well that one is a pretty level playing field. Yes any one carrier can expand their coverage by putting up more cell towers, but most of the metro area's have pretty decent coverage and trying to improve that can be daunting.  I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I can tell that trying to put up a cell tower in the City of San Francisco is a at best a 3 year process from birth of the idea to taking the cell live.</li><li>Price, at some point that becomes a non-issue.  In the SF Bay Area you can can get a cell phone with unlimited calling in the SF Bay Area for $35.00 a month with Metro-PCS</li><li>Features, well thats a horse of a different color since features basically come down to bandwidth capacity.</li><li>Cool Factor.  This is where the handset makes the difference, and the central point of carrier lock-in</li></ul><p>With all of those factors except the <b>cool factor</b> being pretty much equal this is how they differentiate themselves from the next carrier.  They go to the handset manufacturers and ask, "Hey what do you have that is really cool?", the look at whats out their and evaluate it and then pick the best platform that will allow them to create the best combination of experiences that add up to the all important <b>cool factor</b>.</p><p>Lest anyone be confused, the carriers invest a LOT of money in brining this handset to market and its is not like they make a lot of money on the handsent.  They make the money on the service they provide be it providing higher bandwidth, storage services, fancy voice mail or whatever.</p><p>It is their money they are spending to do all of this, and the notion of creating a network that lets all this <b>cool factor</b> happen just to have someone else duplicate it, or worse duplicate it badly and sell at a lower price point is NOT a winning business model, in fact it is a model for going out of business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the wireless carriers , when you boil it down , offer the same thing , dial tone over a radio.At some point , in any competitive environment you have to be able to differentiate yourself from the other carrier , so really what are the options ?
Coverage ? Well that one is a pretty level playing field .
Yes any one carrier can expand their coverage by putting up more cell towers , but most of the metro area 's have pretty decent coverage and trying to improve that can be daunting .
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I can tell that trying to put up a cell tower in the City of San Francisco is a at best a 3 year process from birth of the idea to taking the cell live.Price , at some point that becomes a non-issue .
In the SF Bay Area you can can get a cell phone with unlimited calling in the SF Bay Area for $ 35.00 a month with Metro-PCSFeatures , well thats a horse of a different color since features basically come down to bandwidth capacity.Cool Factor .
This is where the handset makes the difference , and the central point of carrier lock-inWith all of those factors except the cool factor being pretty much equal this is how they differentiate themselves from the next carrier .
They go to the handset manufacturers and ask , " Hey what do you have that is really cool ?
" , the look at whats out their and evaluate it and then pick the best platform that will allow them to create the best combination of experiences that add up to the all important cool factor.Lest anyone be confused , the carriers invest a LOT of money in brining this handset to market and its is not like they make a lot of money on the handsent .
They make the money on the service they provide be it providing higher bandwidth , storage services , fancy voice mail or whatever.It is their money they are spending to do all of this , and the notion of creating a network that lets all this cool factor happen just to have someone else duplicate it , or worse duplicate it badly and sell at a lower price point is NOT a winning business model , in fact it is a model for going out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the wireless carriers, when you boil it down, offer the same thing, dial tone over a radio.At some point, in any competitive environment you have to be able to differentiate yourself from the other carrier, so really what are the options?
Coverage?  Well that one is a pretty level playing field.
Yes any one carrier can expand their coverage by putting up more cell towers, but most of the metro area's have pretty decent coverage and trying to improve that can be daunting.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I can tell that trying to put up a cell tower in the City of San Francisco is a at best a 3 year process from birth of the idea to taking the cell live.Price, at some point that becomes a non-issue.
In the SF Bay Area you can can get a cell phone with unlimited calling in the SF Bay Area for $35.00 a month with Metro-PCSFeatures, well thats a horse of a different color since features basically come down to bandwidth capacity.Cool Factor.
This is where the handset makes the difference, and the central point of carrier lock-inWith all of those factors except the cool factor being pretty much equal this is how they differentiate themselves from the next carrier.
They go to the handset manufacturers and ask, "Hey what do you have that is really cool?
", the look at whats out their and evaluate it and then pick the best platform that will allow them to create the best combination of experiences that add up to the all important cool factor.Lest anyone be confused, the carriers invest a LOT of money in brining this handset to market and its is not like they make a lot of money on the handsent.
They make the money on the service they provide be it providing higher bandwidth, storage services, fancy voice mail or whatever.It is their money they are spending to do all of this, and the notion of creating a network that lets all this cool factor happen just to have someone else duplicate it, or worse duplicate it badly and sell at a lower price point is NOT a winning business model, in fact it is a model for going out of business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740605</id>
	<title>Ah yes, the old chicken scratch compromise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247930700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because obviously this is going to be tons better for consumers.  Think they'll keep to this if they get the next iPhone contract deal as has been rumored?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because obviously this is going to be tons better for consumers .
Think they 'll keep to this if they get the next iPhone contract deal as has been rumored ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because obviously this is going to be tons better for consumers.
Think they'll keep to this if they get the next iPhone contract deal as has been rumored?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741583</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm.</title>
	<author>Emetophobe</author>
	<datestamp>1247939100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.</p></div></blockquote><p>This sentence really pisses me off. The only competition going on is the big carriers fighting for exclusive handset contracts, they sure as hell aren't competing with each other on price and/or service quality. Also the handset makers are the ones doing all the work, how exactly is Verizon innovating?</p><blockquote><div><p>We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers. When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device. Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device.</p></div></blockquote><p>So basically if it wasn't for Verizon, handset manufacturers wouldn't bother to put in the time and effort to make handsets at all? Thank god Verizon is here to save those poor companies (Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, RIM, etc..)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.This sentence really pisses me off .
The only competition going on is the big carriers fighting for exclusive handset contracts , they sure as hell are n't competing with each other on price and/or service quality .
Also the handset makers are the ones doing all the work , how exactly is Verizon innovating ? We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers .
When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device .
Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time , money and production capacity to support a particular device.So basically if it was n't for Verizon , handset manufacturers would n't bother to put in the time and effort to make handsets at all ?
Thank god Verizon is here to save those poor companies ( Samsung , Nokia , Motorola , RIM , etc.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.This sentence really pisses me off.
The only competition going on is the big carriers fighting for exclusive handset contracts, they sure as hell aren't competing with each other on price and/or service quality.
Also the handset makers are the ones doing all the work, how exactly is Verizon innovating?We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers.
When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device.
Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device.So basically if it wasn't for Verizon, handset manufacturers wouldn't bother to put in the time and effort to make handsets at all?
Thank god Verizon is here to save those poor companies (Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, RIM, etc..)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740979</id>
	<title>Exclusivity can be promote innovation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think your handset does all these neat things by itself? The "Next Big Thing" will almost certainly require major investment in network and back office system. There are economies of scale to consider, Verizon isn't going to install systems that support hundreds of thousands of users, they need millions of users to make those features cost effective.<br>The iPhone exclusivity arrangement probably hit Verizon hardest of all. But they had their chance and past on the deal. (Didn't want give up the control Apple insisted on.) But they seem to be accepting that and moving on.</p><p>ps. Can there ever be a Slashdot article about AT&amp;T / Verizon / T-Mobile this forum doesn't complain about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think your handset does all these neat things by itself ?
The " Next Big Thing " will almost certainly require major investment in network and back office system .
There are economies of scale to consider , Verizon is n't going to install systems that support hundreds of thousands of users , they need millions of users to make those features cost effective.The iPhone exclusivity arrangement probably hit Verizon hardest of all .
But they had their chance and past on the deal .
( Did n't want give up the control Apple insisted on .
) But they seem to be accepting that and moving on.ps .
Can there ever be a Slashdot article about AT&amp;T / Verizon / T-Mobile this forum does n't complain about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think your handset does all these neat things by itself?
The "Next Big Thing" will almost certainly require major investment in network and back office system.
There are economies of scale to consider, Verizon isn't going to install systems that support hundreds of thousands of users, they need millions of users to make those features cost effective.The iPhone exclusivity arrangement probably hit Verizon hardest of all.
But they had their chance and past on the deal.
(Didn't want give up the control Apple insisted on.
) But they seem to be accepting that and moving on.ps.
Can there ever be a Slashdot article about AT&amp;T / Verizon / T-Mobile this forum doesn't complain about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28744893</id>
	<title>Government should stop interfering!</title>
	<author>vakuona</author>
	<datestamp>1247928900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At some point government has to stop interfering in the markets. You can buy a very cheap phone that does what you want on just about any network. Without iPhone exclusivity, perhaps Sprint may not have invested in the Palm pre, and perhaps AT&amp;T would not have invested in the iPhone either. The promise of exclusivity probably allowed Apple to demand pretty favourable terms which benefit consumers (such as unlimited data) as standard.  That, for me, was one of the attractions of the iPhone. In situations were there is no monopoly, or even a quasi monopoly, I would much rather government kept out.</p><p>The most important thing, in my opinion, is perhaps to enable consumers to switch carriers easily. Consumers are responsible for their buying behaviours. We can, and do weigh up the total package, the hardware + the services. We don't need government to protect "us poor consumers" from everything. Right now the system is working fine. Not perfectly, but well enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point government has to stop interfering in the markets .
You can buy a very cheap phone that does what you want on just about any network .
Without iPhone exclusivity , perhaps Sprint may not have invested in the Palm pre , and perhaps AT&amp;T would not have invested in the iPhone either .
The promise of exclusivity probably allowed Apple to demand pretty favourable terms which benefit consumers ( such as unlimited data ) as standard .
That , for me , was one of the attractions of the iPhone .
In situations were there is no monopoly , or even a quasi monopoly , I would much rather government kept out.The most important thing , in my opinion , is perhaps to enable consumers to switch carriers easily .
Consumers are responsible for their buying behaviours .
We can , and do weigh up the total package , the hardware + the services .
We do n't need government to protect " us poor consumers " from everything .
Right now the system is working fine .
Not perfectly , but well enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point government has to stop interfering in the markets.
You can buy a very cheap phone that does what you want on just about any network.
Without iPhone exclusivity, perhaps Sprint may not have invested in the Palm pre, and perhaps AT&amp;T would not have invested in the iPhone either.
The promise of exclusivity probably allowed Apple to demand pretty favourable terms which benefit consumers (such as unlimited data) as standard.
That, for me, was one of the attractions of the iPhone.
In situations were there is no monopoly, or even a quasi monopoly, I would much rather government kept out.The most important thing, in my opinion, is perhaps to enable consumers to switch carriers easily.
Consumers are responsible for their buying behaviours.
We can, and do weigh up the total package, the hardware + the services.
We don't need government to protect "us poor consumers" from everything.
Right now the system is working fine.
Not perfectly, but well enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743611</id>
	<title>Re:Understandable WRONG WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247913120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live. No one publicly complains there either.</p></div><p>Of course the PS2 and PS Home are locked together: Sony spent its time and money developing both. Ditto for XBox 360 and XBox Live (except with MS).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live .
No one publicly complains there either.Of course the PS2 and PS Home are locked together : Sony spent its time and money developing both .
Ditto for XBox 360 and XBox Live ( except with MS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live.
No one publicly complains there either.Of course the PS2 and PS Home are locked together: Sony spent its time and money developing both.
Ditto for XBox 360 and XBox Live (except with MS).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969</id>
	<title>Re:Understandable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but Verizon does make a valid point."</p><p>No they don't.  They along with other mobile providers in the US are among the very few carriers of any sort of consumer service <i>in the world</i> that enjoy this sort of exclusivity.</p><p>This shit wouldn't fly if you could only use Samsung TVs on Comcast.  Nor would it fly if Earthlink required you to use a Dell computer to access their dialup service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but Verizon does make a valid point .
" No they do n't .
They along with other mobile providers in the US are among the very few carriers of any sort of consumer service in the world that enjoy this sort of exclusivity.This shit would n't fly if you could only use Samsung TVs on Comcast .
Nor would it fly if Earthlink required you to use a Dell computer to access their dialup service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but Verizon does make a valid point.
"No they don't.
They along with other mobile providers in the US are among the very few carriers of any sort of consumer service in the world that enjoy this sort of exclusivity.This shit wouldn't fly if you could only use Samsung TVs on Comcast.
Nor would it fly if Earthlink required you to use a Dell computer to access their dialup service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740911</id>
	<title>Worst idea ever ?</title>
	<author>wimg</author>
	<datestamp>1247933340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what happens if that small carrier gets 500.001 customers ? You can't use your iPhone on their network anymore ?<br>So small carriers will need to stay small... ofcourse Verizon loves that idea, because then they can keep the status quo in the market !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens if that small carrier gets 500.001 customers ?
You ca n't use your iPhone on their network anymore ? So small carriers will need to stay small... ofcourse Verizon loves that idea , because then they can keep the status quo in the market !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens if that small carrier gets 500.001 customers ?
You can't use your iPhone on their network anymore ?So small carriers will need to stay small... ofcourse Verizon loves that idea, because then they can keep the status quo in the market !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741011</id>
	<title>dfjdsj</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247934120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>trjhtsj</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trjhtsj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trjhtsj</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740873</id>
	<title>Newspeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "Exclusivity arrangements promote competition"</p><p>War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " Exclusivity arrangements promote competition " War is peace .
Freedom is slavery .
Ignorance is strength .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "Exclusivity arrangements promote competition"War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741791</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm.</title>
	<author>aldousd666</author>
	<datestamp>1247940780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>just exactly what is the problem here? Consumers didn't invent the technology, but if consumers don't buy it it's bad for those who did.  There is no 'inherent interest of the consumers here.'  They didn't have a right to 'buy and use this cell phone' before it was invented, so now, all of the sudden when some smart guy invents it, they suddenly gain the right to have it how they like it regardless of what the guys who invented and brought it to market want to do with it?  Consumers are essential to making successful businesses, but business can screw themselves over if they like by making whatever contracts they want.

Anti-trust is not defined. What is "anti-competative?"  You'll know it when you see it?  So.. you don't know if you've committed a crime until after you have, and the jury hands down an indictment?  Hmm...  I'm pretty sure that you can't have anti-trust over a particular MODEL of phone, when everyone and their uncle has some kind of smart phone somewhere.

Consumers put fuel into the engines of the companies that make things by buying them, so it's wise for companies to consider the interests of those buying their stuff. But there is no law (nor should there be) against being stupid and making stupid business decisions (locking out a portion of the market you might have had based on exclusivity deals.)

Look at the iPhone... they asked verizon first if they wanted to invest... and they said no.  AT&amp;T paid money to enable the very thing to come to market at all. Without that, apple's brilliant design would be sitting on a hard drive somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>just exactly what is the problem here ?
Consumers did n't invent the technology , but if consumers do n't buy it it 's bad for those who did .
There is no 'inherent interest of the consumers here .
' They did n't have a right to 'buy and use this cell phone ' before it was invented , so now , all of the sudden when some smart guy invents it , they suddenly gain the right to have it how they like it regardless of what the guys who invented and brought it to market want to do with it ?
Consumers are essential to making successful businesses , but business can screw themselves over if they like by making whatever contracts they want .
Anti-trust is not defined .
What is " anti-competative ?
" You 'll know it when you see it ?
So.. you do n't know if you 've committed a crime until after you have , and the jury hands down an indictment ?
Hmm... I 'm pretty sure that you ca n't have anti-trust over a particular MODEL of phone , when everyone and their uncle has some kind of smart phone somewhere .
Consumers put fuel into the engines of the companies that make things by buying them , so it 's wise for companies to consider the interests of those buying their stuff .
But there is no law ( nor should there be ) against being stupid and making stupid business decisions ( locking out a portion of the market you might have had based on exclusivity deals .
) Look at the iPhone... they asked verizon first if they wanted to invest... and they said no .
AT&amp;T paid money to enable the very thing to come to market at all .
Without that , apple 's brilliant design would be sitting on a hard drive somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just exactly what is the problem here?
Consumers didn't invent the technology, but if consumers don't buy it it's bad for those who did.
There is no 'inherent interest of the consumers here.
'  They didn't have a right to 'buy and use this cell phone' before it was invented, so now, all of the sudden when some smart guy invents it, they suddenly gain the right to have it how they like it regardless of what the guys who invented and brought it to market want to do with it?
Consumers are essential to making successful businesses, but business can screw themselves over if they like by making whatever contracts they want.
Anti-trust is not defined.
What is "anti-competative?
"  You'll know it when you see it?
So.. you don't know if you've committed a crime until after you have, and the jury hands down an indictment?
Hmm...  I'm pretty sure that you can't have anti-trust over a particular MODEL of phone, when everyone and their uncle has some kind of smart phone somewhere.
Consumers put fuel into the engines of the companies that make things by buying them, so it's wise for companies to consider the interests of those buying their stuff.
But there is no law (nor should there be) against being stupid and making stupid business decisions (locking out a portion of the market you might have had based on exclusivity deals.
)

Look at the iPhone... they asked verizon first if they wanted to invest... and they said no.
AT&amp;T paid money to enable the very thing to come to market at all.
Without that, apple's brilliant design would be sitting on a hard drive somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28744921</id>
	<title>Why does exclusivity help?</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247929380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the carriers trot out arguments in favor of exclusivity, or ideas like this, I have just one question for them: if exclusivity is such a great incentive for innovation, when are we going to see all the neat phones with the great features that're already on the market in Asia? There and in Europe they not only don't usually have exclusivity, they don't even have the SIM-locking that US carriers make standard. Yet, in both Europe and Asia you can buy better phones with more features enabled than is typical in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the carriers trot out arguments in favor of exclusivity , or ideas like this , I have just one question for them : if exclusivity is such a great incentive for innovation , when are we going to see all the neat phones with the great features that 're already on the market in Asia ?
There and in Europe they not only do n't usually have exclusivity , they do n't even have the SIM-locking that US carriers make standard .
Yet , in both Europe and Asia you can buy better phones with more features enabled than is typical in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the carriers trot out arguments in favor of exclusivity, or ideas like this, I have just one question for them: if exclusivity is such a great incentive for innovation, when are we going to see all the neat phones with the great features that're already on the market in Asia?
There and in Europe they not only don't usually have exclusivity, they don't even have the SIM-locking that US carriers make standard.
Yet, in both Europe and Asia you can buy better phones with more features enabled than is typical in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741777</id>
	<title>Yelp! What's the number for 9-1-1?</title>
	<author>scorpivs</author>
	<datestamp>1247940660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dog-saves-owner's-family-by-chewing-apart-phone;

owner then buys groceries for hungry family of 3.14.

Dog found still chasing tail with owner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dog-saves-owner 's-family-by-chewing-apart-phone ; owner then buys groceries for hungry family of 3.14 .
Dog found still chasing tail with owner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dog-saves-owner's-family-by-chewing-apart-phone;

owner then buys groceries for hungry family of 3.14.
Dog found still chasing tail with owner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741325</id>
	<title>Re:Understandable WRONG</title>
	<author>thpdg</author>
	<datestamp>1247936760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live. No one publicly complains there either.</p><p>And computer makers are exactly doing what you're saying. If you want a DISCOUNTED Acer Netbook, you have to use it on AT&amp;T Data. If you want an HP DISCOUNTED Netbook, you have to use it on Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live .
No one publicly complains there either.And computer makers are exactly doing what you 're saying .
If you want a DISCOUNTED Acer Netbook , you have to use it on AT&amp;T Data .
If you want an HP DISCOUNTED Netbook , you have to use it on Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live.
No one publicly complains there either.And computer makers are exactly doing what you're saying.
If you want a DISCOUNTED Acer Netbook, you have to use it on AT&amp;T Data.
If you want an HP DISCOUNTED Netbook, you have to use it on Verizon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743919</id>
	<title>Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247916000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CDMA was not a lets do something different than europe.  CDMA is a far superior technology than GSM and UMTS even uses W-CDMA. Qualcomm(CDMA) wants CDMA cellphones to have SIM cards and in India/IndoChina, telecos will be rolling those out. The problem is that American telecos don't want to give up on their network lock in.  Technology is not the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CDMA was not a lets do something different than europe .
CDMA is a far superior technology than GSM and UMTS even uses W-CDMA .
Qualcomm ( CDMA ) wants CDMA cellphones to have SIM cards and in India/IndoChina , telecos will be rolling those out .
The problem is that American telecos do n't want to give up on their network lock in .
Technology is not the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CDMA was not a lets do something different than europe.
CDMA is a far superior technology than GSM and UMTS even uses W-CDMA.
Qualcomm(CDMA) wants CDMA cellphones to have SIM cards and in India/IndoChina, telecos will be rolling those out.
The problem is that American telecos don't want to give up on their network lock in.
Technology is not the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28745149</id>
	<title>More like a way to keep the small carriers small</title>
	<author>PAjamian</author>
	<datestamp>1247932920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice arrangement for the large carriers.  Basically they get to tell the small carriers, "sure you can offer this phone after 6 months, but don't you dare get more than 500,000 customers, or we'll jump in and stop the practice."  This will force small carriers to not grow large enough to give Verizon or AT&amp;T any real competition.</p><p>This sounds like a nice compromise on the face of it, but it stinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice arrangement for the large carriers .
Basically they get to tell the small carriers , " sure you can offer this phone after 6 months , but do n't you dare get more than 500,000 customers , or we 'll jump in and stop the practice .
" This will force small carriers to not grow large enough to give Verizon or AT&amp;T any real competition.This sounds like a nice compromise on the face of it , but it stinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice arrangement for the large carriers.
Basically they get to tell the small carriers, "sure you can offer this phone after 6 months, but don't you dare get more than 500,000 customers, or we'll jump in and stop the practice.
"  This will force small carriers to not grow large enough to give Verizon or AT&amp;T any real competition.This sounds like a nice compromise on the face of it, but it stinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741295</id>
	<title>Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1247936520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trouble all started when you american morons invented CDMA as a NIH syndrome response to the GSM.<br>That is why you have stupid contracts, tie-ins, no advanced phones (come on Nokia N97 is far better than iPhone), and stupid fees.<br>Someone will mod me down as flamebait, but i can afford to lose points.<br>Why couldn't you guys stick the GSM. It was flexible, allowed NO tie-ins, was easy to administer.<br>But Nooooo, you morons had to go and invent a whole new standard because you were too pissed to use the frogs' standards.<br>Pride goeth before a fall.<br>Enjoy your lock-ins, tie-ins and other stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trouble all started when you american morons invented CDMA as a NIH syndrome response to the GSM.That is why you have stupid contracts , tie-ins , no advanced phones ( come on Nokia N97 is far better than iPhone ) , and stupid fees.Someone will mod me down as flamebait , but i can afford to lose points.Why could n't you guys stick the GSM .
It was flexible , allowed NO tie-ins , was easy to administer.But Nooooo , you morons had to go and invent a whole new standard because you were too pissed to use the frogs ' standards.Pride goeth before a fall.Enjoy your lock-ins , tie-ins and other stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trouble all started when you american morons invented CDMA as a NIH syndrome response to the GSM.That is why you have stupid contracts, tie-ins, no advanced phones (come on Nokia N97 is far better than iPhone), and stupid fees.Someone will mod me down as flamebait, but i can afford to lose points.Why couldn't you guys stick the GSM.
It was flexible, allowed NO tie-ins, was easy to administer.But Nooooo, you morons had to go and invent a whole new standard because you were too pissed to use the frogs' standards.Pride goeth before a fall.Enjoy your lock-ins, tie-ins and other stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743727</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1247914200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll pay the full price and pay significantly lower monthly fees without a stupid 2 year contract.  This means I won't be forced to pay for 2 years of data that I'll rarely use (instead I prefer to use Wi-Fi wherever available).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll pay the full price and pay significantly lower monthly fees without a stupid 2 year contract .
This means I wo n't be forced to pay for 2 years of data that I 'll rarely use ( instead I prefer to use Wi-Fi wherever available ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll pay the full price and pay significantly lower monthly fees without a stupid 2 year contract.
This means I won't be forced to pay for 2 years of data that I'll rarely use (instead I prefer to use Wi-Fi wherever available).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740747</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>dakohli</author>
	<datestamp>1247931900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many carriers are under 500,000 in the states?

</p><p>I'm thinking they thought long and hard on that number, and made sure they came up with a promise that will not affect their overal sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many carriers are under 500,000 in the states ?
I 'm thinking they thought long and hard on that number , and made sure they came up with a promise that will not affect their overal sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many carriers are under 500,000 in the states?
I'm thinking they thought long and hard on that number, and made sure they came up with a promise that will not affect their overal sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740791</id>
	<title>continued crappy service &amp; coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247932320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this does is allow infighting for handsets but doesn't solve the problem of crappy service over the US.  If the war torn middle east and mount everest can get cell coverage why can't we get decent coverage in maine.  Mount everest has people on it 1 month a year, there are over a million people in maine at any given time!  I can't use my phone is 1/2 the counties here and that's with the AT&amp;T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this does is allow infighting for handsets but does n't solve the problem of crappy service over the US .
If the war torn middle east and mount everest can get cell coverage why ca n't we get decent coverage in maine .
Mount everest has people on it 1 month a year , there are over a million people in maine at any given time !
I ca n't use my phone is 1/2 the counties here and that 's with the AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this does is allow infighting for handsets but doesn't solve the problem of crappy service over the US.
If the war torn middle east and mount everest can get cell coverage why can't we get decent coverage in maine.
Mount everest has people on it 1 month a year, there are over a million people in maine at any given time!
I can't use my phone is 1/2 the counties here and that's with the AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740895</id>
	<title>"Exclusivity arrangements promote competition..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design."</p><p>I don't believe this.  Do you believe this?</p><p>Today's magic word is despots</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design .
" I do n't believe this .
Do you believe this ? Today 's magic word is despots</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.
"I don't believe this.
Do you believe this?Today's magic word is despots</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741027</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm.</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1247934300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Consider the iPhone.  Apple went to Verizon and said "Hey, we have this phone.  But we need you to add support for visual voicemail.  Also, you're going to act as a dumb pipe only (did we mention the reasonably priced unlimited data plan?). We'll handle the ringtones, music, wallpaper and anything else like that.  One more thing: you'll give us a cut of the monthly revenue."
</p><p>
That was too much innovation for Verizon, so AT&amp;T got the exclusive deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the iPhone .
Apple went to Verizon and said " Hey , we have this phone .
But we need you to add support for visual voicemail .
Also , you 're going to act as a dumb pipe only ( did we mention the reasonably priced unlimited data plan ? ) .
We 'll handle the ringtones , music , wallpaper and anything else like that .
One more thing : you 'll give us a cut of the monthly revenue .
" That was too much innovation for Verizon , so AT&amp;T got the exclusive deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Consider the iPhone.
Apple went to Verizon and said "Hey, we have this phone.
But we need you to add support for visual voicemail.
Also, you're going to act as a dumb pipe only (did we mention the reasonably priced unlimited data plan?).
We'll handle the ringtones, music, wallpaper and anything else like that.
One more thing: you'll give us a cut of the monthly revenue.
"

That was too much innovation for Verizon, so AT&amp;T got the exclusive deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740975</id>
	<title>Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247933820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seeing as each configuration would still need to undergo FCC testing, it is likely that the pluggable modules you speak of would actually introduce complexity into the situation (namely the plug). Sure, it would make it so that a technically adept user could swap the modules in order to switch carriers, but the overwhelming evidence is that most people like to switch to shiny new phones as rapidly as possible.</p><p>Really, the solution is not to ban exclusivity arrangements, it is to make it relatively straightforward for third parties to be able to offer a phone that works on a network. Figuring out a reasonable way to make phone-subsidy free agreements available to customers might be a slight challenge, but it seems simple enough to require the carriers to disclose how much of each contract they use to subsidize phones (having this information would let consumers decide if they were getting a deal or a 'deal' with their subsidized phones).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as each configuration would still need to undergo FCC testing , it is likely that the pluggable modules you speak of would actually introduce complexity into the situation ( namely the plug ) .
Sure , it would make it so that a technically adept user could swap the modules in order to switch carriers , but the overwhelming evidence is that most people like to switch to shiny new phones as rapidly as possible.Really , the solution is not to ban exclusivity arrangements , it is to make it relatively straightforward for third parties to be able to offer a phone that works on a network .
Figuring out a reasonable way to make phone-subsidy free agreements available to customers might be a slight challenge , but it seems simple enough to require the carriers to disclose how much of each contract they use to subsidize phones ( having this information would let consumers decide if they were getting a deal or a 'deal ' with their subsidized phones ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as each configuration would still need to undergo FCC testing, it is likely that the pluggable modules you speak of would actually introduce complexity into the situation (namely the plug).
Sure, it would make it so that a technically adept user could swap the modules in order to switch carriers, but the overwhelming evidence is that most people like to switch to shiny new phones as rapidly as possible.Really, the solution is not to ban exclusivity arrangements, it is to make it relatively straightforward for third parties to be able to offer a phone that works on a network.
Figuring out a reasonable way to make phone-subsidy free agreements available to customers might be a slight challenge, but it seems simple enough to require the carriers to disclose how much of each contract they use to subsidize phones (having this information would let consumers decide if they were getting a deal or a 'deal' with their subsidized phones).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741391</id>
	<title>Re:The arugment</title>
	<author>leehwtsohg</author>
	<datestamp>1247937300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You and and the guy who replied to you are exactly right. If you let them, they will of course compete on the "cool factor". But why should you let them. If they want to compete for cool-factor, they should become a cell-phone manufacturer.</p><p>Once they can't compete for cool-factor, they'll have to compete for price, coverage, service. Well, or getting monopolies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You and and the guy who replied to you are exactly right .
If you let them , they will of course compete on the " cool factor " .
But why should you let them .
If they want to compete for cool-factor , they should become a cell-phone manufacturer.Once they ca n't compete for cool-factor , they 'll have to compete for price , coverage , service .
Well , or getting monopolies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You and and the guy who replied to you are exactly right.
If you let them, they will of course compete on the "cool factor".
But why should you let them.
If they want to compete for cool-factor, they should become a cell-phone manufacturer.Once they can't compete for cool-factor, they'll have to compete for price, coverage, service.
Well, or getting monopolies...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741121</id>
	<title>Re:Why Should Verizon Compromise At All?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247935020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exclusivity agreements can be monopoly abuse if the carrier in question has a near monopoly.  In this case, the handset manufacturer has little to lose (a tiny percentage of potential sales) and the carrier gets another reason for customers not to go with the smaller carriers.  That doesn't appear to be the case here, however.</p><p>
If a carrier has 50\% of the market, then a handset manufacturer signing an exclusive deal loses 50\% of their potential market before they ship a single unit, which is rarely good business sense and explains why so few handsets have exclusivity deals.  If you want to fix the market then there are a few simple things you can do before banning this kind of arrangement.  The first is to require every network to allow customers to use any device they choose.  The second is to require billing of the phone subsidy as a separate line item and allow contracts with exactly the same price for people who use their own phone.  If people want to buy a subsidised phone from their carrier then it may be cheaper overall (the total of the up-front cost and the subsidy only has to be the wholesale price of the phone, not the retail price) but if they do then they get to see exactly how much it's really costing and factor this into their decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exclusivity agreements can be monopoly abuse if the carrier in question has a near monopoly .
In this case , the handset manufacturer has little to lose ( a tiny percentage of potential sales ) and the carrier gets another reason for customers not to go with the smaller carriers .
That does n't appear to be the case here , however .
If a carrier has 50 \ % of the market , then a handset manufacturer signing an exclusive deal loses 50 \ % of their potential market before they ship a single unit , which is rarely good business sense and explains why so few handsets have exclusivity deals .
If you want to fix the market then there are a few simple things you can do before banning this kind of arrangement .
The first is to require every network to allow customers to use any device they choose .
The second is to require billing of the phone subsidy as a separate line item and allow contracts with exactly the same price for people who use their own phone .
If people want to buy a subsidised phone from their carrier then it may be cheaper overall ( the total of the up-front cost and the subsidy only has to be the wholesale price of the phone , not the retail price ) but if they do then they get to see exactly how much it 's really costing and factor this into their decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exclusivity agreements can be monopoly abuse if the carrier in question has a near monopoly.
In this case, the handset manufacturer has little to lose (a tiny percentage of potential sales) and the carrier gets another reason for customers not to go with the smaller carriers.
That doesn't appear to be the case here, however.
If a carrier has 50\% of the market, then a handset manufacturer signing an exclusive deal loses 50\% of their potential market before they ship a single unit, which is rarely good business sense and explains why so few handsets have exclusivity deals.
If you want to fix the market then there are a few simple things you can do before banning this kind of arrangement.
The first is to require every network to allow customers to use any device they choose.
The second is to require billing of the phone subsidy as a separate line item and allow contracts with exactly the same price for people who use their own phone.
If people want to buy a subsidised phone from their carrier then it may be cheaper overall (the total of the up-front cost and the subsidy only has to be the wholesale price of the phone, not the retail price) but if they do then they get to see exactly how much it's really costing and factor this into their decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740931</id>
	<title>Freedom is slavery! War is peace!</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247933520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"exclusivity agreements promote competition"</p><p>how can anyone ANYWHERE not see the blatant intellectual dishonesty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" exclusivity agreements promote competition " how can anyone ANYWHERE not see the blatant intellectual dishonesty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"exclusivity agreements promote competition"how can anyone ANYWHERE not see the blatant intellectual dishonesty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742567</id>
	<title>Re:Understandable</title>
	<author>Scarletdown</author>
	<datestamp>1247946780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This shit wouldn't fly if you could only use Samsung TVs on Comcast. Nor would it fly if Earthlink required you to use a Dell computer to access their dialup service.</p></div><p>Gather around, Grasshoppers.  For I present to you the tale of the Magnavox Odyssey, the first home video game system to go to market.</p><p>Although there was no true exclusivity involved anywhere, there was an <i> <b>appearance</b> of exclusivity</i>, as customers were under the impression that it would only work on Magnavox television sets due to the system being sold only at Magnavox stores.  This hurt the Odyssey's sales tremendously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This shit would n't fly if you could only use Samsung TVs on Comcast .
Nor would it fly if Earthlink required you to use a Dell computer to access their dialup service.Gather around , Grasshoppers .
For I present to you the tale of the Magnavox Odyssey , the first home video game system to go to market.Although there was no true exclusivity involved anywhere , there was an appearance of exclusivity , as customers were under the impression that it would only work on Magnavox television sets due to the system being sold only at Magnavox stores .
This hurt the Odyssey 's sales tremendously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shit wouldn't fly if you could only use Samsung TVs on Comcast.
Nor would it fly if Earthlink required you to use a Dell computer to access their dialup service.Gather around, Grasshoppers.
For I present to you the tale of the Magnavox Odyssey, the first home video game system to go to market.Although there was no true exclusivity involved anywhere, there was an  appearance of exclusivity, as customers were under the impression that it would only work on Magnavox television sets due to the system being sold only at Magnavox stores.
This hurt the Odyssey's sales tremendously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28747621</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm.</title>
	<author>FtDFtM</author>
	<datestamp>1248017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and why is it that Europe and Asia have better and more sophisticated devices without exclusivity?</htmltext>
<tokenext>and why is it that Europe and Asia have better and more sophisticated devices without exclusivity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and why is it that Europe and Asia have better and more sophisticated devices without exclusivity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741021</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>William Ager</author>
	<datestamp>1247934240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably not very many, but how many "carriers" will pop up that have terrible or no service, no contracts, no phone subsidies, and either no locking or a "call us to unlock" policy?
<br> <br>
I expect it wouldn't be hard to make a "carrier" that would essentially be a store for unlocked phones that would otherwise be far more expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not very many , but how many " carriers " will pop up that have terrible or no service , no contracts , no phone subsidies , and either no locking or a " call us to unlock " policy ?
I expect it would n't be hard to make a " carrier " that would essentially be a store for unlocked phones that would otherwise be far more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not very many, but how many "carriers" will pop up that have terrible or no service, no contracts, no phone subsidies, and either no locking or a "call us to unlock" policy?
I expect it wouldn't be hard to make a "carrier" that would essentially be a store for unlocked phones that would otherwise be far more expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28749735</id>
	<title>Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>ImNotAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1247994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See I sell oranges my competitor sells Apples.  If I don't let him sell Oranges ever but can let some lower guys that I can control through strict agreements sell oranges then that isn't a monopoly right. right!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>See I sell oranges my competitor sells Apples .
If I do n't let him sell Oranges ever but can let some lower guys that I can control through strict agreements sell oranges then that is n't a monopoly right .
right ! ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See I sell oranges my competitor sells Apples.
If I don't let him sell Oranges ever but can let some lower guys that I can control through strict agreements sell oranges then that isn't a monopoly right.
right!?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741747</id>
	<title>Like it matters...</title>
	<author>lord\_mike</author>
	<datestamp>1247940420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....when has Verizon actually offered a phone that anybody actually wants?</p><p>So, they are shortening their exclusivity on the Samsung 4589?  The what?  Who cares?</p><p>Verizon may have a good network, but they have absolutely no phone selection whatsoever... No one is waiting in line to buy a phone from Verizon....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....when has Verizon actually offered a phone that anybody actually wants ? So , they are shortening their exclusivity on the Samsung 4589 ?
The what ?
Who cares ? Verizon may have a good network , but they have absolutely no phone selection whatsoever... No one is waiting in line to buy a phone from Verizon... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....when has Verizon actually offered a phone that anybody actually wants?So, they are shortening their exclusivity on the Samsung 4589?
The what?
Who cares?Verizon may have a good network, but they have absolutely no phone selection whatsoever... No one is waiting in line to buy a phone from Verizon....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28744259</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247920260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What small carriers? Hasn't Verizon gobbled them all up yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What small carriers ?
Has n't Verizon gobbled them all up yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What small carriers?
Hasn't Verizon gobbled them all up yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741001</id>
	<title>Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1247934060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The phones are expensive.  I think we have seen a drop in prices.  I have seen smart phones advertised for $30 with two year contract.  That puts the entire two year cost well under $1000, much less that the average two year of landline would costs, assuming that you started with a decent cordless phone.
<p>
I can tell you the first phones that appeared after the ATT breakup were pieces of crap. They were cool novelties, but the quality sucked.  About the only benefit to the average person was that geeks could plug in a modem.
</p><p>
If the user would pay for it, a multi protocol phones could be the norm.  This could be mandated, but congress would likely not do it as it would increase the price of all phones, although it would ultimately benefit the user.
</p><p>
What the exclusivity deals do is lock in the user.  The price difference between carriers is not so significant, and typically does reflect quality.  Cricket is cheap but does not have coverage.  Verizon is expensive but has coverage.  The exclusivity deals are just another step to insure recurring fees.  First it was a one year contract, then a two year contract, now it is a piece of equipment.  I personally would prefer a one year contract and lock in with a piece of equipment.  My greatest complaint against the iPhone is that, unlike other phones, it requires two year contract, or a pay as you go contract.
</p><p>
Obviously Verizon is not scared of the iPhone.  ATT needs it, which is why they let apple do what apple wanted to do.  At this time I don't see anyone else allowing the same access to the network, except maybe t-mobile.  I would prefer to see congress mandate minimum service levels, 1 year contract unless the phone is free, and then let the carriers compete on phones.  There is no best phone, and there is no shortage of phones.  One chooses the compromise between carrier and phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The phones are expensive .
I think we have seen a drop in prices .
I have seen smart phones advertised for $ 30 with two year contract .
That puts the entire two year cost well under $ 1000 , much less that the average two year of landline would costs , assuming that you started with a decent cordless phone .
I can tell you the first phones that appeared after the ATT breakup were pieces of crap .
They were cool novelties , but the quality sucked .
About the only benefit to the average person was that geeks could plug in a modem .
If the user would pay for it , a multi protocol phones could be the norm .
This could be mandated , but congress would likely not do it as it would increase the price of all phones , although it would ultimately benefit the user .
What the exclusivity deals do is lock in the user .
The price difference between carriers is not so significant , and typically does reflect quality .
Cricket is cheap but does not have coverage .
Verizon is expensive but has coverage .
The exclusivity deals are just another step to insure recurring fees .
First it was a one year contract , then a two year contract , now it is a piece of equipment .
I personally would prefer a one year contract and lock in with a piece of equipment .
My greatest complaint against the iPhone is that , unlike other phones , it requires two year contract , or a pay as you go contract .
Obviously Verizon is not scared of the iPhone .
ATT needs it , which is why they let apple do what apple wanted to do .
At this time I do n't see anyone else allowing the same access to the network , except maybe t-mobile .
I would prefer to see congress mandate minimum service levels , 1 year contract unless the phone is free , and then let the carriers compete on phones .
There is no best phone , and there is no shortage of phones .
One chooses the compromise between carrier and phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phones are expensive.
I think we have seen a drop in prices.
I have seen smart phones advertised for $30 with two year contract.
That puts the entire two year cost well under $1000, much less that the average two year of landline would costs, assuming that you started with a decent cordless phone.
I can tell you the first phones that appeared after the ATT breakup were pieces of crap.
They were cool novelties, but the quality sucked.
About the only benefit to the average person was that geeks could plug in a modem.
If the user would pay for it, a multi protocol phones could be the norm.
This could be mandated, but congress would likely not do it as it would increase the price of all phones, although it would ultimately benefit the user.
What the exclusivity deals do is lock in the user.
The price difference between carriers is not so significant, and typically does reflect quality.
Cricket is cheap but does not have coverage.
Verizon is expensive but has coverage.
The exclusivity deals are just another step to insure recurring fees.
First it was a one year contract, then a two year contract, now it is a piece of equipment.
I personally would prefer a one year contract and lock in with a piece of equipment.
My greatest complaint against the iPhone is that, unlike other phones, it requires two year contract, or a pay as you go contract.
Obviously Verizon is not scared of the iPhone.
ATT needs it, which is why they let apple do what apple wanted to do.
At this time I don't see anyone else allowing the same access to the network, except maybe t-mobile.
I would prefer to see congress mandate minimum service levels, 1 year contract unless the phone is free, and then let the carriers compete on phones.
There is no best phone, and there is no shortage of phones.
One chooses the compromise between carrier and phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753</id>
	<title>Hmm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247931900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.</p></div><p>Citation needed.
<br> <br>
I would argue that it is either an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">antitrust</a> [wikipedia.org] issue, or dances on the fine line. To make a car analogy, wouldn't it be illegal if Ford and BP paired up to make Ford's only run on BP gasoline/diesel? Of course IANAL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.Citation needed .
I would argue that it is either an antitrust [ wikipedia.org ] issue , or dances on the fine line .
To make a car analogy , would n't it be illegal if Ford and BP paired up to make Ford 's only run on BP gasoline/diesel ?
Of course IANAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.Citation needed.
I would argue that it is either an antitrust [wikipedia.org] issue, or dances on the fine line.
To make a car analogy, wouldn't it be illegal if Ford and BP paired up to make Ford's only run on BP gasoline/diesel?
Of course IANAL.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742543</id>
	<title>what exactly is Verizon thinking?</title>
	<author>tmach</author>
	<datestamp>1247946660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't Verizon kind of shooting itself in the foot with a "compromise" like this?  After all. it's been trying to get Apple to make a CDMA iPhone for ages, once it's deal with AT&amp;T is up.  Under it's own plan, it still wouldn't get to have an iPhone.

I don't really have a problem with exclusivity agreements in principle.  In the case of the iPhone (and really that's what it's all about--nobody was complaining about exclusivity before it came along) the deal with AT&amp;T has just forced every other company from LG to Motorola to Samsung to HTC to try to come up with that "iPhone killer".  They haven't done it yet, but the more they try the better phones in general get.

Also, these deals tend to have expiration dates.  Apple's agreement with AT&amp;T is up next year, I believe.  At that point, it will have to be renegotiated.  Apple will have to decide if whatever AT&amp;T is paying them is more than what it would be making by selling the iPhone to other carriers as well--and if it's possible to keep up with the demand doing so would generate.  Unfortunately, if AT&amp;T shells out enough to make Apple stick around, it will probably have to jack up the price AT&amp;T customers pay per month for all the neat things the iPhone will do.  That rate already seems pretty high.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Verizon kind of shooting itself in the foot with a " compromise " like this ?
After all .
it 's been trying to get Apple to make a CDMA iPhone for ages , once it 's deal with AT&amp;T is up .
Under it 's own plan , it still would n't get to have an iPhone .
I do n't really have a problem with exclusivity agreements in principle .
In the case of the iPhone ( and really that 's what it 's all about--nobody was complaining about exclusivity before it came along ) the deal with AT&amp;T has just forced every other company from LG to Motorola to Samsung to HTC to try to come up with that " iPhone killer " .
They have n't done it yet , but the more they try the better phones in general get .
Also , these deals tend to have expiration dates .
Apple 's agreement with AT&amp;T is up next year , I believe .
At that point , it will have to be renegotiated .
Apple will have to decide if whatever AT&amp;T is paying them is more than what it would be making by selling the iPhone to other carriers as well--and if it 's possible to keep up with the demand doing so would generate .
Unfortunately , if AT&amp;T shells out enough to make Apple stick around , it will probably have to jack up the price AT&amp;T customers pay per month for all the neat things the iPhone will do .
That rate already seems pretty high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Verizon kind of shooting itself in the foot with a "compromise" like this?
After all.
it's been trying to get Apple to make a CDMA iPhone for ages, once it's deal with AT&amp;T is up.
Under it's own plan, it still wouldn't get to have an iPhone.
I don't really have a problem with exclusivity agreements in principle.
In the case of the iPhone (and really that's what it's all about--nobody was complaining about exclusivity before it came along) the deal with AT&amp;T has just forced every other company from LG to Motorola to Samsung to HTC to try to come up with that "iPhone killer".
They haven't done it yet, but the more they try the better phones in general get.
Also, these deals tend to have expiration dates.
Apple's agreement with AT&amp;T is up next year, I believe.
At that point, it will have to be renegotiated.
Apple will have to decide if whatever AT&amp;T is paying them is more than what it would be making by selling the iPhone to other carriers as well--and if it's possible to keep up with the demand doing so would generate.
Unfortunately, if AT&amp;T shells out enough to make Apple stick around, it will probably have to jack up the price AT&amp;T customers pay per month for all the neat things the iPhone will do.
That rate already seems pretty high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740889</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a consumer, which do you like more:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1.  AT&amp;T pays 80\% of the cost of your iPhone, so the phone only costs you $99 (but you have to use AT&amp;T in order to get that amazing deal)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2.  You pay the full $600 price for your iPhone and you can choose between the only 2 carriers (in the US) and 1 of them will be AT&amp;T anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a consumer , which do you like more :       1 .
AT&amp;T pays 80 \ % of the cost of your iPhone , so the phone only costs you $ 99 ( but you have to use AT&amp;T in order to get that amazing deal )       2 .
You pay the full $ 600 price for your iPhone and you can choose between the only 2 carriers ( in the US ) and 1 of them will be AT&amp;T anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a consumer, which do you like more:
      1.
AT&amp;T pays 80\% of the cost of your iPhone, so the phone only costs you $99 (but you have to use AT&amp;T in order to get that amazing deal)
      2.
You pay the full $600 price for your iPhone and you can choose between the only 2 carriers (in the US) and 1 of them will be AT&amp;T anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28746885</id>
	<title>Re:Understandable WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Discounted?</p><p>You mean the deals where you pay little to nothing up front, but get tied to a long contract with the carrier making up far more than the cost of the netbook over the course of the contract?  That's not a discount, but a loan by another name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Discounted ? You mean the deals where you pay little to nothing up front , but get tied to a long contract with the carrier making up far more than the cost of the netbook over the course of the contract ?
That 's not a discount , but a loan by another name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Discounted?You mean the deals where you pay little to nothing up front, but get tied to a long contract with the carrier making up far more than the cost of the netbook over the course of the contract?
That's not a discount, but a loan by another name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741137</id>
	<title>Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247935260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is all this crazy coming from.</p><p>The issue with analogue services was the requirement of renting a phone. The next huge issue was removing the long distance carrier lock in and then phone number portability. The latter didn't seem much like a necessity.</p><p>In no way does any of this translate to "I want to use an iPhone on X network." Let us be rather clear in that this is precisely the issue that everyone is complaining about. It is no way the same involuntary lock in that my parents had to fight with. I can visit any store or online retailing and find a compatible phone TODAY.</p><p>On to the next item of insanity...</p><p>I'm not really sure what the point of talking about competing standards happened to be. The reality we live in is that we can and often do have competing standards. Manufacturers can and do support single and multi bands. This will of course increase the cost of the handset. Cheaper phone = less features.</p><p>Wait... it gets better...</p><p>The used handset market is alive and well! I buy all of my phones used and I own them. On a personal aside, I like to be able to vote with my feet and if that means not signing a two year contract for a discount on a phone then so be it. I might actually buy the Touch Pro 2 from overseas and use it with my current carrier.</p><p>The best statement so far....</p><p>Finally, I'm not sure where the rationalization comes from that iPhones on other carriers will force services to be cheaper. No carrier currently has any feature that is truly unique. (beyond that silly click to talk junk) Market demand and supply are the forces which control pricing. In a world where millions will pay 20 cents a text message it will be difficult to enforce competitive pricing. This is the fault of the consumer for telling the vendor they will accept it.</p><p>Seriously... you crammed so many worthless arguments into one page I have to keep going!</p><p>As far as cheap phones go. (to add further insult to injury). I just stopped into a local CVS yesterday and considered nabbing a cheap pay per minute phone. For $10 (or $40 for the nicer one) I can have a GSM phone to move my SIM chip when my current phone fails. (It's in rough shape).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is all this crazy coming from.The issue with analogue services was the requirement of renting a phone .
The next huge issue was removing the long distance carrier lock in and then phone number portability .
The latter did n't seem much like a necessity.In no way does any of this translate to " I want to use an iPhone on X network .
" Let us be rather clear in that this is precisely the issue that everyone is complaining about .
It is no way the same involuntary lock in that my parents had to fight with .
I can visit any store or online retailing and find a compatible phone TODAY.On to the next item of insanity...I 'm not really sure what the point of talking about competing standards happened to be .
The reality we live in is that we can and often do have competing standards .
Manufacturers can and do support single and multi bands .
This will of course increase the cost of the handset .
Cheaper phone = less features.Wait... it gets better...The used handset market is alive and well !
I buy all of my phones used and I own them .
On a personal aside , I like to be able to vote with my feet and if that means not signing a two year contract for a discount on a phone then so be it .
I might actually buy the Touch Pro 2 from overseas and use it with my current carrier.The best statement so far....Finally , I 'm not sure where the rationalization comes from that iPhones on other carriers will force services to be cheaper .
No carrier currently has any feature that is truly unique .
( beyond that silly click to talk junk ) Market demand and supply are the forces which control pricing .
In a world where millions will pay 20 cents a text message it will be difficult to enforce competitive pricing .
This is the fault of the consumer for telling the vendor they will accept it.Seriously... you crammed so many worthless arguments into one page I have to keep going ! As far as cheap phones go .
( to add further insult to injury ) .
I just stopped into a local CVS yesterday and considered nabbing a cheap pay per minute phone .
For $ 10 ( or $ 40 for the nicer one ) I can have a GSM phone to move my SIM chip when my current phone fails .
( It 's in rough shape ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is all this crazy coming from.The issue with analogue services was the requirement of renting a phone.
The next huge issue was removing the long distance carrier lock in and then phone number portability.
The latter didn't seem much like a necessity.In no way does any of this translate to "I want to use an iPhone on X network.
" Let us be rather clear in that this is precisely the issue that everyone is complaining about.
It is no way the same involuntary lock in that my parents had to fight with.
I can visit any store or online retailing and find a compatible phone TODAY.On to the next item of insanity...I'm not really sure what the point of talking about competing standards happened to be.
The reality we live in is that we can and often do have competing standards.
Manufacturers can and do support single and multi bands.
This will of course increase the cost of the handset.
Cheaper phone = less features.Wait... it gets better...The used handset market is alive and well!
I buy all of my phones used and I own them.
On a personal aside, I like to be able to vote with my feet and if that means not signing a two year contract for a discount on a phone then so be it.
I might actually buy the Touch Pro 2 from overseas and use it with my current carrier.The best statement so far....Finally, I'm not sure where the rationalization comes from that iPhones on other carriers will force services to be cheaper.
No carrier currently has any feature that is truly unique.
(beyond that silly click to talk junk) Market demand and supply are the forces which control pricing.
In a world where millions will pay 20 cents a text message it will be difficult to enforce competitive pricing.
This is the fault of the consumer for telling the vendor they will accept it.Seriously... you crammed so many worthless arguments into one page I have to keep going!As far as cheap phones go.
(to add further insult to injury).
I just stopped into a local CVS yesterday and considered nabbing a cheap pay per minute phone.
For $10 (or $40 for the nicer one) I can have a GSM phone to move my SIM chip when my current phone fails.
(It's in rough shape).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740797</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1247932320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design. We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers. When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device. Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device</p> </div><p>

Really? Because T-Mobile, even though they don't have an iPhone offered still supports it. (see <a href="http://consumerist.com/5243325/t+mobile-provides-iphone-support-despite-not-offering-iphone" title="consumerist.com">http://consumerist.com/5243325/t+mobile-provides-iphone-support-despite-not-offering-iphone</a> [consumerist.com] for a reference). <br> <br>

Exclusivity arrangements do not provide competition, competition should be done with -gasp- the networks. Lets see, AT&amp;T is pretty expensive, but they have a decent 3G network, T-Mobile is a bit cheaper, but their 3G is lacking outside of major cities. Verizon is CDMA and so is Sprint and I'm not a fan of CDMA phones so I doubt I will ever use them. That is how competition is supposed to work. Not -insert major phone maker here- just announced a new phone exclusive to -insert network here- so you buy the plan to get the phone. Thats not how its supposed to work at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design .
We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers .
When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device .
Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time , money and production capacity to support a particular device Really ?
Because T-Mobile , even though they do n't have an iPhone offered still supports it .
( see http : //consumerist.com/5243325/t + mobile-provides-iphone-support-despite-not-offering-iphone [ consumerist.com ] for a reference ) .
Exclusivity arrangements do not provide competition , competition should be done with -gasp- the networks .
Lets see , AT&amp;T is pretty expensive , but they have a decent 3G network , T-Mobile is a bit cheaper , but their 3G is lacking outside of major cities .
Verizon is CDMA and so is Sprint and I 'm not a fan of CDMA phones so I doubt I will ever use them .
That is how competition is supposed to work .
Not -insert major phone maker here- just announced a new phone exclusive to -insert network here- so you buy the plan to get the phone .
Thats not how its supposed to work at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design.
We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers.
When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device.
Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device 

Really?
Because T-Mobile, even though they don't have an iPhone offered still supports it.
(see http://consumerist.com/5243325/t+mobile-provides-iphone-support-despite-not-offering-iphone [consumerist.com] for a reference).
Exclusivity arrangements do not provide competition, competition should be done with -gasp- the networks.
Lets see, AT&amp;T is pretty expensive, but they have a decent 3G network, T-Mobile is a bit cheaper, but their 3G is lacking outside of major cities.
Verizon is CDMA and so is Sprint and I'm not a fan of CDMA phones so I doubt I will ever use them.
That is how competition is supposed to work.
Not -insert major phone maker here- just announced a new phone exclusive to -insert network here- so you buy the plan to get the phone.
Thats not how its supposed to work at all.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740773</id>
	<title>Understandable</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1247932140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to see the major carriers have to compete with their services alone, but Verizon does make a valid point.<br> <br>

However, they also talk out of their asses. "Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design" but they fail to realize that we want a choice for where to go with whatever phone we want. Handset manufacturers would make new handsets regardless; I don't think the major carriers have as much influence as they think they do. Unfortunately, its tough to force them to do anything because people are tethered to their cell phones; a boycott would be impossible since nobody cares enough to do so. They care enough to complain but when push comes to shove, nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see the major carriers have to compete with their services alone , but Verizon does make a valid point .
However , they also talk out of their asses .
" Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design " but they fail to realize that we want a choice for where to go with whatever phone we want .
Handset manufacturers would make new handsets regardless ; I do n't think the major carriers have as much influence as they think they do .
Unfortunately , its tough to force them to do anything because people are tethered to their cell phones ; a boycott would be impossible since nobody cares enough to do so .
They care enough to complain but when push comes to shove , nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see the major carriers have to compete with their services alone, but Verizon does make a valid point.
However, they also talk out of their asses.
"Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design" but they fail to realize that we want a choice for where to go with whatever phone we want.
Handset manufacturers would make new handsets regardless; I don't think the major carriers have as much influence as they think they do.
Unfortunately, its tough to force them to do anything because people are tethered to their cell phones; a boycott would be impossible since nobody cares enough to do so.
They care enough to complain but when push comes to shove, nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741409</id>
	<title>Compromise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247937540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A compromise? A COMPROMISE? This isn't a negotiation. The lawmakers should be dictating terms to the wireless carriers. What are the carriers going to do kick and scream until they get their way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A compromise ?
A COMPROMISE ?
This is n't a negotiation .
The lawmakers should be dictating terms to the wireless carriers .
What are the carriers going to do kick and scream until they get their way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A compromise?
A COMPROMISE?
This isn't a negotiation.
The lawmakers should be dictating terms to the wireless carriers.
What are the carriers going to do kick and scream until they get their way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740961</id>
	<title>Less than 500,000 subscribers? Here's one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hehe, well Sprint is at least certainly on their way! At the rate people are jumping ship there, (myself included) pretty soon you will be able to pay your bill at Sprint with a slice of cold pizza, and I guess, get an iPhone?</p><p>=)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe , well Sprint is at least certainly on their way !
At the rate people are jumping ship there , ( myself included ) pretty soon you will be able to pay your bill at Sprint with a slice of cold pizza , and I guess , get an iPhone ? = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe, well Sprint is at least certainly on their way!
At the rate people are jumping ship there, (myself included) pretty soon you will be able to pay your bill at Sprint with a slice of cold pizza, and I guess, get an iPhone?=)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741253</id>
	<title>Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247936220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well then, how about we require Verizon and Sprint to convert to GSM.  You know, like the REST OF THE WORLD.  But that would be a bit unfair as well.  Frankly Verizon has a better network in the US.  But I do just enough traveling to the rest of the world that we AT&amp;T at work.  (And I have an iPhone).</p><p>Now 4G is pretty much supposed to be the same everywhere.  So some of that will go away.</p><p>But personally I don't see what the big deal is.  I know people who prefer verizon and got a blackberry storm.  They seem perfectly happy.  We were going to go with AT&amp;T so I got an iPhone.  I'm happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then , how about we require Verizon and Sprint to convert to GSM .
You know , like the REST OF THE WORLD .
But that would be a bit unfair as well .
Frankly Verizon has a better network in the US .
But I do just enough traveling to the rest of the world that we AT&amp;T at work .
( And I have an iPhone ) .Now 4G is pretty much supposed to be the same everywhere .
So some of that will go away.But personally I do n't see what the big deal is .
I know people who prefer verizon and got a blackberry storm .
They seem perfectly happy .
We were going to go with AT&amp;T so I got an iPhone .
I 'm happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then, how about we require Verizon and Sprint to convert to GSM.
You know, like the REST OF THE WORLD.
But that would be a bit unfair as well.
Frankly Verizon has a better network in the US.
But I do just enough traveling to the rest of the world that we AT&amp;T at work.
(And I have an iPhone).Now 4G is pretty much supposed to be the same everywhere.
So some of that will go away.But personally I don't see what the big deal is.
I know people who prefer verizon and got a blackberry storm.
They seem perfectly happy.
We were going to go with AT&amp;T so I got an iPhone.
I'm happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742031</id>
	<title>Re:Understandable WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247942640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live."</p><p>You also can't play Risk on a Monopoly board.  So fucking what?  You're talking entertainment and the rest of us are talking telecom.  Try to keep up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live .
" You also ca n't play Risk on a Monopoly board .
So fucking what ?
You 're talking entertainment and the rest of us are talking telecom .
Try to keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You can only use your PS2 on PS Home and your XBox 360 on XBox Live.
"You also can't play Risk on a Monopoly board.
So fucking what?
You're talking entertainment and the rest of us are talking telecom.
Try to keep up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28746319</id>
	<title>Congress has a (publicly funded) medical plan?</title>
	<author>makemine</author>
	<datestamp>1247994600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does that mean if we chip in to buy them some PS3s or some 360s we might get rid of these ridiculous console-exclusivity deals?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean if we chip in to buy them some PS3s or some 360s we might get rid of these ridiculous console-exclusivity deals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean if we chip in to buy them some PS3s or some 360s we might get rid of these ridiculous console-exclusivity deals?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741201</id>
	<title>Re:Why Should Verizon Compromise At All?</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1247935800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course exclusivity deals are terrible for ordinary people. That's not factually in doubt. Instead, I'd like to explore why you'd post a comment like this. As I see it, there are three explanations:</p><ol> <li>You're a paid shill: not unheard-of. It would explain your posting as an Anonymous Coward, and would explain the completely idiotic thought wrapped up in perfect grammar and spelling.</li><li>You're just trolling: in that case, you've succeeded, though you certainly could have done better.</li><li>You genuinely believe the schlock you spewed: this is the least likely and most depressing possibility. This belief would indicate that you really do lack even the most basic grasp of your own economic best interests, and possibly some kind of childhood trauma that created in you an unflinching obedience to authority. Do you vote Republican by any chance?</li></ol><p>I sincerely hope the correct option is one or two. People who genuinely believe the crap you posted are responsible for most of the human misery in history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course exclusivity deals are terrible for ordinary people .
That 's not factually in doubt .
Instead , I 'd like to explore why you 'd post a comment like this .
As I see it , there are three explanations : You 're a paid shill : not unheard-of .
It would explain your posting as an Anonymous Coward , and would explain the completely idiotic thought wrapped up in perfect grammar and spelling.You 're just trolling : in that case , you 've succeeded , though you certainly could have done better.You genuinely believe the schlock you spewed : this is the least likely and most depressing possibility .
This belief would indicate that you really do lack even the most basic grasp of your own economic best interests , and possibly some kind of childhood trauma that created in you an unflinching obedience to authority .
Do you vote Republican by any chance ? I sincerely hope the correct option is one or two .
People who genuinely believe the crap you posted are responsible for most of the human misery in history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course exclusivity deals are terrible for ordinary people.
That's not factually in doubt.
Instead, I'd like to explore why you'd post a comment like this.
As I see it, there are three explanations: You're a paid shill: not unheard-of.
It would explain your posting as an Anonymous Coward, and would explain the completely idiotic thought wrapped up in perfect grammar and spelling.You're just trolling: in that case, you've succeeded, though you certainly could have done better.You genuinely believe the schlock you spewed: this is the least likely and most depressing possibility.
This belief would indicate that you really do lack even the most basic grasp of your own economic best interests, and possibly some kind of childhood trauma that created in you an unflinching obedience to authority.
Do you vote Republican by any chance?I sincerely hope the correct option is one or two.
People who genuinely believe the crap you posted are responsible for most of the human misery in history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741697</id>
	<title>Re:Understandable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247940000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AOL used to require Windows to use their dialup. Maybe they still do, I donno. Not QUITE the same, but close.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AOL used to require Windows to use their dialup .
Maybe they still do , I donno .
Not QUITE the same , but close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AOL used to require Windows to use their dialup.
Maybe they still do, I donno.
Not QUITE the same, but close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28744839</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes, the old chicken scratch compromise</title>
	<author>leadfoot</author>
	<datestamp>1247928060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What was the last Verizon exclusive phone?</p><p>As far as Palm goes, I've had to wait for Sprint exclusivity deals to end in order to get the Centro. Now I'm waiting for the Pre exclusivity on Sprint to end in order to get one from Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What was the last Verizon exclusive phone ? As far as Palm goes , I 've had to wait for Sprint exclusivity deals to end in order to get the Centro .
Now I 'm waiting for the Pre exclusivity on Sprint to end in order to get one from Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was the last Verizon exclusive phone?As far as Palm goes, I've had to wait for Sprint exclusivity deals to end in order to get the Centro.
Now I'm waiting for the Pre exclusivity on Sprint to end in order to get one from Verizon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740849</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247932860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Citation needed.</i>
<br> <br>
Ooo Ooo look at me, I'm a Wikitard!  I make requests that take two seconds to make and much time to fulfill because I'm too lazy to do my own research, which is appropriate for an encyclopedia but I want to make everything work that way!  That's because I make requests in one culture (Slashdot) that are only appropriate to make in another, different culture (Wikipedia).  That's because as a Wikitard, I am uber-cool and standard things like "knowing where the fuck you are" do not apply to one as cool as me.
<br> <br>
Seriously, stop use trendy little phrases and mannerisms as though they have always been your own.  It's fake, it's cookie-cutter.  Your recent discovery of the phrase "citation needed" is NOT some kind of expressive act of individualism.  If you question that party line you quoted, and any reasonable person does, just question it.  You can do that without being a Wikitard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation needed .
Ooo Ooo look at me , I 'm a Wikitard !
I make requests that take two seconds to make and much time to fulfill because I 'm too lazy to do my own research , which is appropriate for an encyclopedia but I want to make everything work that way !
That 's because I make requests in one culture ( Slashdot ) that are only appropriate to make in another , different culture ( Wikipedia ) .
That 's because as a Wikitard , I am uber-cool and standard things like " knowing where the fuck you are " do not apply to one as cool as me .
Seriously , stop use trendy little phrases and mannerisms as though they have always been your own .
It 's fake , it 's cookie-cutter .
Your recent discovery of the phrase " citation needed " is NOT some kind of expressive act of individualism .
If you question that party line you quoted , and any reasonable person does , just question it .
You can do that without being a Wikitard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation needed.
Ooo Ooo look at me, I'm a Wikitard!
I make requests that take two seconds to make and much time to fulfill because I'm too lazy to do my own research, which is appropriate for an encyclopedia but I want to make everything work that way!
That's because I make requests in one culture (Slashdot) that are only appropriate to make in another, different culture (Wikipedia).
That's because as a Wikitard, I am uber-cool and standard things like "knowing where the fuck you are" do not apply to one as cool as me.
Seriously, stop use trendy little phrases and mannerisms as though they have always been your own.
It's fake, it's cookie-cutter.
Your recent discovery of the phrase "citation needed" is NOT some kind of expressive act of individualism.
If you question that party line you quoted, and any reasonable person does, just question it.
You can do that without being a Wikitard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28788297</id>
	<title>Re:The arugment</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1248259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is their money they are spending to do all of this, and the notion of creating a network that lets all this cool factor happen just to have someone else duplicate it, or worse duplicate it badly and sell at a lower price point is NOT a winning business model, in fact it is a model for going out of business.</p></div><p>I see two solutions:  Either carriers are forced to sell all their phones at fair market value and unlocked so they can be taken to other networks; OR, carriers are legally barred from selling and investing in phones.</p><p>Either way, everything that the carriers are saying is complete BS when compared to how the cell phone industry in Europe works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is their money they are spending to do all of this , and the notion of creating a network that lets all this cool factor happen just to have someone else duplicate it , or worse duplicate it badly and sell at a lower price point is NOT a winning business model , in fact it is a model for going out of business.I see two solutions : Either carriers are forced to sell all their phones at fair market value and unlocked so they can be taken to other networks ; OR , carriers are legally barred from selling and investing in phones.Either way , everything that the carriers are saying is complete BS when compared to how the cell phone industry in Europe works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is their money they are spending to do all of this, and the notion of creating a network that lets all this cool factor happen just to have someone else duplicate it, or worse duplicate it badly and sell at a lower price point is NOT a winning business model, in fact it is a model for going out of business.I see two solutions:  Either carriers are forced to sell all their phones at fair market value and unlocked so they can be taken to other networks; OR, carriers are legally barred from selling and investing in phones.Either way, everything that the carriers are saying is complete BS when compared to how the cell phone industry in Europe works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740917</id>
	<title>Re:Why Should Verizon Compromise At All?</title>
	<author>The\_DoubleU</author>
	<datestamp>1247933400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say you have a DSL line with AT&amp;T and want to buy a Dell laptop to use with that connection but you can't because only Verizon is allowed to sell Dells with their DSL line. If you want to use AT&amp;T DSL then you have to buy a Mac. (Linux is supported on both networks but only 56K connections)</p><p>The customer should be allowed to buy any mobile device they want and then go to a service provider to get a connection. So the customer can get the best choice for them. The phone they want + the service they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say you have a DSL line with AT&amp;T and want to buy a Dell laptop to use with that connection but you ca n't because only Verizon is allowed to sell Dells with their DSL line .
If you want to use AT&amp;T DSL then you have to buy a Mac .
( Linux is supported on both networks but only 56K connections ) The customer should be allowed to buy any mobile device they want and then go to a service provider to get a connection .
So the customer can get the best choice for them .
The phone they want + the service they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say you have a DSL line with AT&amp;T and want to buy a Dell laptop to use with that connection but you can't because only Verizon is allowed to sell Dells with their DSL line.
If you want to use AT&amp;T DSL then you have to buy a Mac.
(Linux is supported on both networks but only 56K connections)The customer should be allowed to buy any mobile device they want and then go to a service provider to get a connection.
So the customer can get the best choice for them.
The phone they want + the service they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825</id>
	<title>NO COMPROMISE ON THIS</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247932560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It simply can't be allowed.  What we need is the exact same deal that exists for POTS.  The phone company pulled nearly the same crap with phones years ago until the government stepped in and said "no more!"  In this day where people are increasingly dumping POTS for mobile phone services, it won't be long before we're trapped in the same situation.  The time for action is now rather than later... truly, the time for action was at least 10 years ago.</p><p>As it stands, phone makers have a technological means of restriction in that AT&amp;T and T-Mobile operate on GPRS while Sprint and Verizon operate on CDMA.  But really, those could be pluggable modules installable at manufacture time.  Not sure that would be terribly hard to overcome.</p><p>But when handsets are "free" (as in freedom) I think we will see not only a drop in prices of the phones but also of services.  The control of phone prices and availability by the carriers has raised prices, nearly eliminated the used handset market, has essentially prevented a 3rd party phone market and created a disincentive for people to change carriers because they know it means buying another new expensive phone.  This is a rather perfect example of anticompetitive behavior that should make Bill Gates envious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It simply ca n't be allowed .
What we need is the exact same deal that exists for POTS .
The phone company pulled nearly the same crap with phones years ago until the government stepped in and said " no more !
" In this day where people are increasingly dumping POTS for mobile phone services , it wo n't be long before we 're trapped in the same situation .
The time for action is now rather than later... truly , the time for action was at least 10 years ago.As it stands , phone makers have a technological means of restriction in that AT&amp;T and T-Mobile operate on GPRS while Sprint and Verizon operate on CDMA .
But really , those could be pluggable modules installable at manufacture time .
Not sure that would be terribly hard to overcome.But when handsets are " free " ( as in freedom ) I think we will see not only a drop in prices of the phones but also of services .
The control of phone prices and availability by the carriers has raised prices , nearly eliminated the used handset market , has essentially prevented a 3rd party phone market and created a disincentive for people to change carriers because they know it means buying another new expensive phone .
This is a rather perfect example of anticompetitive behavior that should make Bill Gates envious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It simply can't be allowed.
What we need is the exact same deal that exists for POTS.
The phone company pulled nearly the same crap with phones years ago until the government stepped in and said "no more!
"  In this day where people are increasingly dumping POTS for mobile phone services, it won't be long before we're trapped in the same situation.
The time for action is now rather than later... truly, the time for action was at least 10 years ago.As it stands, phone makers have a technological means of restriction in that AT&amp;T and T-Mobile operate on GPRS while Sprint and Verizon operate on CDMA.
But really, those could be pluggable modules installable at manufacture time.
Not sure that would be terribly hard to overcome.But when handsets are "free" (as in freedom) I think we will see not only a drop in prices of the phones but also of services.
The control of phone prices and availability by the carriers has raised prices, nearly eliminated the used handset market, has essentially prevented a 3rd party phone market and created a disincentive for people to change carriers because they know it means buying another new expensive phone.
This is a rather perfect example of anticompetitive behavior that should make Bill Gates envious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28746977</id>
	<title>Re:NO COMPROMISE ON THIS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is all going away next year with LTE networks.  All new devices will be LTE capable and will be able to go to any carrier.  You'll actually start seeing LTE phones late this year.  I wouldn't hold my breath for the price of services to go down.  That will likely trend up first.  Cheers!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all going away next year with LTE networks .
All new devices will be LTE capable and will be able to go to any carrier .
You 'll actually start seeing LTE phones late this year .
I would n't hold my breath for the price of services to go down .
That will likely trend up first .
Cheers ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all going away next year with LTE networks.
All new devices will be LTE capable and will be able to go to any carrier.
You'll actually start seeing LTE phones late this year.
I wouldn't hold my breath for the price of services to go down.
That will likely trend up first.
Cheers!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740703</id>
	<title>TUCKER LOSES A FILM REEL HILARITY ENSUES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247931420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(After one of the film reels gets damaged and Tucker can't get a replacement reel in time, he tells a sold out San Diego crowd the following)</p><p>"Okay, check this shit out. The average film is spooled on like six separate film reels and shit. About twenty minutes each, give or take; I'm not a fucking projectionist. Well last night after leaving Arizona, which is a cool place but hot as shit, and those fucker don't party like you fuckers in SD!"</p><p>CHEERS FROM CROWD</p><p>"Anyways, last night the fifth reel of the film got destroyed. But here's the funny part. I FUCKING DESTROYED IT. Well, not me, but a motherfucking Tiger."</p><p>CROWD GOES NUTS</p><p>"Serious, this is true story. Last night we got to SD early, like 2:30am. The whole way here Nils, Dawes, Tando and I were doing shots of moonshine. Like 40 or 50 shots each. We're full-on buzzed and looking for some fun. Then I remember there's a Naval base down here in SD. Holy shit, I said 'I should call up a few Navy SEAL friends I know.' BAD. IDEA."</p><p>CROWD LAUGHS</p><p>"By 3:00am my SEAL buddies BroHawk, Mondo and Terror meet us in a parking lot. They didn't come empty handed. They brought a Howitzer machine gun. If you're not familiar with the power of a Howitzer let me explain. Ten seconds of rapid fire from a fucking Howitzer can turn an entire Iraqi Wedding party into two thousand pounds of ground beef and shit."</p><p>CROWD ERUPTS WITH EXPLOSIVE APPLAUSE, A FEW BOOS</p><p>"Calm the fuck down, they're Iraqis NOT humans"</p><p>GUYS IN TANK TOPS AND FLIP FLOPS ARE NOW ROLLING IN THE AISLES</p><p>"Fuck, I haven't even told you motherfuckers the best part of the story. Shit. so we spent the next hour drinking beers and shooting out every motherfucking street lamp in a two mile radius. The cops were called and we took off in the tour bus. Since I was fairly drunk I knew the best thing for me to do was, well, drive the mother fucking bus!"</p><p>CROWD JUMPS UP AND DOWN WITH HOOTS</p><p>"Problem is, I couldn't figure out how to work the fucking air conditioner. So now it's like 100 degrees in the tour bus and I'm doing like 80-90 mph. To where? Who the fuck knows? Anyways, since everyone is sweating and shit, people started taking off their shirts and shit. I look in the mirror and I catch my Navy SEAL buddy Terror's reflection. He is shirtless, sweating and cut like a motherfucker. Full on six pack, nice round pecks, shoulders to die for."</p><p>GIRLS IN THE CROWD SQEAL</p><p>"At this point I'm no longer looking at the road. I'm looking at Terror's fucking chest and thinking about running back there and sucking and licking his nipples. Damn, dude has a better body than me motherfucker."</p><p>CROWD GOES SILENT</p><p>"Shit. I don't have notes. Where the fuck was I again?"</p><p>GUY IN CROWD "YOU WERE ABOUT TO GO GAY"</p><p>"Gay? Motherfucker, I've pleased more pussy than Purina Cat Chow!"</p><p>THE CROWD EXPLODES WITH LAUGHTER</p><p>"So I'm driving the fucking bus down the road when I see a sign. A sign from God. It reads: SAN DIEGO ZOO. 'Guess where we're going motherfuckers' I yelled to the boys. So a few minutes later we're in the zoo parking lot. Obviously it's closed. Closed to the public that is, but not Tucker Fucking Max!"</p><p>STANDING OVATION WITH TWO MINUTES OF APPLAUSE</p><p>"So I pull the fucking bus into the zoo's parking lot. The bus has all these fucking gears and I'm just beating the shit out of the engine. Since we were Tucker Max drunk at that point I decided to park the bus across 15 handicap spots. Who the fuck brings retards to a zoo anyway? (mocks retard voice) 'I wannaz dee munkeee!!!!"</p><p>THE CROWD ROLLS WITH LAUGHTER</p><p>"Fuck. Note to self. San Diego is full of sick motherfuckers!"</p><p>THE CROWD CLAPS AND STOMPS FEET</p><p>"Hold on, you're going make me lose my place. Ok, right, so we're fucking in the parking lot of the San Diego zoo at 3am. We get off the bus to stretch our legs and I look over at Nils. He is in shock and pointing at something. Was he looking at a copy of USA today announcing Pizza Hut Chapter 11? Who the</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( After one of the film reels gets damaged and Tucker ca n't get a replacement reel in time , he tells a sold out San Diego crowd the following ) " Okay , check this shit out .
The average film is spooled on like six separate film reels and shit .
About twenty minutes each , give or take ; I 'm not a fucking projectionist .
Well last night after leaving Arizona , which is a cool place but hot as shit , and those fucker do n't party like you fuckers in SD !
" CHEERS FROM CROWD " Anyways , last night the fifth reel of the film got destroyed .
But here 's the funny part .
I FUCKING DESTROYED IT .
Well , not me , but a motherfucking Tiger .
" CROWD GOES NUTS " Serious , this is true story .
Last night we got to SD early , like 2 : 30am .
The whole way here Nils , Dawes , Tando and I were doing shots of moonshine .
Like 40 or 50 shots each .
We 're full-on buzzed and looking for some fun .
Then I remember there 's a Naval base down here in SD .
Holy shit , I said 'I should call up a few Navy SEAL friends I know .
' BAD .
IDEA. " CROWD LAUGHS " By 3 : 00am my SEAL buddies BroHawk , Mondo and Terror meet us in a parking lot .
They did n't come empty handed .
They brought a Howitzer machine gun .
If you 're not familiar with the power of a Howitzer let me explain .
Ten seconds of rapid fire from a fucking Howitzer can turn an entire Iraqi Wedding party into two thousand pounds of ground beef and shit .
" CROWD ERUPTS WITH EXPLOSIVE APPLAUSE , A FEW BOOS " Calm the fuck down , they 're Iraqis NOT humans " GUYS IN TANK TOPS AND FLIP FLOPS ARE NOW ROLLING IN THE AISLES " Fuck , I have n't even told you motherfuckers the best part of the story .
Shit. so we spent the next hour drinking beers and shooting out every motherfucking street lamp in a two mile radius .
The cops were called and we took off in the tour bus .
Since I was fairly drunk I knew the best thing for me to do was , well , drive the mother fucking bus !
" CROWD JUMPS UP AND DOWN WITH HOOTS " Problem is , I could n't figure out how to work the fucking air conditioner .
So now it 's like 100 degrees in the tour bus and I 'm doing like 80-90 mph .
To where ?
Who the fuck knows ?
Anyways , since everyone is sweating and shit , people started taking off their shirts and shit .
I look in the mirror and I catch my Navy SEAL buddy Terror 's reflection .
He is shirtless , sweating and cut like a motherfucker .
Full on six pack , nice round pecks , shoulders to die for .
" GIRLS IN THE CROWD SQEAL " At this point I 'm no longer looking at the road .
I 'm looking at Terror 's fucking chest and thinking about running back there and sucking and licking his nipples .
Damn , dude has a better body than me motherfucker .
" CROWD GOES SILENT " Shit .
I do n't have notes .
Where the fuck was I again ?
" GUY IN CROWD " YOU WERE ABOUT TO GO GAY " " Gay ?
Motherfucker , I 've pleased more pussy than Purina Cat Chow !
" THE CROWD EXPLODES WITH LAUGHTER " So I 'm driving the fucking bus down the road when I see a sign .
A sign from God .
It reads : SAN DIEGO ZOO .
'Guess where we 're going motherfuckers ' I yelled to the boys .
So a few minutes later we 're in the zoo parking lot .
Obviously it 's closed .
Closed to the public that is , but not Tucker Fucking Max !
" STANDING OVATION WITH TWO MINUTES OF APPLAUSE " So I pull the fucking bus into the zoo 's parking lot .
The bus has all these fucking gears and I 'm just beating the shit out of the engine .
Since we were Tucker Max drunk at that point I decided to park the bus across 15 handicap spots .
Who the fuck brings retards to a zoo anyway ?
( mocks retard voice ) 'I wannaz dee munkeee ! ! ! !
" THE CROWD ROLLS WITH LAUGHTER " Fuck .
Note to self .
San Diego is full of sick motherfuckers !
" THE CROWD CLAPS AND STOMPS FEET " Hold on , you 're going make me lose my place .
Ok , right , so we 're fucking in the parking lot of the San Diego zoo at 3am .
We get off the bus to stretch our legs and I look over at Nils .
He is in shock and pointing at something .
Was he looking at a copy of USA today announcing Pizza Hut Chapter 11 ?
Who the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(After one of the film reels gets damaged and Tucker can't get a replacement reel in time, he tells a sold out San Diego crowd the following)"Okay, check this shit out.
The average film is spooled on like six separate film reels and shit.
About twenty minutes each, give or take; I'm not a fucking projectionist.
Well last night after leaving Arizona, which is a cool place but hot as shit, and those fucker don't party like you fuckers in SD!
"CHEERS FROM CROWD"Anyways, last night the fifth reel of the film got destroyed.
But here's the funny part.
I FUCKING DESTROYED IT.
Well, not me, but a motherfucking Tiger.
"CROWD GOES NUTS"Serious, this is true story.
Last night we got to SD early, like 2:30am.
The whole way here Nils, Dawes, Tando and I were doing shots of moonshine.
Like 40 or 50 shots each.
We're full-on buzzed and looking for some fun.
Then I remember there's a Naval base down here in SD.
Holy shit, I said 'I should call up a few Navy SEAL friends I know.
' BAD.
IDEA."CROWD LAUGHS"By 3:00am my SEAL buddies BroHawk, Mondo and Terror meet us in a parking lot.
They didn't come empty handed.
They brought a Howitzer machine gun.
If you're not familiar with the power of a Howitzer let me explain.
Ten seconds of rapid fire from a fucking Howitzer can turn an entire Iraqi Wedding party into two thousand pounds of ground beef and shit.
"CROWD ERUPTS WITH EXPLOSIVE APPLAUSE, A FEW BOOS"Calm the fuck down, they're Iraqis NOT humans"GUYS IN TANK TOPS AND FLIP FLOPS ARE NOW ROLLING IN THE AISLES"Fuck, I haven't even told you motherfuckers the best part of the story.
Shit. so we spent the next hour drinking beers and shooting out every motherfucking street lamp in a two mile radius.
The cops were called and we took off in the tour bus.
Since I was fairly drunk I knew the best thing for me to do was, well, drive the mother fucking bus!
"CROWD JUMPS UP AND DOWN WITH HOOTS"Problem is, I couldn't figure out how to work the fucking air conditioner.
So now it's like 100 degrees in the tour bus and I'm doing like 80-90 mph.
To where?
Who the fuck knows?
Anyways, since everyone is sweating and shit, people started taking off their shirts and shit.
I look in the mirror and I catch my Navy SEAL buddy Terror's reflection.
He is shirtless, sweating and cut like a motherfucker.
Full on six pack, nice round pecks, shoulders to die for.
"GIRLS IN THE CROWD SQEAL"At this point I'm no longer looking at the road.
I'm looking at Terror's fucking chest and thinking about running back there and sucking and licking his nipples.
Damn, dude has a better body than me motherfucker.
"CROWD GOES SILENT"Shit.
I don't have notes.
Where the fuck was I again?
"GUY IN CROWD "YOU WERE ABOUT TO GO GAY""Gay?
Motherfucker, I've pleased more pussy than Purina Cat Chow!
"THE CROWD EXPLODES WITH LAUGHTER"So I'm driving the fucking bus down the road when I see a sign.
A sign from God.
It reads: SAN DIEGO ZOO.
'Guess where we're going motherfuckers' I yelled to the boys.
So a few minutes later we're in the zoo parking lot.
Obviously it's closed.
Closed to the public that is, but not Tucker Fucking Max!
"STANDING OVATION WITH TWO MINUTES OF APPLAUSE"So I pull the fucking bus into the zoo's parking lot.
The bus has all these fucking gears and I'm just beating the shit out of the engine.
Since we were Tucker Max drunk at that point I decided to park the bus across 15 handicap spots.
Who the fuck brings retards to a zoo anyway?
(mocks retard voice) 'I wannaz dee munkeee!!!!
"THE CROWD ROLLS WITH LAUGHTER"Fuck.
Note to self.
San Diego is full of sick motherfuckers!
"THE CROWD CLAPS AND STOMPS FEET"Hold on, you're going make me lose my place.
Ok, right, so we're fucking in the parking lot of the San Diego zoo at 3am.
We get off the bus to stretch our legs and I look over at Nils.
He is in shock and pointing at something.
Was he looking at a copy of USA today announcing Pizza Hut Chapter 11?
Who the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28746885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28744839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28747621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28746977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28788297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1240218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28744259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28744259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28788297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741325
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742031
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743611
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28746885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28747621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28743919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28746977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28744839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28742937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1240218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28741201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1240218.28740917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
