<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_27_2123243</id>
	<title>Google Attack On the Mobile Market Rumored</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259321700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>xchg writes in with a somewhat speculative, though plausible, piece from WiseAndroid claiming that Google is gearing up for an <a href="http://www.wiseandroid.com/NewsItem.aspx?category=News&amp;path=November&amp;itemid=32">all-out assault on the mobile-phone market</a> that will include a new, Google-branded handset and the first comprehensive Google phone service with unlimited free calls. <i>"The real breakthrough, however, will come with the marriage of the Googlephone to Google Voice, the Californian company&rsquo;s high-tech phone service. Google Voice gives US users a free phone number and allows unlimited free calls to any phone in the country &mdash; landline or mobile. International calls start from... just over a penny a minute. Google Voice also uses sophisticated voice recognition to turn voicemails into emails, can block telemarketing calls automatically and offers free text messaging. Google sounded its intentions two weeks ago when it purchased a small company called Gizmo5... [E]xperts are predicting that the Googlephone will be launched in the US early next year."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>xchg writes in with a somewhat speculative , though plausible , piece from WiseAndroid claiming that Google is gearing up for an all-out assault on the mobile-phone market that will include a new , Google-branded handset and the first comprehensive Google phone service with unlimited free calls .
" The real breakthrough , however , will come with the marriage of the Googlephone to Google Voice , the Californian company    s high-tech phone service .
Google Voice gives US users a free phone number and allows unlimited free calls to any phone in the country    landline or mobile .
International calls start from... just over a penny a minute .
Google Voice also uses sophisticated voice recognition to turn voicemails into emails , can block telemarketing calls automatically and offers free text messaging .
Google sounded its intentions two weeks ago when it purchased a small company called Gizmo5... [ E ] xperts are predicting that the Googlephone will be launched in the US early next year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xchg writes in with a somewhat speculative, though plausible, piece from WiseAndroid claiming that Google is gearing up for an all-out assault on the mobile-phone market that will include a new, Google-branded handset and the first comprehensive Google phone service with unlimited free calls.
"The real breakthrough, however, will come with the marriage of the Googlephone to Google Voice, the Californian company’s high-tech phone service.
Google Voice gives US users a free phone number and allows unlimited free calls to any phone in the country — landline or mobile.
International calls start from... just over a penny a minute.
Google Voice also uses sophisticated voice recognition to turn voicemails into emails, can block telemarketing calls automatically and offers free text messaging.
Google sounded its intentions two weeks ago when it purchased a small company called Gizmo5... [E]xperts are predicting that the Googlephone will be launched in the US early next year.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251416</id>
	<title>The big question:</title>
	<author>bashibazouk</author>
	<datestamp>1259330520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is Google making money on this and is this going to annoy me enough to stick with what I have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Google making money on this and is this going to annoy me enough to stick with what I have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Google making money on this and is this going to annoy me enough to stick with what I have?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254330</id>
	<title>Re:Two words, "whose network?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google seems to have no problems building there own data centers and networks, they have the cash to invest in some towers too. I think the only thing they are waiting for is finding a way to do it so efficiently that they can make a profit on this just from the advert on the zero dollar invoice they send (by email) each month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google seems to have no problems building there own data centers and networks , they have the cash to invest in some towers too .
I think the only thing they are waiting for is finding a way to do it so efficiently that they can make a profit on this just from the advert on the zero dollar invoice they send ( by email ) each month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google seems to have no problems building there own data centers and networks, they have the cash to invest in some towers too.
I think the only thing they are waiting for is finding a way to do it so efficiently that they can make a profit on this just from the advert on the zero dollar invoice they send (by email) each month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253240</id>
	<title>Re:Where is the network?</title>
	<author>Ed\_1024</author>
	<datestamp>1259400720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's exactly what I thought. Where I live you can buy unlocked N900s, iPhones, etc. but you still need a contract with *somebody* to use their cell network or roam others. The data costs are high, especially when roaming and I don't see a way round this - the networks belong to the telecos. What's different about the "GooglePhone"? AFAIK Google don't own any cellular infrastructure so, unfortunately, have to deal with those that do, like Apple does. Am I missing something fundamental here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly what I thought .
Where I live you can buy unlocked N900s , iPhones , etc .
but you still need a contract with * somebody * to use their cell network or roam others .
The data costs are high , especially when roaming and I do n't see a way round this - the networks belong to the telecos .
What 's different about the " GooglePhone " ?
AFAIK Google do n't own any cellular infrastructure so , unfortunately , have to deal with those that do , like Apple does .
Am I missing something fundamental here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly what I thought.
Where I live you can buy unlocked N900s, iPhones, etc.
but you still need a contract with *somebody* to use their cell network or roam others.
The data costs are high, especially when roaming and I don't see a way round this - the networks belong to the telecos.
What's different about the "GooglePhone"?
AFAIK Google don't own any cellular infrastructure so, unfortunately, have to deal with those that do, like Apple does.
Am I missing something fundamental here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250790</id>
	<title>Wacky mockup</title>
	<author>StreetStealth</author>
	<datestamp>1259326140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the 3D-rendered "Googlephone" in TFA appear to be running Windows Mobile?</p><p>This is a fun rumor, but I don't really get much of a sense of its veracity from this article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the 3D-rendered " Googlephone " in TFA appear to be running Windows Mobile ? This is a fun rumor , but I do n't really get much of a sense of its veracity from this article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the 3D-rendered "Googlephone" in TFA appear to be running Windows Mobile?This is a fun rumor, but I don't really get much of a sense of its veracity from this article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253802</id>
	<title>Re:Two words, "whose network?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259413260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about white space boradband? See http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/vote-for-broadband-in-white-spaces.html seems like it's made for this. I quote<br>"We will soon have "Wi-Fi on steroids," since these spectrum signals have much longer range than today's Wi-Fi technology and broadband access can be spread using fewer base stations resulting in better coverage at lower cost."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about white space boradband ?
See http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/vote-for-broadband-in-white-spaces.html seems like it 's made for this .
I quote " We will soon have " Wi-Fi on steroids , " since these spectrum signals have much longer range than today 's Wi-Fi technology and broadband access can be spread using fewer base stations resulting in better coverage at lower cost .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about white space boradband?
See http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/vote-for-broadband-in-white-spaces.html seems like it's made for this.
I quote"We will soon have "Wi-Fi on steroids," since these spectrum signals have much longer range than today's Wi-Fi technology and broadband access can be spread using fewer base stations resulting in better coverage at lower cost.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250926</id>
	<title>Adapt or else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259327100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember when web mail providers were giving like 4Mb of mailbox capacity, and then Google came with 2Gb (oh, yes, and a spam filter that actually worked)? Most providers didnt vanished, just had to adapt and still are here, giving a better service to their costumer. For cellphone industry that is something very needed, someone that come with a disruptive idea and weight enough behind to actually push it. Wont kill all companies, but to survive they will have to improve, not just giving the latest gizmo and charging you a lot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when web mail providers were giving like 4Mb of mailbox capacity , and then Google came with 2Gb ( oh , yes , and a spam filter that actually worked ) ?
Most providers didnt vanished , just had to adapt and still are here , giving a better service to their costumer .
For cellphone industry that is something very needed , someone that come with a disruptive idea and weight enough behind to actually push it .
Wont kill all companies , but to survive they will have to improve , not just giving the latest gizmo and charging you a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when web mail providers were giving like 4Mb of mailbox capacity, and then Google came with 2Gb (oh, yes, and a spam filter that actually worked)?
Most providers didnt vanished, just had to adapt and still are here, giving a better service to their costumer.
For cellphone industry that is something very needed, someone that come with a disruptive idea and weight enough behind to actually push it.
Wont kill all companies, but to survive they will have to improve, not just giving the latest gizmo and charging you a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251232</id>
	<title>They haven't got the Droid quite right yet...</title>
	<author>bschorr</author>
	<datestamp>1259328840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they should focus on fixing the devices they already have on the market rather than bringing out whole new things?<br><br>The Android is an interesting device but Exchange-Calendar sync is broken (even my iPod Touch does it better), the camera is mediocre and a lot of features just feel like they're<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.9 level rather than ready for prime time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should focus on fixing the devices they already have on the market rather than bringing out whole new things ? The Android is an interesting device but Exchange-Calendar sync is broken ( even my iPod Touch does it better ) , the camera is mediocre and a lot of features just feel like they 're .9 level rather than ready for prime time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should focus on fixing the devices they already have on the market rather than bringing out whole new things?The Android is an interesting device but Exchange-Calendar sync is broken (even my iPod Touch does it better), the camera is mediocre and a lot of features just feel like they're .9 level rather than ready for prime time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250760</id>
	<title>Google Is the New Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259326020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems obvious to anybody that the company that assimilates, disrupts and dominates over the competition is Google.</p><p>They are monopolists of information and now they aim for communication.  I'm a fan of Google, but we must be wary about Google's aspirations.</p><p>Perhaps Slashdot should change the google icon here to a borg icon like Microsoft's.  Of course not, people here slobber over Google and Apple, but slag Microsoft at every opportunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems obvious to anybody that the company that assimilates , disrupts and dominates over the competition is Google.They are monopolists of information and now they aim for communication .
I 'm a fan of Google , but we must be wary about Google 's aspirations.Perhaps Slashdot should change the google icon here to a borg icon like Microsoft 's .
Of course not , people here slobber over Google and Apple , but slag Microsoft at every opportunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems obvious to anybody that the company that assimilates, disrupts and dominates over the competition is Google.They are monopolists of information and now they aim for communication.
I'm a fan of Google, but we must be wary about Google's aspirations.Perhaps Slashdot should change the google icon here to a borg icon like Microsoft's.
Of course not, people here slobber over Google and Apple, but slag Microsoft at every opportunity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252560</id>
	<title>Re:The article may say something incorrect</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1259344860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>some of them piss the hell out of me. No folders in Gmail? I can't get used to it. Sure, there are labels. But I want folders.</p></div><p>Wow. Is it really that hard to pretend they're folders? The only difference is (1) you can't nest labels, and (2) an email can have more than one label. What is <b>wrong</b> with you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>some of them piss the hell out of me .
No folders in Gmail ?
I ca n't get used to it .
Sure , there are labels .
But I want folders.Wow .
Is it really that hard to pretend they 're folders ?
The only difference is ( 1 ) you ca n't nest labels , and ( 2 ) an email can have more than one label .
What is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some of them piss the hell out of me.
No folders in Gmail?
I can't get used to it.
Sure, there are labels.
But I want folders.Wow.
Is it really that hard to pretend they're folders?
The only difference is (1) you can't nest labels, and (2) an email can have more than one label.
What is wrong with you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251440</id>
	<title>Re:Adapt or else</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1259330760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly!  The only thing Google is offering here is a soupped up VOIP solution.  Once google breaks in the carriers then it's open game for everyone else.  Let them get into the market and maybe we can crack this nut.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
The only thing Google is offering here is a soupped up VOIP solution .
Once google breaks in the carriers then it 's open game for everyone else .
Let them get into the market and maybe we can crack this nut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
The only thing Google is offering here is a soupped up VOIP solution.
Once google breaks in the carriers then it's open game for everyone else.
Let them get into the market and maybe we can crack this nut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251222</id>
	<title>Where is the network?</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1259328780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first I thought, whoa, the google phone company, then I broke down and RTFA....You still need a "plan" of some sort from a carrier unless you are using this google phone at some free leeched wifi spot or at home on your network. If you are at home..no need for a special phone, just use your headset and the software like you are now.</p><p>If this takes off and people drop voice and go to data only plans, the carriers will just restrict the heck out of them, maybe even dropping the caps from five gigs to one gig, then a hundred bucks a gig after that, whatever they say, or stop offering data only plans, etc. In other words, they aren't going to get "cut out", you will still be horking over ca$h to attverizonsprint whatever.</p><p>I am digging on much better quality phones though..eventually I think the mobile phone will more or less be your computer, and at home you'll just have a wireless connected screen and keyboard and mouse, etc with some NAS action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I thought , whoa , the google phone company , then I broke down and RTFA....You still need a " plan " of some sort from a carrier unless you are using this google phone at some free leeched wifi spot or at home on your network .
If you are at home..no need for a special phone , just use your headset and the software like you are now.If this takes off and people drop voice and go to data only plans , the carriers will just restrict the heck out of them , maybe even dropping the caps from five gigs to one gig , then a hundred bucks a gig after that , whatever they say , or stop offering data only plans , etc .
In other words , they are n't going to get " cut out " , you will still be horking over ca $ h to attverizonsprint whatever.I am digging on much better quality phones though..eventually I think the mobile phone will more or less be your computer , and at home you 'll just have a wireless connected screen and keyboard and mouse , etc with some NAS action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I thought, whoa, the google phone company, then I broke down and RTFA....You still need a "plan" of some sort from a carrier unless you are using this google phone at some free leeched wifi spot or at home on your network.
If you are at home..no need for a special phone, just use your headset and the software like you are now.If this takes off and people drop voice and go to data only plans, the carriers will just restrict the heck out of them, maybe even dropping the caps from five gigs to one gig, then a hundred bucks a gig after that, whatever they say, or stop offering data only plans, etc.
In other words, they aren't going to get "cut out", you will still be horking over ca$h to attverizonsprint whatever.I am digging on much better quality phones though..eventually I think the mobile phone will more or less be your computer, and at home you'll just have a wireless connected screen and keyboard and mouse, etc with some NAS action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250872</id>
	<title>Yeah, but that is not the real story.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259326740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google called it Android because the planet from where they all come from has lots of Androids. And Oprah, Laura Bush, as well as Michelle Obama are secretly having babies from the top guys of Google.<br> <br>
I think that should cover all the conspiracies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google called it Android because the planet from where they all come from has lots of Androids .
And Oprah , Laura Bush , as well as Michelle Obama are secretly having babies from the top guys of Google .
I think that should cover all the conspiracies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google called it Android because the planet from where they all come from has lots of Androids.
And Oprah, Laura Bush, as well as Michelle Obama are secretly having babies from the top guys of Google.
I think that should cover all the conspiracies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252758</id>
	<title>Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked..</title>
	<author>BStocknd</author>
	<datestamp>1259347860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using it to call Canada from the US for a few months and haven't ever had an issue. I probably call there about once a week, and talk for maybe an hour.<br> <br>I've done it a few different ways too... Sometimes from my AT&amp;T U-Verse Voice service, sometimes from my Sprint cell phone (by calling my Google Voice number, then entering the number I want to call.. basically using it like a calling card), and also from my Verizon Droid phone via the integrated Google Voice Dialing functionality. I haven't once had it where one party couldn't hear the other, or get a wrong number. I've barely had any incoming calls though, so I can't comment on that at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using it to call Canada from the US for a few months and have n't ever had an issue .
I probably call there about once a week , and talk for maybe an hour .
I 've done it a few different ways too... Sometimes from my AT&amp;T U-Verse Voice service , sometimes from my Sprint cell phone ( by calling my Google Voice number , then entering the number I want to call.. basically using it like a calling card ) , and also from my Verizon Droid phone via the integrated Google Voice Dialing functionality .
I have n't once had it where one party could n't hear the other , or get a wrong number .
I 've barely had any incoming calls though , so I ca n't comment on that at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using it to call Canada from the US for a few months and haven't ever had an issue.
I probably call there about once a week, and talk for maybe an hour.
I've done it a few different ways too... Sometimes from my AT&amp;T U-Verse Voice service, sometimes from my Sprint cell phone (by calling my Google Voice number, then entering the number I want to call.. basically using it like a calling card), and also from my Verizon Droid phone via the integrated Google Voice Dialing functionality.
I haven't once had it where one party couldn't hear the other, or get a wrong number.
I've barely had any incoming calls though, so I can't comment on that at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252912</id>
	<title>Here's what scares me...</title>
	<author>Call Me Black Cloud</author>
	<datestamp>1259350920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google makes me nervous as it continues to expand into new markets.  I may not like most of the other companies that Google is going up against but they don't bother me.  Why not?  Because I understand what motivates them: profit and self-interest.  That's black and white.<br> <br>

"Don't be evil", though, that's getting a bit subjective.  Sure, most everyone will agree that evil is bad, at least in theory, but in practice coming to an agreement on the definition of evil is difficult.  If Google wins, they're subjecting me to their definition of good, which I may or may not agree with.  I like my bad guys to be bad...I like knowing they're trying to rip me off and take advantage of me.  I don't want them doing things because they think it's best for me.<br> <br>

In other words, if I'm going to be screwed I want it to be by someone who knows he's screwing me, not by someone who thinks he's doing me a favor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google makes me nervous as it continues to expand into new markets .
I may not like most of the other companies that Google is going up against but they do n't bother me .
Why not ?
Because I understand what motivates them : profit and self-interest .
That 's black and white .
" Do n't be evil " , though , that 's getting a bit subjective .
Sure , most everyone will agree that evil is bad , at least in theory , but in practice coming to an agreement on the definition of evil is difficult .
If Google wins , they 're subjecting me to their definition of good , which I may or may not agree with .
I like my bad guys to be bad...I like knowing they 're trying to rip me off and take advantage of me .
I do n't want them doing things because they think it 's best for me .
In other words , if I 'm going to be screwed I want it to be by someone who knows he 's screwing me , not by someone who thinks he 's doing me a favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google makes me nervous as it continues to expand into new markets.
I may not like most of the other companies that Google is going up against but they don't bother me.
Why not?
Because I understand what motivates them: profit and self-interest.
That's black and white.
"Don't be evil", though, that's getting a bit subjective.
Sure, most everyone will agree that evil is bad, at least in theory, but in practice coming to an agreement on the definition of evil is difficult.
If Google wins, they're subjecting me to their definition of good, which I may or may not agree with.
I like my bad guys to be bad...I like knowing they're trying to rip me off and take advantage of me.
I don't want them doing things because they think it's best for me.
In other words, if I'm going to be screwed I want it to be by someone who knows he's screwing me, not by someone who thinks he's doing me a favor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252476</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259343240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google phones use wifi or existing 3g network?  Their basically selling voip phones and...you still need 3G access (IE expensive wireless data plan) to make calls on the road.  Except now your cellular voice calls will sound even crappier than they normally do with much more lag to boot.  3G **best case** still has ~200 ms latency associated with it.</p><p>Whats the point in using google phone when I'm still going to have to pay a real cellular phone company for an expensive data plan?  It would be cheaper in many markets to have a reasonable minutes plan and text messaging than pay for data as well even if the google service is 100\% free and they don't bug you (advertising)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which seems unsubstainable and unrealistic to say nothing about zero probability of carriers just sitting idly by and taking it from a marketing company (Google) that isn't actually producing anything or operating a mobile network of its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google phones use wifi or existing 3g network ?
Their basically selling voip phones and...you still need 3G access ( IE expensive wireless data plan ) to make calls on the road .
Except now your cellular voice calls will sound even crappier than they normally do with much more lag to boot .
3G * * best case * * still has ~ 200 ms latency associated with it.Whats the point in using google phone when I 'm still going to have to pay a real cellular phone company for an expensive data plan ?
It would be cheaper in many markets to have a reasonable minutes plan and text messaging than pay for data as well even if the google service is 100 \ % free and they do n't bug you ( advertising ) ... which seems unsubstainable and unrealistic to say nothing about zero probability of carriers just sitting idly by and taking it from a marketing company ( Google ) that is n't actually producing anything or operating a mobile network of its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google phones use wifi or existing 3g network?
Their basically selling voip phones and...you still need 3G access (IE expensive wireless data plan) to make calls on the road.
Except now your cellular voice calls will sound even crappier than they normally do with much more lag to boot.
3G **best case** still has ~200 ms latency associated with it.Whats the point in using google phone when I'm still going to have to pay a real cellular phone company for an expensive data plan?
It would be cheaper in many markets to have a reasonable minutes plan and text messaging than pay for data as well even if the google service is 100\% free and they don't bug you (advertising) ... which seems unsubstainable and unrealistic to say nothing about zero probability of carriers just sitting idly by and taking it from a marketing company (Google) that isn't actually producing anything or operating a mobile network of its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251056</id>
	<title>I for one welcome our</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259327880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google telco overlords!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google telco overlords !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google telco overlords!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253132</id>
	<title>Re:Where is the network?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259441400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A wifi ISP would sprout up that allows any Tom Dick or Harry to engage in profit sharing by replacing their WPA with Starbucks style Point Of Sale logins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A wifi ISP would sprout up that allows any Tom Dick or Harry to engage in profit sharing by replacing their WPA with Starbucks style Point Of Sale logins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A wifi ISP would sprout up that allows any Tom Dick or Harry to engage in profit sharing by replacing their WPA with Starbucks style Point Of Sale logins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251314</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy Theory</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1259329560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't wait for Google to record all of our conversations, run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with "targeted" advertisements.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I see the Googlebots modded you -1 Troll.  Why? Because it's very believable. And it's probably what they'd end up doing.  So there'd be all these nice transcripts lying around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that could be VERY profitable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for Google to record all of our conversations , run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with " targeted " advertisements .
I see the Googlebots modded you -1 Troll .
Why ? Because it 's very believable .
And it 's probably what they 'd end up doing .
So there 'd be all these nice transcripts lying around ... that could be VERY profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for Google to record all of our conversations, run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with "targeted" advertisements.
I see the Googlebots modded you -1 Troll.
Why? Because it's very believable.
And it's probably what they'd end up doing.
So there'd be all these nice transcripts lying around ... that could be VERY profitable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251682</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy Theory</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1259332920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at it this way, you would profit greatly from the increased competition, even if you decided to stick with another carrier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at it this way , you would profit greatly from the increased competition , even if you decided to stick with another carrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at it this way, you would profit greatly from the increased competition, even if you decided to stick with another carrier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254276</id>
	<title>It won't be hard</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259420880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Google's arrogance and ignorance on privacy, shipping applications that "auto update" non critical, free junk every 2 hours resulted in ban of Google software on large company networks, they don't need high end/complex campaigns.</p><p>Google started to look like an unstoppable data monster in average users eyes too. Signs are everywhere, like the flames directed to end user friendly RSS reader to switch "free" to Google reader powered news reading.</p><p>If Google doesn't wake up from their "but we aren't evil" dream and start acting like a privacy respecting, seriously managed company, at least attempt to do it, their glory days will be remembered soon.</p><p>I can setup a SEO hacked site right now distributing malware and rely the entire business to Google's services like not controlled adwords, somehow "top of the list" Google blog services and the Adwords \_inside\_ my scam operation.</p><p>It really seems Google trusts to ignorance of end user Joe Sixpack. They want all the planet's data and keep it. Now it is "voice", it was "free maps!" (but send your loc. to us), google mail (but we will analyze your private mails), office (but we keep your docs)...</p><p>I just want to hear A WORD from those privacy freaks posting "spyware! spyware!" when the software \_they paid for, using cc!\_ checks for updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Google 's arrogance and ignorance on privacy , shipping applications that " auto update " non critical , free junk every 2 hours resulted in ban of Google software on large company networks , they do n't need high end/complex campaigns.Google started to look like an unstoppable data monster in average users eyes too .
Signs are everywhere , like the flames directed to end user friendly RSS reader to switch " free " to Google reader powered news reading.If Google does n't wake up from their " but we are n't evil " dream and start acting like a privacy respecting , seriously managed company , at least attempt to do it , their glory days will be remembered soon.I can setup a SEO hacked site right now distributing malware and rely the entire business to Google 's services like not controlled adwords , somehow " top of the list " Google blog services and the Adwords \ _inside \ _ my scam operation.It really seems Google trusts to ignorance of end user Joe Sixpack .
They want all the planet 's data and keep it .
Now it is " voice " , it was " free maps !
" ( but send your loc .
to us ) , google mail ( but we will analyze your private mails ) , office ( but we keep your docs ) ...I just want to hear A WORD from those privacy freaks posting " spyware !
spyware ! " when the software \ _they paid for , using cc ! \ _ checks for updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Google's arrogance and ignorance on privacy, shipping applications that "auto update" non critical, free junk every 2 hours resulted in ban of Google software on large company networks, they don't need high end/complex campaigns.Google started to look like an unstoppable data monster in average users eyes too.
Signs are everywhere, like the flames directed to end user friendly RSS reader to switch "free" to Google reader powered news reading.If Google doesn't wake up from their "but we aren't evil" dream and start acting like a privacy respecting, seriously managed company, at least attempt to do it, their glory days will be remembered soon.I can setup a SEO hacked site right now distributing malware and rely the entire business to Google's services like not controlled adwords, somehow "top of the list" Google blog services and the Adwords \_inside\_ my scam operation.It really seems Google trusts to ignorance of end user Joe Sixpack.
They want all the planet's data and keep it.
Now it is "voice", it was "free maps!
" (but send your loc.
to us), google mail (but we will analyze your private mails), office (but we keep your docs)...I just want to hear A WORD from those privacy freaks posting "spyware!
spyware!" when the software \_they paid for, using cc!\_ checks for updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252380</id>
	<title>Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259342040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It works for me.  Dozens of calls to the UK in the past couple of months with no problems.    Domestic incoming and outgoing are similarly reliable.  Maybe your cell phone provider is the problem ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works for me .
Dozens of calls to the UK in the past couple of months with no problems .
Domestic incoming and outgoing are similarly reliable .
Maybe your cell phone provider is the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works for me.
Dozens of calls to the UK in the past couple of months with no problems.
Domestic incoming and outgoing are similarly reliable.
Maybe your cell phone provider is the problem ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253930</id>
	<title>Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259415600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The emphasis in on &ldquo;<em>attempt</em>&rdquo;. I think they will fail. this is Google after all.</p><p>If I were Google, I&rsquo;d simply create some strange little errors in the search engine for everybody using those carriers, in a way that it will be blamed on them. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The emphasis in on    attempt    .
I think they will fail .
this is Google after all.If I were Google , I    d simply create some strange little errors in the search engine for everybody using those carriers , in a way that it will be blamed on them .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The emphasis in on “attempt”.
I think they will fail.
this is Google after all.If I were Google, I’d simply create some strange little errors in the search engine for everybody using those carriers, in a way that it will be blamed on them.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802</id>
	<title>"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked...</title>
	<author>NeuralClone</author>
	<datestamp>1259326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all very interesting but Google Voice barely functions when calling internationally. And I've had horrible luck with it domestically too.
<br> <br>
I've been trying to use this service for a while now and it consistently connects me to random numbers in the country I'm calling (yes, I'm dialing the right number and I'm dialing correctly). When I actually do connect to some random person, they can't hear me 4 out of 5 times (and that's being generous).
<br> <br>
When calling domestically, I get connected to who I'm calling, but 50\% of the time one of us can't hear the other. Very irritating.
<br> <br>
So, until they can actually guarantee that their service, you know, WORKS, this isn't something I'm remotely interested in. Google Voice isn't even close to ready for anything beyond a fun little service to play with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all very interesting but Google Voice barely functions when calling internationally .
And I 've had horrible luck with it domestically too .
I 've been trying to use this service for a while now and it consistently connects me to random numbers in the country I 'm calling ( yes , I 'm dialing the right number and I 'm dialing correctly ) .
When I actually do connect to some random person , they ca n't hear me 4 out of 5 times ( and that 's being generous ) .
When calling domestically , I get connected to who I 'm calling , but 50 \ % of the time one of us ca n't hear the other .
Very irritating .
So , until they can actually guarantee that their service , you know , WORKS , this is n't something I 'm remotely interested in .
Google Voice is n't even close to ready for anything beyond a fun little service to play with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all very interesting but Google Voice barely functions when calling internationally.
And I've had horrible luck with it domestically too.
I've been trying to use this service for a while now and it consistently connects me to random numbers in the country I'm calling (yes, I'm dialing the right number and I'm dialing correctly).
When I actually do connect to some random person, they can't hear me 4 out of 5 times (and that's being generous).
When calling domestically, I get connected to who I'm calling, but 50\% of the time one of us can't hear the other.
Very irritating.
So, until they can actually guarantee that their service, you know, WORKS, this isn't something I'm remotely interested in.
Google Voice isn't even close to ready for anything beyond a fun little service to play with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250848</id>
	<title>Canada too?  I hope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259326620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope something like this comes to Canada.  I would love to see Google wipe the floor with Rogers, Bell, &amp; Telus (a.k.a. The Three Stooges).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope something like this comes to Canada .
I would love to see Google wipe the floor with Rogers , Bell , &amp; Telus ( a.k.a .
The Three Stooges ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope something like this comes to Canada.
I would love to see Google wipe the floor with Rogers, Bell, &amp; Telus (a.k.a.
The Three Stooges).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254822</id>
	<title>Google switched to windows mobile OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259427180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least that is what the picture in the article shows if you RTFA.  Oh but wait, this is slashdot, I apologize...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least that is what the picture in the article shows if you RTFA .
Oh but wait , this is slashdot , I apologize.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least that is what the picture in the article shows if you RTFA.
Oh but wait, this is slashdot, I apologize...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254320</id>
	<title>How much did you really pay for 4GB?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259421420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, they asked you to give up a right which you naturally had on those "old fashion" services. In fact, if you were a friend of mine and I mailed my secrets to you, I would lose that right too, just like whoever mails you without knowing how Google mail can offer 4GB for free.</p><p>When someone gives you something sounds amazingly cheap, unbelievably free, always read between the lines. And no, you don't become a Google sized company by not being evil.</p><p>You can keep your "4GB" or whatever now sized non private, machine analyze for junk ads mail, I keep a real mail (you know, with its real purpose) and I will use technologies like WebDAV or (s)FTP to share 10 MB files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , they asked you to give up a right which you naturally had on those " old fashion " services .
In fact , if you were a friend of mine and I mailed my secrets to you , I would lose that right too , just like whoever mails you without knowing how Google mail can offer 4GB for free.When someone gives you something sounds amazingly cheap , unbelievably free , always read between the lines .
And no , you do n't become a Google sized company by not being evil.You can keep your " 4GB " or whatever now sized non private , machine analyze for junk ads mail , I keep a real mail ( you know , with its real purpose ) and I will use technologies like WebDAV or ( s ) FTP to share 10 MB files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, they asked you to give up a right which you naturally had on those "old fashion" services.
In fact, if you were a friend of mine and I mailed my secrets to you, I would lose that right too, just like whoever mails you without knowing how Google mail can offer 4GB for free.When someone gives you something sounds amazingly cheap, unbelievably free, always read between the lines.
And no, you don't become a Google sized company by not being evil.You can keep your "4GB" or whatever now sized non private, machine analyze for junk ads mail, I keep a real mail (you know, with its real purpose) and I will use technologies like WebDAV or (s)FTP to share 10 MB files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250638</id>
	<title>Creative destruction</title>
	<author>mruizcamauer</author>
	<datestamp>1259325420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... of a large industry, telecoms... but that is progress!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... of a large industry , telecoms... but that is progress !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of a large industry, telecoms... but that is progress!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253024</id>
	<title>android is disappointing</title>
	<author>mofag</author>
	<datestamp>1259439480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's Android is a huge let down, mostly because of Google's policy of rolling over and allowing us to get fucked by the other supposedly more traditional corporations. Apple says "please don't do multi-touch",  they take it out (and fuck us), T-Mobile says "we don't want our customers to tethering" and so Google make it so no-one can tether (and fuck us - I am not even a US customer - how is this happening). Fuck Google and their phones (I have a HTC magic which I will need to hack to get it to do what Rogers told me it could before I bought it - i.e. tether - Rogers don't understand this either). I am saving my pennies and waiting for a Nokia (and maybe the next iteration which will hopefully be lighter). I was always a big fan of Google but they are too big and too much like every other corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's Android is a huge let down , mostly because of Google 's policy of rolling over and allowing us to get fucked by the other supposedly more traditional corporations .
Apple says " please do n't do multi-touch " , they take it out ( and fuck us ) , T-Mobile says " we do n't want our customers to tethering " and so Google make it so no-one can tether ( and fuck us - I am not even a US customer - how is this happening ) .
Fuck Google and their phones ( I have a HTC magic which I will need to hack to get it to do what Rogers told me it could before I bought it - i.e .
tether - Rogers do n't understand this either ) .
I am saving my pennies and waiting for a Nokia ( and maybe the next iteration which will hopefully be lighter ) .
I was always a big fan of Google but they are too big and too much like every other corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's Android is a huge let down, mostly because of Google's policy of rolling over and allowing us to get fucked by the other supposedly more traditional corporations.
Apple says "please don't do multi-touch",  they take it out (and fuck us), T-Mobile says "we don't want our customers to tethering" and so Google make it so no-one can tether (and fuck us - I am not even a US customer - how is this happening).
Fuck Google and their phones (I have a HTC magic which I will need to hack to get it to do what Rogers told me it could before I bought it - i.e.
tether - Rogers don't understand this either).
I am saving my pennies and waiting for a Nokia (and maybe the next iteration which will hopefully be lighter).
I was always a big fan of Google but they are too big and too much like every other corporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251832</id>
	<title>Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t</title>
	<author>incongruency</author>
	<datestamp>1259334840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, <i>similar to how my AT&amp;T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network.</i></p> </div><p>Actually, this particular instance is not a case of Sprint rejecting a Ma Bell SIM card, it's a case of two entirely different wireless technologies.

AT&amp;T and T-Mobile in the US run on a more globally accepted standard, known as GSM.  However, Verizon and Sprint run on a faster, but less accepted, standard known as CDMA.  These two are incompatible with each other; your AT&amp;T phone won't work on the Sprint network because it speaks the wrong language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or will the carriers detect a " foreign " SIM card and block access , similar to how my AT&amp;T phone wo n't work on a Sprint cell network .
Actually , this particular instance is not a case of Sprint rejecting a Ma Bell SIM card , it 's a case of two entirely different wireless technologies .
AT&amp;T and T-Mobile in the US run on a more globally accepted standard , known as GSM .
However , Verizon and Sprint run on a faster , but less accepted , standard known as CDMA .
These two are incompatible with each other ; your AT&amp;T phone wo n't work on the Sprint network because it speaks the wrong language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, similar to how my AT&amp;T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network.
Actually, this particular instance is not a case of Sprint rejecting a Ma Bell SIM card, it's a case of two entirely different wireless technologies.
AT&amp;T and T-Mobile in the US run on a more globally accepted standard, known as GSM.
However, Verizon and Sprint run on a faster, but less accepted, standard known as CDMA.
These two are incompatible with each other; your AT&amp;T phone won't work on the Sprint network because it speaks the wrong language.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251032</id>
	<title>Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked..</title>
	<author>perffectworld</author>
	<datestamp>1259327700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't used it for outbound calls, but I quite enjoy the many calls from far away numbers that I receive badly transcribed in my inbox from people quitting their jobs, or going on vacation, or trying to find out why their girlfriend hasn't called them back. It's a form of entertainment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't used it for outbound calls , but I quite enjoy the many calls from far away numbers that I receive badly transcribed in my inbox from people quitting their jobs , or going on vacation , or trying to find out why their girlfriend has n't called them back .
It 's a form of entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't used it for outbound calls, but I quite enjoy the many calls from far away numbers that I receive badly transcribed in my inbox from people quitting their jobs, or going on vacation, or trying to find out why their girlfriend hasn't called them back.
It's a form of entertainment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252358</id>
	<title>Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1259341680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.</p></div><p>This is why the providers were so upset that Google got up in the spectrum auction and forced the open access provision - they can't prevent it legally.  If they try to tie Google up in court they may find themselves Garmin'd.  The auction didn't sell off the last national spectrum license, and Google has enough money to buy it and build their own wireless network.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.This is why the providers were so upset that Google got up in the spectrum auction and forced the open access provision - they ca n't prevent it legally .
If they try to tie Google up in court they may find themselves Garmin 'd .
The auction did n't sell off the last national spectrum license , and Google has enough money to buy it and build their own wireless network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.This is why the providers were so upset that Google got up in the spectrum auction and forced the open access provision - they can't prevent it legally.
If they try to tie Google up in court they may find themselves Garmin'd.
The auction didn't sell off the last national spectrum license, and Google has enough money to buy it and build their own wireless network.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253052</id>
	<title>How much does a 3g/4g network go for these days?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259440140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious question raised in comments/op is carrier network access.  How much does a network go for these days? GOOG had $15Billion cash on hand as of March (8th among non-financial firms).  If they were really worried about not getting a reasonable deal on network access for their phone, could they just buy a wireless network infrastructure?  Google already has significant assets in the form of fiber, why not wireless towers as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious question raised in comments/op is carrier network access .
How much does a network go for these days ?
GOOG had $ 15Billion cash on hand as of March ( 8th among non-financial firms ) .
If they were really worried about not getting a reasonable deal on network access for their phone , could they just buy a wireless network infrastructure ?
Google already has significant assets in the form of fiber , why not wireless towers as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious question raised in comments/op is carrier network access.
How much does a network go for these days?
GOOG had $15Billion cash on hand as of March (8th among non-financial firms).
If they were really worried about not getting a reasonable deal on network access for their phone, could they just buy a wireless network infrastructure?
Google already has significant assets in the form of fiber, why not wireless towers as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251162</id>
	<title>This is coming anyway with 4G</title>
	<author>phonewebcam</author>
	<datestamp>1259328480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4G is IP only - it *only* carries data. Perhaps Googles adoption of voice over the current 3G system will speed up 4G developments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4G is IP only - it * only * carries data .
Perhaps Googles adoption of voice over the current 3G system will speed up 4G developments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4G is IP only - it *only* carries data.
Perhaps Googles adoption of voice over the current 3G system will speed up 4G developments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252310</id>
	<title>Sprint/Google Merger</title>
	<author>PhaxMohdem</author>
	<datestamp>1259341020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps Google could pick up Sprint (whose market cap is hovering just over 10B right now), and in one fell swoop own a decent 3G network to launch their telecom domination plans.  That way they wouldn't have to build from the ground up (in the U.S. at least)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Google could pick up Sprint ( whose market cap is hovering just over 10B right now ) , and in one fell swoop own a decent 3G network to launch their telecom domination plans .
That way they would n't have to build from the ground up ( in the U.S. at least )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Google could pick up Sprint (whose market cap is hovering just over 10B right now), and in one fell swoop own a decent 3G network to launch their telecom domination plans.
That way they wouldn't have to build from the ground up (in the U.S. at least)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250892</id>
	<title>Re:Google Is the New Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259326980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How are they monopolists of information? In fact, have you seen them ILLEGALLY enforce their natural monopoly? Have you seen them do illegal actions to take over markets? If so, please provide the proof of that. Otherwise, Cayate la boca, chica.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are they monopolists of information ?
In fact , have you seen them ILLEGALLY enforce their natural monopoly ?
Have you seen them do illegal actions to take over markets ?
If so , please provide the proof of that .
Otherwise , Cayate la boca , chica .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are they monopolists of information?
In fact, have you seen them ILLEGALLY enforce their natural monopoly?
Have you seen them do illegal actions to take over markets?
If so, please provide the proof of that.
Otherwise, Cayate la boca, chica.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252182</id>
	<title>Re:Adapt or else</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259339280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a lot different than when Google went up against the email providers. This time, Google does not have the infrastructure (the cell towers) to give the service on their own. They must couple with an existing provider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a lot different than when Google went up against the email providers .
This time , Google does not have the infrastructure ( the cell towers ) to give the service on their own .
They must couple with an existing provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a lot different than when Google went up against the email providers.
This time, Google does not have the infrastructure (the cell towers) to give the service on their own.
They must couple with an existing provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252360</id>
	<title>Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked..</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1259341740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, in the immortal words of one of my friends in IT, "it must be something wrong with <i>your</i> setup, because it works fine on mine." Perhaps it depends on where you call internationally. I call Austria, Germany, and Belgium regularly without trouble. Also never had a domestic call not work unless I was out of 3G range (Google Voice is integrated with my G2 cell phone). Maybe it's just localized sunspots in your area, or swamp gas, or a weather balloon, or the phase of the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in the immortal words of one of my friends in IT , " it must be something wrong with your setup , because it works fine on mine .
" Perhaps it depends on where you call internationally .
I call Austria , Germany , and Belgium regularly without trouble .
Also never had a domestic call not work unless I was out of 3G range ( Google Voice is integrated with my G2 cell phone ) .
Maybe it 's just localized sunspots in your area , or swamp gas , or a weather balloon , or the phase of the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in the immortal words of one of my friends in IT, "it must be something wrong with your setup, because it works fine on mine.
" Perhaps it depends on where you call internationally.
I call Austria, Germany, and Belgium regularly without trouble.
Also never had a domestic call not work unless I was out of 3G range (Google Voice is integrated with my G2 cell phone).
Maybe it's just localized sunspots in your area, or swamp gas, or a weather balloon, or the phase of the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250724</id>
	<title>if this is true...</title>
	<author>garynuman</author>
	<datestamp>1259325900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>wouldn't this, if true, lead to a pretty massive shakeup in the telcom industry? i would imagine at the very least the pricing of plans would have to change drastically</htmltext>
<tokenext>would n't this , if true , lead to a pretty massive shakeup in the telcom industry ?
i would imagine at the very least the pricing of plans would have to change drastically</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wouldn't this, if true, lead to a pretty massive shakeup in the telcom industry?
i would imagine at the very least the pricing of plans would have to change drastically</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251096</id>
	<title>Please, for once</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1259328120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can the quality of service of a US company be the envy of Europe, instead of the other way around?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the quality of service of a US company be the envy of Europe , instead of the other way around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can the quality of service of a US company be the envy of Europe, instead of the other way around?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252104</id>
	<title>Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1259338260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A year or two ago, when the US status quo was for a third party to customize phones for the network, and the top provider was still Nokia and Sony-Ericson, this might have been possible.  The US wireless providers would have been united in keeping the user as far away as the manufacturer as possible, and guarantee their financial stream.
<p>
Now, however, Apple has created a device that is manufactured for the end user, not the network.  Verizon, et al has tried to sue to make this not the case, to limit end user choice, but these lawsuits did not stop the change in status.  Now we have providers supplying phones for the end user.  RIM, Palm, and HTC all have end user centric phones, and each are primarily distributed by one cell carrier.
</p><p>
Google can play this many ways.  All Google really cares about is collected data and selling ads.  They don't care about code, which is why they release code after the application is public.  They don't really worry about moving into other markets, as long as they get the ad revenue.
</p><p>
This is why i think they will play with the cell carriers, just like they do with advertisers, and create the phone, once again, that the carriers want, not that the consumers want.  Google will build that the phone the consumer like, but phones that are created to generate revenue for google and the cell carriers.  Which is why the cariers will like it.  Consumers will like it because it will be cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A year or two ago , when the US status quo was for a third party to customize phones for the network , and the top provider was still Nokia and Sony-Ericson , this might have been possible .
The US wireless providers would have been united in keeping the user as far away as the manufacturer as possible , and guarantee their financial stream .
Now , however , Apple has created a device that is manufactured for the end user , not the network .
Verizon , et al has tried to sue to make this not the case , to limit end user choice , but these lawsuits did not stop the change in status .
Now we have providers supplying phones for the end user .
RIM , Palm , and HTC all have end user centric phones , and each are primarily distributed by one cell carrier .
Google can play this many ways .
All Google really cares about is collected data and selling ads .
They do n't care about code , which is why they release code after the application is public .
They do n't really worry about moving into other markets , as long as they get the ad revenue .
This is why i think they will play with the cell carriers , just like they do with advertisers , and create the phone , once again , that the carriers want , not that the consumers want .
Google will build that the phone the consumer like , but phones that are created to generate revenue for google and the cell carriers .
Which is why the cariers will like it .
Consumers will like it because it will be cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A year or two ago, when the US status quo was for a third party to customize phones for the network, and the top provider was still Nokia and Sony-Ericson, this might have been possible.
The US wireless providers would have been united in keeping the user as far away as the manufacturer as possible, and guarantee their financial stream.
Now, however, Apple has created a device that is manufactured for the end user, not the network.
Verizon, et al has tried to sue to make this not the case, to limit end user choice, but these lawsuits did not stop the change in status.
Now we have providers supplying phones for the end user.
RIM, Palm, and HTC all have end user centric phones, and each are primarily distributed by one cell carrier.
Google can play this many ways.
All Google really cares about is collected data and selling ads.
They don't care about code, which is why they release code after the application is public.
They don't really worry about moving into other markets, as long as they get the ad revenue.
This is why i think they will play with the cell carriers, just like they do with advertisers, and create the phone, once again, that the carriers want, not that the consumers want.
Google will build that the phone the consumer like, but phones that are created to generate revenue for google and the cell carriers.
Which is why the cariers will like it.
Consumers will like it because it will be cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251630</id>
	<title>Two words, "whose network?"</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1259332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFA, folks. Google is far, far from posing a threat to the wireless carriers. VOIP over Wi-Fi is one thing, but VOIP over 3G wireless (or whatever) is something else entirely, something that the actual carriers have the means, and certainly the motivation, to fuck with at will (as we have already seen). Unless/until Google starts putting up their own towers, there is nothing new here, at least nothing revolutionary or "game changing".</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA , folks .
Google is far , far from posing a threat to the wireless carriers .
VOIP over Wi-Fi is one thing , but VOIP over 3G wireless ( or whatever ) is something else entirely , something that the actual carriers have the means , and certainly the motivation , to fuck with at will ( as we have already seen ) .
Unless/until Google starts putting up their own towers , there is nothing new here , at least nothing revolutionary or " game changing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA, folks.
Google is far, far from posing a threat to the wireless carriers.
VOIP over Wi-Fi is one thing, but VOIP over 3G wireless (or whatever) is something else entirely, something that the actual carriers have the means, and certainly the motivation, to fuck with at will (as we have already seen).
Unless/until Google starts putting up their own towers, there is nothing new here, at least nothing revolutionary or "game changing".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252538</id>
	<title>Re:Watch what Google employees are using.</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1259344500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I will be watching for Google employees<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... on the Santa Clara campus.</p></div><p>Yeah, just look for the buildings with the big purple letters, you can't miss them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will be watching for Google employees ... on the Santa Clara campus.Yeah , just look for the buildings with the big purple letters , you ca n't miss them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will be watching for Google employees ... on the Santa Clara campus.Yeah, just look for the buildings with the big purple letters, you can't miss them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253938</id>
	<title>Re:Watch what Google employees are using.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259415780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will most likely put the prototypes in default covers, just like the car makers use old bodies to test their new car platforms etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will most likely put the prototypes in default covers , just like the car makers use old bodies to test their new car platforms etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will most likely put the prototypes in default covers, just like the car makers use old bodies to test their new car platforms etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252988</id>
	<title>paraslim force</title>
	<author>nanyshacker</author>
	<datestamp>1259438760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> i would definetely say the google phone is the best on the market have a look at t has all the info about the g1.

<a href="http://www.wellnessstarts.com/paraslim-force-review.html" title="wellnessstarts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wellnessstarts.com/paraslim-force-review.html</a> [wellnessstarts.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>i would definetely say the google phone is the best on the market have a look at t has all the info about the g1 .
http : //www.wellnessstarts.com/paraslim-force-review.html [ wellnessstarts.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> i would definetely say the google phone is the best on the market have a look at t has all the info about the g1.
http://www.wellnessstarts.com/paraslim-force-review.html [wellnessstarts.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251020</id>
	<title>Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked..</title>
	<author>TSHTF</author>
	<datestamp>1259327640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's another data point for a random end-user:

I've used Google Voice to the tune of approximately 1200 minutes per month for the last four months and haven't experienced service issues with receiving calls or placing calls. I've made very few international calls, however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's another data point for a random end-user : I 've used Google Voice to the tune of approximately 1200 minutes per month for the last four months and have n't experienced service issues with receiving calls or placing calls .
I 've made very few international calls , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's another data point for a random end-user:

I've used Google Voice to the tune of approximately 1200 minutes per month for the last four months and haven't experienced service issues with receiving calls or placing calls.
I've made very few international calls, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251170</id>
	<title>3G?</title>
	<author>nthitz</author>
	<datestamp>1259328480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now their services work only internet connections. As the article said they will have an awful hard time getting onto cellular 3G networks to have access anywhere. phones over wifi is not enough for many customers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now their services work only internet connections .
As the article said they will have an awful hard time getting onto cellular 3G networks to have access anywhere .
phones over wifi is not enough for many customers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now their services work only internet connections.
As the article said they will have an awful hard time getting onto cellular 3G networks to have access anywhere.
phones over wifi is not enough for many customers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252918</id>
	<title>Re:Google Is the New Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259350980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the people I know *only* uses Google to search the web. I mean, we use "google" as a verb. How isn't that monopoly? In a way, they do control what people read. I bet that they do have the Gini coefficient necessary in some countries to be classified as such (at least the search engine). I have no data nor research papers to prove it, but, you just need to look at your friends and family to realize it. Do they use another web search engine with, at least, the same frequency they use Google?</p><p>And, Google as a natural monopoly? Do you know the definition of "natural monopoly"? I doubt their fixed costs are that big, they do have very little marginal costs but it's not *that* difficult for a new company to enter the market. It *is* a monopolistic competition with product differentiation, but not a natural monopoly. Extracting oil is a natural monopoly. Producing electricity is a natural monopoly.  A web search engine is not, dear.</p><p>Google's bet has been "Look! We are *marginally* better. But we're not evil! Prefer us!" And it has worked. Now, they are trying to make people realize their opportunity costs and convince them to stay with them in any other service they decide to launch. Because, why should you lose time making another account and setting it up to work with your Google mail, Google docs and Google underware when you can just use the service their provide? And they are not evil! That's their way of enforcing their monopoly, and while it's not illegal, I think there are a lot of things they've done that are morally questionable.</p><p>Yes, Google is creepy. Nowadays I think Google knows more about me than my mother does. But most of the services they offer are pretty neat and free, so I can't bring myself to hate them. Nevertheless, I'm a little paranoid.</p><p>And, by the way, if you like using Spanish expressions, spell them right. It's "callate" nor "cayate". It looks ugly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the people I know * only * uses Google to search the web .
I mean , we use " google " as a verb .
How is n't that monopoly ?
In a way , they do control what people read .
I bet that they do have the Gini coefficient necessary in some countries to be classified as such ( at least the search engine ) .
I have no data nor research papers to prove it , but , you just need to look at your friends and family to realize it .
Do they use another web search engine with , at least , the same frequency they use Google ? And , Google as a natural monopoly ?
Do you know the definition of " natural monopoly " ?
I doubt their fixed costs are that big , they do have very little marginal costs but it 's not * that * difficult for a new company to enter the market .
It * is * a monopolistic competition with product differentiation , but not a natural monopoly .
Extracting oil is a natural monopoly .
Producing electricity is a natural monopoly .
A web search engine is not , dear.Google 's bet has been " Look !
We are * marginally * better .
But we 're not evil !
Prefer us !
" And it has worked .
Now , they are trying to make people realize their opportunity costs and convince them to stay with them in any other service they decide to launch .
Because , why should you lose time making another account and setting it up to work with your Google mail , Google docs and Google underware when you can just use the service their provide ?
And they are not evil !
That 's their way of enforcing their monopoly , and while it 's not illegal , I think there are a lot of things they 've done that are morally questionable.Yes , Google is creepy .
Nowadays I think Google knows more about me than my mother does .
But most of the services they offer are pretty neat and free , so I ca n't bring myself to hate them .
Nevertheless , I 'm a little paranoid.And , by the way , if you like using Spanish expressions , spell them right .
It 's " callate " nor " cayate " .
It looks ugly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the people I know *only* uses Google to search the web.
I mean, we use "google" as a verb.
How isn't that monopoly?
In a way, they do control what people read.
I bet that they do have the Gini coefficient necessary in some countries to be classified as such (at least the search engine).
I have no data nor research papers to prove it, but, you just need to look at your friends and family to realize it.
Do they use another web search engine with, at least, the same frequency they use Google?And, Google as a natural monopoly?
Do you know the definition of "natural monopoly"?
I doubt their fixed costs are that big, they do have very little marginal costs but it's not *that* difficult for a new company to enter the market.
It *is* a monopolistic competition with product differentiation, but not a natural monopoly.
Extracting oil is a natural monopoly.
Producing electricity is a natural monopoly.
A web search engine is not, dear.Google's bet has been "Look!
We are *marginally* better.
But we're not evil!
Prefer us!
" And it has worked.
Now, they are trying to make people realize their opportunity costs and convince them to stay with them in any other service they decide to launch.
Because, why should you lose time making another account and setting it up to work with your Google mail, Google docs and Google underware when you can just use the service their provide?
And they are not evil!
That's their way of enforcing their monopoly, and while it's not illegal, I think there are a lot of things they've done that are morally questionable.Yes, Google is creepy.
Nowadays I think Google knows more about me than my mother does.
But most of the services they offer are pretty neat and free, so I can't bring myself to hate them.
Nevertheless, I'm a little paranoid.And, by the way, if you like using Spanish expressions, spell them right.
It's "callate" nor "cayate".
It looks ugly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252250</id>
	<title>Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t</title>
	<author>Unoti</author>
	<datestamp>1259340120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think Google likes selling the technology like Andriod to phone mfgs as that is low risk and high payback.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Actually, Android is open source.  They give it away; they don't sell it.  They make money off ad revenue.  How that all works out is a little mysterious to me, I'll admit...  But Android's Gmail integration is better than what you get on iPhone.  And the Google navigation app is better than what's available on iPhone.  I can see how things like that lead to more ad revenue for Google indirectly.  Still, though, it's a fairly mind blowing approach.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google likes selling the technology like Andriod to phone mfgs as that is low risk and high payback .
Actually , Android is open source .
They give it away ; they do n't sell it .
They make money off ad revenue .
How that all works out is a little mysterious to me , I 'll admit... But Android 's Gmail integration is better than what you get on iPhone .
And the Google navigation app is better than what 's available on iPhone .
I can see how things like that lead to more ad revenue for Google indirectly .
Still , though , it 's a fairly mind blowing approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Google likes selling the technology like Andriod to phone mfgs as that is low risk and high payback.
Actually, Android is open source.
They give it away; they don't sell it.
They make money off ad revenue.
How that all works out is a little mysterious to me, I'll admit...  But Android's Gmail integration is better than what you get on iPhone.
And the Google navigation app is better than what's available on iPhone.
I can see how things like that lead to more ad revenue for Google indirectly.
Still, though, it's a fairly mind blowing approach.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251518</id>
	<title>Re:Google Is the New Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259331540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bla one of googles stated goals is collect and distribute all the information in the world. To be the next great library of the world.... As we can see with current state of the search engine market. The information market as a whole is more or less a natural monopoly. You make some weird and seemingly uniformed statement about google not trying to "illegally enforce" their monopoly. There are two things off with that statement. First it implies there is a way to "legally enforce" a monopoly.... THERE IS NOT. Secondly that statement also implies that you need to use your monopolistic powers in order to be a monopoly. This is simply factually in correct. Personally i like google. Their motto of "do no evil" I like. I also will probably switch to google if they do enter the phone business. The problem is, google is becoming very very very powerful. Right now they are seemingly acting morally. There is however no guarantee that this will continue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bla one of googles stated goals is collect and distribute all the information in the world .
To be the next great library of the world.... As we can see with current state of the search engine market .
The information market as a whole is more or less a natural monopoly .
You make some weird and seemingly uniformed statement about google not trying to " illegally enforce " their monopoly .
There are two things off with that statement .
First it implies there is a way to " legally enforce " a monopoly.... THERE IS NOT .
Secondly that statement also implies that you need to use your monopolistic powers in order to be a monopoly .
This is simply factually in correct .
Personally i like google .
Their motto of " do no evil " I like .
I also will probably switch to google if they do enter the phone business .
The problem is , google is becoming very very very powerful .
Right now they are seemingly acting morally .
There is however no guarantee that this will continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bla one of googles stated goals is collect and distribute all the information in the world.
To be the next great library of the world.... As we can see with current state of the search engine market.
The information market as a whole is more or less a natural monopoly.
You make some weird and seemingly uniformed statement about google not trying to "illegally enforce" their monopoly.
There are two things off with that statement.
First it implies there is a way to "legally enforce" a monopoly.... THERE IS NOT.
Secondly that statement also implies that you need to use your monopolistic powers in order to be a monopoly.
This is simply factually in correct.
Personally i like google.
Their motto of "do no evil" I like.
I also will probably switch to google if they do enter the phone business.
The problem is, google is becoming very very very powerful.
Right now they are seemingly acting morally.
There is however no guarantee that this will continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251718</id>
	<title>Holy $#\%#$\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259333340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why things like this only happens in USA?</p><p>Why don't they just come here in Brazil, and offers also this kind of services to us...</p><p>It's a shame to Brazil, a potential country having to pay about 60U$ (R$ 100) to a damn megabyte internet access..</p><p>Pfff...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why things like this only happens in USA ? Why do n't they just come here in Brazil , and offers also this kind of services to us...It 's a shame to Brazil , a potential country having to pay about 60U $ ( R $ 100 ) to a damn megabyte internet access..Pfff.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why things like this only happens in USA?Why don't they just come here in Brazil, and offers also this kind of services to us...It's a shame to Brazil, a potential country having to pay about 60U$ (R$ 100) to a damn megabyte internet access..Pfff...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253880</id>
	<title>Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1259414820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, similar to how my AT&amp;T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network.</p></div></blockquote><p>
As far as I understand GSM, a key stored on SIM is used to log in onto the network. Invalid login data ==  no access.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or will the carriers detect a " foreign " SIM card and block access , similar to how my AT&amp;T phone wo n't work on a Sprint cell network .
As far as I understand GSM , a key stored on SIM is used to log in onto the network .
Invalid login data = = no access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, similar to how my AT&amp;T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network.
As far as I understand GSM, a key stored on SIM is used to log in onto the network.
Invalid login data ==  no access.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251172</id>
	<title>Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t</title>
	<author>twiddlingbits</author>
	<datestamp>1259328480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The local service for land lines still is owned by the Telcos so Google will have to pay for that,  access is granted by law but whoever owns the line can ask for reimbursement fees. .

If they don't own the towers and the network infrastructure to carry calls then how will they offer service unless they piggyback on an existing service? Will a Google Phone work on every carrier and for free? Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, similar to how my AT&amp;T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network.

This is all pretty far fetched speculation that it will be free. I think Google likes selling the technology like Andriod to phone mfgs as that is low risk and high payback. Owning a cell network and being #4 or #5 in the market and having to displace major competitors who are well entrenched is not Google's style. High barriers to entry, low margins and high investments doesn't sound like a good market to be in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The local service for land lines still is owned by the Telcos so Google will have to pay for that , access is granted by law but whoever owns the line can ask for reimbursement fees .
. If they do n't own the towers and the network infrastructure to carry calls then how will they offer service unless they piggyback on an existing service ?
Will a Google Phone work on every carrier and for free ?
Or will the carriers detect a " foreign " SIM card and block access , similar to how my AT&amp;T phone wo n't work on a Sprint cell network .
This is all pretty far fetched speculation that it will be free .
I think Google likes selling the technology like Andriod to phone mfgs as that is low risk and high payback .
Owning a cell network and being # 4 or # 5 in the market and having to displace major competitors who are well entrenched is not Google 's style .
High barriers to entry , low margins and high investments does n't sound like a good market to be in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The local service for land lines still is owned by the Telcos so Google will have to pay for that,  access is granted by law but whoever owns the line can ask for reimbursement fees.
.

If they don't own the towers and the network infrastructure to carry calls then how will they offer service unless they piggyback on an existing service?
Will a Google Phone work on every carrier and for free?
Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, similar to how my AT&amp;T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network.
This is all pretty far fetched speculation that it will be free.
I think Google likes selling the technology like Andriod to phone mfgs as that is low risk and high payback.
Owning a cell network and being #4 or #5 in the market and having to displace major competitors who are well entrenched is not Google's style.
High barriers to entry, low margins and high investments doesn't sound like a good market to be in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252720</id>
	<title>The Big Telecoms are going to pay and pay</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1259347200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've already gotten reports that at&amp;t is blocking some calls from Google Voice. So look for some big court cases to happen. And last I looked, Google has deeper pockets than all the telecoms combined.
<br> <br>
Upstart technologies (In this case VoIP) just keep getting cheaper and cheaper and just like long distance calls, they get to the point where they literally costs thousandths of a penny per minute or less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've already gotten reports that at&amp;t is blocking some calls from Google Voice .
So look for some big court cases to happen .
And last I looked , Google has deeper pockets than all the telecoms combined .
Upstart technologies ( In this case VoIP ) just keep getting cheaper and cheaper and just like long distance calls , they get to the point where they literally costs thousandths of a penny per minute or less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've already gotten reports that at&amp;t is blocking some calls from Google Voice.
So look for some big court cases to happen.
And last I looked, Google has deeper pockets than all the telecoms combined.
Upstart technologies (In this case VoIP) just keep getting cheaper and cheaper and just like long distance calls, they get to the point where they literally costs thousandths of a penny per minute or less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251074</id>
	<title>Conspiracy Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259328000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait for Google to record all of our conversations, run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with "targeted" advertisements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for Google to record all of our conversations , run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with " targeted " advertisements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for Google to record all of our conversations, run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with "targeted" advertisements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718</id>
	<title>The carriers will attempt to unite and squash this</title>
	<author>BuckaBooBob</author>
	<datestamp>1259325900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.</p><p>This should prove to be an interesting battle as google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers don't lock them out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.This should prove to be an interesting battle as google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers do n't lock them out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.This should prove to be an interesting battle as google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers don't lock them out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252620</id>
	<title>Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259345820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure you can blame Google Voice for your problems.  From what I read about it (and, yes, I am using it), it isn't providing anything more than a mobile number (and a few extra things).  You're still using landlines/towers/etc to actually make and use your calls.</p><p>I call shennanigans on your "data."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure you can blame Google Voice for your problems .
From what I read about it ( and , yes , I am using it ) , it is n't providing anything more than a mobile number ( and a few extra things ) .
You 're still using landlines/towers/etc to actually make and use your calls.I call shennanigans on your " data .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure you can blame Google Voice for your problems.
From what I read about it (and, yes, I am using it), it isn't providing anything more than a mobile number (and a few extra things).
You're still using landlines/towers/etc to actually make and use your calls.I call shennanigans on your "data.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251560</id>
	<title>Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t</title>
	<author>DJLuc1d</author>
	<datestamp>1259331840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well google, despite how impressive this phone may be, still owns 0 towers AFAIK. Telecos will just bend them over on the rates to use their towers.
Now, I am no expert in telecom law, so if there are limits or something that I am completely overlooking, please correct me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well google , despite how impressive this phone may be , still owns 0 towers AFAIK .
Telecos will just bend them over on the rates to use their towers .
Now , I am no expert in telecom law , so if there are limits or something that I am completely overlooking , please correct me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well google, despite how impressive this phone may be, still owns 0 towers AFAIK.
Telecos will just bend them over on the rates to use their towers.
Now, I am no expert in telecom law, so if there are limits or something that I am completely overlooking, please correct me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252610</id>
	<title>Re:Google Is the New Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259345640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hablad correctamente el espa&#241;ol. Se dice: "Ca<b>ll</b>ate la boca..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hablad correctamente el espa   ol .
Se dice : " Callate la boca... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hablad correctamente el español.
Se dice: "Callate la boca..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251356</id>
	<title>The article may say something incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259329920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says</p><p><i>For the first time, a single company will control everything from the software in users&rsquo; phones to the services they use to make calls and surf the web.</i></p><p>But wait, every phone I've ever had the hardware, software, and services were controlled 100\% by my phone carrier. So in that way, the Google phone would be the same.</p><p>To me, the difference is that I trust the hardware, software, and services from Google, but I don't for a second trust AT&amp;T, Sprint, or Verizon. They have proven that they refuse to provide products and services that I want, but Google has proven that they very much understand and want to provide the products and services that I want. I share the privacy concerns about Google, but at this point I'm just being vigilant, watching for Google to violate my trust. So far so good.</p><p>Google! Please put the dinosaurs out of business! I want to stop giving them my money! I want to give you my money for better services!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article saysFor the first time , a single company will control everything from the software in users    phones to the services they use to make calls and surf the web.But wait , every phone I 've ever had the hardware , software , and services were controlled 100 \ % by my phone carrier .
So in that way , the Google phone would be the same.To me , the difference is that I trust the hardware , software , and services from Google , but I do n't for a second trust AT&amp;T , Sprint , or Verizon .
They have proven that they refuse to provide products and services that I want , but Google has proven that they very much understand and want to provide the products and services that I want .
I share the privacy concerns about Google , but at this point I 'm just being vigilant , watching for Google to violate my trust .
So far so good.Google !
Please put the dinosaurs out of business !
I want to stop giving them my money !
I want to give you my money for better services !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article saysFor the first time, a single company will control everything from the software in users’ phones to the services they use to make calls and surf the web.But wait, every phone I've ever had the hardware, software, and services were controlled 100\% by my phone carrier.
So in that way, the Google phone would be the same.To me, the difference is that I trust the hardware, software, and services from Google, but I don't for a second trust AT&amp;T, Sprint, or Verizon.
They have proven that they refuse to provide products and services that I want, but Google has proven that they very much understand and want to provide the products and services that I want.
I share the privacy concerns about Google, but at this point I'm just being vigilant, watching for Google to violate my trust.
So far so good.Google!
Please put the dinosaurs out of business!
I want to stop giving them my money!
I want to give you my money for better services!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251916</id>
	<title>Re:The article may say something incorrect</title>
	<author>AnotherUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1259335740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See, unlike yourself, I don't trust Google.  Not to say that I trust AT&amp;T, Sprint, or Verizon either.  I don't trust any of them.  Currently, I even place less trust in Google than I do in many other corporations.  The fact that my privacy means very little to it irritates me.  I dislike advertising, which is another notch down for the company.
<br> <br>
Something about Google is just...eerie.  They go into a type of business, and by sheer weight they eventually win out.  Some of their ideas are interesting, I agree.  But some of them piss the hell out of me.  No folders in Gmail?  I can't get used to it.  Sure, there are labels.  But I want folders.  But Google is insistent that they know what is best for me.  Google knows best, no need to question it.
<br> <br>
The thing that is really eerie, at least to me, about Google is that they are slowly becoming everywhere in society.  The fact that searching online for something is now referred to as 'googling' something should tell you something.  I mean, when you use your computer, do you windows it(well, around here, linux it?)?  No, you simply use it.  If you drive your car, do you mustang around town?  The fact that the company has become a verb unsettles me.
<br> <br>
Perhaps it is just me.  Maybe I am being overly paranoid.  I just get a weird feeling when I hear about Google going into a new type of business in order to 'conquer' it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See , unlike yourself , I do n't trust Google .
Not to say that I trust AT&amp;T , Sprint , or Verizon either .
I do n't trust any of them .
Currently , I even place less trust in Google than I do in many other corporations .
The fact that my privacy means very little to it irritates me .
I dislike advertising , which is another notch down for the company .
Something about Google is just...eerie .
They go into a type of business , and by sheer weight they eventually win out .
Some of their ideas are interesting , I agree .
But some of them piss the hell out of me .
No folders in Gmail ?
I ca n't get used to it .
Sure , there are labels .
But I want folders .
But Google is insistent that they know what is best for me .
Google knows best , no need to question it .
The thing that is really eerie , at least to me , about Google is that they are slowly becoming everywhere in society .
The fact that searching online for something is now referred to as 'googling ' something should tell you something .
I mean , when you use your computer , do you windows it ( well , around here , linux it ? ) ?
No , you simply use it .
If you drive your car , do you mustang around town ?
The fact that the company has become a verb unsettles me .
Perhaps it is just me .
Maybe I am being overly paranoid .
I just get a weird feeling when I hear about Google going into a new type of business in order to 'conquer ' it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, unlike yourself, I don't trust Google.
Not to say that I trust AT&amp;T, Sprint, or Verizon either.
I don't trust any of them.
Currently, I even place less trust in Google than I do in many other corporations.
The fact that my privacy means very little to it irritates me.
I dislike advertising, which is another notch down for the company.
Something about Google is just...eerie.
They go into a type of business, and by sheer weight they eventually win out.
Some of their ideas are interesting, I agree.
But some of them piss the hell out of me.
No folders in Gmail?
I can't get used to it.
Sure, there are labels.
But I want folders.
But Google is insistent that they know what is best for me.
Google knows best, no need to question it.
The thing that is really eerie, at least to me, about Google is that they are slowly becoming everywhere in society.
The fact that searching online for something is now referred to as 'googling' something should tell you something.
I mean, when you use your computer, do you windows it(well, around here, linux it?)?
No, you simply use it.
If you drive your car, do you mustang around town?
The fact that the company has become a verb unsettles me.
Perhaps it is just me.
Maybe I am being overly paranoid.
I just get a weird feeling when I hear about Google going into a new type of business in order to 'conquer' it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251550</id>
	<title>Watch what Google employees are using.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259331660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assume Google will beta test a phone like this in-house.  I will be watching for Google employees carrying something unusual as they walk across the street on the Santa Clara campus.<br> <br>
-Todd</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume Google will beta test a phone like this in-house .
I will be watching for Google employees carrying something unusual as they walk across the street on the Santa Clara campus .
-Todd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume Google will beta test a phone like this in-house.
I will be watching for Google employees carrying something unusual as they walk across the street on the Santa Clara campus.
-Todd</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253618</id>
	<title>speculative is right</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1259409240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I can say is that this article was well-described as being speculative.</p><p>Why?</p><ul> <li>Google is not in the manufacturing business, they are in the software business, and their role in the OHA is quite clear.</li><li>Why would Google brand a single mobile from a single manufacturer, when they could brand 120 mobiles from 5 different manufacturers? Its the exact same situation for the up-and-coming commercial release of devices with the Chrome OS. It would just plainly be bad-business to limit the scope of one's own client base.</li><li>The telcos will still benefit in the end by having more people sign up for 'unlimited' data plans in order to get the phone (and its Google-branded apps) at an amortized price (e.g. half-price up-front w/ an expensive 3 year contract).</li></ul><p>The article could be accurate in saying that Google is planning an 'attack', but probably only by offering Google Voice on a much broader range of mobiles than it currently is.</p><p>Also, I would like to clarify that any data is not the same as any other data. "Real-time" video or voice data certainly has different statistical / spectral / max-latency characteristics as, for example, email, web-browsing, or file downloading (including youtube), and that is the case regardless of whether or not its being pushed through the telephone system (circuit switching) or through a packet-switching network as IP data. In the latter case, however, latency usually becomes somewhat noticeable, so the compromise between price and latency (i.e. quality) is ultimately at the discretion of the end-user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say is that this article was well-described as being speculative.Why ?
Google is not in the manufacturing business , they are in the software business , and their role in the OHA is quite clear.Why would Google brand a single mobile from a single manufacturer , when they could brand 120 mobiles from 5 different manufacturers ?
Its the exact same situation for the up-and-coming commercial release of devices with the Chrome OS .
It would just plainly be bad-business to limit the scope of one 's own client base.The telcos will still benefit in the end by having more people sign up for 'unlimited ' data plans in order to get the phone ( and its Google-branded apps ) at an amortized price ( e.g .
half-price up-front w/ an expensive 3 year contract ) .The article could be accurate in saying that Google is planning an 'attack ' , but probably only by offering Google Voice on a much broader range of mobiles than it currently is.Also , I would like to clarify that any data is not the same as any other data .
" Real-time " video or voice data certainly has different statistical / spectral / max-latency characteristics as , for example , email , web-browsing , or file downloading ( including youtube ) , and that is the case regardless of whether or not its being pushed through the telephone system ( circuit switching ) or through a packet-switching network as IP data .
In the latter case , however , latency usually becomes somewhat noticeable , so the compromise between price and latency ( i.e .
quality ) is ultimately at the discretion of the end-user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say is that this article was well-described as being speculative.Why?
Google is not in the manufacturing business, they are in the software business, and their role in the OHA is quite clear.Why would Google brand a single mobile from a single manufacturer, when they could brand 120 mobiles from 5 different manufacturers?
Its the exact same situation for the up-and-coming commercial release of devices with the Chrome OS.
It would just plainly be bad-business to limit the scope of one's own client base.The telcos will still benefit in the end by having more people sign up for 'unlimited' data plans in order to get the phone (and its Google-branded apps) at an amortized price (e.g.
half-price up-front w/ an expensive 3 year contract).The article could be accurate in saying that Google is planning an 'attack', but probably only by offering Google Voice on a much broader range of mobiles than it currently is.Also, I would like to clarify that any data is not the same as any other data.
"Real-time" video or voice data certainly has different statistical / spectral / max-latency characteristics as, for example, email, web-browsing, or file downloading (including youtube), and that is the case regardless of whether or not its being pushed through the telephone system (circuit switching) or through a packet-switching network as IP data.
In the latter case, however, latency usually becomes somewhat noticeable, so the compromise between price and latency (i.e.
quality) is ultimately at the discretion of the end-user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_2123243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30250718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30254276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30253132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_2123243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30251916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_2123243.30252560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
