<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_05_0420217</id>
	<title>FCC Inquires About Controversial Verizon Fees</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260018900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>olsmeister writes <i>"As <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/11/12/2059238/Verizon-Doubles-Early-Termination-Fee-and-More">previously noted</a> here on Slashdot, Verizon Wireless has been increasing their early termination fees and actively charging non-data customers who accidentally press the wrong button and go online. The <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/fcc-verizon-letter/">FCC has now sent them a letter</a> asking why. The PDF of the letter <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs\_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2535A1.pdf">can be viewed online</a>.  Maybe someone at the FCC does read Slashdot."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>olsmeister writes " As previously noted here on Slashdot , Verizon Wireless has been increasing their early termination fees and actively charging non-data customers who accidentally press the wrong button and go online .
The FCC has now sent them a letter asking why .
The PDF of the letter can be viewed online .
Maybe someone at the FCC does read Slashdot .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>olsmeister writes "As previously noted here on Slashdot, Verizon Wireless has been increasing their early termination fees and actively charging non-data customers who accidentally press the wrong button and go online.
The FCC has now sent them a letter asking why.
The PDF of the letter can be viewed online.
Maybe someone at the FCC does read Slashdot.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334456</id>
	<title>Just a letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260023280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Letters aren't going to do a damn thing to stop the abuses of the communication corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Letters are n't going to do a damn thing to stop the abuses of the communication corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Letters aren't going to do a damn thing to stop the abuses of the communication corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335128</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.</p><p>ALL the US carriers suck in general!  Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract.  Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees.  Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up.  Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average.  Notice how they all lock you into specific phones.  Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract.  </p></div><p>As a Canadian resident with Canadian cell service who has worked with American cell phone companies for a number of years in the past, I must say you dont know how good you have it. I look at plans and services offered by companies in the US with envy.</p><p>Are you lagging behind Europe? Agreed. But as a consumer I would trade the Canadian cell market for the US cell market in an instant.</p><p>2 year contract? Make that a 3 year contract. $80 smart phone plan? I have that, but it only includes email NOT data (as in, I cannot surf the internet with my BB at all). Lock you into specific phones? At least in the US if the customer request their phone to be unlocked companies will unlock it (such as TMobile). You dont even have that option in Canada. Also, with only one GSM network (until about 2 weeks ago) what would you do with your unlocked phone anyway? Slightly below or above average customer service? I am so jealous...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think this is all BS , and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country , or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.ALL the US carriers suck in general !
Also notice how all the services cost around $ 80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract .
Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees .
Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up .
Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average .
Notice how they all lock you into specific phones .
Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract .
As a Canadian resident with Canadian cell service who has worked with American cell phone companies for a number of years in the past , I must say you dont know how good you have it .
I look at plans and services offered by companies in the US with envy.Are you lagging behind Europe ?
Agreed. But as a consumer I would trade the Canadian cell market for the US cell market in an instant.2 year contract ?
Make that a 3 year contract .
$ 80 smart phone plan ?
I have that , but it only includes email NOT data ( as in , I can not surf the internet with my BB at all ) .
Lock you into specific phones ?
At least in the US if the customer request their phone to be unlocked companies will unlock it ( such as TMobile ) .
You dont even have that option in Canada .
Also , with only one GSM network ( until about 2 weeks ago ) what would you do with your unlocked phone anyway ?
Slightly below or above average customer service ?
I am so jealous.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.ALL the US carriers suck in general!
Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract.
Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees.
Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up.
Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average.
Notice how they all lock you into specific phones.
Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract.
As a Canadian resident with Canadian cell service who has worked with American cell phone companies for a number of years in the past, I must say you dont know how good you have it.
I look at plans and services offered by companies in the US with envy.Are you lagging behind Europe?
Agreed. But as a consumer I would trade the Canadian cell market for the US cell market in an instant.2 year contract?
Make that a 3 year contract.
$80 smart phone plan?
I have that, but it only includes email NOT data (as in, I cannot surf the internet with my BB at all).
Lock you into specific phones?
At least in the US if the customer request their phone to be unlocked companies will unlock it (such as TMobile).
You dont even have that option in Canada.
Also, with only one GSM network (until about 2 weeks ago) what would you do with your unlocked phone anyway?
Slightly below or above average customer service?
I am so jealous...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339424</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1260016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon's business methods are shit but they do have a superior cell network compared to AT&amp;T. This is largely because CDMA (IS95) outperforms GSM in all respects when signal conditions are marginal. i.e. congested urban areas, or in rural areas far from the nearest tower. GSM was designed around the concept of having a high density of cells in Euroland where one is never truly far from urbanity as in the states. GSM also suffers from congestion problems in underserviced urban areas because it is less bandwidth efficient than CDMA. AT&amp;T's network isn't built around the concept of a dense array of cells and thus falls down when the going gets tough. It doesn't help things when the iPhone becomes the latest fad status symbol and AT&amp;T's network gets flooded with extra traffic they don't have the capacity to handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon 's business methods are shit but they do have a superior cell network compared to AT&amp;T .
This is largely because CDMA ( IS95 ) outperforms GSM in all respects when signal conditions are marginal .
i.e. congested urban areas , or in rural areas far from the nearest tower .
GSM was designed around the concept of having a high density of cells in Euroland where one is never truly far from urbanity as in the states .
GSM also suffers from congestion problems in underserviced urban areas because it is less bandwidth efficient than CDMA .
AT&amp;T 's network is n't built around the concept of a dense array of cells and thus falls down when the going gets tough .
It does n't help things when the iPhone becomes the latest fad status symbol and AT&amp;T 's network gets flooded with extra traffic they do n't have the capacity to handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon's business methods are shit but they do have a superior cell network compared to AT&amp;T.
This is largely because CDMA (IS95) outperforms GSM in all respects when signal conditions are marginal.
i.e. congested urban areas, or in rural areas far from the nearest tower.
GSM was designed around the concept of having a high density of cells in Euroland where one is never truly far from urbanity as in the states.
GSM also suffers from congestion problems in underserviced urban areas because it is less bandwidth efficient than CDMA.
AT&amp;T's network isn't built around the concept of a dense array of cells and thus falls down when the going gets tough.
It doesn't help things when the iPhone becomes the latest fad status symbol and AT&amp;T's network gets flooded with extra traffic they don't have the capacity to handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335244</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Sabalon</author>
	<datestamp>1260031080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon, in my 8 years experience with them, has great coverage.  I can get a minimal signal almost anywhere that goes to no signal as soon as I try to start a call or answer one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon , in my 8 years experience with them , has great coverage .
I can get a minimal signal almost anywhere that goes to no signal as soon as I try to start a call or answer one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon, in my 8 years experience with them, has great coverage.
I can get a minimal signal almost anywhere that goes to no signal as soon as I try to start a call or answer one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335322</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260031920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>truth be told i think the reason AT&amp;Ts service sucks these days is \_because\_ of the iPhone. These devices (i own and love mine) are total bandwidth hogs. i've been at AT&amp;T customer for well over 10 years and in that time i can remember dropping EXACTLY two calls before getting my iPhone. Since then of course i feel like i can count the number of days i dont drop a call on one hand. part of this is due to the device lacking sufficent memory (imo) but my understanding is that where a typical smartphone user uses. in fact http://www.knowyourmobile.com/blog/368798/apple\_iphone\_way\_ahead\_in\_worldwide\_smartphone\_data\_usage.html indicates that in the US over 50\% of smartphone data usage is from the iPhone. thats a lot of stress for their network considering they also have BB's WinMo Phones etc.  and according to the Times, not only do iPhone customers use the web and stream video, music, and download applications more than the average smartphone users, they also use more than ten times the network capacity.</p><p>all in all i think its unfair to flat out blame AT&amp;T for poor network service. i dont think anyone realised just what they were getting into. had Verizon won the contract i think people would be fleeing their network too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>truth be told i think the reason AT&amp;Ts service sucks these days is \ _because \ _ of the iPhone .
These devices ( i own and love mine ) are total bandwidth hogs .
i 've been at AT&amp;T customer for well over 10 years and in that time i can remember dropping EXACTLY two calls before getting my iPhone .
Since then of course i feel like i can count the number of days i dont drop a call on one hand .
part of this is due to the device lacking sufficent memory ( imo ) but my understanding is that where a typical smartphone user uses .
in fact http : //www.knowyourmobile.com/blog/368798/apple \ _iphone \ _way \ _ahead \ _in \ _worldwide \ _smartphone \ _data \ _usage.html indicates that in the US over 50 \ % of smartphone data usage is from the iPhone .
thats a lot of stress for their network considering they also have BB 's WinMo Phones etc .
and according to the Times , not only do iPhone customers use the web and stream video , music , and download applications more than the average smartphone users , they also use more than ten times the network capacity.all in all i think its unfair to flat out blame AT&amp;T for poor network service .
i dont think anyone realised just what they were getting into .
had Verizon won the contract i think people would be fleeing their network too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>truth be told i think the reason AT&amp;Ts service sucks these days is \_because\_ of the iPhone.
These devices (i own and love mine) are total bandwidth hogs.
i've been at AT&amp;T customer for well over 10 years and in that time i can remember dropping EXACTLY two calls before getting my iPhone.
Since then of course i feel like i can count the number of days i dont drop a call on one hand.
part of this is due to the device lacking sufficent memory (imo) but my understanding is that where a typical smartphone user uses.
in fact http://www.knowyourmobile.com/blog/368798/apple\_iphone\_way\_ahead\_in\_worldwide\_smartphone\_data\_usage.html indicates that in the US over 50\% of smartphone data usage is from the iPhone.
thats a lot of stress for their network considering they also have BB's WinMo Phones etc.
and according to the Times, not only do iPhone customers use the web and stream video, music, and download applications more than the average smartphone users, they also use more than ten times the network capacity.all in all i think its unfair to flat out blame AT&amp;T for poor network service.
i dont think anyone realised just what they were getting into.
had Verizon won the contract i think people would be fleeing their network too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335944</id>
	<title>Re:Block Data?</title>
	<author>Tokolosh</author>
	<datestamp>1260035940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data is blocked on my son's Verizon phone, yet last month he was billed nearly $8 for 4MB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data is blocked on my son 's Verizon phone , yet last month he was billed nearly $ 8 for 4MB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data is blocked on my son's Verizon phone, yet last month he was billed nearly $8 for 4MB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334702</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you want canadian cell companies to compete in the u.s.? have you looked at canadian cell plans? you think you're getting a fuzzy lollipop? check this out:</p><p>from bell.ca<br>100 local minutes plus 50 bonus local minutes Local Fab Five: Unlimited calling &amp; text Unlimited night &amp; weekend (9 p.m. - 7 a.m.) local calling<br>Minimum monthly fee<br>$30.00</p><p>and there are no unlimited talk plans and a 3 year contract besides.</p><p>and if you want a smart phone it is 50$ for 1 gb of data. and there is no unlimited data.</p><p>now what were you complaining about again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you want canadian cell companies to compete in the u.s. ?
have you looked at canadian cell plans ?
you think you 're getting a fuzzy lollipop ?
check this out : from bell.ca100 local minutes plus 50 bonus local minutes Local Fab Five : Unlimited calling &amp; text Unlimited night &amp; weekend ( 9 p.m. - 7 a.m. ) local callingMinimum monthly fee $ 30.00and there are no unlimited talk plans and a 3 year contract besides.and if you want a smart phone it is 50 $ for 1 gb of data .
and there is no unlimited data.now what were you complaining about again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you want canadian cell companies to compete in the u.s.?
have you looked at canadian cell plans?
you think you're getting a fuzzy lollipop?
check this out:from bell.ca100 local minutes plus 50 bonus local minutes Local Fab Five: Unlimited calling &amp; text Unlimited night &amp; weekend (9 p.m. - 7 a.m.) local callingMinimum monthly fee$30.00and there are no unlimited talk plans and a 3 year contract besides.and if you want a smart phone it is 50$ for 1 gb of data.
and there is no unlimited data.now what were you complaining about again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334570</id>
	<title>Re:How pleasant</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1260025140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should also make text messaging free.</p><p>That's right.  I wrote free.</p><p>If you put the price of a voice call, in 3 seconds to the (stupidly) expensive $.15 per minute, and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message, you will find it negligible:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.15/60 = $.0025 per second.  $.0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $.00075 dollars per kilobyte (aside: $.771 dollars per megabyte).</p><p>Now let's say, for the sake of generosity, it takes a 16KB packet total, up and down for ack, all carriers, etc., to send a text message.</p><p>It would cost $0.012 by my numbers...</p><p>Draw your own conclusions, I am just playing with units.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should also make text messaging free.That 's right .
I wrote free.If you put the price of a voice call , in 3 seconds to the ( stupidly ) expensive $ .15 per minute , and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message , you will find it negligible : .15/60 = $ .0025 per second .
$ .0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $ .00075 dollars per kilobyte ( aside : $ .771 dollars per megabyte ) .Now let 's say , for the sake of generosity , it takes a 16KB packet total , up and down for ack , all carriers , etc. , to send a text message.It would cost $ 0.012 by my numbers...Draw your own conclusions , I am just playing with units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should also make text messaging free.That's right.
I wrote free.If you put the price of a voice call, in 3 seconds to the (stupidly) expensive $.15 per minute, and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message, you will find it negligible: .15/60 = $.0025 per second.
$.0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $.00075 dollars per kilobyte (aside: $.771 dollars per megabyte).Now let's say, for the sake of generosity, it takes a 16KB packet total, up and down for ack, all carriers, etc., to send a text message.It would cost $0.012 by my numbers...Draw your own conclusions, I am just playing with units.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334516</id>
	<title>Please stop posting sentences that start in the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260024300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335200</id>
	<title>Re:Block Data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon definitely allows you to block data.  The wrong-key-press-data-pull drives me simply nuts. So I blocked data on my mother's and children's phones after the $1.99 charges started appearing. Verizon was very stubborn about not giving me $1.99 credit, but happy to block data access.  No $1.99 charges since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon definitely allows you to block data .
The wrong-key-press-data-pull drives me simply nuts .
So I blocked data on my mother 's and children 's phones after the $ 1.99 charges started appearing .
Verizon was very stubborn about not giving me $ 1.99 credit , but happy to block data access .
No $ 1.99 charges since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon definitely allows you to block data.
The wrong-key-press-data-pull drives me simply nuts.
So I blocked data on my mother's and children's phones after the $1.99 charges started appearing.
Verizon was very stubborn about not giving me $1.99 credit, but happy to block data access.
No $1.99 charges since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335476</id>
	<title>Tracfone unintended internet  / customer abuse</title>
	<author>Regroover</author>
	<datestamp>1260033180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Verizon is not the only carrier to engineer this revenue generating feature.  The evil wizards at Tracfone put an internet connection button between the "Send" key and the indicator on the display that says "OK" resulting in lots of unintended charges to the internet.

When I contacted Tracfone about this issue and asked to have my internet connection ability (on the phone) disabled, they pointed to the problem being Motorola's MotorolaFlip, and that they could do nothing about it.

Lovely to hear the Feds are doing something useful after so many years of ineptitude.  THANK YOU FCC FOR DOING YOUR JOB!

Perhaps we need to give an attaboy to the other government services when they show signs of life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon is not the only carrier to engineer this revenue generating feature .
The evil wizards at Tracfone put an internet connection button between the " Send " key and the indicator on the display that says " OK " resulting in lots of unintended charges to the internet .
When I contacted Tracfone about this issue and asked to have my internet connection ability ( on the phone ) disabled , they pointed to the problem being Motorola 's MotorolaFlip , and that they could do nothing about it .
Lovely to hear the Feds are doing something useful after so many years of ineptitude .
THANK YOU FCC FOR DOING YOUR JOB !
Perhaps we need to give an attaboy to the other government services when they show signs of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon is not the only carrier to engineer this revenue generating feature.
The evil wizards at Tracfone put an internet connection button between the "Send" key and the indicator on the display that says "OK" resulting in lots of unintended charges to the internet.
When I contacted Tracfone about this issue and asked to have my internet connection ability (on the phone) disabled, they pointed to the problem being Motorola's MotorolaFlip, and that they could do nothing about it.
Lovely to hear the Feds are doing something useful after so many years of ineptitude.
THANK YOU FCC FOR DOING YOUR JOB!
Perhaps we need to give an attaboy to the other government services when they show signs of life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335266</id>
	<title>Re:One job of Government</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1260031260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is to protect the people. I believe protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporations is just as valid as protecting us from invasion.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Why do we need protection from companies whom we have to <i>voluntarily</i> associate with?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is to protect the people .
I believe protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporations is just as valid as protecting us from invasion .
Why do we need protection from companies whom we have to voluntarily associate with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is to protect the people.
I believe protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporations is just as valid as protecting us from invasion.
Why do we need protection from companies whom we have to voluntarily associate with?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337068</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260042660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vodafone has a 45\% stake in Verizon Wireless (Verizon has the other 55\%).  As others have mentioned, T-Mobile is owned by the European company known as T-Mobile.</p><p>This has everything to do with regulation and standardization, and very little to do with the telcos themselves.</p><p>I had a UK prepay phone with Tesco for a while (yes...Tesco the grocery store).  I used it pretty frequently, and over the course of 6 months racked up a bill comparable to one month on Verizon (including the initial outlay for a new GSM phone). This was also around the time when the exchange rate was $2.10/&pound;1.</p><p>I went back a few months ago for a quick visit, after having been out of the country for well over a year.  Remarkably, the SIM still worked, and had my &pound;21 of balance still intact.  Coverage was also much, much better than any US carriers -- while I struggle to get service in New Jersey (the most densely populated area in the US), Tesco/O2 worked perfectly everywhere I went in the UK -- even rather remote parts of the Scottish countryside.</p><p>Verizon, on the other hand, overbill me almost every month, randomly switch my plan, renew my contract without asking me, etc, and have some of the worst phones I've ever seen. Reaching a human on the phone can take up to 2 hours, and the staff at their stores are outright rude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vodafone has a 45 \ % stake in Verizon Wireless ( Verizon has the other 55 \ % ) .
As others have mentioned , T-Mobile is owned by the European company known as T-Mobile.This has everything to do with regulation and standardization , and very little to do with the telcos themselves.I had a UK prepay phone with Tesco for a while ( yes...Tesco the grocery store ) .
I used it pretty frequently , and over the course of 6 months racked up a bill comparable to one month on Verizon ( including the initial outlay for a new GSM phone ) .
This was also around the time when the exchange rate was $ 2.10/   1.I went back a few months ago for a quick visit , after having been out of the country for well over a year .
Remarkably , the SIM still worked , and had my   21 of balance still intact .
Coverage was also much , much better than any US carriers -- while I struggle to get service in New Jersey ( the most densely populated area in the US ) , Tesco/O2 worked perfectly everywhere I went in the UK -- even rather remote parts of the Scottish countryside.Verizon , on the other hand , overbill me almost every month , randomly switch my plan , renew my contract without asking me , etc , and have some of the worst phones I 've ever seen .
Reaching a human on the phone can take up to 2 hours , and the staff at their stores are outright rude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vodafone has a 45\% stake in Verizon Wireless (Verizon has the other 55\%).
As others have mentioned, T-Mobile is owned by the European company known as T-Mobile.This has everything to do with regulation and standardization, and very little to do with the telcos themselves.I had a UK prepay phone with Tesco for a while (yes...Tesco the grocery store).
I used it pretty frequently, and over the course of 6 months racked up a bill comparable to one month on Verizon (including the initial outlay for a new GSM phone).
This was also around the time when the exchange rate was $2.10/£1.I went back a few months ago for a quick visit, after having been out of the country for well over a year.
Remarkably, the SIM still worked, and had my £21 of balance still intact.
Coverage was also much, much better than any US carriers -- while I struggle to get service in New Jersey (the most densely populated area in the US), Tesco/O2 worked perfectly everywhere I went in the UK -- even rather remote parts of the Scottish countryside.Verizon, on the other hand, overbill me almost every month, randomly switch my plan, renew my contract without asking me, etc, and have some of the worst phones I've ever seen.
Reaching a human on the phone can take up to 2 hours, and the staff at their stores are outright rude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476</id>
	<title>One job of Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260023580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is to protect the people.  I believe protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporations is just as valid as protecting us from invasion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is to protect the people .
I believe protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporations is just as valid as protecting us from invasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is to protect the people.
I believe protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporations is just as valid as protecting us from invasion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340868</id>
	<title>Re:More Corpoate Theft</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1260031140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism is about investors investing in business.  It has nothing to do with theft.  Supporting or outlawing the kinds of theft so many big corporations carry out these days is neither supporting nor opposing capitalism.  Capitalism existed long before corporate robbery.  It can come back if we do something about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism is about investors investing in business .
It has nothing to do with theft .
Supporting or outlawing the kinds of theft so many big corporations carry out these days is neither supporting nor opposing capitalism .
Capitalism existed long before corporate robbery .
It can come back if we do something about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism is about investors investing in business.
It has nothing to do with theft.
Supporting or outlawing the kinds of theft so many big corporations carry out these days is neither supporting nor opposing capitalism.
Capitalism existed long before corporate robbery.
It can come back if we do something about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334934</id>
	<title>Re:Riiight</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1260028860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or that anyone in the government reads at all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>or that anyone in the government reads at all : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or that anyone in the government reads at all :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340878</id>
	<title>Re:More Corpoate Theft</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1260031260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There needs to be substantial competition for it to correct itself.  There isn't enough competition, yet.  The only alternative is regulation.  That needs to either directly correct the problem, or introduce the competition that can do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be substantial competition for it to correct itself .
There is n't enough competition , yet .
The only alternative is regulation .
That needs to either directly correct the problem , or introduce the competition that can do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be substantial competition for it to correct itself.
There isn't enough competition, yet.
The only alternative is regulation.
That needs to either directly correct the problem, or introduce the competition that can do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335502</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260033420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And to add insult to injury, the last major telco that did move in from Europe got weird frequencies almost nobody ever supports. Hopefully the FCC solves this gaffe eventually</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And to add insult to injury , the last major telco that did move in from Europe got weird frequencies almost nobody ever supports .
Hopefully the FCC solves this gaffe eventually</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to add insult to injury, the last major telco that did move in from Europe got weird frequencies almost nobody ever supports.
Hopefully the FCC solves this gaffe eventually</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334910</id>
	<title>Re:How pleasant</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260028620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard that sms packets were stuffed into some other crap the phone sends out anyways so it actually near completely free to send them. (was informed of this by a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er months ago but i cant find the post)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard that sms packets were stuffed into some other crap the phone sends out anyways so it actually near completely free to send them .
( was informed of this by a /.er months ago but i cant find the post )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard that sms packets were stuffed into some other crap the phone sends out anyways so it actually near completely free to send them.
(was informed of this by a /.er months ago but i cant find the post)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334500</id>
	<title>Compare to cease and desist notices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260024000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FCC gave Verizon two weeks to reply. And when a government entity or a large company sends someone a letter as serious as this, it usually has a statement to the effect "We'll take your silence to imply refusal to cooperate. If push comes to shove, we will take it to court."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC gave Verizon two weeks to reply .
And when a government entity or a large company sends someone a letter as serious as this , it usually has a statement to the effect " We 'll take your silence to imply refusal to cooperate .
If push comes to shove , we will take it to court .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC gave Verizon two weeks to reply.
And when a government entity or a large company sends someone a letter as serious as this, it usually has a statement to the effect "We'll take your silence to imply refusal to cooperate.
If push comes to shove, we will take it to court.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334514</id>
	<title>How pleasant</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1260024180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just came a little while reading that letter. Some of the questions are worded in such a deliciously "we're going to screw you to the wall" manner... I'm starting to like the FCC more and more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just came a little while reading that letter .
Some of the questions are worded in such a deliciously " we 're going to screw you to the wall " manner... I 'm starting to like the FCC more and more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just came a little while reading that letter.
Some of the questions are worded in such a deliciously "we're going to screw you to the wall" manner... I'm starting to like the FCC more and more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334812</id>
	<title>Re:How pleasant</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1260027840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, SMS isn't quite that simple. They are (at least on GSM - I don't know for sure about other network types like modern 3G arrangements) sent out-of-band on a low traffic control channel. That is where the "140 7 bit characters" limit comes from", to fit into the maximum packet size used on that channel. You can effectively DoS a cell wrt SMS capability by sending as little as 40 messages per second.</p><p>Having said that, many price plans and offers over here offer so many text messages in the package that they are effectively free (even sometimes on PAYG). I'm sure they claw back the missing income by other means though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , SMS is n't quite that simple .
They are ( at least on GSM - I do n't know for sure about other network types like modern 3G arrangements ) sent out-of-band on a low traffic control channel .
That is where the " 140 7 bit characters " limit comes from " , to fit into the maximum packet size used on that channel .
You can effectively DoS a cell wrt SMS capability by sending as little as 40 messages per second.Having said that , many price plans and offers over here offer so many text messages in the package that they are effectively free ( even sometimes on PAYG ) .
I 'm sure they claw back the missing income by other means though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, SMS isn't quite that simple.
They are (at least on GSM - I don't know for sure about other network types like modern 3G arrangements) sent out-of-band on a low traffic control channel.
That is where the "140 7 bit characters" limit comes from", to fit into the maximum packet size used on that channel.
You can effectively DoS a cell wrt SMS capability by sending as little as 40 messages per second.Having said that, many price plans and offers over here offer so many text messages in the package that they are effectively free (even sometimes on PAYG).
I'm sure they claw back the missing income by other means though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694</id>
	<title>Block Data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Verizon allow you to block data?</p><p>My wife's parents ended up with some incidental charges for accidental data access on their phones, called AT&amp;T, and they refunded the amounts and asked if they wanted a "data block" put in place to prevent them from accidentally accessing data again.  "Yes"  "OK, we're all done, thanks for calling AT&amp;T".  Next day, my father-in-law tried the data access, and it came up "unavailable", and they've never seen a charge since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Verizon allow you to block data ? My wife 's parents ended up with some incidental charges for accidental data access on their phones , called AT&amp;T , and they refunded the amounts and asked if they wanted a " data block " put in place to prevent them from accidentally accessing data again .
" Yes " " OK , we 're all done , thanks for calling AT&amp;T " .
Next day , my father-in-law tried the data access , and it came up " unavailable " , and they 've never seen a charge since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Verizon allow you to block data?My wife's parents ended up with some incidental charges for accidental data access on their phones, called AT&amp;T, and they refunded the amounts and asked if they wanted a "data block" put in place to prevent them from accidentally accessing data again.
"Yes"  "OK, we're all done, thanks for calling AT&amp;T".
Next day, my father-in-law tried the data access, and it came up "unavailable", and they've never seen a charge since.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335066</id>
	<title>Re:One job of Government</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1260029760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can choose to ignore Verizon. You can't choose to ignore an invading force.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can choose to ignore Verizon .
You ca n't choose to ignore an invading force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can choose to ignore Verizon.
You can't choose to ignore an invading force.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30341258</id>
	<title>Re:More Corpoate Theft</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1260036840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>American companies don't make money, they steal money. They lie and use "tricks and traps" to pick people's pockets.</p></div></blockquote><p>
<b>"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar Wilde</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>American companies do n't make money , they steal money .
They lie and use " tricks and traps " to pick people 's pockets .
" If you want to tell people the truth , make them laugh , otherwise they 'll kill you .
" --Oscar Wilde</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American companies don't make money, they steal money.
They lie and use "tricks and traps" to pick people's pockets.
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
" --Oscar Wilde
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30336032</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the other canadians have already mentioned, the major Canadian telcos trade in 3 year contracts and in the case of Rogers would gladly get your soul if it was currency, and tries even then, so I'm not sure you did the research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the other canadians have already mentioned , the major Canadian telcos trade in 3 year contracts and in the case of Rogers would gladly get your soul if it was currency , and tries even then , so I 'm not sure you did the research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the other canadians have already mentioned, the major Canadian telcos trade in 3 year contracts and in the case of Rogers would gladly get your soul if it was currency, and tries even then, so I'm not sure you did the research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334470</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260023520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Makes me glad I have AT&amp;T. Although, having FCC care about the little man is interesting makes me wonder why they care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me glad I have AT&amp;T .
Although , having FCC care about the little man is interesting makes me wonder why they care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me glad I have AT&amp;T.
Although, having FCC care about the little man is interesting makes me wonder why they care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334742</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon does have less dropped calls than AT&amp;T and is more reliable. You have but to check any 3rd party source to verify this. Their network and customer care is superior by a wide margin. Its not the network quality but the issue of the early terminations fees thats the issue. Also, Verizon wireless is owned by Vodaphone and T-mobile is owned by Deutsch Telecom. so we do have these fantastic European companies here you whine so much about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon does have less dropped calls than AT&amp;T and is more reliable .
You have but to check any 3rd party source to verify this .
Their network and customer care is superior by a wide margin .
Its not the network quality but the issue of the early terminations fees thats the issue .
Also , Verizon wireless is owned by Vodaphone and T-mobile is owned by Deutsch Telecom .
so we do have these fantastic European companies here you whine so much about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon does have less dropped calls than AT&amp;T and is more reliable.
You have but to check any 3rd party source to verify this.
Their network and customer care is superior by a wide margin.
Its not the network quality but the issue of the early terminations fees thats the issue.
Also, Verizon wireless is owned by Vodaphone and T-mobile is owned by Deutsch Telecom.
so we do have these fantastic European companies here you whine so much about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30341686</id>
	<title>Re:One job of Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260130920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great... but who is going to protect us from the Government bullies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great... but who is going to protect us from the Government bullies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great... but who is going to protect us from the Government bullies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334878</id>
	<title>Re:Riiight</title>
	<author>Bios\_Hakr</author>
	<datestamp>1260028320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot is nice in that in condenses news articles from hundreds of sources.  It is quite possible that there is someone in the FCC that reads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  It is also possible that said person does not read the NYT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is nice in that in condenses news articles from hundreds of sources .
It is quite possible that there is someone in the FCC that reads / .
It is also possible that said person does not read the NYT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is nice in that in condenses news articles from hundreds of sources.
It is quite possible that there is someone in the FCC that reads /.
It is also possible that said person does not read the NYT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334568</id>
	<title>Re:Compare to cease and desist notices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260025080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes, perhaps.
</p><p>Sometimes, though it just makes the company sending the letter look uninformed and foolish. If you would like to see an example of a foolish letter being sent, you can always read the <a href="http://www.demystify.info/legal/CandD/jarglaw.html" title="demystify.info">Foolish Cease and Desist</a> [demystify.info] letter a corporation sent to me a few years ago.
</p><p>Obviously, the sender of the above letter was making such over the top threats, that it was clear they had no understanding of the legal process involved. I imagine the thought that this foolishness would become public information, never crossed their mind. In the years that have followed, tens of thousands of people have viewed that letter, and the company who wrote that has had its business practices laid out for everyone to see, and has become a running joke in the community.

</p><p>But yes, in this case, the FCC probably has a little more professionalism and backbone, to see these sort of questions through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , perhaps .
Sometimes , though it just makes the company sending the letter look uninformed and foolish .
If you would like to see an example of a foolish letter being sent , you can always read the Foolish Cease and Desist [ demystify.info ] letter a corporation sent to me a few years ago .
Obviously , the sender of the above letter was making such over the top threats , that it was clear they had no understanding of the legal process involved .
I imagine the thought that this foolishness would become public information , never crossed their mind .
In the years that have followed , tens of thousands of people have viewed that letter , and the company who wrote that has had its business practices laid out for everyone to see , and has become a running joke in the community .
But yes , in this case , the FCC probably has a little more professionalism and backbone , to see these sort of questions through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, perhaps.
Sometimes, though it just makes the company sending the letter look uninformed and foolish.
If you would like to see an example of a foolish letter being sent, you can always read the Foolish Cease and Desist [demystify.info] letter a corporation sent to me a few years ago.
Obviously, the sender of the above letter was making such over the top threats, that it was clear they had no understanding of the legal process involved.
I imagine the thought that this foolishness would become public information, never crossed their mind.
In the years that have followed, tens of thousands of people have viewed that letter, and the company who wrote that has had its business practices laid out for everyone to see, and has become a running joke in the community.
But yes, in this case, the FCC probably has a little more professionalism and backbone, to see these sort of questions through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334428</id>
	<title>Riiight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260022740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe someone at the FCC does read Slashdot</p></div><p>Or they read New York Times, which Slashdot quoted in the said article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone at the FCC does read SlashdotOr they read New York Times , which Slashdot quoted in the said article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone at the FCC does read SlashdotOr they read New York Times, which Slashdot quoted in the said article.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334880</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1260028380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"love some more european and <b>canadian</b> cell phone companies to invade the US"</p><p>European maybe, but you don't want to be subject to Canadian cell phone companies.  We look at what you guys have with envy.  Until the introduction of the iPhone it was cheaper to get a phone with a US carrier and then pay roaming charges in Canada than it was to just get a data plan here.  Nation wide long distance?  Sure, for $20 a month, and if you go outside our service area it doesn't count.</p><p>Canadian cell phone companies are so bad that they've all started up (or bought) alias companies so they can do business under a name that's not quite so reviled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US " European maybe , but you do n't want to be subject to Canadian cell phone companies .
We look at what you guys have with envy .
Until the introduction of the iPhone it was cheaper to get a phone with a US carrier and then pay roaming charges in Canada than it was to just get a data plan here .
Nation wide long distance ?
Sure , for $ 20 a month , and if you go outside our service area it does n't count.Canadian cell phone companies are so bad that they 've all started up ( or bought ) alias companies so they can do business under a name that 's not quite so reviled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US"European maybe, but you don't want to be subject to Canadian cell phone companies.
We look at what you guys have with envy.
Until the introduction of the iPhone it was cheaper to get a phone with a US carrier and then pay roaming charges in Canada than it was to just get a data plan here.
Nation wide long distance?
Sure, for $20 a month, and if you go outside our service area it doesn't count.Canadian cell phone companies are so bad that they've all started up (or bought) alias companies so they can do business under a name that's not quite so reviled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337538</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>lasernap</author>
	<datestamp>1260045960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I will never understand is that, everyone knows AT&amp;T networks are all clogged up.  (Constant dropped calls in NYC and California, etc.)  And they could so easily fix this problem by simply charging customers for what their services are actually worth.
<br> <br>
So, make text messages a nickel for the first 5000.  The worst that could happen is that people will text more, and call less.  Hence unclogging their networks.  (In terms of data sent, how many text messages is equal to one five-minute 3G phone call?)  Instead, they'd rather juice customers for every nickel they can, and then blame iPhone users for clogged networks.
<br> <br>
I know that I regularly call people, rather than using text messages, towards the end of each month to avoid text overages.  Seems like something is wrong here...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I will never understand is that , everyone knows AT&amp;T networks are all clogged up .
( Constant dropped calls in NYC and California , etc .
) And they could so easily fix this problem by simply charging customers for what their services are actually worth .
So , make text messages a nickel for the first 5000 .
The worst that could happen is that people will text more , and call less .
Hence unclogging their networks .
( In terms of data sent , how many text messages is equal to one five-minute 3G phone call ?
) Instead , they 'd rather juice customers for every nickel they can , and then blame iPhone users for clogged networks .
I know that I regularly call people , rather than using text messages , towards the end of each month to avoid text overages .
Seems like something is wrong here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I will never understand is that, everyone knows AT&amp;T networks are all clogged up.
(Constant dropped calls in NYC and California, etc.
)  And they could so easily fix this problem by simply charging customers for what their services are actually worth.
So, make text messages a nickel for the first 5000.
The worst that could happen is that people will text more, and call less.
Hence unclogging their networks.
(In terms of data sent, how many text messages is equal to one five-minute 3G phone call?
)  Instead, they'd rather juice customers for every nickel they can, and then blame iPhone users for clogged networks.
I know that I regularly call people, rather than using text messages, towards the end of each month to avoid text overages.
Seems like something is wrong here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337372</id>
	<title>Re:One job of Government</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1260044700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry.  Going without a cell phone is not a good option for a lot of people.  Its an expected part of life for most people, and quite frankly it makes life a lot easier.  I'm rather young (24), so trying to get a group of people together and meeting somewhere has always been made a lot easier by use of cell phones -- this improves quality of life.  I don't worry about getting stranded somewhere with car troubles, which eases peace of mind considerably.  While they can be abused annoyingly, like when some sorority girl spends an hour talking loudly at a coffee shop, that doesn't mean that they're not extremely useful.  Thats why they've grown to become ubiquitous over the past decade.</p><p>If there were better cell phone companies, moving to them would help too, but the big guys have created a lovely oligarchy, and the high cost of entry to build a nationwide network means its impossible for startups to fix it with competitive pressure.  You're not going to get a large portion of the country to stop using cell phones.  This means that in this case a reasonable amount of government regulation to stop the most abusive practices and maybe work to break up the pseudo-trust (a harder task that I couldn't say how to do) is perfectly reasonable.</p><p>Small-government conservatism isn't about saying government involvement and regulation should be avoided at all costs, I'd hope this got discredited last year with the banking crisis, its about asking if its really necessary before doing it, and having a good debate.  In this case, without real competitive pressure happening, I think the answer is a resounding yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry .
Going without a cell phone is not a good option for a lot of people .
Its an expected part of life for most people , and quite frankly it makes life a lot easier .
I 'm rather young ( 24 ) , so trying to get a group of people together and meeting somewhere has always been made a lot easier by use of cell phones -- this improves quality of life .
I do n't worry about getting stranded somewhere with car troubles , which eases peace of mind considerably .
While they can be abused annoyingly , like when some sorority girl spends an hour talking loudly at a coffee shop , that does n't mean that they 're not extremely useful .
Thats why they 've grown to become ubiquitous over the past decade.If there were better cell phone companies , moving to them would help too , but the big guys have created a lovely oligarchy , and the high cost of entry to build a nationwide network means its impossible for startups to fix it with competitive pressure .
You 're not going to get a large portion of the country to stop using cell phones .
This means that in this case a reasonable amount of government regulation to stop the most abusive practices and maybe work to break up the pseudo-trust ( a harder task that I could n't say how to do ) is perfectly reasonable.Small-government conservatism is n't about saying government involvement and regulation should be avoided at all costs , I 'd hope this got discredited last year with the banking crisis , its about asking if its really necessary before doing it , and having a good debate .
In this case , without real competitive pressure happening , I think the answer is a resounding yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry.
Going without a cell phone is not a good option for a lot of people.
Its an expected part of life for most people, and quite frankly it makes life a lot easier.
I'm rather young (24), so trying to get a group of people together and meeting somewhere has always been made a lot easier by use of cell phones -- this improves quality of life.
I don't worry about getting stranded somewhere with car troubles, which eases peace of mind considerably.
While they can be abused annoyingly, like when some sorority girl spends an hour talking loudly at a coffee shop, that doesn't mean that they're not extremely useful.
Thats why they've grown to become ubiquitous over the past decade.If there were better cell phone companies, moving to them would help too, but the big guys have created a lovely oligarchy, and the high cost of entry to build a nationwide network means its impossible for startups to fix it with competitive pressure.
You're not going to get a large portion of the country to stop using cell phones.
This means that in this case a reasonable amount of government regulation to stop the most abusive practices and maybe work to break up the pseudo-trust (a harder task that I couldn't say how to do) is perfectly reasonable.Small-government conservatism isn't about saying government involvement and regulation should be avoided at all costs, I'd hope this got discredited last year with the banking crisis, its about asking if its really necessary before doing it, and having a good debate.
In this case, without real competitive pressure happening, I think the answer is a resounding yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</id>
	<title>All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1260024840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews, friends, and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&amp;T sucks and want to move to Verizon.  Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.</p><p>ALL the US carriers suck in general!  People may think Verizon's coverage is the best, compared to AT&amp;T, but notice how they are competing on coverage, and not dropped calls, network speed, features (you can't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere, with any phone), etc.  Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract.  Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees.  Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up.  Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average.  Notice how they all lock you into specific phones.  Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract.  Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.</p><p>Verizon is one level of shit, and AT&amp;T is another level of shit.  And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit, and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews , friends , and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&amp;T sucks and want to move to Verizon .
Personally I think this is all BS , and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country , or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.ALL the US carriers suck in general !
People may think Verizon 's coverage is the best , compared to AT&amp;T , but notice how they are competing on coverage , and not dropped calls , network speed , features ( you ca n't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere , with any phone ) , etc .
Also notice how all the services cost around $ 80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract .
Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees .
Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up .
Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average .
Notice how they all lock you into specific phones .
Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract .
Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.Verizon is one level of shit , and AT&amp;T is another level of shit .
And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit , and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews, friends, and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&amp;T sucks and want to move to Verizon.
Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.ALL the US carriers suck in general!
People may think Verizon's coverage is the best, compared to AT&amp;T, but notice how they are competing on coverage, and not dropped calls, network speed, features (you can't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere, with any phone), etc.
Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract.
Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees.
Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up.
Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average.
Notice how they all lock you into specific phones.
Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract.
Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.Verizon is one level of shit, and AT&amp;T is another level of shit.
And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit, and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334648</id>
	<title>Come on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its one thing to try and recoup the costs of smartphones that you all but give to customers.  There is plenty to be said about that but I'll give that part a pass here.</p><p>But to setup the OS such that a user can 'go online' as described only to be billed for it is just downright sleazy.  I am quite sure that if any customers called in to complain Verizon's solution to them was that they just needed to add a data plan to their contract.</p><p>Look, I'm not anti corporations/big business but so many business models have turned into 'how can we best extract money from people' rather than 'provide good service in return for money'.  That type of thinking needs to change and it <i>is</i> the job of the government to do that.  They are the best 800lb. gorilla that can reign in large corps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its one thing to try and recoup the costs of smartphones that you all but give to customers .
There is plenty to be said about that but I 'll give that part a pass here.But to setup the OS such that a user can 'go online ' as described only to be billed for it is just downright sleazy .
I am quite sure that if any customers called in to complain Verizon 's solution to them was that they just needed to add a data plan to their contract.Look , I 'm not anti corporations/big business but so many business models have turned into 'how can we best extract money from people ' rather than 'provide good service in return for money' .
That type of thinking needs to change and it is the job of the government to do that .
They are the best 800lb .
gorilla that can reign in large corps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its one thing to try and recoup the costs of smartphones that you all but give to customers.
There is plenty to be said about that but I'll give that part a pass here.But to setup the OS such that a user can 'go online' as described only to be billed for it is just downright sleazy.
I am quite sure that if any customers called in to complain Verizon's solution to them was that they just needed to add a data plan to their contract.Look, I'm not anti corporations/big business but so many business models have turned into 'how can we best extract money from people' rather than 'provide good service in return for money'.
That type of thinking needs to change and it is the job of the government to do that.
They are the best 800lb.
gorilla that can reign in large corps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335196</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Sufinsil</author>
	<datestamp>1260030600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews, friends, and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&amp;T sucks and want to move to Verizon.  Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.</p><p>ALL the US carriers suck in general!  People may think Verizon's coverage is the best, compared to AT&amp;T, but notice how they are competing on coverage, and not dropped calls, network speed, features (you can't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere, with any phone), etc.  Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract.  Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees.  Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up.  Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average.  Notice how they all lock you into specific phones.  Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract.  Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.</p><p>Verizon is one level of shit, and AT&amp;T is another level of shit.  And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit, and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other.</p></div><p>Lol, who are you, Luke Wilson?     How many people out of all subscribers realistically do both at the time time? <br> <br>


Plus if I want to, I can easily be connected to WiFi on my Droid and do both, which is normally the time I would ever need to do both at the same time I am normally near a WiFi.  <br>
<br>


You are not required to go in a contract.  Contract of service on month to month is available. <br> <br>


Its the salesperson job to show all the fees, which if you start new on Verizon as an indirect agent I go over them all.  (most of the fees are state and federal, with like $1 random surcharges) <br> <br>


I agree the per text charge is way to much, tho on a family plan of 5, $30 isnt to bad of a deal for all unlimited text. <br> <br>


Also have you see seen the population density and land mass of Europe compared to NA?  For National carriers sure they are probably a lil high, but the two who charge the most have the most nationwide coverage... I do understand for a lot of people they dont need that and something like in 4+ years ago there was regional plans offered, but it became such a problem with roaming and long distance, its all simple and straight now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews , friends , and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&amp;T sucks and want to move to Verizon .
Personally I think this is all BS , and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country , or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.ALL the US carriers suck in general !
People may think Verizon 's coverage is the best , compared to AT&amp;T , but notice how they are competing on coverage , and not dropped calls , network speed , features ( you ca n't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere , with any phone ) , etc .
Also notice how all the services cost around $ 80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract .
Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees .
Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up .
Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average .
Notice how they all lock you into specific phones .
Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract .
Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.Verizon is one level of shit , and AT&amp;T is another level of shit .
And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit , and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other.Lol , who are you , Luke Wilson ?
How many people out of all subscribers realistically do both at the time time ?
Plus if I want to , I can easily be connected to WiFi on my Droid and do both , which is normally the time I would ever need to do both at the same time I am normally near a WiFi .
You are not required to go in a contract .
Contract of service on month to month is available .
Its the salesperson job to show all the fees , which if you start new on Verizon as an indirect agent I go over them all .
( most of the fees are state and federal , with like $ 1 random surcharges ) I agree the per text charge is way to much , tho on a family plan of 5 , $ 30 isnt to bad of a deal for all unlimited text .
Also have you see seen the population density and land mass of Europe compared to NA ?
For National carriers sure they are probably a lil high , but the two who charge the most have the most nationwide coverage... I do understand for a lot of people they dont need that and something like in 4 + years ago there was regional plans offered , but it became such a problem with roaming and long distance , its all simple and straight now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews, friends, and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&amp;T sucks and want to move to Verizon.
Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.ALL the US carriers suck in general!
People may think Verizon's coverage is the best, compared to AT&amp;T, but notice how they are competing on coverage, and not dropped calls, network speed, features (you can't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere, with any phone), etc.
Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract.
Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees.
Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up.
Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average.
Notice how they all lock you into specific phones.
Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract.
Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.Verizon is one level of shit, and AT&amp;T is another level of shit.
And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit, and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other.Lol, who are you, Luke Wilson?
How many people out of all subscribers realistically do both at the time time?
Plus if I want to, I can easily be connected to WiFi on my Droid and do both, which is normally the time I would ever need to do both at the same time I am normally near a WiFi.
You are not required to go in a contract.
Contract of service on month to month is available.
Its the salesperson job to show all the fees, which if you start new on Verizon as an indirect agent I go over them all.
(most of the fees are state and federal, with like $1 random surcharges)  


I agree the per text charge is way to much, tho on a family plan of 5, $30 isnt to bad of a deal for all unlimited text.
Also have you see seen the population density and land mass of Europe compared to NA?
For National carriers sure they are probably a lil high, but the two who charge the most have the most nationwide coverage... I do understand for a lot of people they dont need that and something like in 4+ years ago there was regional plans offered, but it became such a problem with roaming and long distance, its all simple and straight now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334656</id>
	<title>More Corpoate Theft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American companies don't make money, they steal money. They lie and use "tricks and traps" to pick people's pockets. This crap with Verizon is typical. In California, AT&amp;T submitted a terms of use agreement that was 1500 pages. I'm sure that it contained  provisions that would have allowed them to take your house or savings. Even the almost useless state utilities commission rejected it, because the law states that these agreements must be understandable.</p><p>What kind of capitalism is this, exactly? The basic theory of capitalism says that buyers and sellers make informed decisions based on open information. How does changing the contract unilaterally fit in? First they write terms of service that allow them to change the rules without negotiation, then they double the cost of  canceling. I know what the dumb ass libertarians and republicans will say: 'if you don't like it, you can quit before the change takes place.'  This is bullshit because  the cost of getting a new high end phone and new carrier is greater then the cost of keeping the service. How many people really change service before the term is up under any conditions?</p><p>And this thing with getting charged for a couple of bucks for hitting  a button when you did not sign up for the service? That is flat out and out theft. It has nothing  to do with actual capitalism.  What good or service do you get for pushing the wrong button on a cell phone?</p><p>And what about the banks sorting ATM charges so users are charged the maximum overdraft fees? They sort the charges from biggest to smallest so you hit the overdraft at the beginning of the sequence and every charge after you  go over the limit has an overdraft fee. Even if it is in the fine print somewhere it is stealing from consumers.  Keep in mind that ATM overdraft fees were $38 Billion for the last year of published data. Not exactly chump change.</p><p>I am pro-capitalism, but there is no way the system in the US is actual capitalism. It's all about big corporate interests buying the government and then looting the economy.  That's why the US is in a long term economic decline. Corporate america has adopted a model based on orgaized crime, not capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American companies do n't make money , they steal money .
They lie and use " tricks and traps " to pick people 's pockets .
This crap with Verizon is typical .
In California , AT&amp;T submitted a terms of use agreement that was 1500 pages .
I 'm sure that it contained provisions that would have allowed them to take your house or savings .
Even the almost useless state utilities commission rejected it , because the law states that these agreements must be understandable.What kind of capitalism is this , exactly ?
The basic theory of capitalism says that buyers and sellers make informed decisions based on open information .
How does changing the contract unilaterally fit in ?
First they write terms of service that allow them to change the rules without negotiation , then they double the cost of canceling .
I know what the dumb ass libertarians and republicans will say : 'if you do n't like it , you can quit before the change takes place .
' This is bullshit because the cost of getting a new high end phone and new carrier is greater then the cost of keeping the service .
How many people really change service before the term is up under any conditions ? And this thing with getting charged for a couple of bucks for hitting a button when you did not sign up for the service ?
That is flat out and out theft .
It has nothing to do with actual capitalism .
What good or service do you get for pushing the wrong button on a cell phone ? And what about the banks sorting ATM charges so users are charged the maximum overdraft fees ?
They sort the charges from biggest to smallest so you hit the overdraft at the beginning of the sequence and every charge after you go over the limit has an overdraft fee .
Even if it is in the fine print somewhere it is stealing from consumers .
Keep in mind that ATM overdraft fees were $ 38 Billion for the last year of published data .
Not exactly chump change.I am pro-capitalism , but there is no way the system in the US is actual capitalism .
It 's all about big corporate interests buying the government and then looting the economy .
That 's why the US is in a long term economic decline .
Corporate america has adopted a model based on orgaized crime , not capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American companies don't make money, they steal money.
They lie and use "tricks and traps" to pick people's pockets.
This crap with Verizon is typical.
In California, AT&amp;T submitted a terms of use agreement that was 1500 pages.
I'm sure that it contained  provisions that would have allowed them to take your house or savings.
Even the almost useless state utilities commission rejected it, because the law states that these agreements must be understandable.What kind of capitalism is this, exactly?
The basic theory of capitalism says that buyers and sellers make informed decisions based on open information.
How does changing the contract unilaterally fit in?
First they write terms of service that allow them to change the rules without negotiation, then they double the cost of  canceling.
I know what the dumb ass libertarians and republicans will say: 'if you don't like it, you can quit before the change takes place.
'  This is bullshit because  the cost of getting a new high end phone and new carrier is greater then the cost of keeping the service.
How many people really change service before the term is up under any conditions?And this thing with getting charged for a couple of bucks for hitting  a button when you did not sign up for the service?
That is flat out and out theft.
It has nothing  to do with actual capitalism.
What good or service do you get for pushing the wrong button on a cell phone?And what about the banks sorting ATM charges so users are charged the maximum overdraft fees?
They sort the charges from biggest to smallest so you hit the overdraft at the beginning of the sequence and every charge after you  go over the limit has an overdraft fee.
Even if it is in the fine print somewhere it is stealing from consumers.
Keep in mind that ATM overdraft fees were $38 Billion for the last year of published data.
Not exactly chump change.I am pro-capitalism, but there is no way the system in the US is actual capitalism.
It's all about big corporate interests buying the government and then looting the economy.
That's why the US is in a long term economic decline.
Corporate america has adopted a model based on orgaized crime, not capitalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335750</id>
	<title>Where does it say that?</title>
	<author>Darth Muffin</author>
	<datestamp>1260034980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Show me where it says anything remotely like that in the US Constitution.

The only one covering your ass is you.

They do have powers to regulate monopolies in interstate commerce, but until Verizon is declared one that doesn't apply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me where it says anything remotely like that in the US Constitution .
The only one covering your ass is you .
They do have powers to regulate monopolies in interstate commerce , but until Verizon is declared one that does n't apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me where it says anything remotely like that in the US Constitution.
The only one covering your ass is you.
They do have powers to regulate monopolies in interstate commerce, but until Verizon is declared one that doesn't apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334622</id>
	<title>Well they can even do simple math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260025860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of the funniest and sadist things I have ever heard in my life and does not paint the American educational system in a good light.</p><p><a href="http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the funniest and sadist things I have ever heard in my life and does not paint the American educational system in a good light.http : //verizonmath.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the funniest and sadist things I have ever heard in my life and does not paint the American educational system in a good light.http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335312</id>
	<title>Re:One job of Government</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1260031800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not sure anyone can choose to ignore Verizon, customer or not.  Plus, on a non-mobile phone related note, there are people who can't ignore Verizon at all because that's the company that provides their local phone service (and some people can't afford NOT to have a land line).</p><p>On top of that, these huge companies are so big that they create their own gravity.  They are concentrations of power, and the government is supposed to counterbalance concentrations of power, whether it be a huge guy with baseball bat who extorts protection money or a huge corporation who can force money out of you in other ways.</p><p>On top of that, these corps are actively trying to limit competition, making the vote with your feet argument even weaker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure anyone can choose to ignore Verizon , customer or not .
Plus , on a non-mobile phone related note , there are people who ca n't ignore Verizon at all because that 's the company that provides their local phone service ( and some people ca n't afford NOT to have a land line ) .On top of that , these huge companies are so big that they create their own gravity .
They are concentrations of power , and the government is supposed to counterbalance concentrations of power , whether it be a huge guy with baseball bat who extorts protection money or a huge corporation who can force money out of you in other ways.On top of that , these corps are actively trying to limit competition , making the vote with your feet argument even weaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure anyone can choose to ignore Verizon, customer or not.
Plus, on a non-mobile phone related note, there are people who can't ignore Verizon at all because that's the company that provides their local phone service (and some people can't afford NOT to have a land line).On top of that, these huge companies are so big that they create their own gravity.
They are concentrations of power, and the government is supposed to counterbalance concentrations of power, whether it be a huge guy with baseball bat who extorts protection money or a huge corporation who can force money out of you in other ways.On top of that, these corps are actively trying to limit competition, making the vote with your feet argument even weaker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337074</id>
	<title>Re:More Corpoate Theft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260042720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>American companies don't make money, they steal money.</p> </div><p>Some do. Not all, not by a long shot.   Eventually the market will correct for this and they will be held accountable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>American companies do n't make money , they steal money .
Some do .
Not all , not by a long shot .
Eventually the market will correct for this and they will be held accountable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American companies don't make money, they steal money.
Some do.
Not all, not by a long shot.
Eventually the market will correct for this and they will be held accountable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335094</id>
	<title>Re:One job of Government</title>
	<author>AlHunt</author>
	<datestamp>1260029940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporations</p><p>We're already protected - just don't have a cell phone.  The problem is that people would rather sic government on big, bad corporations than inconvenience themselves by not patronizing companies they don't like.  If enough of us voted with our feet it'd fix these kinds of issues.  A temporary inconvenience for a permanent improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporationsWe 're already protected - just do n't have a cell phone .
The problem is that people would rather sic government on big , bad corporations than inconvenience themselves by not patronizing companies they do n't like .
If enough of us voted with our feet it 'd fix these kinds of issues .
A temporary inconvenience for a permanent improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporationsWe're already protected - just don't have a cell phone.
The problem is that people would rather sic government on big, bad corporations than inconvenience themselves by not patronizing companies they don't like.
If enough of us voted with our feet it'd fix these kinds of issues.
A temporary inconvenience for a permanent improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335530</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe...</title>
	<author>symbolic</author>
	<datestamp>1260033600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to realize though, that the people have much more power than the government could ever have, and it's a power that, theoretically, can be wielded much more quickly, and deal a much harder blow. The <i>real</i> problem is that people get too attached to their level of comfort, and use this as an excuse to avoid any effort required to restore any balance to the often tenuous relationship between producers and consumers. Yes, it's the dreaded "b" word (boycott). People hate this word because they claim it's ineffective. I don't necessarily agree. I opine that boycotts can be very effective, <i>if they are executed properly</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to realize though , that the people have much more power than the government could ever have , and it 's a power that , theoretically , can be wielded much more quickly , and deal a much harder blow .
The real problem is that people get too attached to their level of comfort , and use this as an excuse to avoid any effort required to restore any balance to the often tenuous relationship between producers and consumers .
Yes , it 's the dreaded " b " word ( boycott ) .
People hate this word because they claim it 's ineffective .
I do n't necessarily agree .
I opine that boycotts can be very effective , if they are executed properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to realize though, that the people have much more power than the government could ever have, and it's a power that, theoretically, can be wielded much more quickly, and deal a much harder blow.
The real problem is that people get too attached to their level of comfort, and use this as an excuse to avoid any effort required to restore any balance to the often tenuous relationship between producers and consumers.
Yes, it's the dreaded "b" word (boycott).
People hate this word because they claim it's ineffective.
I don't necessarily agree.
I opine that boycotts can be very effective, if they are executed properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339304</id>
	<title>Re:Block Data?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1260015660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. I had the same experience. When I put three extra family members on my AT&amp;T share plan, I called them and made sure to turn off all kinds of stuff -- photo texting, data, pay numbers, pretty much anything that could cost money. So far so good, but I've heard that companies can charge money to your cell phone knowing nothing more than your number, and I don't fricking understand how that can be legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I had the same experience .
When I put three extra family members on my AT&amp;T share plan , I called them and made sure to turn off all kinds of stuff -- photo texting , data , pay numbers , pretty much anything that could cost money .
So far so good , but I 've heard that companies can charge money to your cell phone knowing nothing more than your number , and I do n't fricking understand how that can be legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I had the same experience.
When I put three extra family members on my AT&amp;T share plan, I called them and made sure to turn off all kinds of stuff -- photo texting, data, pay numbers, pretty much anything that could cost money.
So far so good, but I've heard that companies can charge money to your cell phone knowing nothing more than your number, and I don't fricking understand how that can be legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30344298</id>
	<title>Re:One job of Government</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1260125700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sometimes it's not that "voluntarily. as an example (not realted to mobile phones, but in the same spirit).
I'm canadian. Precisely from Montreal (quebec, the french speaking north american folks). Lately we had (Still having actually) a big problem with ADSL access.
I'm sure you've heard of it, and apprently the FCC took a stand on it ; THROTTLING.
BELL Canada decided unilaterally to throttle it's residential service (that is Ok, they're the ISP in this case, and if people don;t like they can walk away, wich they did  hence -&gt;) and wholesale GAS access (which simplified is  a mean to provide connectivity between one EU and his ISP, no internet access to this point). Our DUMB CRTC (FCC counter part) said yeah why not, their network their rules, as long as it is transparent and EUs are given notice.
Look where we are now, a lot of indi ISPs and no single "UNTHROTTLED" ADSL connection. Free marker will sort it out they said. Free market is in jail I say.


SO yes we need regulation to protect us from big corps and oligopolies.
as some one pointed out above, in some situations (near perfect) "feet vote" will sort things out, in some other, regulations are a must.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sometimes it 's not that " voluntarily .
as an example ( not realted to mobile phones , but in the same spirit ) .
I 'm canadian .
Precisely from Montreal ( quebec , the french speaking north american folks ) .
Lately we had ( Still having actually ) a big problem with ADSL access .
I 'm sure you 've heard of it , and apprently the FCC took a stand on it ; THROTTLING .
BELL Canada decided unilaterally to throttle it 's residential service ( that is Ok , they 're the ISP in this case , and if people don ; t like they can walk away , wich they did hence - &gt; ) and wholesale GAS access ( which simplified is a mean to provide connectivity between one EU and his ISP , no internet access to this point ) .
Our DUMB CRTC ( FCC counter part ) said yeah why not , their network their rules , as long as it is transparent and EUs are given notice .
Look where we are now , a lot of indi ISPs and no single " UNTHROTTLED " ADSL connection .
Free marker will sort it out they said .
Free market is in jail I say .
SO yes we need regulation to protect us from big corps and oligopolies .
as some one pointed out above , in some situations ( near perfect ) " feet vote " will sort things out , in some other , regulations are a must .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sometimes it's not that "voluntarily.
as an example (not realted to mobile phones, but in the same spirit).
I'm canadian.
Precisely from Montreal (quebec, the french speaking north american folks).
Lately we had (Still having actually) a big problem with ADSL access.
I'm sure you've heard of it, and apprently the FCC took a stand on it ; THROTTLING.
BELL Canada decided unilaterally to throttle it's residential service (that is Ok, they're the ISP in this case, and if people don;t like they can walk away, wich they did  hence -&gt;) and wholesale GAS access (which simplified is  a mean to provide connectivity between one EU and his ISP, no internet access to this point).
Our DUMB CRTC (FCC counter part) said yeah why not, their network their rules, as long as it is transparent and EUs are given notice.
Look where we are now, a lot of indi ISPs and no single "UNTHROTTLED" ADSL connection.
Free marker will sort it out they said.
Free market is in jail I say.
SO yes we need regulation to protect us from big corps and oligopolies.
as some one pointed out above, in some situations (near perfect) "feet vote" will sort things out, in some other, regulations are a must.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335270</id>
	<title>Verizon charnged Mom $100 for Dad's death</title>
	<author>SaffronMiner</author>
	<datestamp>1260031320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Father died in October.  He had a shared Verizon account with my Mother.  They charged Mom $100 to terminate his account, even after I explained that he was dead.  I wanted to terminate Mom's account as well, as she only talked to Dad on her cell phone.  They refused to do it without having to pay more than $100 beyond the first $100! They told me Mom had to keep the account until it expired in July.  While she racks up charges for a service she will not use; Her income is now very limited, she should be using the money to buy food and keep the house heated.

A bit off topic to this tread but all of the paperwork and people you have to contact when someone dies is an absolute nightmare.  People have been dieing for a really long time now, you would think it would be an easy one click process.  Who is up for stating such a service?  Oh right, Amazon already has that patented...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Father died in October .
He had a shared Verizon account with my Mother .
They charged Mom $ 100 to terminate his account , even after I explained that he was dead .
I wanted to terminate Mom 's account as well , as she only talked to Dad on her cell phone .
They refused to do it without having to pay more than $ 100 beyond the first $ 100 !
They told me Mom had to keep the account until it expired in July .
While she racks up charges for a service she will not use ; Her income is now very limited , she should be using the money to buy food and keep the house heated .
A bit off topic to this tread but all of the paperwork and people you have to contact when someone dies is an absolute nightmare .
People have been dieing for a really long time now , you would think it would be an easy one click process .
Who is up for stating such a service ?
Oh right , Amazon already has that patented.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Father died in October.
He had a shared Verizon account with my Mother.
They charged Mom $100 to terminate his account, even after I explained that he was dead.
I wanted to terminate Mom's account as well, as she only talked to Dad on her cell phone.
They refused to do it without having to pay more than $100 beyond the first $100!
They told me Mom had to keep the account until it expired in July.
While she racks up charges for a service she will not use; Her income is now very limited, she should be using the money to buy food and keep the house heated.
A bit off topic to this tread but all of the paperwork and people you have to contact when someone dies is an absolute nightmare.
People have been dieing for a really long time now, you would think it would be an easy one click process.
Who is up for stating such a service?
Oh right, Amazon already has that patented...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335666</id>
	<title>Re:Block Data?</title>
	<author>oddaddresstrap</author>
	<datestamp>1260034500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they can. I got dinged about $2 for pressing a button, so I had them turn it off. That broke the automatic backup of my contact list. Just about every time I opened the phone after that it was busy trying (and failing) to connect to do the backup. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they can .
I got dinged about $ 2 for pressing a button , so I had them turn it off .
That broke the automatic backup of my contact list .
Just about every time I opened the phone after that it was busy trying ( and failing ) to connect to do the backup .
Damned if you do and damned if you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they can.
I got dinged about $2 for pressing a button, so I had them turn it off.
That broke the automatic backup of my contact list.
Just about every time I opened the phone after that it was busy trying (and failing) to connect to do the backup.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339976</id>
	<title>Re:One job of Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260021420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the cost of having a company we WOULD voluntarially associate with get into the business is too high when the existing ones hold all the infrastructure cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the cost of having a company we WOULD voluntarially associate with get into the business is too high when the existing ones hold all the infrastructure cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the cost of having a company we WOULD voluntarially associate with get into the business is too high when the existing ones hold all the infrastructure cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30338794</id>
	<title>Re:Riiight</title>
	<author>bluesatin</author>
	<datestamp>1260011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or they read New York Times, which Slashdot quoted in the said article.</p></div><p>I thought nobody read newspapers any more?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they read New York Times , which Slashdot quoted in the said article.I thought nobody read newspapers any more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they read New York Times, which Slashdot quoted in the said article.I thought nobody read newspapers any more?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335082</id>
	<title>Re:How pleasant</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1260029880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They should also make text messaging free.</p><p>That's right.  I wrote free.</p><p>If you put the price of a voice call, in 3 seconds to the (stupidly) expensive $.15 per minute, and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message, you will find it negligible:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.15/60 = $.0025 per second.  $.0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $.00075 dollars per kilobyte (aside: $.771 dollars per megabyte).</p><p>Now let's say, for the sake of generosity, it takes a 16KB packet total, up and down for ack, all carriers, etc., to send a text message.</p><p>It would cost $0.012 by my numbers...</p><p>Draw your own conclusions, I am just playing with units.</p></div><p>I agree that would be awesome and something some mainstream company will hopefully do soon. I know several "local" ones have unlimited calls and text for 1 low price. The issue as I see it is that companies spend to much on marketing. Word of mouth is where it used to be at. But I guess they feel they can't compete unless they spend uber millions on marketing as well.</p><p>
&nbsp; Give me something like All-Tel before Verizon, with handset/application freedom and no charge for text messages, and I will be a customer for life. (provided you don't try to overcharge me.. or crap on me with service) All-Tel was the best and closet in my opinion, but then they went and sold out, literally. Maybe I can start my own company... I just wish I knew more about it than I know now, which I admit is little. But I know enough tio know it could be better, for all parties if the companies would stop shooting themselves in the foot with greed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should also make text messaging free.That 's right .
I wrote free.If you put the price of a voice call , in 3 seconds to the ( stupidly ) expensive $ .15 per minute , and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message , you will find it negligible : .15/60 = $ .0025 per second .
$ .0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $ .00075 dollars per kilobyte ( aside : $ .771 dollars per megabyte ) .Now let 's say , for the sake of generosity , it takes a 16KB packet total , up and down for ack , all carriers , etc. , to send a text message.It would cost $ 0.012 by my numbers...Draw your own conclusions , I am just playing with units.I agree that would be awesome and something some mainstream company will hopefully do soon .
I know several " local " ones have unlimited calls and text for 1 low price .
The issue as I see it is that companies spend to much on marketing .
Word of mouth is where it used to be at .
But I guess they feel they ca n't compete unless they spend uber millions on marketing as well .
  Give me something like All-Tel before Verizon , with handset/application freedom and no charge for text messages , and I will be a customer for life .
( provided you do n't try to overcharge me.. or crap on me with service ) All-Tel was the best and closet in my opinion , but then they went and sold out , literally .
Maybe I can start my own company... I just wish I knew more about it than I know now , which I admit is little .
But I know enough tio know it could be better , for all parties if the companies would stop shooting themselves in the foot with greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should also make text messaging free.That's right.
I wrote free.If you put the price of a voice call, in 3 seconds to the (stupidly) expensive $.15 per minute, and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message, you will find it negligible: .15/60 = $.0025 per second.
$.0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $.00075 dollars per kilobyte (aside: $.771 dollars per megabyte).Now let's say, for the sake of generosity, it takes a 16KB packet total, up and down for ack, all carriers, etc., to send a text message.It would cost $0.012 by my numbers...Draw your own conclusions, I am just playing with units.I agree that would be awesome and something some mainstream company will hopefully do soon.
I know several "local" ones have unlimited calls and text for 1 low price.
The issue as I see it is that companies spend to much on marketing.
Word of mouth is where it used to be at.
But I guess they feel they can't compete unless they spend uber millions on marketing as well.
  Give me something like All-Tel before Verizon, with handset/application freedom and no charge for text messages, and I will be a customer for life.
(provided you don't try to overcharge me.. or crap on me with service) All-Tel was the best and closet in my opinion, but then they went and sold out, literally.
Maybe I can start my own company... I just wish I knew more about it than I know now, which I admit is little.
But I know enough tio know it could be better, for all parties if the companies would stop shooting themselves in the foot with greed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340788</id>
	<title>Re:Riiight</title>
	<author>Lord Dreamshaper</author>
	<datestamp>1260030060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>or that anyone in the government reads at all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</i> <br> <br>[insert obligatory Sarah Palin/Katie Couric punchline here]<br> <br>*ducks*</htmltext>
<tokenext>or that anyone in the government reads at all : ) [ insert obligatory Sarah Palin/Katie Couric punchline here ] * ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or that anyone in the government reads at all :)  [insert obligatory Sarah Palin/Katie Couric punchline here] *ducks*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335884</id>
	<title>Re:All US carriers suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy the phone outright at the full-price, non-x-year-contract-subsidized price, and you're not locked into a contract.  What?  You don't want to put down $400-$500 for a phone?  Should we socialize that so that all wannabes can have cool phones?</p><p>How about you get off your ass and earn the money to pay for either the 2-year contract or for the full-price, non-subsidized phone?  Until then STFU and GTFO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... OMGWTFBBQSAUCEROFLS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy the phone outright at the full-price , non-x-year-contract-subsidized price , and you 're not locked into a contract .
What ? You do n't want to put down $ 400- $ 500 for a phone ?
Should we socialize that so that all wannabes can have cool phones ? How about you get off your ass and earn the money to pay for either the 2-year contract or for the full-price , non-subsidized phone ?
Until then STFU and GTFO ... OMGWTFBBQSAUCEROFLS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy the phone outright at the full-price, non-x-year-contract-subsidized price, and you're not locked into a contract.
What?  You don't want to put down $400-$500 for a phone?
Should we socialize that so that all wannabes can have cool phones?How about you get off your ass and earn the money to pay for either the 2-year contract or for the full-price, non-subsidized phone?
Until then STFU and GTFO ... OMGWTFBBQSAUCEROFLS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334994</id>
	<title>Re:Block Data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260029220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years ago, I asked T-Mobile to block data on all the phones on our plan, because our phones kept on signing themselves up for monthly subscription charges. They refused outright, and in a later call, offered ANOTHER subscription charge for "parental controls" to block the data.</p><p>We're on AT&amp;T now, which sucks in it's own special ways, but there have been no bill surprises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago , I asked T-Mobile to block data on all the phones on our plan , because our phones kept on signing themselves up for monthly subscription charges .
They refused outright , and in a later call , offered ANOTHER subscription charge for " parental controls " to block the data.We 're on AT&amp;T now , which sucks in it 's own special ways , but there have been no bill surprises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago, I asked T-Mobile to block data on all the phones on our plan, because our phones kept on signing themselves up for monthly subscription charges.
They refused outright, and in a later call, offered ANOTHER subscription charge for "parental controls" to block the data.We're on AT&amp;T now, which sucks in it's own special ways, but there have been no bill surprises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30336032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30344298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30341258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30341686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30338794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0420217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30338794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30341258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30340868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30336032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0420217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30344298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30339976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30334516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30341686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30335094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0420217.30337372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
