<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_07_2232202</id>
	<title>FCC May Pry Open the Cable Set-Top Box</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260186360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>awyeah writes <i>"The NY Times reports that the FCC is finally looking into the practice of <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/watch-out-comcast-the-fcc-may-not-let-you-favor-nbc/">cable companies requiring use of their set-top boxes</a> to access their digital cable and video on-demand services. <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs\_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2519A1.pdf"> The inquiry</a> (PDF) states: 'Consumers can access the Internet using a variety of delivery methods (e.g., wireless, DSL, fiber optics, broadband over powerlines, satellite, and cable) on myriad devices made by hundreds of manufacturers; yet we know of no device available at retail that can access all of an MVPD's services across that MVPD's entire footprint.' Yes, there are a few devices out there &mdash; for example CableCARD-enabled TVs, and CableCARD/Tuning Adapter-enabled TiVos and Windows Media Center PCs, but only the cable companies' set-tops can access services other than broadcast TV, such as video-on-demand and pay-per-view. Is it finally time to open these devices and embrace actual standards and competition?"</i> Lauren Weinstein has a <a href="http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg02428.html">cautionary blog post</a> about the world we may be entering if this FCC initiative comes to fruition, which concludes: "I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet."</htmltext>
<tokenext>awyeah writes " The NY Times reports that the FCC is finally looking into the practice of cable companies requiring use of their set-top boxes to access their digital cable and video on-demand services .
The inquiry ( PDF ) states : 'Consumers can access the Internet using a variety of delivery methods ( e.g. , wireless , DSL , fiber optics , broadband over powerlines , satellite , and cable ) on myriad devices made by hundreds of manufacturers ; yet we know of no device available at retail that can access all of an MVPD 's services across that MVPD 's entire footprint .
' Yes , there are a few devices out there    for example CableCARD-enabled TVs , and CableCARD/Tuning Adapter-enabled TiVos and Windows Media Center PCs , but only the cable companies ' set-tops can access services other than broadcast TV , such as video-on-demand and pay-per-view .
Is it finally time to open these devices and embrace actual standards and competition ?
" Lauren Weinstein has a cautionary blog post about the world we may be entering if this FCC initiative comes to fruition , which concludes : " I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>awyeah writes "The NY Times reports that the FCC is finally looking into the practice of cable companies requiring use of their set-top boxes to access their digital cable and video on-demand services.
The inquiry (PDF) states: 'Consumers can access the Internet using a variety of delivery methods (e.g., wireless, DSL, fiber optics, broadband over powerlines, satellite, and cable) on myriad devices made by hundreds of manufacturers; yet we know of no device available at retail that can access all of an MVPD's services across that MVPD's entire footprint.
' Yes, there are a few devices out there — for example CableCARD-enabled TVs, and CableCARD/Tuning Adapter-enabled TiVos and Windows Media Center PCs, but only the cable companies' set-tops can access services other than broadcast TV, such as video-on-demand and pay-per-view.
Is it finally time to open these devices and embrace actual standards and competition?
" Lauren Weinstein has a cautionary blog post about the world we may be entering if this FCC initiative comes to fruition, which concludes: "I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360726</id>
	<title>Clear the QAM!!</title>
	<author>Randall311</author>
	<datestamp>1260199080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clear QAM.  If the cable companies designed and supported CableCARD properly like they should have in the first place, then they wouldn't be in this mess.  Nobody wants STBs attached to every TV in their home, drawing more electricity and wasted energy, when their TVs already have perfectly capable digital tuners in them (and have for years).  You see, back when TV was analog and TVs only went up to 13 channels were when STBs made perfect sense.  They were delivering value by enabling so much more content to be accessed then you ever could without a box.
<br> <br>
New TVs from ~2001 up until 2006 all had support for CableCARD built in.  It was the very thing to liberate us from the stupid (and unnecessary) STBs the cable companies would force you to rent.  Yet the cable companies did everything they could to kill it, including charging more for the card then they do for the damn boxes.  Eventually TV manufacturers realized that nobody was using the CableCARD slots so they abandoned it as an unnecessary cost.
<br> <br>
Fast forward to now and we have a myriad of download-able, streaming content to enjoy direct from the networks.  The cable companies did this to themselves.  More and more people are canceling their subscriptions as they realize the absurdity of it all.  In order for cable to survive it will have to do the only thing they will never do.  Clear their QAM.  Provide a digital signal that is un-encrypted to the consumer.  People will actually buy back in if this were to happen.  They would be overjoyed that they would have the freedom to use MythTV, Windows Media Center, or whatever they wanted to as a DVR.  Freedom of choice is the best way to get customer loyalty.  Sadly, we all know that this will never happen, and we will continue to be forced into a model we do not want.  The content delivery medium will continue to move from Cable to the Internet, until it is all over.  Encryption and lock-down will be the death kneel to the cable industry.  I suppose that the big Cable companies don't even care, since you're likely to still be paying them as your ISP.
<br> <br>
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I completely refuse to pay the cable company more money just so I can have a clunky box that they own taking up space in my living room.  Fortunately I live close enough to the broadcast towers that I can get free OTA HD from all the major networks, and I'm happy with that.  I'll never be happy with the cable companies until they provide unencrypted content to my home.  Send us the signal that our built-in digital TV tuners can decode!  To hell with all the encryption, DRM, and lockdown that the digital era has bestowed upon us.  Lord how I do miss the good old days of analog sometimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clear QAM .
If the cable companies designed and supported CableCARD properly like they should have in the first place , then they would n't be in this mess .
Nobody wants STBs attached to every TV in their home , drawing more electricity and wasted energy , when their TVs already have perfectly capable digital tuners in them ( and have for years ) .
You see , back when TV was analog and TVs only went up to 13 channels were when STBs made perfect sense .
They were delivering value by enabling so much more content to be accessed then you ever could without a box .
New TVs from ~ 2001 up until 2006 all had support for CableCARD built in .
It was the very thing to liberate us from the stupid ( and unnecessary ) STBs the cable companies would force you to rent .
Yet the cable companies did everything they could to kill it , including charging more for the card then they do for the damn boxes .
Eventually TV manufacturers realized that nobody was using the CableCARD slots so they abandoned it as an unnecessary cost .
Fast forward to now and we have a myriad of download-able , streaming content to enjoy direct from the networks .
The cable companies did this to themselves .
More and more people are canceling their subscriptions as they realize the absurdity of it all .
In order for cable to survive it will have to do the only thing they will never do .
Clear their QAM .
Provide a digital signal that is un-encrypted to the consumer .
People will actually buy back in if this were to happen .
They would be overjoyed that they would have the freedom to use MythTV , Windows Media Center , or whatever they wanted to as a DVR .
Freedom of choice is the best way to get customer loyalty .
Sadly , we all know that this will never happen , and we will continue to be forced into a model we do not want .
The content delivery medium will continue to move from Cable to the Internet , until it is all over .
Encryption and lock-down will be the death kneel to the cable industry .
I suppose that the big Cable companies do n't even care , since you 're likely to still be paying them as your ISP .
Maybe I 'm in the minority , but I completely refuse to pay the cable company more money just so I can have a clunky box that they own taking up space in my living room .
Fortunately I live close enough to the broadcast towers that I can get free OTA HD from all the major networks , and I 'm happy with that .
I 'll never be happy with the cable companies until they provide unencrypted content to my home .
Send us the signal that our built-in digital TV tuners can decode !
To hell with all the encryption , DRM , and lockdown that the digital era has bestowed upon us .
Lord how I do miss the good old days of analog sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clear QAM.
If the cable companies designed and supported CableCARD properly like they should have in the first place, then they wouldn't be in this mess.
Nobody wants STBs attached to every TV in their home, drawing more electricity and wasted energy, when their TVs already have perfectly capable digital tuners in them (and have for years).
You see, back when TV was analog and TVs only went up to 13 channels were when STBs made perfect sense.
They were delivering value by enabling so much more content to be accessed then you ever could without a box.
New TVs from ~2001 up until 2006 all had support for CableCARD built in.
It was the very thing to liberate us from the stupid (and unnecessary) STBs the cable companies would force you to rent.
Yet the cable companies did everything they could to kill it, including charging more for the card then they do for the damn boxes.
Eventually TV manufacturers realized that nobody was using the CableCARD slots so they abandoned it as an unnecessary cost.
Fast forward to now and we have a myriad of download-able, streaming content to enjoy direct from the networks.
The cable companies did this to themselves.
More and more people are canceling their subscriptions as they realize the absurdity of it all.
In order for cable to survive it will have to do the only thing they will never do.
Clear their QAM.
Provide a digital signal that is un-encrypted to the consumer.
People will actually buy back in if this were to happen.
They would be overjoyed that they would have the freedom to use MythTV, Windows Media Center, or whatever they wanted to as a DVR.
Freedom of choice is the best way to get customer loyalty.
Sadly, we all know that this will never happen, and we will continue to be forced into a model we do not want.
The content delivery medium will continue to move from Cable to the Internet, until it is all over.
Encryption and lock-down will be the death kneel to the cable industry.
I suppose that the big Cable companies don't even care, since you're likely to still be paying them as your ISP.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I completely refuse to pay the cable company more money just so I can have a clunky box that they own taking up space in my living room.
Fortunately I live close enough to the broadcast towers that I can get free OTA HD from all the major networks, and I'm happy with that.
I'll never be happy with the cable companies until they provide unencrypted content to my home.
Send us the signal that our built-in digital TV tuners can decode!
To hell with all the encryption, DRM, and lockdown that the digital era has bestowed upon us.
Lord how I do miss the good old days of analog sometimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359772</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260191700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's Cable's fault. Here is my cable card experience.
<ul> <li>Get Cable Cards. Despite being plug-and-play, this required an appointment with a Cable idiot.</li>
<li>Pay extra per month for my CCs so I can use the service I already pay an ungodly amount of money for</li>
<li>Have a problem with channel or two. Call up to have them fix it. It requires a reset signal be sent, which only happens once there is a tech at my place.</li>
<li>Move out, get my own place. Need CCs transferred to new account. They can't do that. They come out to replace my two cards with two NEW cards, because they are idiots. Those cards don't work, so they give me my old cards back, just like I asked in the first place. This took TWO tech visits.</li>
<li>Have cards fail, get the replaced. This requires a tech. Comcast won't let me swap them myself.</li>
<li>For the time I don't have my service? They'll give me free VOD/PPV. But I can't use that, I have Cable Cards.</li>
</ul><p>That's the short version.
</p><p>By the way, my cards, which are basically PCMCIA cards, may need replacing again. You'd think they'd know how to build a solid-state device that doesn't move for two years without it dieing, but they don't.
</p><p>Cables has gone out of their way to make things as difficult as possible. I'm guessing 90\% of people don't even know the things are available. And with the deficits Cable has put in place (like no PPV/VOD), I'm not surprised people aren't rushing out to use them. And they don't work with Switched-Digital-Video, so any day now I may lose the option to use them.
</p><p>It failed because the FCC didn't force things nearly hard enough. They let cable drag their feet WAY too long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's Cable 's fault .
Here is my cable card experience .
Get Cable Cards .
Despite being plug-and-play , this required an appointment with a Cable idiot .
Pay extra per month for my CCs so I can use the service I already pay an ungodly amount of money for Have a problem with channel or two .
Call up to have them fix it .
It requires a reset signal be sent , which only happens once there is a tech at my place .
Move out , get my own place .
Need CCs transferred to new account .
They ca n't do that .
They come out to replace my two cards with two NEW cards , because they are idiots .
Those cards do n't work , so they give me my old cards back , just like I asked in the first place .
This took TWO tech visits .
Have cards fail , get the replaced .
This requires a tech .
Comcast wo n't let me swap them myself .
For the time I do n't have my service ?
They 'll give me free VOD/PPV .
But I ca n't use that , I have Cable Cards .
That 's the short version .
By the way , my cards , which are basically PCMCIA cards , may need replacing again .
You 'd think they 'd know how to build a solid-state device that does n't move for two years without it dieing , but they do n't .
Cables has gone out of their way to make things as difficult as possible .
I 'm guessing 90 \ % of people do n't even know the things are available .
And with the deficits Cable has put in place ( like no PPV/VOD ) , I 'm not surprised people are n't rushing out to use them .
And they do n't work with Switched-Digital-Video , so any day now I may lose the option to use them .
It failed because the FCC did n't force things nearly hard enough .
They let cable drag their feet WAY too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's Cable's fault.
Here is my cable card experience.
Get Cable Cards.
Despite being plug-and-play, this required an appointment with a Cable idiot.
Pay extra per month for my CCs so I can use the service I already pay an ungodly amount of money for
Have a problem with channel or two.
Call up to have them fix it.
It requires a reset signal be sent, which only happens once there is a tech at my place.
Move out, get my own place.
Need CCs transferred to new account.
They can't do that.
They come out to replace my two cards with two NEW cards, because they are idiots.
Those cards don't work, so they give me my old cards back, just like I asked in the first place.
This took TWO tech visits.
Have cards fail, get the replaced.
This requires a tech.
Comcast won't let me swap them myself.
For the time I don't have my service?
They'll give me free VOD/PPV.
But I can't use that, I have Cable Cards.
That's the short version.
By the way, my cards, which are basically PCMCIA cards, may need replacing again.
You'd think they'd know how to build a solid-state device that doesn't move for two years without it dieing, but they don't.
Cables has gone out of their way to make things as difficult as possible.
I'm guessing 90\% of people don't even know the things are available.
And with the deficits Cable has put in place (like no PPV/VOD), I'm not surprised people aren't rushing out to use them.
And they don't work with Switched-Digital-Video, so any day now I may lose the option to use them.
It failed because the FCC didn't force things nearly hard enough.
They let cable drag their feet WAY too long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359670</id>
	<title>Because</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1260191100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have difficulty seeing how this <b>universe</b> can be made to function effectively...</p></div><p>Well for one thing, controlling the Universe is a God complex.</p><p>The other is, we can't do anything to make the Universe function correctly until the Cosmologists figure it out.</p><p>Geeze!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively...Well for one thing , controlling the Universe is a God complex.The other is , we ca n't do anything to make the Universe function correctly until the Cosmologists figure it out.Geeze !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively...Well for one thing, controlling the Universe is a God complex.The other is, we can't do anything to make the Universe function correctly until the Cosmologists figure it out.Geeze!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360958</id>
	<title>Re:I predict the future.. and it's obvious</title>
	<author>FrankieBaby1986</author>
	<datestamp>1260200820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And, as technology progresses, the argument that it is 'innefficient' becomes more and more moot because the bandwidth required becomes more and more nominal in relation to availability.</p> </div><p>
 Doesn't IPV6 also have broadcast capability built-in, making live-streaming type applications (TV) drastically more efficient?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , as technology progresses , the argument that it is 'innefficient ' becomes more and more moot because the bandwidth required becomes more and more nominal in relation to availability .
Does n't IPV6 also have broadcast capability built-in , making live-streaming type applications ( TV ) drastically more efficient ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And, as technology progresses, the argument that it is 'innefficient' becomes more and more moot because the bandwidth required becomes more and more nominal in relation to availability.
Doesn't IPV6 also have broadcast capability built-in, making live-streaming type applications (TV) drastically more efficient?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360506</id>
	<title>Re:So were going to go back to how it used to be?</title>
	<author>Obfuscant</author>
	<datestamp>1260197400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What the FCC is proposing is making the DCTV systems function like the ACTV system used to.</i> <p>
YES! DO IT. It is a no-brainer.</p><p>
Until November 11, Comcast distributed every basic digital cable channel IN THE CLEAR. All of my ClearQAM devices worked with this signal just fine.</p><p>
On Nov. 11, Comcast started encrypting everything except the must-carries. Every channel that you cannot receive without the lowest level digital subscription, gone.</p><p>
When asked why they don't just trap lines that don't have basic digital so they can keep the signals I'm paying to get in the clear, they lie. They said "traps don't work". Traps have worked for DECADES. They even threatened to trap out the digital signal back in February when I first got and then dumped digital service because they weren't providing the services they promised and wanted $1/month more. If traps don't work, explain why there are times when my UNTRAPPED signals don't get through. It's so trivial to disable a digital signal that it is pathetically absurd to try to lie about not being able to trap them.</p><p>
I know why they don't want to trap: it's less convenient for them. They have to visit a house to install/remove one. They don't have to climb a damn ladder anymore, but they have to visit. I'm paying, their "convenience" takes second place.</p><p>
I'm trying to get a formal complaint lodged through the FCC for this issue, but FCC only seems interested in complaints about other issues.</p><p>
If you want to see why this is a no-brainer, read the Cable Consumer Protection Act of 1992. We've been through this "consumer provided equipment" debate with analog, and the consumer won. We need to get the consumer winning this one, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the FCC is proposing is making the DCTV systems function like the ACTV system used to .
YES ! DO IT .
It is a no-brainer .
Until November 11 , Comcast distributed every basic digital cable channel IN THE CLEAR .
All of my ClearQAM devices worked with this signal just fine .
On Nov. 11 , Comcast started encrypting everything except the must-carries .
Every channel that you can not receive without the lowest level digital subscription , gone .
When asked why they do n't just trap lines that do n't have basic digital so they can keep the signals I 'm paying to get in the clear , they lie .
They said " traps do n't work " .
Traps have worked for DECADES .
They even threatened to trap out the digital signal back in February when I first got and then dumped digital service because they were n't providing the services they promised and wanted $ 1/month more .
If traps do n't work , explain why there are times when my UNTRAPPED signals do n't get through .
It 's so trivial to disable a digital signal that it is pathetically absurd to try to lie about not being able to trap them .
I know why they do n't want to trap : it 's less convenient for them .
They have to visit a house to install/remove one .
They do n't have to climb a damn ladder anymore , but they have to visit .
I 'm paying , their " convenience " takes second place .
I 'm trying to get a formal complaint lodged through the FCC for this issue , but FCC only seems interested in complaints about other issues .
If you want to see why this is a no-brainer , read the Cable Consumer Protection Act of 1992 .
We 've been through this " consumer provided equipment " debate with analog , and the consumer won .
We need to get the consumer winning this one , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the FCC is proposing is making the DCTV systems function like the ACTV system used to.
YES! DO IT.
It is a no-brainer.
Until November 11, Comcast distributed every basic digital cable channel IN THE CLEAR.
All of my ClearQAM devices worked with this signal just fine.
On Nov. 11, Comcast started encrypting everything except the must-carries.
Every channel that you cannot receive without the lowest level digital subscription, gone.
When asked why they don't just trap lines that don't have basic digital so they can keep the signals I'm paying to get in the clear, they lie.
They said "traps don't work".
Traps have worked for DECADES.
They even threatened to trap out the digital signal back in February when I first got and then dumped digital service because they weren't providing the services they promised and wanted $1/month more.
If traps don't work, explain why there are times when my UNTRAPPED signals don't get through.
It's so trivial to disable a digital signal that it is pathetically absurd to try to lie about not being able to trap them.
I know why they don't want to trap: it's less convenient for them.
They have to visit a house to install/remove one.
They don't have to climb a damn ladder anymore, but they have to visit.
I'm paying, their "convenience" takes second place.
I'm trying to get a formal complaint lodged through the FCC for this issue, but FCC only seems interested in complaints about other issues.
If you want to see why this is a no-brainer, read the Cable Consumer Protection Act of 1992.
We've been through this "consumer provided equipment" debate with analog, and the consumer won.
We need to get the consumer winning this one, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360884</id>
	<title>Re:If they're smart, they'll embrace it</title>
	<author>awyeah</author>
	<datestamp>1260200220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's never, ever going to happen, because the cable companies make less money when you don't rent their terminals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's never , ever going to happen , because the cable companies make less money when you do n't rent their terminals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's never, ever going to happen, because the cable companies make less money when you don't rent their terminals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360574</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260197940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get angry that you're behind the times. You obviously know how to use the interwebz... just try watching TV online... you'll soon realize that its about 500x better due to the simple fact that you can watch a show whenever you want to, pending a few restrictions (weekly episode + maybe 5 of the previous episodes are available, South Park Studios blocks new shows after the initial week for a month, etc). TV is dead just like radio is dead... they're zombies, eating and converting humans to do their bidding (see: your rant).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get angry that you 're behind the times .
You obviously know how to use the interwebz... just try watching TV online... you 'll soon realize that its about 500x better due to the simple fact that you can watch a show whenever you want to , pending a few restrictions ( weekly episode + maybe 5 of the previous episodes are available , South Park Studios blocks new shows after the initial week for a month , etc ) .
TV is dead just like radio is dead... they 're zombies , eating and converting humans to do their bidding ( see : your rant ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get angry that you're behind the times.
You obviously know how to use the interwebz... just try watching TV online... you'll soon realize that its about 500x better due to the simple fact that you can watch a show whenever you want to, pending a few restrictions (weekly episode + maybe 5 of the previous episodes are available, South Park Studios blocks new shows after the initial week for a month, etc).
TV is dead just like radio is dead... they're zombies, eating and converting humans to do their bidding (see: your rant).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30374038</id>
	<title>Re:CableCARD/Tuning Adapter-enabled TiVos</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1260292320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cable company doesn't even acknowledge that it would be possible. They don't acknowledge the existence of cable boxes with Firewire outputs, so they don't have to support them.</p><p>I don't currently have the ability to record KPTM 42 over an antenna let alone hardware that checks for flags on the broadcast stream so as yet I can't confirm whether the protection is in the broadcast signal, introduced at the cable company, or set in the direct stream the local cableco gets.</p><p>I was able to record Fringe via the cable box's Firewire output until The World Series was on. I presume MLB was getting an exemption, and then they just left the protection on. I had a similar problem with College Football last year where I could record a game off of ABC KETV 7 (Omaha) but not the same game on ABC KLKN 8 (Lincoln).</p><p>Then there were the unique problems with 24 midway through last season where video conversion tools could play back the 5.1 audio but not the video. The TiVo had no difficulties.</p><p>That and at the bottom of every half hour a local hospital has a bug thrown on the screen with time and temperature during the show, which kicks the HD w/5.1 to SD Stereo, often dropping a second of content on one side and doubling it on the other. This is the third year of that. (CW KXVO 15 does it too, but since they're at 1080i they don't drop down to 480i stereo. Fox is 720p and the hardware used here apparently can't inject that bug into a progressive stream. KPTM and KXVO have the same parent company: Pappas Telecasting.) The other Fox broadcaster isn't yet carried in HD on cable.</p><p>Local cable franchise board? We tried that when we were a test market for their buggy mystro software which still cannot change channels on schedule for owners of pre-Series3 TiVos and even disrupted their own DVR service. It's been years now and we've gotten no reparations, no concessions, and no opening of the market to competition.</p><p>They don't have to care; cable is a monopoly. The only video the phone company can provide is satellite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cable company does n't even acknowledge that it would be possible .
They do n't acknowledge the existence of cable boxes with Firewire outputs , so they do n't have to support them.I do n't currently have the ability to record KPTM 42 over an antenna let alone hardware that checks for flags on the broadcast stream so as yet I ca n't confirm whether the protection is in the broadcast signal , introduced at the cable company , or set in the direct stream the local cableco gets.I was able to record Fringe via the cable box 's Firewire output until The World Series was on .
I presume MLB was getting an exemption , and then they just left the protection on .
I had a similar problem with College Football last year where I could record a game off of ABC KETV 7 ( Omaha ) but not the same game on ABC KLKN 8 ( Lincoln ) .Then there were the unique problems with 24 midway through last season where video conversion tools could play back the 5.1 audio but not the video .
The TiVo had no difficulties.That and at the bottom of every half hour a local hospital has a bug thrown on the screen with time and temperature during the show , which kicks the HD w/5.1 to SD Stereo , often dropping a second of content on one side and doubling it on the other .
This is the third year of that .
( CW KXVO 15 does it too , but since they 're at 1080i they do n't drop down to 480i stereo .
Fox is 720p and the hardware used here apparently ca n't inject that bug into a progressive stream .
KPTM and KXVO have the same parent company : Pappas Telecasting .
) The other Fox broadcaster is n't yet carried in HD on cable.Local cable franchise board ?
We tried that when we were a test market for their buggy mystro software which still can not change channels on schedule for owners of pre-Series3 TiVos and even disrupted their own DVR service .
It 's been years now and we 've gotten no reparations , no concessions , and no opening of the market to competition.They do n't have to care ; cable is a monopoly .
The only video the phone company can provide is satellite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cable company doesn't even acknowledge that it would be possible.
They don't acknowledge the existence of cable boxes with Firewire outputs, so they don't have to support them.I don't currently have the ability to record KPTM 42 over an antenna let alone hardware that checks for flags on the broadcast stream so as yet I can't confirm whether the protection is in the broadcast signal, introduced at the cable company, or set in the direct stream the local cableco gets.I was able to record Fringe via the cable box's Firewire output until The World Series was on.
I presume MLB was getting an exemption, and then they just left the protection on.
I had a similar problem with College Football last year where I could record a game off of ABC KETV 7 (Omaha) but not the same game on ABC KLKN 8 (Lincoln).Then there were the unique problems with 24 midway through last season where video conversion tools could play back the 5.1 audio but not the video.
The TiVo had no difficulties.That and at the bottom of every half hour a local hospital has a bug thrown on the screen with time and temperature during the show, which kicks the HD w/5.1 to SD Stereo, often dropping a second of content on one side and doubling it on the other.
This is the third year of that.
(CW KXVO 15 does it too, but since they're at 1080i they don't drop down to 480i stereo.
Fox is 720p and the hardware used here apparently can't inject that bug into a progressive stream.
KPTM and KXVO have the same parent company: Pappas Telecasting.
) The other Fox broadcaster isn't yet carried in HD on cable.Local cable franchise board?
We tried that when we were a test market for their buggy mystro software which still cannot change channels on schedule for owners of pre-Series3 TiVos and even disrupted their own DVR service.
It's been years now and we've gotten no reparations, no concessions, and no opening of the market to competition.They don't have to care; cable is a monopoly.
The only video the phone company can provide is satellite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360618</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260198300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a minority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a minority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360082</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1260193920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there&rsquo;s always Slashdot with more stories than I can read in a day (including *all* comments.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div><p>Well that's fine for you, but what does someone do if they're <i>not</i> a masochist?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there    s always Slashdot with more stories than I can read in a day ( including * all * comments .
; ) Well that 's fine for you , but what does someone do if they 're not a masochist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there’s always Slashdot with more stories than I can read in a day (including *all* comments.
;)Well that's fine for you, but what does someone do if they're not a masochist?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361312</id>
	<title>Switched Virtual Circuits anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ever happened to Switched Virtual Circuits and why couldn't they be put to use to enable "easy" access to multiple content providers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ever happened to Switched Virtual Circuits and why could n't they be put to use to enable " easy " access to multiple content providers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ever happened to Switched Virtual Circuits and why couldn't they be put to use to enable "easy" access to multiple content providers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359838</id>
	<title>Re:Lauren Weinstein bait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260192180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And their remote controls that you're forced to use, along with your real remote that always works with everything except their box, usually have their biggest, largest buttons devoted to buying crap. They're like Verizon phones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And their remote controls that you 're forced to use , along with your real remote that always works with everything except their box , usually have their biggest , largest buttons devoted to buying crap .
They 're like Verizon phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And their remote controls that you're forced to use, along with your real remote that always works with everything except their box, usually have their biggest, largest buttons devoted to buying crap.
They're like Verizon phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359794</id>
	<title>It could actually be a win for cable providers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260191880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now they spend bucks developing their own STB applications, and they have historically sucked.  It's only within the last year or so that my 3-4-yr. old Comcast DVR stopped freezing up due to buggy programming.  And their cumbersome homespun guide and recording software will never begin rival TiVo's.</p><p>Imagine if they just standardized access, fired their crappy in-house teams, and let the TiVo's and the MS Media Centers provide the user friendly front ends...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now they spend bucks developing their own STB applications , and they have historically sucked .
It 's only within the last year or so that my 3-4-yr. old Comcast DVR stopped freezing up due to buggy programming .
And their cumbersome homespun guide and recording software will never begin rival TiVo 's.Imagine if they just standardized access , fired their crappy in-house teams , and let the TiVo 's and the MS Media Centers provide the user friendly front ends.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now they spend bucks developing their own STB applications, and they have historically sucked.
It's only within the last year or so that my 3-4-yr. old Comcast DVR stopped freezing up due to buggy programming.
And their cumbersome homespun guide and recording software will never begin rival TiVo's.Imagine if they just standardized access, fired their crappy in-house teams, and let the TiVo's and the MS Media Centers provide the user friendly front ends...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360252</id>
	<title>Re:Lauren Weinstein bait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Verizon lets me use a M-Card on my Tivo HD. They had to install it when they came to remove my cable set to box, and configure it themselves. Then they charge me $2 less for the card per month as compared to the STB.

Why can't I just buy the card? Why do they have to install it? (For now they are not charging for the truck rollout).

The Tivo HD also gives me access to internet content, like from Netflix. That's my video on demand. So my virtual STB is working fine. I don't miss any of Verizon's extra services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon lets me use a M-Card on my Tivo HD .
They had to install it when they came to remove my cable set to box , and configure it themselves .
Then they charge me $ 2 less for the card per month as compared to the STB .
Why ca n't I just buy the card ?
Why do they have to install it ?
( For now they are not charging for the truck rollout ) .
The Tivo HD also gives me access to internet content , like from Netflix .
That 's my video on demand .
So my virtual STB is working fine .
I do n't miss any of Verizon 's extra services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon lets me use a M-Card on my Tivo HD.
They had to install it when they came to remove my cable set to box, and configure it themselves.
Then they charge me $2 less for the card per month as compared to the STB.
Why can't I just buy the card?
Why do they have to install it?
(For now they are not charging for the truck rollout).
The Tivo HD also gives me access to internet content, like from Netflix.
That's my video on demand.
So my virtual STB is working fine.
I don't miss any of Verizon's extra services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361638</id>
	<title>Somebody who actually gets it.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1260206580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Lauren Weinstein has a cautionary blog post about the world we may be entering if this FCC initiative comes to fruition, which concludes: "I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet.""</p><p>Yes, indeed.  There are few parallels.</p><p>Eventually, the Cable Internet providers will be compelled, by profit and perceived survival, to either acquire or filter their competitors, the Internet content providers.  They will see no choice.</p><p>Imagine we still had home delivery of dairy products in America.  And imagine the dairies decided to stop delivering product to stores.  Just their home delivery.</p><p>An imperfect analogy, but it would change the relationship between you and milk.  And your dairy.</p><p>And you might never know about chocolate milk.  Or yogurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lauren Weinstein has a cautionary blog post about the world we may be entering if this FCC initiative comes to fruition , which concludes : " I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet .
" " Yes , indeed .
There are few parallels.Eventually , the Cable Internet providers will be compelled , by profit and perceived survival , to either acquire or filter their competitors , the Internet content providers .
They will see no choice.Imagine we still had home delivery of dairy products in America .
And imagine the dairies decided to stop delivering product to stores .
Just their home delivery.An imperfect analogy , but it would change the relationship between you and milk .
And your dairy.And you might never know about chocolate milk .
Or yogurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lauren Weinstein has a cautionary blog post about the world we may be entering if this FCC initiative comes to fruition, which concludes: "I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet.
""Yes, indeed.
There are few parallels.Eventually, the Cable Internet providers will be compelled, by profit and perceived survival, to either acquire or filter their competitors, the Internet content providers.
They will see no choice.Imagine we still had home delivery of dairy products in America.
And imagine the dairies decided to stop delivering product to stores.
Just their home delivery.An imperfect analogy, but it would change the relationship between you and milk.
And your dairy.And you might never know about chocolate milk.
Or yogurt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30367916</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>NelsChristian</author>
	<datestamp>1260299400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it matter if any TVs are cablecard capable if the various DVRs are cablecarded?  As long as a Tivo or MythTv box can use a cable-card, I can use any TV set I want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it matter if any TVs are cablecard capable if the various DVRs are cablecarded ?
As long as a Tivo or MythTv box can use a cable-card , I can use any TV set I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it matter if any TVs are cablecard capable if the various DVRs are cablecarded?
As long as a Tivo or MythTv box can use a cable-card, I can use any TV set I want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30373762</id>
	<title>Re:If they're smart, they'll embrace it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260289140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(antenna use is not possible for me, being in an apartment).</p></div></blockquote><p>
(Disregard if you've tried an amplified antenna.)
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but if you haven't, try one.  Apartment dweller here, had a pair of $20 set-top bunny-ears amplifier from years before the pre-HDTV transition.  I get OTA digital broadcasts with occasional dropouts, but it's infinitely better than what I got out of analog OTA broadcasts.  (Sample size: two differently-branded amplifiers, one "bunny ears" antenna, and the other  antenna's <em>literally</em> a piece of wire thrown randomly onto the floor, two differently-branded $40 coupon-eligible ATSC tuner-boxes.  I live in a major metropolitan area where signals are strong and multipath was probably the biggest signal problem in the analog era.  Your mileage may vary, but if you live in an apartment, you're probably close enough to the transmitters that it'll be worth trying the cheapest possible amplified antenna.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( antenna use is not possible for me , being in an apartment ) .
( Disregard if you 've tried an amplified antenna .
) ...but if you have n't , try one .
Apartment dweller here , had a pair of $ 20 set-top bunny-ears amplifier from years before the pre-HDTV transition .
I get OTA digital broadcasts with occasional dropouts , but it 's infinitely better than what I got out of analog OTA broadcasts .
( Sample size : two differently-branded amplifiers , one " bunny ears " antenna , and the other antenna 's literally a piece of wire thrown randomly onto the floor , two differently-branded $ 40 coupon-eligible ATSC tuner-boxes .
I live in a major metropolitan area where signals are strong and multipath was probably the biggest signal problem in the analog era .
Your mileage may vary , but if you live in an apartment , you 're probably close enough to the transmitters that it 'll be worth trying the cheapest possible amplified antenna .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(antenna use is not possible for me, being in an apartment).
(Disregard if you've tried an amplified antenna.
)
 ...but if you haven't, try one.
Apartment dweller here, had a pair of $20 set-top bunny-ears amplifier from years before the pre-HDTV transition.
I get OTA digital broadcasts with occasional dropouts, but it's infinitely better than what I got out of analog OTA broadcasts.
(Sample size: two differently-branded amplifiers, one "bunny ears" antenna, and the other  antenna's literally a piece of wire thrown randomly onto the floor, two differently-branded $40 coupon-eligible ATSC tuner-boxes.
I live in a major metropolitan area where signals are strong and multipath was probably the biggest signal problem in the analog era.
Your mileage may vary, but if you live in an apartment, you're probably close enough to the transmitters that it'll be worth trying the cheapest possible amplified antenna.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596</id>
	<title>Lauren Weinstein bait...</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1260190500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There you go, some good bait to get the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd all riled up.</p><p>To get it out of the way, we need the regulatory institution because the cable providers have a monopoly, are transitioning to digital only signals across the wire, and we don't have any way to set up our own HTPC to record TV shows for viewing/commercial skipping later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There you go , some good bait to get the / .
crowd all riled up.To get it out of the way , we need the regulatory institution because the cable providers have a monopoly , are transitioning to digital only signals across the wire , and we do n't have any way to set up our own HTPC to record TV shows for viewing/commercial skipping later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There you go, some good bait to get the /.
crowd all riled up.To get it out of the way, we need the regulatory institution because the cable providers have a monopoly, are transitioning to digital only signals across the wire, and we don't have any way to set up our own HTPC to record TV shows for viewing/commercial skipping later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361768</id>
	<title>It works in the EU, why not the US?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to the supermarket in any EU country and you will find a selection of satellite and terrestrial TV receivers from many different suppliers and with many different levels of features.  The American public is getting cheated, with limited or no choices.  The US is also loosing a lot of business that would be generated by allowing the development and sale of set top boxes from many different companies - it is an industry that is essentially missing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to the supermarket in any EU country and you will find a selection of satellite and terrestrial TV receivers from many different suppliers and with many different levels of features .
The American public is getting cheated , with limited or no choices .
The US is also loosing a lot of business that would be generated by allowing the development and sale of set top boxes from many different companies - it is an industry that is essentially missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to the supermarket in any EU country and you will find a selection of satellite and terrestrial TV receivers from many different suppliers and with many different levels of features.
The American public is getting cheated, with limited or no choices.
The US is also loosing a lot of business that would be generated by allowing the development and sale of set top boxes from many different companies - it is an industry that is essentially missing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361056</id>
	<title>Re:CableCARD/Tuning Adapter-enabled TiVos</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1260201600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Meanwhile broadcasters like Fox (KPTM 42) are setting broadcast flags on their prime-time shows</p></div></blockquote><p>This is against the law.  Contact your cable company and/or cable franchise board and get them to fix it.  Other people have gotten this fixed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile broadcasters like Fox ( KPTM 42 ) are setting broadcast flags on their prime-time showsThis is against the law .
Contact your cable company and/or cable franchise board and get them to fix it .
Other people have gotten this fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile broadcasters like Fox (KPTM 42) are setting broadcast flags on their prime-time showsThis is against the law.
Contact your cable company and/or cable franchise board and get them to fix it.
Other people have gotten this fixed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360606</id>
	<title>Re:One idea</title>
	<author>randallman</author>
	<datestamp>1260198120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ideal solution would be to have a content agnostic data pipe, be it fiber, copper, or wireless.  Most of us are stuck with the idea of "phone companies" and "cable companies".  The most useful thing the government can do is make sure we have access to fast and RELIABLE data connections.  The content companies can then compete in a free market and we'll have real choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ideal solution would be to have a content agnostic data pipe , be it fiber , copper , or wireless .
Most of us are stuck with the idea of " phone companies " and " cable companies " .
The most useful thing the government can do is make sure we have access to fast and RELIABLE data connections .
The content companies can then compete in a free market and we 'll have real choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ideal solution would be to have a content agnostic data pipe, be it fiber, copper, or wireless.
Most of us are stuck with the idea of "phone companies" and "cable companies".
The most useful thing the government can do is make sure we have access to fast and RELIABLE data connections.
The content companies can then compete in a free market and we'll have real choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361646</id>
	<title>Re:Lauren Weinstein bait...</title>
	<author>stinerman</author>
	<datestamp>1260206640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not usually.</p><p>In most cases the monopoly is not statutory but natural.  I'm lucky enough to live in Columbus, OH, where we have 2 cable companies (Insight and WOW).  There won't be a third because of the up-front costs of rolling out and maintaining the infrastructure.  Most everywhere else there is only the one, and no one bothers to compete with them because it would be unprofitable to do so.</p><p>Econ 101 tells you that if the monopoly is natural, the government ought to own the infrastructure (see sewers and roads for examples) and let private business compete for customers over that infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not usually.In most cases the monopoly is not statutory but natural .
I 'm lucky enough to live in Columbus , OH , where we have 2 cable companies ( Insight and WOW ) .
There wo n't be a third because of the up-front costs of rolling out and maintaining the infrastructure .
Most everywhere else there is only the one , and no one bothers to compete with them because it would be unprofitable to do so.Econ 101 tells you that if the monopoly is natural , the government ought to own the infrastructure ( see sewers and roads for examples ) and let private business compete for customers over that infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not usually.In most cases the monopoly is not statutory but natural.
I'm lucky enough to live in Columbus, OH, where we have 2 cable companies (Insight and WOW).
There won't be a third because of the up-front costs of rolling out and maintaining the infrastructure.
Most everywhere else there is only the one, and no one bothers to compete with them because it would be unprofitable to do so.Econ 101 tells you that if the monopoly is natural, the government ought to own the infrastructure (see sewers and roads for examples) and let private business compete for customers over that infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30364636</id>
	<title>Selling cable boxes to the public works i Canadian</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1260285120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Selling cable boxes to the public works in Canadian cable systems why can't we have that hear with them being 100\% movable to any system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Selling cable boxes to the public works in Canadian cable systems why ca n't we have that hear with them being 100 \ % movable to any system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selling cable boxes to the public works in Canadian cable systems why can't we have that hear with them being 100\% movable to any system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361226</id>
	<title>A little late, Replaytv is pretty much gone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their just a little late.   Replaytv is pretty much gone now.</p><p>Maybe they can reset the clock, it would be great to see open standards on Cable, Dish / Direct, or the Fios / Uverse setups.    I would love to see the usability of Replay moved over to a device that supports 4 HD streams that can work on any provider.</p><p>Internet video is nice, but the 30 second commercial to watch 2 minutes of video is pretty much an ender for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their just a little late .
Replaytv is pretty much gone now.Maybe they can reset the clock , it would be great to see open standards on Cable , Dish / Direct , or the Fios / Uverse setups .
I would love to see the usability of Replay moved over to a device that supports 4 HD streams that can work on any provider.Internet video is nice , but the 30 second commercial to watch 2 minutes of video is pretty much an ender for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their just a little late.
Replaytv is pretty much gone now.Maybe they can reset the clock, it would be great to see open standards on Cable, Dish / Direct, or the Fios / Uverse setups.
I would love to see the usability of Replay moved over to a device that supports 4 HD streams that can work on any provider.Internet video is nice, but the 30 second commercial to watch 2 minutes of video is pretty much an ender for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361496</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>Flagg0204</author>
	<datestamp>1260205260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I doubt this will get modded anything other than troll, here is my cable card experience

Purchasee Tivo Series 3 HD
Go to comcast store/office
pickup CableCard, (for 4 dollars and xx change  a month)
Go home
plugin cablecard to series3
CableCARD bios? appears on screen with various info
call comcast customer support
read codes on screen to customer rep
done

every channel i had on my set top box, works.  No problems since. Total time on hold, approx 45 seconds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I doubt this will get modded anything other than troll , here is my cable card experience Purchasee Tivo Series 3 HD Go to comcast store/office pickup CableCard , ( for 4 dollars and xx change a month ) Go home plugin cablecard to series3 CableCARD bios ?
appears on screen with various info call comcast customer support read codes on screen to customer rep done every channel i had on my set top box , works .
No problems since .
Total time on hold , approx 45 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I doubt this will get modded anything other than troll, here is my cable card experience

Purchasee Tivo Series 3 HD
Go to comcast store/office
pickup CableCard, (for 4 dollars and xx change  a month)
Go home
plugin cablecard to series3
CableCARD bios?
appears on screen with various info
call comcast customer support
read codes on screen to customer rep
done

every channel i had on my set top box, works.
No problems since.
Total time on hold, approx 45 seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360264</id>
	<title>Re:One idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of these services depend on proprietary interaction between drm servers, video servers, and billing/charging middleware.</p><p>There are a number of areas where interaction would have to be standardized.  Good luck with that.</p><p>Not saying it would be a bad thing; just fraught with problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of these services depend on proprietary interaction between drm servers , video servers , and billing/charging middleware.There are a number of areas where interaction would have to be standardized .
Good luck with that.Not saying it would be a bad thing ; just fraught with problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of these services depend on proprietary interaction between drm servers, video servers, and billing/charging middleware.There are a number of areas where interaction would have to be standardized.
Good luck with that.Not saying it would be a bad thing; just fraught with problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360736</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260199080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pronouncing things 'dead' is a Slashdot meme and people who regurgitate it feel smart and 'cutting edge'. Here I've seen it applied to the music industry back in the napster days, to paper, books, Windows, newspapers, magazines, wristwatches, cash money, standalone GPS navigation devices, the Dell Computer corporation, BSD, the United States of America, gaming consoles, PCs as gaming devices, tape backups, spinning platters in hard drives, and wired ethernet. And that is off the top of my head.</p><p>So it is cool to do. All of the above still exists, of course, and most are far from dead. We are spear-hunters and they are mammoths. We might have landed a few good pricks but we'll be following the blood trail for a long time before they go down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pronouncing things 'dead ' is a Slashdot meme and people who regurgitate it feel smart and 'cutting edge' .
Here I 've seen it applied to the music industry back in the napster days , to paper , books , Windows , newspapers , magazines , wristwatches , cash money , standalone GPS navigation devices , the Dell Computer corporation , BSD , the United States of America , gaming consoles , PCs as gaming devices , tape backups , spinning platters in hard drives , and wired ethernet .
And that is off the top of my head.So it is cool to do .
All of the above still exists , of course , and most are far from dead .
We are spear-hunters and they are mammoths .
We might have landed a few good pricks but we 'll be following the blood trail for a long time before they go down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pronouncing things 'dead' is a Slashdot meme and people who regurgitate it feel smart and 'cutting edge'.
Here I've seen it applied to the music industry back in the napster days, to paper, books, Windows, newspapers, magazines, wristwatches, cash money, standalone GPS navigation devices, the Dell Computer corporation, BSD, the United States of America, gaming consoles, PCs as gaming devices, tape backups, spinning platters in hard drives, and wired ethernet.
And that is off the top of my head.So it is cool to do.
All of the above still exists, of course, and most are far from dead.
We are spear-hunters and they are mammoths.
We might have landed a few good pricks but we'll be following the blood trail for a long time before they go down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360634</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>spanky the monk</author>
	<datestamp>1260198360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, he means TV is ACTUALLY dead. In 10 years time the internet will have killed it. How can this old broadcast medium compete with the vast, on demand and free (beer and freedom) network that is the internet.

Lots of people are just hooking up large LCD screens to their home server full of torrented media. This is just the beginning. Studies have shown (citation needed) that young people are already watching less television than previous generations, reversing a long established trend to the contrary.

Internet killed the Television star.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he means TV is ACTUALLY dead .
In 10 years time the internet will have killed it .
How can this old broadcast medium compete with the vast , on demand and free ( beer and freedom ) network that is the internet .
Lots of people are just hooking up large LCD screens to their home server full of torrented media .
This is just the beginning .
Studies have shown ( citation needed ) that young people are already watching less television than previous generations , reversing a long established trend to the contrary .
Internet killed the Television star .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he means TV is ACTUALLY dead.
In 10 years time the internet will have killed it.
How can this old broadcast medium compete with the vast, on demand and free (beer and freedom) network that is the internet.
Lots of people are just hooking up large LCD screens to their home server full of torrented media.
This is just the beginning.
Studies have shown (citation needed) that young people are already watching less television than previous generations, reversing a long established trend to the contrary.
Internet killed the Television star.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>icegreentea</author>
	<datestamp>1260195540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>TV is dead to you. Stupid shit. I'm sorry about the language, but this type of attitude is fucking stupid. "I don't use it, therefore it's useless". For fucks sake. You and your immediate acquaintances don't drive cars? 'Driving is end. I can just bike and take transit wherever I want'. And it's worst! This is like saying 'theatre's are dead! I just torrent the movies anyways'. That's just fucking stupid.<br><br>How the fuck did you get rated insightful? For fucks sake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TV is dead to you .
Stupid shit .
I 'm sorry about the language , but this type of attitude is fucking stupid .
" I do n't use it , therefore it 's useless " .
For fucks sake .
You and your immediate acquaintances do n't drive cars ?
'Driving is end .
I can just bike and take transit wherever I want' .
And it 's worst !
This is like saying 'theatre 's are dead !
I just torrent the movies anyways' .
That 's just fucking stupid.How the fuck did you get rated insightful ?
For fucks sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV is dead to you.
Stupid shit.
I'm sorry about the language, but this type of attitude is fucking stupid.
"I don't use it, therefore it's useless".
For fucks sake.
You and your immediate acquaintances don't drive cars?
'Driving is end.
I can just bike and take transit wherever I want'.
And it's worst!
This is like saying 'theatre's are dead!
I just torrent the movies anyways'.
That's just fucking stupid.How the fuck did you get rated insightful?
For fucks sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360208</id>
	<title>Re:If they're smart, they'll embrace it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an HDHR also.  I bought mine when I still had clear-qam on my cable.</p><p>that went away.  and my sat tv NEVER had it (and so I canceled my sat-tv).  been biding my time until its time to move and see if the new location has clear-qam.  until then, my HDHR sits mostly unused (antenna use is not possible for me, being in an apartment).</p><p>I'd pay for cable IFF they let clear-qam (at least for the useful channels) thru.</p><p>until then, I rent from netflix and that's my ONLY video fix.  cable doesn't even exist in my world until QAM is clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an HDHR also .
I bought mine when I still had clear-qam on my cable.that went away .
and my sat tv NEVER had it ( and so I canceled my sat-tv ) .
been biding my time until its time to move and see if the new location has clear-qam .
until then , my HDHR sits mostly unused ( antenna use is not possible for me , being in an apartment ) .I 'd pay for cable IFF they let clear-qam ( at least for the useful channels ) thru.until then , I rent from netflix and that 's my ONLY video fix .
cable does n't even exist in my world until QAM is clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an HDHR also.
I bought mine when I still had clear-qam on my cable.that went away.
and my sat tv NEVER had it (and so I canceled my sat-tv).
been biding my time until its time to move and see if the new location has clear-qam.
until then, my HDHR sits mostly unused (antenna use is not possible for me, being in an apartment).I'd pay for cable IFF they let clear-qam (at least for the useful channels) thru.until then, I rent from netflix and that's my ONLY video fix.
cable doesn't even exist in my world until QAM is clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360492</id>
	<title>Re:I predict the future.. and it's obvious</title>
	<author>supernova\_hq</author>
	<datestamp>1260197340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except they will never EVER entertain the idea of making 100\% of the profit on the 3 channels you want when they can still make 10\% of the profit on the 200 channels you need to buy through a 3rd party company in order to get those 3 channels.
<br> <br>
Ever notice how the channels you want are never in the same package? Yeah, that's not a coincidence!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they will never EVER entertain the idea of making 100 \ % of the profit on the 3 channels you want when they can still make 10 \ % of the profit on the 200 channels you need to buy through a 3rd party company in order to get those 3 channels .
Ever notice how the channels you want are never in the same package ?
Yeah , that 's not a coincidence !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they will never EVER entertain the idea of making 100\% of the profit on the 3 channels you want when they can still make 10\% of the profit on the 200 channels you need to buy through a 3rd party company in order to get those 3 channels.
Ever notice how the channels you want are never in the same package?
Yeah, that's not a coincidence!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360300</id>
	<title>Re:Lauren Weinstein bait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we need the regulatory institution because the cable providers have a monopoly,</p> </div><p>No no no; we don't need more regulation.  This whole problem is <em>caused</em> by excess regulation.  See the only business model allowed is the cable TV model of delivering signal to the home.  Obviously the first one to get their gets the network effect and wins.  Now if the corporations were allowed to round up their customers and bring them to their corporate office, more competitors would be able to even up the market.  Alternatively, if they were allowed to bomb competitors customers they would be able to persuade some to use a newly built network elsewhere.

</p><p>You see, as ever, the only reason we need more regulation is because there was already too much bad regulation which limits the freedom of the market to find the right way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we need the regulatory institution because the cable providers have a monopoly , No no no ; we do n't need more regulation .
This whole problem is caused by excess regulation .
See the only business model allowed is the cable TV model of delivering signal to the home .
Obviously the first one to get their gets the network effect and wins .
Now if the corporations were allowed to round up their customers and bring them to their corporate office , more competitors would be able to even up the market .
Alternatively , if they were allowed to bomb competitors customers they would be able to persuade some to use a newly built network elsewhere .
You see , as ever , the only reason we need more regulation is because there was already too much bad regulation which limits the freedom of the market to find the right way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need the regulatory institution because the cable providers have a monopoly, No no no; we don't need more regulation.
This whole problem is caused by excess regulation.
See the only business model allowed is the cable TV model of delivering signal to the home.
Obviously the first one to get their gets the network effect and wins.
Now if the corporations were allowed to round up their customers and bring them to their corporate office, more competitors would be able to even up the market.
Alternatively, if they were allowed to bomb competitors customers they would be able to persuade some to use a newly built network elsewhere.
You see, as ever, the only reason we need more regulation is because there was already too much bad regulation which limits the freedom of the market to find the right way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359886</id>
	<title>So were going to go back to how it used to be?</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1260192540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the FCC is proposing is making the DCTV systems function like the ACTV system used to. You know, it's the reason why every new TV / VCR / ETC that came out had an analog cable box built right into it. I don't see why this ended when DCTV systems appeared on the scene. CableCards where a completely unnecessary and unneeded detour AWAY from the functionality and choice that the consumer previously had.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the FCC is proposing is making the DCTV systems function like the ACTV system used to .
You know , it 's the reason why every new TV / VCR / ETC that came out had an analog cable box built right into it .
I do n't see why this ended when DCTV systems appeared on the scene .
CableCards where a completely unnecessary and unneeded detour AWAY from the functionality and choice that the consumer previously had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the FCC is proposing is making the DCTV systems function like the ACTV system used to.
You know, it's the reason why every new TV / VCR / ETC that came out had an analog cable box built right into it.
I don't see why this ended when DCTV systems appeared on the scene.
CableCards where a completely unnecessary and unneeded detour AWAY from the functionality and choice that the consumer previously had.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360708</id>
	<title>Re:Lauren Weinstein bait...</title>
	<author>awyeah</author>
	<datestamp>1260198960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got a point there.  The TiVo + CableCARD solution (which I also use, through evil Time Warner Cable) is a good one, unless you want PPV or On-Demand services.  I live without the On-Demand services, but my roommate is a huge boxing fan - and most of the "good" fights are pay-per-view (and ridiculously priced), so we still need to keep a regular Scientific Atlanta box on top of the TiVo - $7.95/month, in addition to the ~$2.50 for the CableCARD in the TiVo.</p><p>At the same time, I also need to have a Cisco "tuning adapter" connected to the USB port of my TiVo (to support <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched\_video" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Switched Digital Video</a> [wikipedia.org]), and about once a month, it stops working.  I need to call the idiot "techs" at Time Warner, go through the process of power cycling the tuning adapter and the TiVo (which never fixes the problem), then finally I can get transferred to a higher level tech to have them send the proper signal to make it work again.</p><p>You probably don't need a tuning adapter or anything like it with FiOS, but I can tell you that people who use them with cable are not happy with the solution.</p><p>Oh, and that's another thing.  They had to send a technician out to install the card.  Seriously.  The guy put it in the slot, called a number and read some numbers on the screen to the "tech" on the other line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got a point there .
The TiVo + CableCARD solution ( which I also use , through evil Time Warner Cable ) is a good one , unless you want PPV or On-Demand services .
I live without the On-Demand services , but my roommate is a huge boxing fan - and most of the " good " fights are pay-per-view ( and ridiculously priced ) , so we still need to keep a regular Scientific Atlanta box on top of the TiVo - $ 7.95/month , in addition to the ~ $ 2.50 for the CableCARD in the TiVo.At the same time , I also need to have a Cisco " tuning adapter " connected to the USB port of my TiVo ( to support Switched Digital Video [ wikipedia.org ] ) , and about once a month , it stops working .
I need to call the idiot " techs " at Time Warner , go through the process of power cycling the tuning adapter and the TiVo ( which never fixes the problem ) , then finally I can get transferred to a higher level tech to have them send the proper signal to make it work again.You probably do n't need a tuning adapter or anything like it with FiOS , but I can tell you that people who use them with cable are not happy with the solution.Oh , and that 's another thing .
They had to send a technician out to install the card .
Seriously. The guy put it in the slot , called a number and read some numbers on the screen to the " tech " on the other line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got a point there.
The TiVo + CableCARD solution (which I also use, through evil Time Warner Cable) is a good one, unless you want PPV or On-Demand services.
I live without the On-Demand services, but my roommate is a huge boxing fan - and most of the "good" fights are pay-per-view (and ridiculously priced), so we still need to keep a regular Scientific Atlanta box on top of the TiVo - $7.95/month, in addition to the ~$2.50 for the CableCARD in the TiVo.At the same time, I also need to have a Cisco "tuning adapter" connected to the USB port of my TiVo (to support Switched Digital Video [wikipedia.org]), and about once a month, it stops working.
I need to call the idiot "techs" at Time Warner, go through the process of power cycling the tuning adapter and the TiVo (which never fixes the problem), then finally I can get transferred to a higher level tech to have them send the proper signal to make it work again.You probably don't need a tuning adapter or anything like it with FiOS, but I can tell you that people who use them with cable are not happy with the solution.Oh, and that's another thing.
They had to send a technician out to install the card.
Seriously.  The guy put it in the slot, called a number and read some numbers on the screen to the "tech" on the other line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260191640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TV is dead anyway.</p><p>eztv.it, bittorrent and companies with their own streaming sites (daily show, south park, etc) is all I need. I haven&rsquo;t watched TV or touched a remote for at least five years. And I see more and better shows than before.</p><p>If I want to pointlessly procrastinate, there&rsquo;s always Slashdot with more stories than I can read in a day (including *all* comments.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TV is dead anyway.eztv.it , bittorrent and companies with their own streaming sites ( daily show , south park , etc ) is all I need .
I haven    t watched TV or touched a remote for at least five years .
And I see more and better shows than before.If I want to pointlessly procrastinate , there    s always Slashdot with more stories than I can read in a day ( including * all * comments .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV is dead anyway.eztv.it, bittorrent and companies with their own streaming sites (daily show, south park, etc) is all I need.
I haven’t watched TV or touched a remote for at least five years.
And I see more and better shows than before.If I want to pointlessly procrastinate, there’s always Slashdot with more stories than I can read in a day (including *all* comments.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30363922</id>
	<title>You can have my Pan TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260279720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have 3-4 OCAP Panasonic TVs in our lab and let me tell you, they are pretty flakey.  I am also speaking from inside the Comcast company.  These things were rolled out in beta mode in certain markets but IMO were no where near ready.  Now they are much better but still buggy.  The buggy part is because there's a set top built into the TV with a cablecard slot.  The buggy part is the MCard firmware as well as the middleware and guide.  The TV itself is actually pretty good, just the software kind of sucks.  Of course the TV firmware is also sometimes buggy but getting better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have 3-4 OCAP Panasonic TVs in our lab and let me tell you , they are pretty flakey .
I am also speaking from inside the Comcast company .
These things were rolled out in beta mode in certain markets but IMO were no where near ready .
Now they are much better but still buggy .
The buggy part is because there 's a set top built into the TV with a cablecard slot .
The buggy part is the MCard firmware as well as the middleware and guide .
The TV itself is actually pretty good , just the software kind of sucks .
Of course the TV firmware is also sometimes buggy but getting better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have 3-4 OCAP Panasonic TVs in our lab and let me tell you, they are pretty flakey.
I am also speaking from inside the Comcast company.
These things were rolled out in beta mode in certain markets but IMO were no where near ready.
Now they are much better but still buggy.
The buggy part is because there's a set top built into the TV with a cablecard slot.
The buggy part is the MCard firmware as well as the middleware and guide.
The TV itself is actually pretty good, just the software kind of sucks.
Of course the TV firmware is also sometimes buggy but getting better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>spectro</author>
	<datestamp>1260192420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only late but obsolete. The cable industry resisted and killed cablecard so we all looked for a way to bypass them: the internet.</p><p>Youtube proved the tech and bandwidth are there when they netcasted U2 live from the Rose Bowl to millions around the world.</p><p>For $150 you can buy blueray players with plugins to play live streams from providers such as netflix.</p><p>It is just a matter of months before cable channels start bypassing the cable industry and sell direct subscriptions to their live HD stream (is Mark Cuban reading this?)</p><p>Better tell the FCC to find a better use for our tax money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only late but obsolete .
The cable industry resisted and killed cablecard so we all looked for a way to bypass them : the internet.Youtube proved the tech and bandwidth are there when they netcasted U2 live from the Rose Bowl to millions around the world.For $ 150 you can buy blueray players with plugins to play live streams from providers such as netflix.It is just a matter of months before cable channels start bypassing the cable industry and sell direct subscriptions to their live HD stream ( is Mark Cuban reading this ?
) Better tell the FCC to find a better use for our tax money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only late but obsolete.
The cable industry resisted and killed cablecard so we all looked for a way to bypass them: the internet.Youtube proved the tech and bandwidth are there when they netcasted U2 live from the Rose Bowl to millions around the world.For $150 you can buy blueray players with plugins to play live streams from providers such as netflix.It is just a matter of months before cable channels start bypassing the cable industry and sell direct subscriptions to their live HD stream (is Mark Cuban reading this?
)Better tell the FCC to find a better use for our tax money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359716</id>
	<title>Re:One idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260191400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say I'm a little mystified by all this. Her argument seems kind of antiquated and quaint. Doesn't the internet prove that such as system can and does work? All it seems like the FCC is doing is trying to limit the ability of cable companies to lock customers into a set top solution. Probably their aim is to create an environment where we can get convergence between set top boxes and internet routers. If DDWRT could let you order pay-per-view, then the world is functioning correctly, right?</p><p>As long as net neutrality goes through, it seems like none of this matters in the long run. As broadband bandwidth goes up, we will get the ability to stream from multiple providers in a way that looks like cable now right? At which point the cable provider's box will go in the trash can?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say I 'm a little mystified by all this .
Her argument seems kind of antiquated and quaint .
Does n't the internet prove that such as system can and does work ?
All it seems like the FCC is doing is trying to limit the ability of cable companies to lock customers into a set top solution .
Probably their aim is to create an environment where we can get convergence between set top boxes and internet routers .
If DDWRT could let you order pay-per-view , then the world is functioning correctly , right ? As long as net neutrality goes through , it seems like none of this matters in the long run .
As broadband bandwidth goes up , we will get the ability to stream from multiple providers in a way that looks like cable now right ?
At which point the cable provider 's box will go in the trash can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say I'm a little mystified by all this.
Her argument seems kind of antiquated and quaint.
Doesn't the internet prove that such as system can and does work?
All it seems like the FCC is doing is trying to limit the ability of cable companies to lock customers into a set top solution.
Probably their aim is to create an environment where we can get convergence between set top boxes and internet routers.
If DDWRT could let you order pay-per-view, then the world is functioning correctly, right?As long as net neutrality goes through, it seems like none of this matters in the long run.
As broadband bandwidth goes up, we will get the ability to stream from multiple providers in a way that looks like cable now right?
At which point the cable provider's box will go in the trash can?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359946</id>
	<title>If they're smart, they'll embrace it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260193080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until digital cable TV works, I won't be paying for it.</p><p>If the FCC "forces" them to work with my HDHomeRun, I'll likely become a monthly-paying sap.  I think it's funny, though, that they won't choose the more profitable (for them!) course on their own.</p><p>I get this image of the FCC holding a gun to Comcast's head, saying, "have customers, collect revenue, stop screwing over your stockholders," and a Comcast lobbyist saying, "No, we don't want money!  Please, nooo!!  Customers, ick!! The bastards pay us every damn month and we don't know what to do with the money, so please, please don't force us to supply a service that people will be willing to pay for.  We had to buy NBC with our excess cash, and if you make us more profitable, we'll have so much money that we'll be choking on it.  For the accountants' sake, at least, have mercy!"  So far, FCC has considered this to be a good argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until digital cable TV works , I wo n't be paying for it.If the FCC " forces " them to work with my HDHomeRun , I 'll likely become a monthly-paying sap .
I think it 's funny , though , that they wo n't choose the more profitable ( for them !
) course on their own.I get this image of the FCC holding a gun to Comcast 's head , saying , " have customers , collect revenue , stop screwing over your stockholders , " and a Comcast lobbyist saying , " No , we do n't want money !
Please , nooo ! !
Customers , ick ! !
The bastards pay us every damn month and we do n't know what to do with the money , so please , please do n't force us to supply a service that people will be willing to pay for .
We had to buy NBC with our excess cash , and if you make us more profitable , we 'll have so much money that we 'll be choking on it .
For the accountants ' sake , at least , have mercy !
" So far , FCC has considered this to be a good argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until digital cable TV works, I won't be paying for it.If the FCC "forces" them to work with my HDHomeRun, I'll likely become a monthly-paying sap.
I think it's funny, though, that they won't choose the more profitable (for them!
) course on their own.I get this image of the FCC holding a gun to Comcast's head, saying, "have customers, collect revenue, stop screwing over your stockholders," and a Comcast lobbyist saying, "No, we don't want money!
Please, nooo!!
Customers, ick!!
The bastards pay us every damn month and we don't know what to do with the money, so please, please don't force us to supply a service that people will be willing to pay for.
We had to buy NBC with our excess cash, and if you make us more profitable, we'll have so much money that we'll be choking on it.
For the accountants' sake, at least, have mercy!
"  So far, FCC has considered this to be a good argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360556</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1260197820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well for him TV is dead, just not Television shows.. There are people like him, (I am pretty much there myself).. I suppose he could have worded it better for you.. Your point, that there would be no Television shows if there were not Television was a good one.. your delivery however sucked.. and such worry over mod points.. I mean, 5 mod points and a 50 cent coupon on Midol, and hey you've saved 50 cents !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for him TV is dead , just not Television shows.. There are people like him , ( I am pretty much there myself ) .. I suppose he could have worded it better for you.. Your point , that there would be no Television shows if there were not Television was a good one.. your delivery however sucked.. and such worry over mod points.. I mean , 5 mod points and a 50 cent coupon on Midol , and hey you 've saved 50 cents !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for him TV is dead, just not Television shows.. There are people like him, (I am pretty much there myself).. I suppose he could have worded it better for you.. Your point, that there would be no Television shows if there were not Television was a good one.. your delivery however sucked.. and such worry over mod points.. I mean, 5 mod points and a 50 cent coupon on Midol, and hey you've saved 50 cents !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30364600</id>
	<title>Direct tv has good rent rates / mirroring fees</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1260284880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Direct tv has good rent rates / mirroring fees.</p><p>The rent and mirroring (any box) is the same $5/m box 1 free and they seem to be waving / cutting the upfront fee quit a lot as well and it's better then cable with there $15-$20/m + about up to $30 up front fee for there HD DVR's and it is a much better and a better deal then comcast Chicago land as you need sports pack (that has some non sports channels) and comcast digital classic / preferred to get the same stuff as direct tv HD DVR and digital classic / preferred costs just about the same as direct tv HD DVR with no HD or DVR in it's price.</p><p>CSN + needs a full box at about $6/m+ for a SD one.<br>The big black eyes for comcast are sci-fi / Syfy and speed.<br>need full box + classic / preferred. and speed needs sports pack (parts of the area) + full box.<br>Why is fox movie channle in the sports pack? other comcast systems have that in digital classic / preferred.</p><p>Other comcast areas STILL HAVE THEM IN ANALOG and digital stater but not hear.</p><p>WOW cable has them in analog and IN HD.</p><p>RCN has syfy in lower level digital and speed in the higher one or lower one + sports pack.</p><p>at&amp;t u-verse has them in the U100 level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Direct tv has good rent rates / mirroring fees.The rent and mirroring ( any box ) is the same $ 5/m box 1 free and they seem to be waving / cutting the upfront fee quit a lot as well and it 's better then cable with there $ 15- $ 20/m + about up to $ 30 up front fee for there HD DVR 's and it is a much better and a better deal then comcast Chicago land as you need sports pack ( that has some non sports channels ) and comcast digital classic / preferred to get the same stuff as direct tv HD DVR and digital classic / preferred costs just about the same as direct tv HD DVR with no HD or DVR in it 's price.CSN + needs a full box at about $ 6/m + for a SD one.The big black eyes for comcast are sci-fi / Syfy and speed.need full box + classic / preferred .
and speed needs sports pack ( parts of the area ) + full box.Why is fox movie channle in the sports pack ?
other comcast systems have that in digital classic / preferred.Other comcast areas STILL HAVE THEM IN ANALOG and digital stater but not hear.WOW cable has them in analog and IN HD.RCN has syfy in lower level digital and speed in the higher one or lower one + sports pack.at&amp;t u-verse has them in the U100 level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Direct tv has good rent rates / mirroring fees.The rent and mirroring (any box) is the same $5/m box 1 free and they seem to be waving / cutting the upfront fee quit a lot as well and it's better then cable with there $15-$20/m + about up to $30 up front fee for there HD DVR's and it is a much better and a better deal then comcast Chicago land as you need sports pack (that has some non sports channels) and comcast digital classic / preferred to get the same stuff as direct tv HD DVR and digital classic / preferred costs just about the same as direct tv HD DVR with no HD or DVR in it's price.CSN + needs a full box at about $6/m+ for a SD one.The big black eyes for comcast are sci-fi / Syfy and speed.need full box + classic / preferred.
and speed needs sports pack (parts of the area) + full box.Why is fox movie channle in the sports pack?
other comcast systems have that in digital classic / preferred.Other comcast areas STILL HAVE THEM IN ANALOG and digital stater but not hear.WOW cable has them in analog and IN HD.RCN has syfy in lower level digital and speed in the higher one or lower one + sports pack.at&amp;t u-verse has them in the U100 level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359556</id>
	<title>In Comcast America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260190380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>TV watches you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>TV watches you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV watches you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360006</id>
	<title>I predict the future.. and it's obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260193500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The future is:</p><p>ONE DATA PIPE!</p><p>Voice, cable TV or the idea of 'channels', video, program guides, on-demand, the Internet.. It's all just data. The future is paying for one Internet connection.. and then paying for whatever services you want from whatever company. For example, one person might decide to have 7 cable channels they like from 7 different providers for nominal monthly fees, Internet access to accomodate, and a voip phone also.. all delivered (except for the actual Internet link) from various states or even other countries. Mr. African-American can actually watch African channels in America! Another customer might feel better having a 'package' deal where everything is delivered by one company (exactly how things are done now). Another customer might prefer Internet access from one company and a package of select channels from another company..</p><p>So, imo, the easiest way to accomodate this is for 'cable' boxes to require Internet access. Hell.. with a decent Internet connection and a computer on every TV (getting less and less expensive or different in price than a cable box), I could just pay for cable channels I want if the damn media companies were willing to sell it directly to me.</p><p>And, as technology progresses, the argument that it is 'innefficient' becomes more and more moot because the bandwidth required becomes more and more nominal in relation to availability.</p><p>Of course, the entrenched entities such as Verizon and Comcast will fight against this.. because even in 'competition' they duopolistically screw the consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The future is : ONE DATA PIPE ! Voice , cable TV or the idea of 'channels ' , video , program guides , on-demand , the Internet.. It 's all just data .
The future is paying for one Internet connection.. and then paying for whatever services you want from whatever company .
For example , one person might decide to have 7 cable channels they like from 7 different providers for nominal monthly fees , Internet access to accomodate , and a voip phone also.. all delivered ( except for the actual Internet link ) from various states or even other countries .
Mr. African-American can actually watch African channels in America !
Another customer might feel better having a 'package ' deal where everything is delivered by one company ( exactly how things are done now ) .
Another customer might prefer Internet access from one company and a package of select channels from another company..So , imo , the easiest way to accomodate this is for 'cable ' boxes to require Internet access .
Hell.. with a decent Internet connection and a computer on every TV ( getting less and less expensive or different in price than a cable box ) , I could just pay for cable channels I want if the damn media companies were willing to sell it directly to me.And , as technology progresses , the argument that it is 'innefficient ' becomes more and more moot because the bandwidth required becomes more and more nominal in relation to availability.Of course , the entrenched entities such as Verizon and Comcast will fight against this.. because even in 'competition ' they duopolistically screw the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The future is:ONE DATA PIPE!Voice, cable TV or the idea of 'channels', video, program guides, on-demand, the Internet.. It's all just data.
The future is paying for one Internet connection.. and then paying for whatever services you want from whatever company.
For example, one person might decide to have 7 cable channels they like from 7 different providers for nominal monthly fees, Internet access to accomodate, and a voip phone also.. all delivered (except for the actual Internet link) from various states or even other countries.
Mr. African-American can actually watch African channels in America!
Another customer might feel better having a 'package' deal where everything is delivered by one company (exactly how things are done now).
Another customer might prefer Internet access from one company and a package of select channels from another company..So, imo, the easiest way to accomodate this is for 'cable' boxes to require Internet access.
Hell.. with a decent Internet connection and a computer on every TV (getting less and less expensive or different in price than a cable box), I could just pay for cable channels I want if the damn media companies were willing to sell it directly to me.And, as technology progresses, the argument that it is 'innefficient' becomes more and more moot because the bandwidth required becomes more and more nominal in relation to availability.Of course, the entrenched entities such as Verizon and Comcast will fight against this.. because even in 'competition' they duopolistically screw the consumer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30362658</id>
	<title>MERGE</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1260304800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly what was happening. Hulu is owned by NBC. First, comcast adds a monthly cap the second hulu becomes popular. This doesn't work as well as intended and comcast now has a giant competitor. What does Comcast do? They merge with NBC. wa-la! Comcast is still a monopoly in many areas.</p><p>I live out in the forest. I get 1 OTA (2 if I put the antenna on the roof) channels, and I'd have to cut holes in the trees to get sat. Also, since I'm right off the ocean I have a feeling the fog bank wouldn't help. Comcast out here has a monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what was happening .
Hulu is owned by NBC .
First , comcast adds a monthly cap the second hulu becomes popular .
This does n't work as well as intended and comcast now has a giant competitor .
What does Comcast do ?
They merge with NBC .
wa-la ! Comcast is still a monopoly in many areas.I live out in the forest .
I get 1 OTA ( 2 if I put the antenna on the roof ) channels , and I 'd have to cut holes in the trees to get sat .
Also , since I 'm right off the ocean I have a feeling the fog bank would n't help .
Comcast out here has a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what was happening.
Hulu is owned by NBC.
First, comcast adds a monthly cap the second hulu becomes popular.
This doesn't work as well as intended and comcast now has a giant competitor.
What does Comcast do?
They merge with NBC.
wa-la! Comcast is still a monopoly in many areas.I live out in the forest.
I get 1 OTA (2 if I put the antenna on the roof) channels, and I'd have to cut holes in the trees to get sat.
Also, since I'm right off the ocean I have a feeling the fog bank wouldn't help.
Comcast out here has a monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360808</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>awyeah</author>
	<datestamp>1260199560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait until we get "free/unlimited/unmetered cable TV and VOD" but you're internet is limited - that way, the cable company makes money no matter how you get your content!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until we get " free/unlimited/unmetered cable TV and VOD " but you 're internet is limited - that way , the cable company makes money no matter how you get your content !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until we get "free/unlimited/unmetered cable TV and VOD" but you're internet is limited - that way, the cable company makes money no matter how you get your content!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360898</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1260200340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The cable industry resisted and killed cablecard</p></div></blockquote><p>How did they kill it?  Except for small cable companies, they are legally required to provide you with cable cards.  Many of us are successfully using cable cards in our devices.</p><p>(Yes, I wish the satellite companies did not have an exemption from the cable card requirement.. and things like SDV and 'on demand' can be a pain, but there's already a workaround for<br>the SDV issue with another [free] device.. and IMHO, if you have a PVR, do you need On Demand?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cable industry resisted and killed cablecardHow did they kill it ?
Except for small cable companies , they are legally required to provide you with cable cards .
Many of us are successfully using cable cards in our devices .
( Yes , I wish the satellite companies did not have an exemption from the cable card requirement.. and things like SDV and 'on demand ' can be a pain , but there 's already a workaround forthe SDV issue with another [ free ] device.. and IMHO , if you have a PVR , do you need On Demand ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cable industry resisted and killed cablecardHow did they kill it?
Except for small cable companies, they are legally required to provide you with cable cards.
Many of us are successfully using cable cards in our devices.
(Yes, I wish the satellite companies did not have an exemption from the cable card requirement.. and things like SDV and 'on demand' can be a pain, but there's already a workaround forthe SDV issue with another [free] device.. and IMHO, if you have a PVR, do you need On Demand?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361810</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Fastball</author>
	<datestamp>1260208500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do, and since cable providers have to carry the local networks' digital broadcasts via Clear-QAM, I even watch them in HD. If I were really frugal (i.e. not married), I could ditch my cable subscription altogether and fetch those Clear-QAM broadcasts OTA with an antenna. Live sporting events are the easiest to enjoy without submitting to the cable company.</p><p>Yes, I can do without if the game isn't on a major network. A man's got to know his limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do , and since cable providers have to carry the local networks ' digital broadcasts via Clear-QAM , I even watch them in HD .
If I were really frugal ( i.e .
not married ) , I could ditch my cable subscription altogether and fetch those Clear-QAM broadcasts OTA with an antenna .
Live sporting events are the easiest to enjoy without submitting to the cable company.Yes , I can do without if the game is n't on a major network .
A man 's got to know his limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do, and since cable providers have to carry the local networks' digital broadcasts via Clear-QAM, I even watch them in HD.
If I were really frugal (i.e.
not married), I could ditch my cable subscription altogether and fetch those Clear-QAM broadcasts OTA with an antenna.
Live sporting events are the easiest to enjoy without submitting to the cable company.Yes, I can do without if the game isn't on a major network.
A man's got to know his limitations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360112</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1260194280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>there hasn't been any new models cablecard enabled TV set since 2006</i></p><p>Yet now there are Netflix-enabled TV's.  The market is routing around the damage that is the telco hegemony.</p><p>Currently Netflix TV shows are time-delayed by several months.  That's a policy decision, not a technical one, though.</p><p>Anybody know if radio broadcast and IP unicast are still converging on price-parity in 2015?  That was the prediction in 2005.  After that, TV stations are too expensive to run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there has n't been any new models cablecard enabled TV set since 2006Yet now there are Netflix-enabled TV 's .
The market is routing around the damage that is the telco hegemony.Currently Netflix TV shows are time-delayed by several months .
That 's a policy decision , not a technical one , though.Anybody know if radio broadcast and IP unicast are still converging on price-parity in 2015 ?
That was the prediction in 2005 .
After that , TV stations are too expensive to run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there hasn't been any new models cablecard enabled TV set since 2006Yet now there are Netflix-enabled TV's.
The market is routing around the damage that is the telco hegemony.Currently Netflix TV shows are time-delayed by several months.
That's a policy decision, not a technical one, though.Anybody know if radio broadcast and IP unicast are still converging on price-parity in 2015?
That was the prediction in 2005.
After that, TV stations are too expensive to run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360270</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1260195720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just asking about your sig really, but who is Eloi and why are you asking why they did something from a s-b-ch root to you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just asking about your sig really , but who is Eloi and why are you asking why they did something from a s-b-ch root to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just asking about your sig really, but who is Eloi and why are you asking why they did something from a s-b-ch root to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360248</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had a similar story with FIOS and TivoHD.</p><p>Took four techs, each a different visit, plus my wife calling them up and yelling at them. Guess which of those did the trick?</p><p>I asked every single tech the same question: "Did you get any training on this?"</p><p>And every one gave the same answer: "No. We don't really support this."</p><p>Then I would follow up to say: "But it is legislated by law that you have to support this."</p><p>Then they would say: "I dunno anything about that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had a similar story with FIOS and TivoHD.Took four techs , each a different visit , plus my wife calling them up and yelling at them .
Guess which of those did the trick ? I asked every single tech the same question : " Did you get any training on this ?
" And every one gave the same answer : " No .
We do n't really support this .
" Then I would follow up to say : " But it is legislated by law that you have to support this .
" Then they would say : " I dunno anything about that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had a similar story with FIOS and TivoHD.Took four techs, each a different visit, plus my wife calling them up and yelling at them.
Guess which of those did the trick?I asked every single tech the same question: "Did you get any training on this?
"And every one gave the same answer: "No.
We don't really support this.
"Then I would follow up to say: "But it is legislated by law that you have to support this.
"Then they would say: "I dunno anything about that.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360038</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>TheOldBear</author>
	<datestamp>1260193740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old CableCard standard was one way only. The newer 'MCard' and the OCAP / Tru2Way boxes are much more capable, and [speaking from the inside of the cable industry] a bit puzzling to deal with.</p><p>We are looking at revamping our entire provisioning infrastructure to permit the new generation boxes to function, but that has run into some comical snags. For example, we can't get a Pannasonic Tru2Way set delivered to our lab, because the distributor will only ship to areas served by a Tru2Way compatible cable provider. We're working on it, but we're not fully compatible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old CableCard standard was one way only .
The newer 'MCard ' and the OCAP / Tru2Way boxes are much more capable , and [ speaking from the inside of the cable industry ] a bit puzzling to deal with.We are looking at revamping our entire provisioning infrastructure to permit the new generation boxes to function , but that has run into some comical snags .
For example , we ca n't get a Pannasonic Tru2Way set delivered to our lab , because the distributor will only ship to areas served by a Tru2Way compatible cable provider .
We 're working on it , but we 're not fully compatible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old CableCard standard was one way only.
The newer 'MCard' and the OCAP / Tru2Way boxes are much more capable, and [speaking from the inside of the cable industry] a bit puzzling to deal with.We are looking at revamping our entire provisioning infrastructure to permit the new generation boxes to function, but that has run into some comical snags.
For example, we can't get a Pannasonic Tru2Way set delivered to our lab, because the distributor will only ship to areas served by a Tru2Way compatible cable provider.
We're working on it, but we're not fully compatible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360260</id>
	<title>Re:In Comcast America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TV as we know it will be dead in 10 years.  This is regulation of buggy whips.  But not unnecessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TV as we know it will be dead in 10 years .
This is regulation of buggy whips .
But not unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV as we know it will be dead in 10 years.
This is regulation of buggy whips.
But not unnecessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360540</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Palshife</author>
	<datestamp>1260197700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-1 In The Minority</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 In The Minority</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 In The Minority</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361244</id>
	<title>if they're going to make it so hard to watch,</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1260203460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just don't watch. it's all crap anyway. the only programs my wife and I watch are mad men and big bang theory via p2p. once in a while, daily show.<br> <br>life's too short to remain glued to the tube...</htmltext>
<tokenext>just do n't watch .
it 's all crap anyway .
the only programs my wife and I watch are mad men and big bang theory via p2p .
once in a while , daily show .
life 's too short to remain glued to the tube.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just don't watch.
it's all crap anyway.
the only programs my wife and I watch are mad men and big bang theory via p2p.
once in a while, daily show.
life's too short to remain glued to the tube...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359636</id>
	<title>One idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260190800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet."</p></div></blockquote><p>I see only one way that we, as consumers of content, will get a good outcome from this.  And it's a messy one... We'd need to be able to have multiple content providers simultaneously.  They'll competing on their service on shared content, and on the unique content they provide.  It would end up being like TV before cable... you had the big networks in VHF, and a few fringe stations in UHF.<br> <br>I really don't think this is a feasible solution due to infrastructure requirements (unless the infrastructure is common), but I think it's the only way the [Internet access|Content providers] can be involved in fair competition that benefits the end-consumer.  <br> <br>Say Microsoft enters into an agreement with Comcast, and Comcast starts delaying packets for google searches.  Fine... not much harm done, since I could "change channels" and use another ISP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet .
" I see only one way that we , as consumers of content , will get a good outcome from this .
And it 's a messy one... We 'd need to be able to have multiple content providers simultaneously .
They 'll competing on their service on shared content , and on the unique content they provide .
It would end up being like TV before cable... you had the big networks in VHF , and a few fringe stations in UHF .
I really do n't think this is a feasible solution due to infrastructure requirements ( unless the infrastructure is common ) , but I think it 's the only way the [ Internet access | Content providers ] can be involved in fair competition that benefits the end-consumer .
Say Microsoft enters into an agreement with Comcast , and Comcast starts delaying packets for google searches .
Fine... not much harm done , since I could " change channels " and use another ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have difficulty seeing how this universe can be made to function effectively in the absence of some sort of regulatory regime to ensure transparency and fairness in situations where the Internet access providers themselves are providing their own content that directly competes with content from the external Internet.
"I see only one way that we, as consumers of content, will get a good outcome from this.
And it's a messy one... We'd need to be able to have multiple content providers simultaneously.
They'll competing on their service on shared content, and on the unique content they provide.
It would end up being like TV before cable... you had the big networks in VHF, and a few fringe stations in UHF.
I really don't think this is a feasible solution due to infrastructure requirements (unless the infrastructure is common), but I think it's the only way the [Internet access|Content providers] can be involved in fair competition that benefits the end-consumer.
Say Microsoft enters into an agreement with Comcast, and Comcast starts delaying packets for google searches.
Fine... not much harm done, since I could "change channels" and use another ISP.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30364558</id>
	<title>Re:Lauren Weinstein bait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260284640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A monopoly on a privately owned system that was created, not discovered; that was the product of someone's mind!  Yet you clamor for "fairness," for "equal access."  What have you done to have earned such a claim?  You are damming the transition to digital signals as being coercive; however, your argument requires the consession that analog signals are of equal quality.  If they are not [which we all not they are not] then it is not coercive, rather progress in a given field.<br>You plead for regulatory institutions, for government intervention, without understanding that the more regulation YOU help to create the greater the hinderance you are to progress.  Regulations are not the answer; rather they are the problem.  If you want a solution you must campaign for the repeal of the current regulations, and strip the system down to lassiez faire.  In an open and free market competition can freely enter the field, in this instance a cable provider that OFFERS that which you are suggesting.  This would then force the current companies to either adapt or fail, for if your assertion that the cable companies need change, let a free market sort it out.  But the plea for more regulations is an abdication of reality.  You want more regulations, look at England, The old USSR, Nazi Germany, etc and then try to back your claim that government intervention is the answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A monopoly on a privately owned system that was created , not discovered ; that was the product of someone 's mind !
Yet you clamor for " fairness , " for " equal access .
" What have you done to have earned such a claim ?
You are damming the transition to digital signals as being coercive ; however , your argument requires the consession that analog signals are of equal quality .
If they are not [ which we all not they are not ] then it is not coercive , rather progress in a given field.You plead for regulatory institutions , for government intervention , without understanding that the more regulation YOU help to create the greater the hinderance you are to progress .
Regulations are not the answer ; rather they are the problem .
If you want a solution you must campaign for the repeal of the current regulations , and strip the system down to lassiez faire .
In an open and free market competition can freely enter the field , in this instance a cable provider that OFFERS that which you are suggesting .
This would then force the current companies to either adapt or fail , for if your assertion that the cable companies need change , let a free market sort it out .
But the plea for more regulations is an abdication of reality .
You want more regulations , look at England , The old USSR , Nazi Germany , etc and then try to back your claim that government intervention is the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A monopoly on a privately owned system that was created, not discovered; that was the product of someone's mind!
Yet you clamor for "fairness," for "equal access.
"  What have you done to have earned such a claim?
You are damming the transition to digital signals as being coercive; however, your argument requires the consession that analog signals are of equal quality.
If they are not [which we all not they are not] then it is not coercive, rather progress in a given field.You plead for regulatory institutions, for government intervention, without understanding that the more regulation YOU help to create the greater the hinderance you are to progress.
Regulations are not the answer; rather they are the problem.
If you want a solution you must campaign for the repeal of the current regulations, and strip the system down to lassiez faire.
In an open and free market competition can freely enter the field, in this instance a cable provider that OFFERS that which you are suggesting.
This would then force the current companies to either adapt or fail, for if your assertion that the cable companies need change, let a free market sort it out.
But the plea for more regulations is an abdication of reality.
You want more regulations, look at England, The old USSR, Nazi Germany, etc and then try to back your claim that government intervention is the answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694</id>
	<title>cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1260191220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case nobody noticed, there hasn't been any new models cablecard enabled TV set since 2006. Cable companies has worked hard to make sure cablecard will never ever take off, and for the most part they appear to have succeeded. FCC investigation is about four years late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case nobody noticed , there has n't been any new models cablecard enabled TV set since 2006 .
Cable companies has worked hard to make sure cablecard will never ever take off , and for the most part they appear to have succeeded .
FCC investigation is about four years late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case nobody noticed, there hasn't been any new models cablecard enabled TV set since 2006.
Cable companies has worked hard to make sure cablecard will never ever take off, and for the most part they appear to have succeeded.
FCC investigation is about four years late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360062</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260193800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly you don't watch any live sporting events.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you do n't watch any live sporting events .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you don't watch any live sporting events.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361038</id>
	<title>Re:No Support</title>
	<author>awyeah</author>
	<datestamp>1260201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but you're allowed to use a third-party e-mail client, router, operating system, etc. if you want to, because they're not doing anything that <i>prevents</i> you from doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but you 're allowed to use a third-party e-mail client , router , operating system , etc .
if you want to , because they 're not doing anything that prevents you from doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but you're allowed to use a third-party e-mail client, router, operating system, etc.
if you want to, because they're not doing anything that prevents you from doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361398</id>
	<title>Obligatory subject line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260204540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way to get cable boxes into retail is to make them more attractive than the rental boxes from the cable cos.  The only way to do that is to stop the cable cos from lying to customers and saying the boxes are required and that retail boxes (and Tivos) won't work on their systems.  And the only way to do that is kill the atrocious profits the cable cos make from renting a $50 box for $10+ a month for years.  And the only way to do that is stop the cables cos from providing boxes at all.  And then the cable cos will just add the $10+ a month into their regular fees.</p><p>Or, you can educate consumers, but that's harder than doing the above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to get cable boxes into retail is to make them more attractive than the rental boxes from the cable cos. The only way to do that is to stop the cable cos from lying to customers and saying the boxes are required and that retail boxes ( and Tivos ) wo n't work on their systems .
And the only way to do that is kill the atrocious profits the cable cos make from renting a $ 50 box for $ 10 + a month for years .
And the only way to do that is stop the cables cos from providing boxes at all .
And then the cable cos will just add the $ 10 + a month into their regular fees.Or , you can educate consumers , but that 's harder than doing the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to get cable boxes into retail is to make them more attractive than the rental boxes from the cable cos.  The only way to do that is to stop the cable cos from lying to customers and saying the boxes are required and that retail boxes (and Tivos) won't work on their systems.
And the only way to do that is kill the atrocious profits the cable cos make from renting a $50 box for $10+ a month for years.
And the only way to do that is stop the cables cos from providing boxes at all.
And then the cable cos will just add the $10+ a month into their regular fees.Or, you can educate consumers, but that's harder than doing the above.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30362754</id>
	<title>Re:So were going to go back to how it used to be?</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1260263040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're a CEO of X bigass cable company are you going to go with encrypted premium channels or taps? Which one is more profitable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're a CEO of X bigass cable company are you going to go with encrypted premium channels or taps ?
Which one is more profitable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're a CEO of X bigass cable company are you going to go with encrypted premium channels or taps?
Which one is more profitable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359798</id>
	<title>CableCARD/Tuning Adapter-enabled TiVos</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1260191880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I got my first CableCARD-enabled TiVo, I was overjoyed to finally be rid of Time Warner Cable's Scientific Atlanta cable box with its mystro software designed to penalize you if you use an external device to control it to change channels precisely on time. If you started changing channels before the guide data updates for the timeslot but don't finish until after it does, you find it throwing out the initial or all the digits and either changing to the wrong channel or not changing channels at all. Though that cable box was still useful as a conduit over Firewire for recording to my desktop computer.</p><p>OK, so maybe there were a few problems now and then, but the CableCARD experience had settled down... until TWC decided to use Switched Digital Video and required TiVo users to use their Tuning Adapters to watch certain channels. Not IR controlled though. These use USB, so at least they could handshake to ensure that the device switched properly, yes?</p><p>No, of course not. For many of my HD channels I now have to have a second unit also recording the non-HD version of the same program in order to be sure I at least get to see the shows I want.</p><p>Meanwhile broadcasters like Fox (KPTM 42) are setting broadcast flags on their prime-time shows, preventing me from playing back my recordings made through the cable box on my computer, their being flagged "Copy Once" instead of "Copy Freely". And this after last season doing something else that made their video non-standard so I could only access the audio stream with the computer. At least the TiVo not only still records and plays back those shows, it also still lets me transfer them to the computer for burning to DVD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I got my first CableCARD-enabled TiVo , I was overjoyed to finally be rid of Time Warner Cable 's Scientific Atlanta cable box with its mystro software designed to penalize you if you use an external device to control it to change channels precisely on time .
If you started changing channels before the guide data updates for the timeslot but do n't finish until after it does , you find it throwing out the initial or all the digits and either changing to the wrong channel or not changing channels at all .
Though that cable box was still useful as a conduit over Firewire for recording to my desktop computer.OK , so maybe there were a few problems now and then , but the CableCARD experience had settled down... until TWC decided to use Switched Digital Video and required TiVo users to use their Tuning Adapters to watch certain channels .
Not IR controlled though .
These use USB , so at least they could handshake to ensure that the device switched properly , yes ? No , of course not .
For many of my HD channels I now have to have a second unit also recording the non-HD version of the same program in order to be sure I at least get to see the shows I want.Meanwhile broadcasters like Fox ( KPTM 42 ) are setting broadcast flags on their prime-time shows , preventing me from playing back my recordings made through the cable box on my computer , their being flagged " Copy Once " instead of " Copy Freely " .
And this after last season doing something else that made their video non-standard so I could only access the audio stream with the computer .
At least the TiVo not only still records and plays back those shows , it also still lets me transfer them to the computer for burning to DVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I got my first CableCARD-enabled TiVo, I was overjoyed to finally be rid of Time Warner Cable's Scientific Atlanta cable box with its mystro software designed to penalize you if you use an external device to control it to change channels precisely on time.
If you started changing channels before the guide data updates for the timeslot but don't finish until after it does, you find it throwing out the initial or all the digits and either changing to the wrong channel or not changing channels at all.
Though that cable box was still useful as a conduit over Firewire for recording to my desktop computer.OK, so maybe there were a few problems now and then, but the CableCARD experience had settled down... until TWC decided to use Switched Digital Video and required TiVo users to use their Tuning Adapters to watch certain channels.
Not IR controlled though.
These use USB, so at least they could handshake to ensure that the device switched properly, yes?No, of course not.
For many of my HD channels I now have to have a second unit also recording the non-HD version of the same program in order to be sure I at least get to see the shows I want.Meanwhile broadcasters like Fox (KPTM 42) are setting broadcast flags on their prime-time shows, preventing me from playing back my recordings made through the cable box on my computer, their being flagged "Copy Once" instead of "Copy Freely".
And this after last season doing something else that made their video non-standard so I could only access the audio stream with the computer.
At least the TiVo not only still records and plays back those shows, it also still lets me transfer them to the computer for burning to DVD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359914</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260192720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FCC should simply do as many other have requested - as a condition to move to SDV they *MUST* allow any provider to supply a data stream and be able to carry it to the customer. Just like the internet. Force the SDV network portion and content portion (PPV, etc) to split.</p><p>You don't get to build out a high speed packet switched network that only you can use on the taxpayers dime. Forget it.</p><p>The sooner we can stop treating digital video and voice as some magic special kind of data and just build flexible all-data networks the easier and saner the regulatory regime will become.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FCC should simply do as many other have requested - as a condition to move to SDV they * MUST * allow any provider to supply a data stream and be able to carry it to the customer .
Just like the internet .
Force the SDV network portion and content portion ( PPV , etc ) to split.You do n't get to build out a high speed packet switched network that only you can use on the taxpayers dime .
Forget it.The sooner we can stop treating digital video and voice as some magic special kind of data and just build flexible all-data networks the easier and saner the regulatory regime will become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FCC should simply do as many other have requested - as a condition to move to SDV they *MUST* allow any provider to supply a data stream and be able to carry it to the customer.
Just like the internet.
Force the SDV network portion and content portion (PPV, etc) to split.You don't get to build out a high speed packet switched network that only you can use on the taxpayers dime.
Forget it.The sooner we can stop treating digital video and voice as some magic special kind of data and just build flexible all-data networks the easier and saner the regulatory regime will become.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360036</id>
	<title>Obama</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1260193680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say what you will about the man, but his FCC seems to have significantly more teeth than the last administration's. Between this, the Verizon ETF, and the Gvoice/Apple thing they seem to actually be doing their job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will about the man , but his FCC seems to have significantly more teeth than the last administration 's .
Between this , the Verizon ETF , and the Gvoice/Apple thing they seem to actually be doing their job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will about the man, but his FCC seems to have significantly more teeth than the last administration's.
Between this, the Verizon ETF, and the Gvoice/Apple thing they seem to actually be doing their job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360936</id>
	<title>No Support</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1260200700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the biggest problem for consumers... Support Most Cable Companies already refuse support for anything out of their core product offering. Examples include mail clients(Outlook Express Only), no third party routers, no linux/unix, or other operating systems, cable card ready devices aren't supported...</p><p>If you have 100 different makes/models of HD PVR's your cable co will only support the ones they sell. Consumers will get frustrated with the lack of support, and the whole idea of an open network will come toppling down.</p><p>Nice theory... bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the biggest problem for consumers... Support Most Cable Companies already refuse support for anything out of their core product offering .
Examples include mail clients ( Outlook Express Only ) , no third party routers , no linux/unix , or other operating systems , cable card ready devices are n't supported...If you have 100 different makes/models of HD PVR 's your cable co will only support the ones they sell .
Consumers will get frustrated with the lack of support , and the whole idea of an open network will come toppling down.Nice theory... bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the biggest problem for consumers... Support Most Cable Companies already refuse support for anything out of their core product offering.
Examples include mail clients(Outlook Express Only), no third party routers, no linux/unix, or other operating systems, cable card ready devices aren't supported...If you have 100 different makes/models of HD PVR's your cable co will only support the ones they sell.
Consumers will get frustrated with the lack of support, and the whole idea of an open network will come toppling down.Nice theory... bad idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359820</id>
	<title>What about Digeo?</title>
	<author>mveloso</author>
	<datestamp>1260192060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digeo worked on Charter's network along with the Moto boxes. Of course, they were bought by Arris a few months ago, but still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digeo worked on Charter 's network along with the Moto boxes .
Of course , they were bought by Arris a few months ago , but still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digeo worked on Charter's network along with the Moto boxes.
Of course, they were bought by Arris a few months ago, but still.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30364284</id>
	<title>Backwards</title>
	<author>misfit815</author>
	<datestamp>1260282960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A while back, my cable company raised my rate. So, of course, I called. By the way, there is no DSL available in my area, so cable is my only cost-effective broadband option. And if it weren't for the fact that internet access alone costs nearly as much as access+basic cable, I would simply have that. Anyway, they offered a new rate for the next year if I subscribed to the digital package. Ok, fine. So they deliver a box. I try it out for all of a couple hours and find that it's an annoyance - my TV remote won't control it, I don't like its remote, and channel-flipping now incurs a delay each flip. So I unhook the box, stuff it away until they ask for it back, and go back to analog.</p><p>The moral of the story is that I'm paying for crap I don't want and don't use, but it's the most sensible option given my circumstances. Stoopid cable company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back , my cable company raised my rate .
So , of course , I called .
By the way , there is no DSL available in my area , so cable is my only cost-effective broadband option .
And if it were n't for the fact that internet access alone costs nearly as much as access + basic cable , I would simply have that .
Anyway , they offered a new rate for the next year if I subscribed to the digital package .
Ok , fine .
So they deliver a box .
I try it out for all of a couple hours and find that it 's an annoyance - my TV remote wo n't control it , I do n't like its remote , and channel-flipping now incurs a delay each flip .
So I unhook the box , stuff it away until they ask for it back , and go back to analog.The moral of the story is that I 'm paying for crap I do n't want and do n't use , but it 's the most sensible option given my circumstances .
Stoopid cable company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back, my cable company raised my rate.
So, of course, I called.
By the way, there is no DSL available in my area, so cable is my only cost-effective broadband option.
And if it weren't for the fact that internet access alone costs nearly as much as access+basic cable, I would simply have that.
Anyway, they offered a new rate for the next year if I subscribed to the digital package.
Ok, fine.
So they deliver a box.
I try it out for all of a couple hours and find that it's an annoyance - my TV remote won't control it, I don't like its remote, and channel-flipping now incurs a delay each flip.
So I unhook the box, stuff it away until they ask for it back, and go back to analog.The moral of the story is that I'm paying for crap I don't want and don't use, but it's the most sensible option given my circumstances.
Stoopid cable company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360664</id>
	<title>Channel ransom?</title>
	<author>MattGWU</author>
	<datestamp>1260198540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this that thing where they take away channels I've been paying for until I rent a set-top box to get them back, but my bill doesn't go down in the meantime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this that thing where they take away channels I 've been paying for until I rent a set-top box to get them back , but my bill does n't go down in the meantime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this that thing where they take away channels I've been paying for until I rent a set-top box to get them back, but my bill doesn't go down in the meantime?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361090</id>
	<title>Re:cablecard is dead</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1260201960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the $150 price point, the only thing you need to plug in to some of those blu-ray players is patch cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the $ 150 price point , the only thing you need to plug in to some of those blu-ray players is patch cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the $150 price point, the only thing you need to plug in to some of those blu-ray players is patch cable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30362658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30374038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30364558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30363922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30367916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30373762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30362754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_2232202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30374038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30367916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30363922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30362658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30362754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30364558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30361398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30359946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30373762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_2232202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_2232202.30360492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
