<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_23_2140213</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T Wins Gizmodo 3G Bandwidth Test</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261562580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ink writes <i>"Gizmodo has completed a <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5428343/our-2009-12+city-3g-data-mega-test-att-won">12-city test of 3G cellular bandwidth speed</a>.  Verizon won four of the twelve, however AT&amp;T scored higher with six: 'Let's get this straight right away: We didn't test dropped voice calls, we didn't test customer service, and we didn't test map coverage by wandering around in the boonies. We tested the ability of the networks to deliver 3G data in and around cities, including both concrete canyons and picket-fenced 'burbs. And while every 3G network gave us troubles on occasion, AT&amp;T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon's.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ink writes " Gizmodo has completed a 12-city test of 3G cellular bandwidth speed .
Verizon won four of the twelve , however AT&amp;T scored higher with six : 'Let 's get this straight right away : We did n't test dropped voice calls , we did n't test customer service , and we did n't test map coverage by wandering around in the boonies .
We tested the ability of the networks to deliver 3G data in and around cities , including both concrete canyons and picket-fenced 'burbs .
And while every 3G network gave us troubles on occasion , AT&amp;T 's was n't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon 's .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ink writes "Gizmodo has completed a 12-city test of 3G cellular bandwidth speed.
Verizon won four of the twelve, however AT&amp;T scored higher with six: 'Let's get this straight right away: We didn't test dropped voice calls, we didn't test customer service, and we didn't test map coverage by wandering around in the boonies.
We tested the ability of the networks to deliver 3G data in and around cities, including both concrete canyons and picket-fenced 'burbs.
And while every 3G network gave us troubles on occasion, AT&amp;T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon's.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540038</id>
	<title>more or less?</title>
	<author>johanatan</author>
	<datestamp>1259756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, which is it?  Was AT&amp;T's network more or less reliable than Verizon's?  And, is this really about reliability (or rather bandwidth)?  I imagine reliability tests would be as painful as the coverage tests which you opted out of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , which is it ?
Was AT&amp;T 's network more or less reliable than Verizon 's ?
And , is this really about reliability ( or rather bandwidth ) ?
I imagine reliability tests would be as painful as the coverage tests which you opted out of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, which is it?
Was AT&amp;T's network more or less reliable than Verizon's?
And, is this really about reliability (or rather bandwidth)?
I imagine reliability tests would be as painful as the coverage tests which you opted out of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543412</id>
	<title>I think AT&amp;T has won this one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261665720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With AT&amp;T you can be less involved with a phone conversation while trolling Slashdot at the same time! Let's see you do that on Verizon.</p><p>I mean, everybody puts people on their speaker phone just to browse the web for no apparent reason. I mean, who cares if Verizon has all this other great stuff... it only matters if I can tweet my status while on a call to 911 after I merged through 8 lanes of traffic without looking while I was playing solitaire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With AT&amp;T you can be less involved with a phone conversation while trolling Slashdot at the same time !
Let 's see you do that on Verizon.I mean , everybody puts people on their speaker phone just to browse the web for no apparent reason .
I mean , who cares if Verizon has all this other great stuff... it only matters if I can tweet my status while on a call to 911 after I merged through 8 lanes of traffic without looking while I was playing solitaire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With AT&amp;T you can be less involved with a phone conversation while trolling Slashdot at the same time!
Let's see you do that on Verizon.I mean, everybody puts people on their speaker phone just to browse the web for no apparent reason.
I mean, who cares if Verizon has all this other great stuff... it only matters if I can tweet my status while on a call to 911 after I merged through 8 lanes of traffic without looking while I was playing solitaire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543152</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>Pichu0102</author>
	<datestamp>1261661280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because we can get nothing better, and because we cannot improve our situation in any way due to the deathgrip companies have on our government and media.</p><p>In other words, we put up with it because we know it's only going to get worse as time goes on, and we might as well enjoy what we can now before they strip it from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we can get nothing better , and because we can not improve our situation in any way due to the deathgrip companies have on our government and media.In other words , we put up with it because we know it 's only going to get worse as time goes on , and we might as well enjoy what we can now before they strip it from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we can get nothing better, and because we cannot improve our situation in any way due to the deathgrip companies have on our government and media.In other words, we put up with it because we know it's only going to get worse as time goes on, and we might as well enjoy what we can now before they strip it from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541946</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1259778120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts?</p></div><p>A -few- of us see cell phones as interesting toys at best.  Sure, I like all the features, and I do obviously read some of the slashdot news articles on mobile phones because I'm a nerd, but I'm not going to march on washington just because my mobile options are more limited than they are in other markets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you , Americans , put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features ( like tethering or bluetooth ) on phones being sold via contracts ? A -few- of us see cell phones as interesting toys at best .
Sure , I like all the features , and I do obviously read some of the slashdot news articles on mobile phones because I 'm a nerd , but I 'm not going to march on washington just because my mobile options are more limited than they are in other markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts?A -few- of us see cell phones as interesting toys at best.
Sure, I like all the features, and I do obviously read some of the slashdot news articles on mobile phones because I'm a nerd, but I'm not going to march on washington just because my mobile options are more limited than they are in other markets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539706</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How we Americans deal with it (some of us anyway) is we hack the phone to tether anyway for free, and smile every time we use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How we Americans deal with it ( some of us anyway ) is we hack the phone to tether anyway for free , and smile every time we use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How we Americans deal with it (some of us anyway) is we hack the phone to tether anyway for free, and smile every time we use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543714</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T == Cherry Picker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261668960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not in Texas Verizon sucks here.  Chances are if you are off a major freeway or out of a major city you have no coverage.  The map Verizon puts up on TV for there coverage is a freaking joke.  Not to mention blatant fraud.   AT&amp;T actually has better coverage (Not all of it 3g but you can call).</p><p>True I am starting to get more dropped calls.  I wish that the iPhone would open up so that network traffic could be a little more spread out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not in Texas Verizon sucks here .
Chances are if you are off a major freeway or out of a major city you have no coverage .
The map Verizon puts up on TV for there coverage is a freaking joke .
Not to mention blatant fraud .
AT&amp;T actually has better coverage ( Not all of it 3g but you can call ) .True I am starting to get more dropped calls .
I wish that the iPhone would open up so that network traffic could be a little more spread out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not in Texas Verizon sucks here.
Chances are if you are off a major freeway or out of a major city you have no coverage.
The map Verizon puts up on TV for there coverage is a freaking joke.
Not to mention blatant fraud.
AT&amp;T actually has better coverage (Not all of it 3g but you can call).True I am starting to get more dropped calls.
I wish that the iPhone would open up so that network traffic could be a little more spread out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539496</id>
	<title>They all suck.</title>
	<author>aussersterne</author>
	<datestamp>1259752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having been through Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&amp;T over the years (never tried Sprint), my conclusion is they're all way oversold with shitty reliability and doubly shitty and uneven customer service. Typical megacorporations to whom any individual customer matters NOT AT ALL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been through Verizon , T-Mobile , and AT&amp;T over the years ( never tried Sprint ) , my conclusion is they 're all way oversold with shitty reliability and doubly shitty and uneven customer service .
Typical megacorporations to whom any individual customer matters NOT AT ALL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been through Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&amp;T over the years (never tried Sprint), my conclusion is they're all way oversold with shitty reliability and doubly shitty and uneven customer service.
Typical megacorporations to whom any individual customer matters NOT AT ALL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540684</id>
	<title>Because they didn't use the iPhone</title>
	<author>TroyM</author>
	<datestamp>1259761560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A big part of AT&amp;T's problem is really that the iPhone's radio sucks.  When tests are done using a different device, AT&amp;T scores pretty good.  I switched from AT&amp;T (not the iPhone) to Verizon, and I don't see any improvement in call quality.</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html?\_r=4&amp;ref=technology" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html?\_r=4&amp;ref=technology</a> [nytimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big part of AT&amp;T 's problem is really that the iPhone 's radio sucks .
When tests are done using a different device , AT&amp;T scores pretty good .
I switched from AT&amp;T ( not the iPhone ) to Verizon , and I do n't see any improvement in call quality.http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html ? \ _r = 4&amp;ref = technology [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big part of AT&amp;T's problem is really that the iPhone's radio sucks.
When tests are done using a different device, AT&amp;T scores pretty good.
I switched from AT&amp;T (not the iPhone) to Verizon, and I don't see any improvement in call quality.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html?\_r=4&amp;ref=technology [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539486</id>
	<title>It's not the 12 that counts, it's the rest...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I travel all over.  I usually consult in city that are not the major metropolitan centers.  If you are NOT in the major metros, Verizon wins 9 times out of 10.  I know from experience - I used to be Verizon, switched to ATT then found major, as in huge gaps in service (out to major metros) --- ATT had no signal.  Not some signal, I mean zero.  Once I got back on Verizon, covered.  So this test is irrelevant.</p><p>If you don't travel, get the best signal provider in your area.  If you travel, Verizon is best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I travel all over .
I usually consult in city that are not the major metropolitan centers .
If you are NOT in the major metros , Verizon wins 9 times out of 10 .
I know from experience - I used to be Verizon , switched to ATT then found major , as in huge gaps in service ( out to major metros ) --- ATT had no signal .
Not some signal , I mean zero .
Once I got back on Verizon , covered .
So this test is irrelevant.If you do n't travel , get the best signal provider in your area .
If you travel , Verizon is best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I travel all over.
I usually consult in city that are not the major metropolitan centers.
If you are NOT in the major metros, Verizon wins 9 times out of 10.
I know from experience - I used to be Verizon, switched to ATT then found major, as in huge gaps in service (out to major metros) --- ATT had no signal.
Not some signal, I mean zero.
Once I got back on Verizon, covered.
So this test is irrelevant.If you don't travel, get the best signal provider in your area.
If you travel, Verizon is best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539734</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the latency</title>
	<author>sonnejw0</author>
	<datestamp>1259754420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Engadget did a similar test a year-ish ago.  AT&amp;T was leaps and bounds faster than Verizon's 3G, in fact AT&amp;T's 2G tested as fast as Verizon's 3G, and the latency was measurably lower on AT&amp;T as well, at least where they tested the four providers:
<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/26/engadget-labs-the-best-mobile-broadband-carrier-in-america/" title="engadget.com">[engadget]</a> [engadget.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Engadget did a similar test a year-ish ago .
AT&amp;T was leaps and bounds faster than Verizon 's 3G , in fact AT&amp;T 's 2G tested as fast as Verizon 's 3G , and the latency was measurably lower on AT&amp;T as well , at least where they tested the four providers : [ engadget ] [ engadget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engadget did a similar test a year-ish ago.
AT&amp;T was leaps and bounds faster than Verizon's 3G, in fact AT&amp;T's 2G tested as fast as Verizon's 3G, and the latency was measurably lower on AT&amp;T as well, at least where they tested the four providers:
[engadget] [engadget.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543566</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T == Cherry Picker</title>
	<author>Chinaecarts</author>
	<datestamp>1261667580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>dual band mobile phone, dualband cell phone, dual band cellphone <a href="http://www.chinaecarts.com/categories/dual-band-cellphones" title="chinaecarts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.chinaecarts.com/categories/dual-band-cellphones</a> [chinaecarts.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>dual band mobile phone , dualband cell phone , dual band cellphone http : //www.chinaecarts.com/categories/dual-band-cellphones [ chinaecarts.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dual band mobile phone, dualband cell phone, dual band cellphone http://www.chinaecarts.com/categories/dual-band-cellphones [chinaecarts.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542616</id>
	<title>Re:Because they didn't use the iPhone</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1261648740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A big part of AT&amp;T's problem is really that the iPhone's radio sucks. </p></div><p>I'm a North-West European iPhone user and I never have dropped calls.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A big part of AT&amp;T 's problem is really that the iPhone 's radio sucks .
I 'm a North-West European iPhone user and I never have dropped calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big part of AT&amp;T's problem is really that the iPhone's radio sucks.
I'm a North-West European iPhone user and I never have dropped calls.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539724</id>
	<title>Re:Piss off, 3G</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, the next time we give them <a href="http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/news/obama-broadband-stimulus-0115/" title="telephonyonline.com" rel="nofollow">free money</a> [telephonyonline.com] it will be different.</p><p>BWUAHAHAHAHAHAAHA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , the next time we give them free money [ telephonyonline.com ] it will be different.BWUAHAHAHAHAHAAHA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, the next time we give them free money [telephonyonline.com] it will be different.BWUAHAHAHAHAHAAHA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539678</id>
	<title>Re:What about sustained transfers?</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1259754000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find I can get a nice burst for the first couple of megabytes then Im throttled pretty badly. Id like to know which carrier doesnt do this. It doesnt look related to reception.</p></div><p>Short answer: it seems that all US carriers do this, either because (i) they underestimated demand and under-invested in infrastructure, or (ii) because they can maximize their revenues while minimizing their costs, and the customers are trapped into long term contracts.
<br>
This sort of throttling by carriers is unheard-of in more advanced countries, such as Finland or Sweden. None of the carriers do that here; if they tried it, they'd have no customers left within a month or two (terminating a contract is trivial, and does not entail penalties). There are no usage caps on 3G either - unlimited actually does mean unlimited.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find I can get a nice burst for the first couple of megabytes then Im throttled pretty badly .
Id like to know which carrier doesnt do this .
It doesnt look related to reception.Short answer : it seems that all US carriers do this , either because ( i ) they underestimated demand and under-invested in infrastructure , or ( ii ) because they can maximize their revenues while minimizing their costs , and the customers are trapped into long term contracts .
This sort of throttling by carriers is unheard-of in more advanced countries , such as Finland or Sweden .
None of the carriers do that here ; if they tried it , they 'd have no customers left within a month or two ( terminating a contract is trivial , and does not entail penalties ) .
There are no usage caps on 3G either - unlimited actually does mean unlimited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find I can get a nice burst for the first couple of megabytes then Im throttled pretty badly.
Id like to know which carrier doesnt do this.
It doesnt look related to reception.Short answer: it seems that all US carriers do this, either because (i) they underestimated demand and under-invested in infrastructure, or (ii) because they can maximize their revenues while minimizing their costs, and the customers are trapped into long term contracts.
This sort of throttling by carriers is unheard-of in more advanced countries, such as Finland or Sweden.
None of the carriers do that here; if they tried it, they'd have no customers left within a month or two (terminating a contract is trivial, and does not entail penalties).
There are no usage caps on 3G either - unlimited actually does mean unlimited.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541556</id>
	<title>Gizmodo? Those things are dangerous.</title>
	<author>Shinmizu</author>
	<datestamp>1259772060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd better not feed that thing any bandwidth after midnight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd better not feed that thing any bandwidth after midnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd better not feed that thing any bandwidth after midnight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540558</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T == Cherry Picker</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1259760420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the thing -- everyone knows Verizon has a much larger square-mile coverage than AT&amp;T.  Wide coverage is important to many people for many reasons.  But to accomplish this, you must do less cherry picking.  AT&amp;T on the other hand, does not concern itself with wide coverage, but instead focuses on the investments that yield the highest return.</p><p>You can decide for yourself which strategy is better.  As a customer, I prefer a company that favors customer satisfaction.  That said, I am neither an AT&amp;T customer nor a Verizon customer.  I am a T-Mobile customer largely because it was convenient at the time and presently have no incentive to change... Sprint burned their bridge with me... I hated that I had to become angry and threaten to leave in order to get anything done with my account.  While I am sure there is no shortage of horror stories about T-Mobile, I haven't had any myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the thing -- everyone knows Verizon has a much larger square-mile coverage than AT&amp;T .
Wide coverage is important to many people for many reasons .
But to accomplish this , you must do less cherry picking .
AT&amp;T on the other hand , does not concern itself with wide coverage , but instead focuses on the investments that yield the highest return.You can decide for yourself which strategy is better .
As a customer , I prefer a company that favors customer satisfaction .
That said , I am neither an AT&amp;T customer nor a Verizon customer .
I am a T-Mobile customer largely because it was convenient at the time and presently have no incentive to change... Sprint burned their bridge with me... I hated that I had to become angry and threaten to leave in order to get anything done with my account .
While I am sure there is no shortage of horror stories about T-Mobile , I have n't had any myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the thing -- everyone knows Verizon has a much larger square-mile coverage than AT&amp;T.
Wide coverage is important to many people for many reasons.
But to accomplish this, you must do less cherry picking.
AT&amp;T on the other hand, does not concern itself with wide coverage, but instead focuses on the investments that yield the highest return.You can decide for yourself which strategy is better.
As a customer, I prefer a company that favors customer satisfaction.
That said, I am neither an AT&amp;T customer nor a Verizon customer.
I am a T-Mobile customer largely because it was convenient at the time and presently have no incentive to change... Sprint burned their bridge with me... I hated that I had to become angry and threaten to leave in order to get anything done with my account.
While I am sure there is no shortage of horror stories about T-Mobile, I haven't had any myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539668</id>
	<title>Re:Piss off, 3G</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we just got clearwire wimax here in austin tx... city wide broadband, no 3g required, operating off of the fore-mentioned spectrums you spoke of.. maybe you should write your congressman and tell them to work to get wimax in your city</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we just got clearwire wimax here in austin tx... city wide broadband , no 3g required , operating off of the fore-mentioned spectrums you spoke of.. maybe you should write your congressman and tell them to work to get wimax in your city</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we just got clearwire wimax here in austin tx... city wide broadband, no 3g required, operating off of the fore-mentioned spectrums you spoke of.. maybe you should write your congressman and tell them to work to get wimax in your city</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539400</id>
	<title>What about sustained transfers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find I can get a nice burst for the first couple of megabytes then Im throttled pretty badly. Id like to know which carrier doesnt do this. It doesnt look related to reception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find I can get a nice burst for the first couple of megabytes then Im throttled pretty badly .
Id like to know which carrier doesnt do this .
It doesnt look related to reception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find I can get a nice burst for the first couple of megabytes then Im throttled pretty badly.
Id like to know which carrier doesnt do this.
It doesnt look related to reception.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540516</id>
	<title>SHIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259760120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IT RACIST FOR A We'll be able to BSD's codebase a super-organised incompatibilities by fundamental that should be Assholes, as they platform for the paranoid conspiracy fucking numbers, from one folder on has run faster writing is on The you got there. Or stand anymore, From one folder on parties, but here again. There are Battled in court, cans can become systems.  The Gay GNAA (GAY NIGGER arrogaqnce was it a break, if One or the other cuntwipes Jordan paper towels to say there have conducted at MIT operating systems distributions Codebase became the time to meet</htmltext>
<tokenext>IT RACIST FOR A We 'll be able to BSD 's codebase a super-organised incompatibilities by fundamental that should be Assholes , as they platform for the paranoid conspiracy fucking numbers , from one folder on has run faster writing is on The you got there .
Or stand anymore , From one folder on parties , but here again .
There are Battled in court , cans can become systems .
The Gay GNAA ( GAY NIGGER arrogaqnce was it a break , if One or the other cuntwipes Jordan paper towels to say there have conducted at MIT operating systems distributions Codebase became the time to meet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT RACIST FOR A We'll be able to BSD's codebase a super-organised incompatibilities by fundamental that should be Assholes, as they platform for the paranoid conspiracy fucking numbers, from one folder on has run faster writing is on The you got there.
Or stand anymore, From one folder on parties, but here again.
There are Battled in court, cans can become systems.
The Gay GNAA (GAY NIGGER arrogaqnce was it a break, if One or the other cuntwipes Jordan paper towels to say there have conducted at MIT operating systems distributions Codebase became the time to meet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539422</id>
	<title>Look at the latency</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1259752200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I can see, the latency on the Verizon lines is <i>much</i> better.  That's more important to me, at least, considering the amount of VoiP I do on my cell phone.</p><p>I mean, uh, browsing I do on mobile networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I can see , the latency on the Verizon lines is much better .
That 's more important to me , at least , considering the amount of VoiP I do on my cell phone.I mean , uh , browsing I do on mobile networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I can see, the latency on the Verizon lines is much better.
That's more important to me, at least, considering the amount of VoiP I do on my cell phone.I mean, uh, browsing I do on mobile networks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540060</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259756760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that Europeans always forget is that the U.S. is more like the E.U. than it is like Finland. Actually, many Americans make the same mistake. When Europe becomes a single cellular market the way that the U.S. is, we will be able to compare the business practices of the providers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that Europeans always forget is that the U.S. is more like the E.U .
than it is like Finland .
Actually , many Americans make the same mistake .
When Europe becomes a single cellular market the way that the U.S. is , we will be able to compare the business practices of the providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that Europeans always forget is that the U.S. is more like the E.U.
than it is like Finland.
Actually, many Americans make the same mistake.
When Europe becomes a single cellular market the way that the U.S. is, we will be able to compare the business practices of the providers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543108</id>
	<title>Re:That isn't the problem with AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>LackThereof</author>
	<datestamp>1261660320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think AT&amp;T's network issues must be highly localized in the northeast, because I've been an AT&amp;T user since before they were using GSM, and I've never had an unexplainable dropped call anywhere I've traveled.  My cell is and has always been my only phone; I don't have a landline.  However, I keep hearing about all these dropped calls on AT&amp;T.</p><p>Sure, if I'm way out in the woods and I lose signal, it drops.  If I go through a deep tunnel and lose signal, it drops.  But if I've got signal, the call goes through and the line stays open.</p><p>I've never used anything but a free-with-contract handset with the service, either.    I HAVE developed a deep loathing for LG handsets, though.  My first 3g handset was a free Cu575 that was absolute shit - laggy buggy interface, OS crashes, strange "call failed" messages, etc..  I actually went back to using my old 2g Motorola rather than wait out the 2 year contract with that thing.  I could not replace it fast enough when the contract expired.  My fiance had similar problems on her Verizon LG handset.</p><p>I've primarily used my phone in Seattle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think AT&amp;T 's network issues must be highly localized in the northeast , because I 've been an AT&amp;T user since before they were using GSM , and I 've never had an unexplainable dropped call anywhere I 've traveled .
My cell is and has always been my only phone ; I do n't have a landline .
However , I keep hearing about all these dropped calls on AT&amp;T.Sure , if I 'm way out in the woods and I lose signal , it drops .
If I go through a deep tunnel and lose signal , it drops .
But if I 've got signal , the call goes through and the line stays open.I 've never used anything but a free-with-contract handset with the service , either .
I HAVE developed a deep loathing for LG handsets , though .
My first 3g handset was a free Cu575 that was absolute shit - laggy buggy interface , OS crashes , strange " call failed " messages , etc.. I actually went back to using my old 2g Motorola rather than wait out the 2 year contract with that thing .
I could not replace it fast enough when the contract expired .
My fiance had similar problems on her Verizon LG handset.I 've primarily used my phone in Seattle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think AT&amp;T's network issues must be highly localized in the northeast, because I've been an AT&amp;T user since before they were using GSM, and I've never had an unexplainable dropped call anywhere I've traveled.
My cell is and has always been my only phone; I don't have a landline.
However, I keep hearing about all these dropped calls on AT&amp;T.Sure, if I'm way out in the woods and I lose signal, it drops.
If I go through a deep tunnel and lose signal, it drops.
But if I've got signal, the call goes through and the line stays open.I've never used anything but a free-with-contract handset with the service, either.
I HAVE developed a deep loathing for LG handsets, though.
My first 3g handset was a free Cu575 that was absolute shit - laggy buggy interface, OS crashes, strange "call failed" messages, etc..  I actually went back to using my old 2g Motorola rather than wait out the 2 year contract with that thing.
I could not replace it fast enough when the contract expired.
My fiance had similar problems on her Verizon LG handset.I've primarily used my phone in Seattle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543442</id>
	<title>Re:Better Sample Size</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1261666140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>12 cities is a fairly good test, presuming it was done without foreknowledge of coverage. Really, it's a much better test than your one city version.</p><p>I've only had three cell carriers in the past decade, and they were all about the same when it came to CS - they all suck donkey balls. Coverage is utterly random - or rather it's entirely RF physics based, which is to say effectively random - and you'll find mysterious dead areas on every carrier. I even tried a dual-phone month on my last switch (two 30 day prepaid phones on AT&amp;T and Verizon), and determined that they were the same in my area most of the time, and had roughly the same crappy service percentage but in different areas.</p><p>Somehow (without RTFA) I have a hard time declaring an actual winner of the result was 4 to 6 with two ties. To me, that's a toss up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>12 cities is a fairly good test , presuming it was done without foreknowledge of coverage .
Really , it 's a much better test than your one city version.I 've only had three cell carriers in the past decade , and they were all about the same when it came to CS - they all suck donkey balls .
Coverage is utterly random - or rather it 's entirely RF physics based , which is to say effectively random - and you 'll find mysterious dead areas on every carrier .
I even tried a dual-phone month on my last switch ( two 30 day prepaid phones on AT&amp;T and Verizon ) , and determined that they were the same in my area most of the time , and had roughly the same crappy service percentage but in different areas.Somehow ( without RTFA ) I have a hard time declaring an actual winner of the result was 4 to 6 with two ties .
To me , that 's a toss up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>12 cities is a fairly good test, presuming it was done without foreknowledge of coverage.
Really, it's a much better test than your one city version.I've only had three cell carriers in the past decade, and they were all about the same when it came to CS - they all suck donkey balls.
Coverage is utterly random - or rather it's entirely RF physics based, which is to say effectively random - and you'll find mysterious dead areas on every carrier.
I even tried a dual-phone month on my last switch (two 30 day prepaid phones on AT&amp;T and Verizon), and determined that they were the same in my area most of the time, and had roughly the same crappy service percentage but in different areas.Somehow (without RTFA) I have a hard time declaring an actual winner of the result was 4 to 6 with two ties.
To me, that's a toss up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539484</id>
	<title>Price/speed needed</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1259752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would make this more useful is if Gizmodo took the prices, speed and quality and looked at it that way. Also missing are bandwidth caps and if there is throttling. Yeah, AT&amp;T might have a faster network for browsing, but it has other flaws, namely high price, throttling and the fact 3G is scarce. If they added in all these things it would be a much better and fairer look.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would make this more useful is if Gizmodo took the prices , speed and quality and looked at it that way .
Also missing are bandwidth caps and if there is throttling .
Yeah , AT&amp;T might have a faster network for browsing , but it has other flaws , namely high price , throttling and the fact 3G is scarce .
If they added in all these things it would be a much better and fairer look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would make this more useful is if Gizmodo took the prices, speed and quality and looked at it that way.
Also missing are bandwidth caps and if there is throttling.
Yeah, AT&amp;T might have a faster network for browsing, but it has other flaws, namely high price, throttling and the fact 3G is scarce.
If they added in all these things it would be a much better and fairer look.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540080</id>
	<title>Milestone vs. Droid</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259756880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts?</p></div><p>Because we get such a deep "discount" on the handset. Ideally, a 24-month plan with a $175 ETF would have a $7.50 per month discount if I bring my own phone, but the carriers offer no such discount. Besides, the CDMA carriers (Verizon and Sprint) don't use CSIM cards.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the operator would be advertising a specific phone model, while in reality, the phone model being advertised in reality has more or better features than the one sold to you under it's name by the operator.</p></div><p>Not necessarily. The standard unlocked GSM phone is sold under one name, and the carrier's version carries a slightly different name. For example, Motorola Droid is Verizon's customized version of Motorola Milestone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you , Americans , put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features ( like tethering or bluetooth ) on phones being sold via contracts ? Because we get such a deep " discount " on the handset .
Ideally , a 24-month plan with a $ 175 ETF would have a $ 7.50 per month discount if I bring my own phone , but the carriers offer no such discount .
Besides , the CDMA carriers ( Verizon and Sprint ) do n't use CSIM cards.the operator would be advertising a specific phone model , while in reality , the phone model being advertised in reality has more or better features than the one sold to you under it 's name by the operator.Not necessarily .
The standard unlocked GSM phone is sold under one name , and the carrier 's version carries a slightly different name .
For example , Motorola Droid is Verizon 's customized version of Motorola Milestone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts?Because we get such a deep "discount" on the handset.
Ideally, a 24-month plan with a $175 ETF would have a $7.50 per month discount if I bring my own phone, but the carriers offer no such discount.
Besides, the CDMA carriers (Verizon and Sprint) don't use CSIM cards.the operator would be advertising a specific phone model, while in reality, the phone model being advertised in reality has more or better features than the one sold to you under it's name by the operator.Not necessarily.
The standard unlocked GSM phone is sold under one name, and the carrier's version carries a slightly different name.
For example, Motorola Droid is Verizon's customized version of Motorola Milestone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543194</id>
	<title>Results can also depend on the device used.</title>
	<author>Blimey85</author>
	<datestamp>1261662180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At one friends house, I can get signal and download apps while my friend can't even though we are using seemingly identical 3gs iPhones. Anywhere in my house, on my wifi, he gets full bars while I can be sitting right next to my router and have it drop to just one bar. I typically get better wifi reception from outside than I do inside, while for him it's generally the opposite.<br> <br>Just for the record, my iPhone is in an Otter Box case while his is not cased, and I still get much better reception at his house. And no, not his first iPhone 3gs... last one had the same issue for him. And I know other people with iPhones and it always seems like wherever we are, someone will have signal issues while someone else will have great signal... but it varies on who will have the better signal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At one friends house , I can get signal and download apps while my friend ca n't even though we are using seemingly identical 3gs iPhones .
Anywhere in my house , on my wifi , he gets full bars while I can be sitting right next to my router and have it drop to just one bar .
I typically get better wifi reception from outside than I do inside , while for him it 's generally the opposite .
Just for the record , my iPhone is in an Otter Box case while his is not cased , and I still get much better reception at his house .
And no , not his first iPhone 3gs... last one had the same issue for him .
And I know other people with iPhones and it always seems like wherever we are , someone will have signal issues while someone else will have great signal... but it varies on who will have the better signal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one friends house, I can get signal and download apps while my friend can't even though we are using seemingly identical 3gs iPhones.
Anywhere in my house, on my wifi, he gets full bars while I can be sitting right next to my router and have it drop to just one bar.
I typically get better wifi reception from outside than I do inside, while for him it's generally the opposite.
Just for the record, my iPhone is in an Otter Box case while his is not cased, and I still get much better reception at his house.
And no, not his first iPhone 3gs... last one had the same issue for him.
And I know other people with iPhones and it always seems like wherever we are, someone will have signal issues while someone else will have great signal... but it varies on who will have the better signal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30549730</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>strikethree</author>
	<datestamp>1261774440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones"</p><p>That is like asking why the innocent prisoner tolerates being shackled up or why the Jews tolerated Hitler or Pharaoh enslaving them. Some escape by not using mobile phone technology. Most just put up with whatever is forced on them. Will you play the part of Moses and lead us to freedom in the promised land of unlocked phones and reliable 3G service?</p><p>I guess what I am really asking you is this: Are you suggesting that I move to another country because of the state of mobile phone technology in my country? How else would I stop "putting up with it"? Vote for different representatives? Expose the corruption? Assassinate CEOs?</p><p>Seriously, your question makes little sense. Yes, we know it is a fucked up situation. No, there is nothing we can do to stop the rape.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>strike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why do you , Americans , put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features ( like tethering or bluetooth ) on phones " That is like asking why the innocent prisoner tolerates being shackled up or why the Jews tolerated Hitler or Pharaoh enslaving them .
Some escape by not using mobile phone technology .
Most just put up with whatever is forced on them .
Will you play the part of Moses and lead us to freedom in the promised land of unlocked phones and reliable 3G service ? I guess what I am really asking you is this : Are you suggesting that I move to another country because of the state of mobile phone technology in my country ?
How else would I stop " putting up with it " ?
Vote for different representatives ?
Expose the corruption ?
Assassinate CEOs ? Seriously , your question makes little sense .
Yes , we know it is a fucked up situation .
No , there is nothing we can do to stop the rape.Regards,strike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones"That is like asking why the innocent prisoner tolerates being shackled up or why the Jews tolerated Hitler or Pharaoh enslaving them.
Some escape by not using mobile phone technology.
Most just put up with whatever is forced on them.
Will you play the part of Moses and lead us to freedom in the promised land of unlocked phones and reliable 3G service?I guess what I am really asking you is this: Are you suggesting that I move to another country because of the state of mobile phone technology in my country?
How else would I stop "putting up with it"?
Vote for different representatives?
Expose the corruption?
Assassinate CEOs?Seriously, your question makes little sense.
Yes, we know it is a fucked up situation.
No, there is nothing we can do to stop the rape.Regards,strike</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539468</id>
	<title>Better Sample Size</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I care about speed, I care more about coverage and reliability.  Did the testers cherry pick AT&amp;T friendly locations?  I know when I went to Washington D.C. earlier this year that not only was my 3G coverage under AT&amp;T spotty, my ability to simply connect to AT&amp;T and make calls was also poor.  It would be a much more interesting test if this was performed in every city over a certain population size.   In my opinion 12 cities does not make a good test.</p><p>I'll admit I'm biased though.  I've been an AT&amp;T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I don't like their service or support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I care about speed , I care more about coverage and reliability .
Did the testers cherry pick AT&amp;T friendly locations ?
I know when I went to Washington D.C. earlier this year that not only was my 3G coverage under AT&amp;T spotty , my ability to simply connect to AT&amp;T and make calls was also poor .
It would be a much more interesting test if this was performed in every city over a certain population size .
In my opinion 12 cities does not make a good test.I 'll admit I 'm biased though .
I 've been an AT&amp;T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I do n't like their service or support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I care about speed, I care more about coverage and reliability.
Did the testers cherry pick AT&amp;T friendly locations?
I know when I went to Washington D.C. earlier this year that not only was my 3G coverage under AT&amp;T spotty, my ability to simply connect to AT&amp;T and make calls was also poor.
It would be a much more interesting test if this was performed in every city over a certain population size.
In my opinion 12 cities does not make a good test.I'll admit I'm biased though.
I've been an AT&amp;T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I don't like their service or support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539716</id>
	<title>Average speeds are meaningless.</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1259754300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What matters to me is the performance I get from the tower I'm connected to at the moment I'm trying to use it.  I don't give two shits if the tower five miles up the road is giving 1700/350kbps when the one I'm using is doing 100/300.  And I don't care if the one that was giving me 100/300 on Friday afternoon is able to do 1500/320 on Saturday morning because I'm not there Saturday morning.  I need their network to function wherever I happen to be at whatever time I need to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What matters to me is the performance I get from the tower I 'm connected to at the moment I 'm trying to use it .
I do n't give two shits if the tower five miles up the road is giving 1700/350kbps when the one I 'm using is doing 100/300 .
And I do n't care if the one that was giving me 100/300 on Friday afternoon is able to do 1500/320 on Saturday morning because I 'm not there Saturday morning .
I need their network to function wherever I happen to be at whatever time I need to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What matters to me is the performance I get from the tower I'm connected to at the moment I'm trying to use it.
I don't give two shits if the tower five miles up the road is giving 1700/350kbps when the one I'm using is doing 100/300.
And I don't care if the one that was giving me 100/300 on Friday afternoon is able to do 1500/320 on Saturday morning because I'm not there Saturday morning.
I need their network to function wherever I happen to be at whatever time I need to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541820</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because our lawmakers' clients (AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc....) are much more organized and powerful than the American public.   We are corporate America's bitches, and they know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because our lawmakers ' clients ( AT&amp;T , T-Mobile , Sprint , etc.... ) are much more organized and powerful than the American public .
We are corporate America 's bitches , and they know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because our lawmakers' clients (AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc....) are much more organized and powerful than the American public.
We are corporate America's bitches, and they know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539606</id>
	<title>hahahahaha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like AT&amp;T gets the last laugh after all...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like AT&amp;T gets the last laugh after all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like AT&amp;T gets the last laugh after all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539688</id>
	<title>use a 3rd party cell phone company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259754060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are smaller cell phone companies that offer lower prices ($30 month, for unlimited talking) than the big four. If the big cell phone companies don't put the money into infrastructure, they will be underpriced by the local companies. Wait for LTE to come along. Things will change... if enough spectrum is freed up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are smaller cell phone companies that offer lower prices ( $ 30 month , for unlimited talking ) than the big four .
If the big cell phone companies do n't put the money into infrastructure , they will be underpriced by the local companies .
Wait for LTE to come along .
Things will change... if enough spectrum is freed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are smaller cell phone companies that offer lower prices ($30 month, for unlimited talking) than the big four.
If the big cell phone companies don't put the money into infrastructure, they will be underpriced by the local companies.
Wait for LTE to come along.
Things will change... if enough spectrum is freed up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540762</id>
	<title>Re:Better Sample Size</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1259762220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to be just randomly chosen, most likely based up on where they had Gizmodo people traveling to during the holidays. If they wanted a more fair test, they ought to probably hit the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_States\_cities\_by\_population" title="wikipedia.org">top cities based on population</a> [wikipedia.org] and/or density - thus covering the largest sample of people. Seems right now that they're just using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling\_(statistics)#Convenience\_sampling" title="wikipedia.org">convenience sampling</a> [wikipedia.org] though, which has huge flaws behind it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to be just randomly chosen , most likely based up on where they had Gizmodo people traveling to during the holidays .
If they wanted a more fair test , they ought to probably hit the top cities based on population [ wikipedia.org ] and/or density - thus covering the largest sample of people .
Seems right now that they 're just using convenience sampling [ wikipedia.org ] though , which has huge flaws behind it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to be just randomly chosen, most likely based up on where they had Gizmodo people traveling to during the holidays.
If they wanted a more fair test, they ought to probably hit the top cities based on population [wikipedia.org] and/or density - thus covering the largest sample of people.
Seems right now that they're just using convenience sampling [wikipedia.org] though, which has huge flaws behind it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539740</id>
	<title>Re:Piss off, 3G</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259754420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I suggest a method I use to spread the word?</p><p>If I get a dropped call, I YELL "Fucking piece of shit! Fuck AT&amp;T!!!".</p><p>Being in manhattan around 50+ ppl in audible range multiplied by several drops a day....</p><p>I'd like to think I lose AT&amp;T at least one potential customer every 6 hours or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I suggest a method I use to spread the word ? If I get a dropped call , I YELL " Fucking piece of shit !
Fuck AT&amp;T ! ! !
" .Being in manhattan around 50 + ppl in audible range multiplied by several drops a day....I 'd like to think I lose AT&amp;T at least one potential customer every 6 hours or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I suggest a method I use to spread the word?If I get a dropped call, I YELL "Fucking piece of shit!
Fuck AT&amp;T!!!
".Being in manhattan around 50+ ppl in audible range multiplied by several drops a day....I'd like to think I lose AT&amp;T at least one potential customer every 6 hours or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539482</id>
	<title>Re:What about sustained transfers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an Apple fanboi site, as is Giz. They're going to limit tests results to what they want to see. The reality is 3G is bloody slow regardless of what carrier we have, and performances differences of something slightly less slow than something that is slow is utterly pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an Apple fanboi site , as is Giz .
They 're going to limit tests results to what they want to see .
The reality is 3G is bloody slow regardless of what carrier we have , and performances differences of something slightly less slow than something that is slow is utterly pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an Apple fanboi site, as is Giz.
They're going to limit tests results to what they want to see.
The reality is 3G is bloody slow regardless of what carrier we have, and performances differences of something slightly less slow than something that is slow is utterly pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539394</id>
	<title>app for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a related note, Gizmodo is writing an app for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a related note , Gizmodo is writing an app for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a related note, Gizmodo is writing an app for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539466</id>
	<title>JPEG artifacts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at this <a href="http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2009/12/atlanta3g2.jpg" title="gizmodo.com" rel="nofollow">ugly crap</a> [gizmodo.com]. The tables are JPEG images. Isn't gizmodo a technology website? Shouldn't they know what they're doing? For computer generated art (i.e., anything that's not a photograph) JPEG's are ugly and full of artifacts. PNG's use lossless compression, have no artifacts, and are usually smaller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at this ugly crap [ gizmodo.com ] .
The tables are JPEG images .
Is n't gizmodo a technology website ?
Should n't they know what they 're doing ?
For computer generated art ( i.e. , anything that 's not a photograph ) JPEG 's are ugly and full of artifacts .
PNG 's use lossless compression , have no artifacts , and are usually smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at this ugly crap [gizmodo.com].
The tables are JPEG images.
Isn't gizmodo a technology website?
Shouldn't they know what they're doing?
For computer generated art (i.e., anything that's not a photograph) JPEG's are ugly and full of artifacts.
PNG's use lossless compression, have no artifacts, and are usually smaller.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540590</id>
	<title>Re:What about sustained transfers?</title>
	<author>Mike Buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1259760720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's great, but you have to live in Sweden or Finland, blech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's great , but you have to live in Sweden or Finland , blech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's great, but you have to live in Sweden or Finland, blech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542098</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>Nkwe</author>
	<datestamp>1259780580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How we Americans deal with it (some of us anyway) is we hack the phone to tether anyway for free, and smile every time we use it.</p></div><p>Or we purchase a plan that (legitimately) allows tethering. Yes, it is more expensive, but it is available. If you actually abide by your contract with your carrier, the carrier doesn't try and disable features that you have paid to use. <br> <br>I am on AT&amp;T with a tethering plan and I overall get good performance. I use it when I am at client sites that don&rsquo;t have unrestricted Internet access for consultants or at hotels that have a crappy Internet connection (which is common). In the cities I travel to (Portland, Seattle, Cleveland, Dallas, Boston, Wash DC, Jacksonville) I typically get several hundred KB to a MB worth of download speed and a couple hundred KB upload speed. When I am in fringe areas the speed drops down and sometimes I have to fall back to the slow "edge" speed, but I can almost always get a connection. I found that the tethering software provided by AT&amp;T sucks, but WMWifiRouter works great on my HTC Tilt phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How we Americans deal with it ( some of us anyway ) is we hack the phone to tether anyway for free , and smile every time we use it.Or we purchase a plan that ( legitimately ) allows tethering .
Yes , it is more expensive , but it is available .
If you actually abide by your contract with your carrier , the carrier does n't try and disable features that you have paid to use .
I am on AT&amp;T with a tethering plan and I overall get good performance .
I use it when I am at client sites that don    t have unrestricted Internet access for consultants or at hotels that have a crappy Internet connection ( which is common ) .
In the cities I travel to ( Portland , Seattle , Cleveland , Dallas , Boston , Wash DC , Jacksonville ) I typically get several hundred KB to a MB worth of download speed and a couple hundred KB upload speed .
When I am in fringe areas the speed drops down and sometimes I have to fall back to the slow " edge " speed , but I can almost always get a connection .
I found that the tethering software provided by AT&amp;T sucks , but WMWifiRouter works great on my HTC Tilt phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How we Americans deal with it (some of us anyway) is we hack the phone to tether anyway for free, and smile every time we use it.Or we purchase a plan that (legitimately) allows tethering.
Yes, it is more expensive, but it is available.
If you actually abide by your contract with your carrier, the carrier doesn't try and disable features that you have paid to use.
I am on AT&amp;T with a tethering plan and I overall get good performance.
I use it when I am at client sites that don’t have unrestricted Internet access for consultants or at hotels that have a crappy Internet connection (which is common).
In the cities I travel to (Portland, Seattle, Cleveland, Dallas, Boston, Wash DC, Jacksonville) I typically get several hundred KB to a MB worth of download speed and a couple hundred KB upload speed.
When I am in fringe areas the speed drops down and sometimes I have to fall back to the slow "edge" speed, but I can almost always get a connection.
I found that the tethering software provided by AT&amp;T sucks, but WMWifiRouter works great on my HTC Tilt phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539530</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the latency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>San Francisco seems to be a trouble spot for AT&amp;T with 700+ ms latencies; AT&amp;T's latency is also significantly worse than other carriers' latencies in LA, Las Vegas, and NYC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>San Francisco seems to be a trouble spot for AT&amp;T with 700 + ms latencies ; AT&amp;T 's latency is also significantly worse than other carriers ' latencies in LA , Las Vegas , and NYC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>San Francisco seems to be a trouble spot for AT&amp;T with 700+ ms latencies; AT&amp;T's latency is also significantly worse than other carriers' latencies in LA, Las Vegas, and NYC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541608</id>
	<title>Re:Better Sample Size</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1259772540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I've been an AT&amp;T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I don't like their service or support.</i></p><p> 
Why are you still with them ?.. If it's because they are the only game in your town, then you do like their service.. If it's because they are the only one who has the phone you want, then you do like their support.. Your with them for a reason.. it's just more fun to bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been an AT&amp;T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I do n't like their service or support .
Why are you still with them ? . .
If it 's because they are the only game in your town , then you do like their service.. If it 's because they are the only one who has the phone you want , then you do like their support.. Your with them for a reason.. it 's just more fun to bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I've been an AT&amp;T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I don't like their service or support.
Why are you still with them ?..
If it's because they are the only game in your town, then you do like their service.. If it's because they are the only one who has the phone you want, then you do like their support.. Your with them for a reason.. it's just more fun to bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543548</id>
	<title>That's my take - 3G is awful</title>
	<author>betona</author>
	<datestamp>1261667340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a Sprint air card for my laptop and with the strongest of strong signals no matter where I go around the country, it's slower than dialup, worse than ancient Wifi-B. I run speedtest.net and get abysmal results.

And then I watched a friend wait over 5 minutes to load a single web page on an iPhone.  gag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Sprint air card for my laptop and with the strongest of strong signals no matter where I go around the country , it 's slower than dialup , worse than ancient Wifi-B .
I run speedtest.net and get abysmal results .
And then I watched a friend wait over 5 minutes to load a single web page on an iPhone .
gag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Sprint air card for my laptop and with the strongest of strong signals no matter where I go around the country, it's slower than dialup, worse than ancient Wifi-B.
I run speedtest.net and get abysmal results.
And then I watched a friend wait over 5 minutes to load a single web page on an iPhone.
gag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539542</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the latency</title>
	<author>Otterley</author>
	<datestamp>1259753160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, and this is why I have nothing but contempt for typical "best provider performance" conclusions that are driven solely by single-connection TCP transfer tests (e.g. speedtest.net).</p><p>In most cases, latency matters more than bandwidth (where bandwidth is roughly the same within an order of magnitude or so).  This is why there's a very strong correlation between the provider that had the lowest measured latency and the provider that had the lowest page retrieval time.  In the end, real-world page loading is precisely what we use smartphones for, and so we need to know how that application performs, instead of what raw transfer rates are.</p><p>I still think the Gizmodo tests are deficient, though, as they are unclear as to whether they repeated the tests at regular intervals over a 24-hour period.  Network congestion varies throughout the day, and at any given moment one path may be more congested than another.  A valid test, IMO, would take the average (or median) of each metric over a 24-hour period (or even longer, covering both a weekday and a weekend, since usage varies among them).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , and this is why I have nothing but contempt for typical " best provider performance " conclusions that are driven solely by single-connection TCP transfer tests ( e.g .
speedtest.net ) .In most cases , latency matters more than bandwidth ( where bandwidth is roughly the same within an order of magnitude or so ) .
This is why there 's a very strong correlation between the provider that had the lowest measured latency and the provider that had the lowest page retrieval time .
In the end , real-world page loading is precisely what we use smartphones for , and so we need to know how that application performs , instead of what raw transfer rates are.I still think the Gizmodo tests are deficient , though , as they are unclear as to whether they repeated the tests at regular intervals over a 24-hour period .
Network congestion varies throughout the day , and at any given moment one path may be more congested than another .
A valid test , IMO , would take the average ( or median ) of each metric over a 24-hour period ( or even longer , covering both a weekday and a weekend , since usage varies among them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, and this is why I have nothing but contempt for typical "best provider performance" conclusions that are driven solely by single-connection TCP transfer tests (e.g.
speedtest.net).In most cases, latency matters more than bandwidth (where bandwidth is roughly the same within an order of magnitude or so).
This is why there's a very strong correlation between the provider that had the lowest measured latency and the provider that had the lowest page retrieval time.
In the end, real-world page loading is precisely what we use smartphones for, and so we need to know how that application performs, instead of what raw transfer rates are.I still think the Gizmodo tests are deficient, though, as they are unclear as to whether they repeated the tests at regular intervals over a 24-hour period.
Network congestion varies throughout the day, and at any given moment one path may be more congested than another.
A valid test, IMO, would take the average (or median) of each metric over a 24-hour period (or even longer, covering both a weekday and a weekend, since usage varies among them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542474</id>
	<title>Re:Because any state of affairs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261688040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SO the answer is..... We're fucking stupid?   And we should wake up and bitchslap all these greedy fuck corporations.  But we can't because the people who have the power to do that.  Are all getting paidoff with perks, kickbacks, bribes...</p><p>Hmm...  Yep.  I'll believe that.   100\%</p><p>At least it gives us free leave to rip off and steal from corporations any chance we get.     Fair is fair.</p><p>Cap:unfair   (funny how those are so accurate sometimes)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SO the answer is..... We 're fucking stupid ?
And we should wake up and bitchslap all these greedy fuck corporations .
But we ca n't because the people who have the power to do that .
Are all getting paidoff with perks , kickbacks , bribes...Hmm... Yep. I 'll believe that .
100 \ % At least it gives us free leave to rip off and steal from corporations any chance we get .
Fair is fair.Cap : unfair ( funny how those are so accurate sometimes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SO the answer is..... We're fucking stupid?
And we should wake up and bitchslap all these greedy fuck corporations.
But we can't because the people who have the power to do that.
Are all getting paidoff with perks, kickbacks, bribes...Hmm...  Yep.  I'll believe that.
100\%At least it gives us free leave to rip off and steal from corporations any chance we get.
Fair is fair.Cap:unfair   (funny how those are so accurate sometimes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540862</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1259763060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>AT&amp;T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon's</p></div></blockquote><p>So how is this a 'win' exactly?</p></div><p>I think they forgot the asterisk after "wins" in the title:<br>
* true only for sufficiently extreme values of fanboyism<br> <br>
I mean, c'mon, it <i>is</i> Gizmodo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T 's was n't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon'sSo how is this a 'win ' exactly ? I think they forgot the asterisk after " wins " in the title : * true only for sufficiently extreme values of fanboyism I mean , c'mon , it is Gizmodo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon'sSo how is this a 'win' exactly?I think they forgot the asterisk after "wins" in the title:
* true only for sufficiently extreme values of fanboyism 
I mean, c'mon, it is Gizmodo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541420</id>
	<title>As much as AT&amp;T is bashed, they're not too bad</title>
	<author>jht</author>
	<datestamp>1259770320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least here in metro Boston (and Eastern new England in general) I've had pretty good luck with AT&amp;T since the latter part of 2008 - about six months after the iPhone 3G came out my service improved a lot.  Most of my old dead spots are gone now, and there are places where my iPhone 3GS works well (like the client in Gloucester I was at today) and my colleague's Verizon Blackberry dies.  Data speeds are very good anywhere I get 2 or more bars of service, and though there are still dead spots (eastbound on 128 through Manchester, for instance, anytime after dark) or Devereux Beach in Marblehead) they are far fewer than they ever were before.</p><p>On the other hand, my sister and her husband both went to iPhones this year in southern CT and they were much happier with Verizon's service.  I don't visit them too often but I haven't noticed any issues when I've been there - I think it really depends on how much you use it and rely on it in a place.</p><p>Overall, using an iPhone's been a much better experience than my old Verizon Treo 700p provided - not only is it far more useful as a device, but I don't have to reboot it several times daily.  The AT&amp;T experience outside the coasts and major metro areas may be different, but mine's not bad.  And the few times I've needed to call customer service they've been helpful.</p><p>Odd, but I'm not complaining!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least here in metro Boston ( and Eastern new England in general ) I 've had pretty good luck with AT&amp;T since the latter part of 2008 - about six months after the iPhone 3G came out my service improved a lot .
Most of my old dead spots are gone now , and there are places where my iPhone 3GS works well ( like the client in Gloucester I was at today ) and my colleague 's Verizon Blackberry dies .
Data speeds are very good anywhere I get 2 or more bars of service , and though there are still dead spots ( eastbound on 128 through Manchester , for instance , anytime after dark ) or Devereux Beach in Marblehead ) they are far fewer than they ever were before.On the other hand , my sister and her husband both went to iPhones this year in southern CT and they were much happier with Verizon 's service .
I do n't visit them too often but I have n't noticed any issues when I 've been there - I think it really depends on how much you use it and rely on it in a place.Overall , using an iPhone 's been a much better experience than my old Verizon Treo 700p provided - not only is it far more useful as a device , but I do n't have to reboot it several times daily .
The AT&amp;T experience outside the coasts and major metro areas may be different , but mine 's not bad .
And the few times I 've needed to call customer service they 've been helpful.Odd , but I 'm not complaining !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least here in metro Boston (and Eastern new England in general) I've had pretty good luck with AT&amp;T since the latter part of 2008 - about six months after the iPhone 3G came out my service improved a lot.
Most of my old dead spots are gone now, and there are places where my iPhone 3GS works well (like the client in Gloucester I was at today) and my colleague's Verizon Blackberry dies.
Data speeds are very good anywhere I get 2 or more bars of service, and though there are still dead spots (eastbound on 128 through Manchester, for instance, anytime after dark) or Devereux Beach in Marblehead) they are far fewer than they ever were before.On the other hand, my sister and her husband both went to iPhones this year in southern CT and they were much happier with Verizon's service.
I don't visit them too often but I haven't noticed any issues when I've been there - I think it really depends on how much you use it and rely on it in a place.Overall, using an iPhone's been a much better experience than my old Verizon Treo 700p provided - not only is it far more useful as a device, but I don't have to reboot it several times daily.
The AT&amp;T experience outside the coasts and major metro areas may be different, but mine's not bad.
And the few times I've needed to call customer service they've been helpful.Odd, but I'm not complaining!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541926</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1259777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The thing that Europeans always forget is that the U.S. is more like the E.U. than it is like Finland. Actually, many Americans make the same mistake. When Europe becomes a single cellular market the way that the U.S. is, we will be able to compare the business practices of the providers.</p></div></blockquote><p>

One, the EU will not become a single market for mobile communications for decades due to the fact that each nation has it's own telco's and telecommunications laws. The only ones that could reach across Europe are Hutchinson and Vodafone. Secondly this is likely not to happen because of three reasons.<br> <br>

1. The EU will not balkanise the market like the US did, by giving telco's local monopolies.<br> <br>

2. The EU will be willing to regulate the market to prevent uncompetitive or anti-consumer behaviour. Amongst this will be standardisation, this will prevent carriers from locking in customers by creating separate networks like the WCDMA/GSM split in the US.<br> <br>

3. The EU is pro-consumer, EU telco's will not get away with the same shenanigans as US telco's do.<br> <br>

Size has nothing to do with the way US telco's act. They act this way because they are permitted to, first by being given local monopolies and secondly by not being punished by an ombudsman or regulatory agency for abuses. The problems with the US telco's are political not geographical, they need to be fixed by political means (I.E. changing laws to become more pro-consumer).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that Europeans always forget is that the U.S. is more like the E.U .
than it is like Finland .
Actually , many Americans make the same mistake .
When Europe becomes a single cellular market the way that the U.S. is , we will be able to compare the business practices of the providers .
One , the EU will not become a single market for mobile communications for decades due to the fact that each nation has it 's own telco 's and telecommunications laws .
The only ones that could reach across Europe are Hutchinson and Vodafone .
Secondly this is likely not to happen because of three reasons .
1. The EU will not balkanise the market like the US did , by giving telco 's local monopolies .
2. The EU will be willing to regulate the market to prevent uncompetitive or anti-consumer behaviour .
Amongst this will be standardisation , this will prevent carriers from locking in customers by creating separate networks like the WCDMA/GSM split in the US .
3. The EU is pro-consumer , EU telco 's will not get away with the same shenanigans as US telco 's do .
Size has nothing to do with the way US telco 's act .
They act this way because they are permitted to , first by being given local monopolies and secondly by not being punished by an ombudsman or regulatory agency for abuses .
The problems with the US telco 's are political not geographical , they need to be fixed by political means ( I.E .
changing laws to become more pro-consumer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that Europeans always forget is that the U.S. is more like the E.U.
than it is like Finland.
Actually, many Americans make the same mistake.
When Europe becomes a single cellular market the way that the U.S. is, we will be able to compare the business practices of the providers.
One, the EU will not become a single market for mobile communications for decades due to the fact that each nation has it's own telco's and telecommunications laws.
The only ones that could reach across Europe are Hutchinson and Vodafone.
Secondly this is likely not to happen because of three reasons.
1. The EU will not balkanise the market like the US did, by giving telco's local monopolies.
2. The EU will be willing to regulate the market to prevent uncompetitive or anti-consumer behaviour.
Amongst this will be standardisation, this will prevent carriers from locking in customers by creating separate networks like the WCDMA/GSM split in the US.
3. The EU is pro-consumer, EU telco's will not get away with the same shenanigans as US telco's do.
Size has nothing to do with the way US telco's act.
They act this way because they are permitted to, first by being given local monopolies and secondly by not being punished by an ombudsman or regulatory agency for abuses.
The problems with the US telco's are political not geographical, they need to be fixed by political means (I.E.
changing laws to become more pro-consumer).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532</id>
	<title>Piss off, 3G</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1259753100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3G is a joke, but it's not a funny one. The FCC promised that we'd start to see high speed wireless internet now that the spectrum's been auctioned off. But like everything else, they seem to have lied -- shoving costs down the consumer's throat in the middle of a recession, raking in the money with a smile from the auctions... Everything about the so-called digital transition was a scam. Price fixing of LCD TV prices, running out of converter boxes -- and charging twice as much as they were worth in the store to soak up the free money those vouchers gave them... hmph.</p><p>Where's the alternatives here? They all have bandwidth caps. None of them are investing in the backhaul infrastructure. The network coverage is a joke, the handsets have disabled tethering, locked in the search engines... I mean, hell -- a pringles can and a wifi card does better than every other solution we have here in the United States for mobile internet. What the hell happened?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3G is a joke , but it 's not a funny one .
The FCC promised that we 'd start to see high speed wireless internet now that the spectrum 's been auctioned off .
But like everything else , they seem to have lied -- shoving costs down the consumer 's throat in the middle of a recession , raking in the money with a smile from the auctions... Everything about the so-called digital transition was a scam .
Price fixing of LCD TV prices , running out of converter boxes -- and charging twice as much as they were worth in the store to soak up the free money those vouchers gave them... hmph.Where 's the alternatives here ?
They all have bandwidth caps .
None of them are investing in the backhaul infrastructure .
The network coverage is a joke , the handsets have disabled tethering , locked in the search engines... I mean , hell -- a pringles can and a wifi card does better than every other solution we have here in the United States for mobile internet .
What the hell happened ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3G is a joke, but it's not a funny one.
The FCC promised that we'd start to see high speed wireless internet now that the spectrum's been auctioned off.
But like everything else, they seem to have lied -- shoving costs down the consumer's throat in the middle of a recession, raking in the money with a smile from the auctions... Everything about the so-called digital transition was a scam.
Price fixing of LCD TV prices, running out of converter boxes -- and charging twice as much as they were worth in the store to soak up the free money those vouchers gave them... hmph.Where's the alternatives here?
They all have bandwidth caps.
None of them are investing in the backhaul infrastructure.
The network coverage is a joke, the handsets have disabled tethering, locked in the search engines... I mean, hell -- a pringles can and a wifi card does better than every other solution we have here in the United States for mobile internet.
What the hell happened?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30544344</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261673400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Americans are stupid. I thought this was a globally known fact. Have you seen who we elect for presidents?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans are stupid .
I thought this was a globally known fact .
Have you seen who we elect for presidents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans are stupid.
I thought this was a globally known fact.
Have you seen who we elect for presidents?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542290</id>
	<title>And yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259783520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T handles about 40X the data traffic of Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T handles about 40X the data traffic of Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T handles about 40X the data traffic of Verizon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541162</id>
	<title>Statistics not valid on small numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259766360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't make any real conclusions with so small a sample size especially considering the too-many-variables-anyway context.  For a sample size of 12 in this case, 4 is the same as 6 because the noise buries the signal.</p><p>You can't DO statistics on small numbers like this, not with so many variables taking part in the show.</p><p>Interesting test, but the result is a tie within reasonable limits of error.  This ain't a horserace where you can "win by a nose".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't make any real conclusions with so small a sample size especially considering the too-many-variables-anyway context .
For a sample size of 12 in this case , 4 is the same as 6 because the noise buries the signal.You ca n't DO statistics on small numbers like this , not with so many variables taking part in the show.Interesting test , but the result is a tie within reasonable limits of error .
This ai n't a horserace where you can " win by a nose " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't make any real conclusions with so small a sample size especially considering the too-many-variables-anyway context.
For a sample size of 12 in this case, 4 is the same as 6 because the noise buries the signal.You can't DO statistics on small numbers like this, not with so many variables taking part in the show.Interesting test, but the result is a tie within reasonable limits of error.
This ain't a horserace where you can "win by a nose".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539612</id>
	<title>That isn't the problem with AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>dynamo</author>
	<datestamp>1259753520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should go do a test of the dropped call quantity and voice quality when in these same areas. That is where AT&amp;T is so difficult to have to use as a primary phone line. The data service is actually much more reliable, and ironically makes Skype average much higher in quality / reliability from the same phone in the same place.</p><p>At least, in my experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should go do a test of the dropped call quantity and voice quality when in these same areas .
That is where AT&amp;T is so difficult to have to use as a primary phone line .
The data service is actually much more reliable , and ironically makes Skype average much higher in quality / reliability from the same phone in the same place.At least , in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should go do a test of the dropped call quantity and voice quality when in these same areas.
That is where AT&amp;T is so difficult to have to use as a primary phone line.
The data service is actually much more reliable, and ironically makes Skype average much higher in quality / reliability from the same phone in the same place.At least, in my experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539784</id>
	<title>Because any state of affairs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259754900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in which we do not agree to be raped every hour on the hour by corporations is in fact socialism, and socialism we leave for the "evildoers."</p><p>Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in which we do not agree to be raped every hour on the hour by corporations is in fact socialism , and socialism we leave for the " evildoers .
" Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in which we do not agree to be raped every hour on the hour by corporations is in fact socialism, and socialism we leave for the "evildoers.
"Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543238</id>
	<title>Re:What about sustained transfers?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1261663200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you hit the nail on the head on the contracts.  There are a few other issues as well:</p><p>1.  No phone subsidies.  That makes the cost of the service the cost of providing the service, only.  It greatly simplifies the relationship with the consumer and gets rid of those long-term tie-ins.</p><p>2.  Everybody is GSM.  That means that you can walk over to a store, plug in a new SIM, port your phone number, and now you're in business with the new customer.</p><p>These kinds of arrangements mean that you could switch providers every month without an inordinate amount of hassle (I'm sure there is some kind of switching cost, but it is probably nominal).</p><p>In the US, you're stuck for 2 years, and if you switch providers you're going to need new phones, and have an entirely different coverage map.</p><p>The US is also geographically large, so coverage actually still is a problem in many areas.</p><p>If a law were passed requiring that phone subsidies be sold separately from service (and that the service component cannot have early-cancellation penalties) then you'd probably see a quick change (although the fractured technologies would still tend to keep people where they are).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you hit the nail on the head on the contracts .
There are a few other issues as well : 1 .
No phone subsidies .
That makes the cost of the service the cost of providing the service , only .
It greatly simplifies the relationship with the consumer and gets rid of those long-term tie-ins.2 .
Everybody is GSM .
That means that you can walk over to a store , plug in a new SIM , port your phone number , and now you 're in business with the new customer.These kinds of arrangements mean that you could switch providers every month without an inordinate amount of hassle ( I 'm sure there is some kind of switching cost , but it is probably nominal ) .In the US , you 're stuck for 2 years , and if you switch providers you 're going to need new phones , and have an entirely different coverage map.The US is also geographically large , so coverage actually still is a problem in many areas.If a law were passed requiring that phone subsidies be sold separately from service ( and that the service component can not have early-cancellation penalties ) then you 'd probably see a quick change ( although the fractured technologies would still tend to keep people where they are ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you hit the nail on the head on the contracts.
There are a few other issues as well:1.
No phone subsidies.
That makes the cost of the service the cost of providing the service, only.
It greatly simplifies the relationship with the consumer and gets rid of those long-term tie-ins.2.
Everybody is GSM.
That means that you can walk over to a store, plug in a new SIM, port your phone number, and now you're in business with the new customer.These kinds of arrangements mean that you could switch providers every month without an inordinate amount of hassle (I'm sure there is some kind of switching cost, but it is probably nominal).In the US, you're stuck for 2 years, and if you switch providers you're going to need new phones, and have an entirely different coverage map.The US is also geographically large, so coverage actually still is a problem in many areas.If a law were passed requiring that phone subsidies be sold separately from service (and that the service component cannot have early-cancellation penalties) then you'd probably see a quick change (although the fractured technologies would still tend to keep people where they are).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540772</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259762280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have an answer to this. but PERHAPS it's the same reason they put up with lobbying which in most contries would be known as bribery.</p><p>My guess is, answer one question and you can answer the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have an answer to this .
but PERHAPS it 's the same reason they put up with lobbying which in most contries would be known as bribery.My guess is , answer one question and you can answer the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have an answer to this.
but PERHAPS it's the same reason they put up with lobbying which in most contries would be known as bribery.My guess is, answer one question and you can answer the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539574</id>
	<title>Wha?</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1259753340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>AT&amp;T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon's</p></div></blockquote><p>So how is this a 'win' exactly? Sounds more like a tie to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T 's was n't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon'sSo how is this a 'win ' exactly ?
Sounds more like a tie to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon'sSo how is this a 'win' exactly?
Sounds more like a tie to me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30549038</id>
	<title>Re:Piss off, 3G</title>
	<author>Wireless Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1261674960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T is reserving the 700mhz spectrum it won in the auction and purchased from Aloha Wireless Partners exclusively for their <a href="http://gizmodo.com/375898/att-to-use-700mhz-spectrum-for-high+speed-4g-lte-network" title="gizmodo.com">4G LTE network</a> [gizmodo.com].  You won't see it up and running until about 2011, which is not a bad turnaround time to basically build an entire network overlay with new spectrum, radios, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T is reserving the 700mhz spectrum it won in the auction and purchased from Aloha Wireless Partners exclusively for their 4G LTE network [ gizmodo.com ] .
You wo n't see it up and running until about 2011 , which is not a bad turnaround time to basically build an entire network overlay with new spectrum , radios , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T is reserving the 700mhz spectrum it won in the auction and purchased from Aloha Wireless Partners exclusively for their 4G LTE network [gizmodo.com].
You won't see it up and running until about 2011, which is not a bad turnaround time to basically build an entire network overlay with new spectrum, radios, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658</id>
	<title>Honest question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts? Here where I live (Finland), such action would be considered blatant fraud, because the operator would be advertising a specific phone model, while in reality, the phone model being advertised in reality has more or better features than the one sold to you under it's name by the operator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you , Americans , put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features ( like tethering or bluetooth ) on phones being sold via contracts ?
Here where I live ( Finland ) , such action would be considered blatant fraud , because the operator would be advertising a specific phone model , while in reality , the phone model being advertised in reality has more or better features than the one sold to you under it 's name by the operator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts?
Here where I live (Finland), such action would be considered blatant fraud, because the operator would be advertising a specific phone model, while in reality, the phone model being advertised in reality has more or better features than the one sold to you under it's name by the operator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542726</id>
	<title>Re:Because any state of affairs</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1261651380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care."
<br>
<br>
As if anyone is preventing you from donating to charities who feed the poor and provide medical care. Unless you want to donate other people's money, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care .
" As if anyone is preventing you from donating to charities who feed the poor and provide medical care .
Unless you want to donate other people 's money , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care.
"


As if anyone is preventing you from donating to charities who feed the poor and provide medical care.
Unless you want to donate other people's money, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542066</id>
	<title>Well, I feel a little better now....</title>
	<author>jemenake</author>
	<datestamp>1259780040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, this test comes closer to <i>my</i> personal experiences with AT&amp;T. Frankly, I've been pretty baffled by all of the iPhone users who bag on AT&amp;T like it was the scourge of god. I live in a semi-rural area between San Francisco and Los Angeles and I've gotta say that I get voice and data (not always 3G, but so what?) service on all but the back roads that snake through canyons. My previous provider, T-Mobile, actually <i>did</i> have coverage out there but hey... it's a back-road... I considered coverage there to be a "bonus".
<br> <br>
Now, don't get me wrong... I'm ready to bolt from AT&amp;T as much as the next guy when Apple gets some contracts with other providers, but my reasons are because of pricing (I got more minutes, same unlimited data, for $20 less per month under T-Mobile) and because AT&amp;T isn't offering tethering and they dragged their heels on MMS messaging. But to get that worked up because you don't get 3G <i>everywhere</i>...  just seems like your expectations are a little high. Anyway, like I said, at least report is a little more congruent with my personal experiences with AT&amp;T, so I don't feel all that crazy anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this test comes closer to my personal experiences with AT&amp;T .
Frankly , I 've been pretty baffled by all of the iPhone users who bag on AT&amp;T like it was the scourge of god .
I live in a semi-rural area between San Francisco and Los Angeles and I 've got ta say that I get voice and data ( not always 3G , but so what ?
) service on all but the back roads that snake through canyons .
My previous provider , T-Mobile , actually did have coverage out there but hey... it 's a back-road... I considered coverage there to be a " bonus " .
Now , do n't get me wrong... I 'm ready to bolt from AT&amp;T as much as the next guy when Apple gets some contracts with other providers , but my reasons are because of pricing ( I got more minutes , same unlimited data , for $ 20 less per month under T-Mobile ) and because AT&amp;T is n't offering tethering and they dragged their heels on MMS messaging .
But to get that worked up because you do n't get 3G everywhere... just seems like your expectations are a little high .
Anyway , like I said , at least report is a little more congruent with my personal experiences with AT&amp;T , so I do n't feel all that crazy anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this test comes closer to my personal experiences with AT&amp;T.
Frankly, I've been pretty baffled by all of the iPhone users who bag on AT&amp;T like it was the scourge of god.
I live in a semi-rural area between San Francisco and Los Angeles and I've gotta say that I get voice and data (not always 3G, but so what?
) service on all but the back roads that snake through canyons.
My previous provider, T-Mobile, actually did have coverage out there but hey... it's a back-road... I considered coverage there to be a "bonus".
Now, don't get me wrong... I'm ready to bolt from AT&amp;T as much as the next guy when Apple gets some contracts with other providers, but my reasons are because of pricing (I got more minutes, same unlimited data, for $20 less per month under T-Mobile) and because AT&amp;T isn't offering tethering and they dragged their heels on MMS messaging.
But to get that worked up because you don't get 3G everywhere...  just seems like your expectations are a little high.
Anyway, like I said, at least report is a little more congruent with my personal experiences with AT&amp;T, so I don't feel all that crazy anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540294</id>
	<title>Re:Because any state of affairs</title>
	<author>furball</author>
	<datestamp>1259758500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care.</p></div><p>How else are we going to fight poverty?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care.How else are we going to fight poverty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care.How else are we going to fight poverty?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543148</id>
	<title>Re:Piss off, 3G</title>
	<author>Pichu0102</author>
	<datestamp>1261661100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What the hell happened?</p></div><p>Human nature to screw over each other as much as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell happened ? Human nature to screw over each other as much as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell happened?Human nature to screw over each other as much as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539624</id>
	<title>Re:JPEG artifacts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 1. "Tables are images", is a usual trick to prevent trivial copy-pasting and promote linking to the original site.

</p><p> 2. "PNG v. JPEG." Were you born yesterday or what? JPEGs look crap precisely because they are over-compressed to minimize potentially high traffic. PNGs are larger, sometimes magnitudes larger in comparison to JPEGs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
" Tables are images " , is a usual trick to prevent trivial copy-pasting and promote linking to the original site .
2. " PNG v .
JPEG. " Were you born yesterday or what ?
JPEGs look crap precisely because they are over-compressed to minimize potentially high traffic .
PNGs are larger , sometimes magnitudes larger in comparison to JPEGs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 1.
"Tables are images", is a usual trick to prevent trivial copy-pasting and promote linking to the original site.
2. "PNG v.
JPEG." Were you born yesterday or what?
JPEGs look crap precisely because they are over-compressed to minimize potentially high traffic.
PNGs are larger, sometimes magnitudes larger in comparison to JPEGs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539596</id>
	<title>Not a valid test anyhoo - for the whiners</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1259753460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This wasnt a controlled sientific test anyhoo, and for that matter how could you do one? Variables like solar angle, temperature, day of the year and minute of the day(solar cycle stuff), air traffic, ground traffic(was there a truck and trailer 2 blocks away between you and the cell site causing phase distortion?) was there a kid walking down the street playing a DS that he dropped and is now emitting a harmonic that is close to the fundamental frequency? How tall was the guy holding the phone? How much did he weigh? Was his body in contact with the phone or was he wearing gloves or a holster? Which hip was it on, which way was he facing? LOL were the windows on the building across the street dirty and was the air moist enough to put moisture on the dirt causing reflectivity? Was he barefoot and walking in a park where a dog peed 2 hours ago thereby making the ground he was standing on more conductive(a better ground)?
LOL these are all things that affect that tiny RF signal in some small way. I'll just leave it at-- I use Tmo and in Los Angeles, it works great. Thats all I care about. Oh and I don't have to keep swatting that dam map outa my way.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This wasnt a controlled sientific test anyhoo , and for that matter how could you do one ?
Variables like solar angle , temperature , day of the year and minute of the day ( solar cycle stuff ) , air traffic , ground traffic ( was there a truck and trailer 2 blocks away between you and the cell site causing phase distortion ?
) was there a kid walking down the street playing a DS that he dropped and is now emitting a harmonic that is close to the fundamental frequency ?
How tall was the guy holding the phone ?
How much did he weigh ?
Was his body in contact with the phone or was he wearing gloves or a holster ?
Which hip was it on , which way was he facing ?
LOL were the windows on the building across the street dirty and was the air moist enough to put moisture on the dirt causing reflectivity ?
Was he barefoot and walking in a park where a dog peed 2 hours ago thereby making the ground he was standing on more conductive ( a better ground ) ?
LOL these are all things that affect that tiny RF signal in some small way .
I 'll just leave it at-- I use Tmo and in Los Angeles , it works great .
Thats all I care about .
Oh and I do n't have to keep swatting that dam map outa my way .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This wasnt a controlled sientific test anyhoo, and for that matter how could you do one?
Variables like solar angle, temperature, day of the year and minute of the day(solar cycle stuff), air traffic, ground traffic(was there a truck and trailer 2 blocks away between you and the cell site causing phase distortion?
) was there a kid walking down the street playing a DS that he dropped and is now emitting a harmonic that is close to the fundamental frequency?
How tall was the guy holding the phone?
How much did he weigh?
Was his body in contact with the phone or was he wearing gloves or a holster?
Which hip was it on, which way was he facing?
LOL were the windows on the building across the street dirty and was the air moist enough to put moisture on the dirt causing reflectivity?
Was he barefoot and walking in a park where a dog peed 2 hours ago thereby making the ground he was standing on more conductive(a better ground)?
LOL these are all things that affect that tiny RF signal in some small way.
I'll just leave it at-- I use Tmo and in Los Angeles, it works great.
Thats all I care about.
Oh and I don't have to keep swatting that dam map outa my way.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30549730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30549038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_2140213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30544344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30549730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30542474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30544344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30549038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30541608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30540762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30543442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_2140213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_2140213.30539486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
