<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_31_1337235</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T Readying For the End of Analog Landlines</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262274600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>nottheusualsuspect writes <i>"AT&amp;T, in response to a Notice of Inquiry released by the FCC to explore how to transition to a purely IP-based communications network, has declared that <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/185649/atandt\_tells\_fcc\_its\_time\_to\_cut\_the\_cord.html">it's time to cut the cord</a>. AT&amp;T told the FCC that the death of landlines is a matter of when, not if, and asked that a firm deadline be set for pulling the plug. In the article, broadband internet and cellular access are considered to be available to everyone, though many Americans are still without decent internet access."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>nottheusualsuspect writes " AT&amp;T , in response to a Notice of Inquiry released by the FCC to explore how to transition to a purely IP-based communications network , has declared that it 's time to cut the cord .
AT&amp;T told the FCC that the death of landlines is a matter of when , not if , and asked that a firm deadline be set for pulling the plug .
In the article , broadband internet and cellular access are considered to be available to everyone , though many Americans are still without decent internet access .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nottheusualsuspect writes "AT&amp;T, in response to a Notice of Inquiry released by the FCC to explore how to transition to a purely IP-based communications network, has declared that it's time to cut the cord.
AT&amp;T told the FCC that the death of landlines is a matter of when, not if, and asked that a firm deadline be set for pulling the plug.
In the article, broadband internet and cellular access are considered to be available to everyone, though many Americans are still without decent internet access.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30612334</id>
	<title>I have both</title>
	<author>cyberscan</author>
	<datestamp>1262279940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have both POTs and VOIP.  I use POTs because my telco is the only Internet game in town and in order to have 911 service. I use VOIP for cheap calls with no taxes for my business line.  If it weren't for the fact that I have to have POTS in order to have Internet, I would have gone completely VOIP a long time ago.  VOIP can be as reliable as your Internet service if you provide battery backup for your FXO (The thing you plug you analog phone into) and your DSL or CABLE modem (and router if you have it).  You also have to provide battery backup for your computer if it serves as your phone system switch.  With VOIP, you can also connect to many different phone networks (other that POTS).  In addition, you can set up a very secure network where you can communicate with other offices in an organization without much fear of snooping or wiretapping.  VOIP is definitely the way to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have both POTs and VOIP .
I use POTs because my telco is the only Internet game in town and in order to have 911 service .
I use VOIP for cheap calls with no taxes for my business line .
If it were n't for the fact that I have to have POTS in order to have Internet , I would have gone completely VOIP a long time ago .
VOIP can be as reliable as your Internet service if you provide battery backup for your FXO ( The thing you plug you analog phone into ) and your DSL or CABLE modem ( and router if you have it ) .
You also have to provide battery backup for your computer if it serves as your phone system switch .
With VOIP , you can also connect to many different phone networks ( other that POTS ) .
In addition , you can set up a very secure network where you can communicate with other offices in an organization without much fear of snooping or wiretapping .
VOIP is definitely the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have both POTs and VOIP.
I use POTs because my telco is the only Internet game in town and in order to have 911 service.
I use VOIP for cheap calls with no taxes for my business line.
If it weren't for the fact that I have to have POTS in order to have Internet, I would have gone completely VOIP a long time ago.
VOIP can be as reliable as your Internet service if you provide battery backup for your FXO (The thing you plug you analog phone into) and your DSL or CABLE modem (and router if you have it).
You also have to provide battery backup for your computer if it serves as your phone system switch.
With VOIP, you can also connect to many different phone networks (other that POTS).
In addition, you can set up a very secure network where you can communicate with other offices in an organization without much fear of snooping or wiretapping.
VOIP is definitely the way to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606424</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1262281500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I just moved to an area where the choice is between AT&amp;T and cable (Cox).
</p><p>
Once again, AT&amp;T proved itself to be at an uncharted level of evil leaving all others, including cable monopolies, far behind.
</p><p>
Do yourself a favor and untether yourself from the evil grid - you'd save a bundle just for the reduced spending on blood pressure pills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just moved to an area where the choice is between AT&amp;T and cable ( Cox ) .
Once again , AT&amp;T proved itself to be at an uncharted level of evil leaving all others , including cable monopolies , far behind .
Do yourself a favor and untether yourself from the evil grid - you 'd save a bundle just for the reduced spending on blood pressure pills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I just moved to an area where the choice is between AT&amp;T and cable (Cox).
Once again, AT&amp;T proved itself to be at an uncharted level of evil leaving all others, including cable monopolies, far behind.
Do yourself a favor and untether yourself from the evil grid - you'd save a bundle just for the reduced spending on blood pressure pills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606034</id>
	<title>No Landlines? Hah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There still is nothing as reliable as a plain regular analog telephone line, as engineered by the fine people who used to work at AT&amp;T.</p><p>Even though I love my blackberry, I'm going to keep my POTS line for a very long time. My POTS line has worked flawlessly from the day it was installed for over 10 years.</p><p>I love this line from the article: "It makes no sense to require service providers to operate and maintain two distinct networks when technology and consumer preferences have made one of them increasingly obsolete."</p><p>Lies. The analog portion of the phone system is only in the last mile. The backend of the phone system has been digital for a very long time, and it is ALREADY common to see IP-based backhaul with QOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There still is nothing as reliable as a plain regular analog telephone line , as engineered by the fine people who used to work at AT&amp;T.Even though I love my blackberry , I 'm going to keep my POTS line for a very long time .
My POTS line has worked flawlessly from the day it was installed for over 10 years.I love this line from the article : " It makes no sense to require service providers to operate and maintain two distinct networks when technology and consumer preferences have made one of them increasingly obsolete. " Lies .
The analog portion of the phone system is only in the last mile .
The backend of the phone system has been digital for a very long time , and it is ALREADY common to see IP-based backhaul with QOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There still is nothing as reliable as a plain regular analog telephone line, as engineered by the fine people who used to work at AT&amp;T.Even though I love my blackberry, I'm going to keep my POTS line for a very long time.
My POTS line has worked flawlessly from the day it was installed for over 10 years.I love this line from the article: "It makes no sense to require service providers to operate and maintain two distinct networks when technology and consumer preferences have made one of them increasingly obsolete."Lies.
The analog portion of the phone system is only in the last mile.
The backend of the phone system has been digital for a very long time, and it is ALREADY common to see IP-based backhaul with QOS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606450</id>
	<title>The Real Cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262281680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone considered the real cost of maintaining the wire line infrastructure? Perhaps the cost savings of not having to maintain such an infrastructure will help fund the rapid expansion of wireless IP based services.</p><p>That&rsquo;s my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone considered the real cost of maintaining the wire line infrastructure ?
Perhaps the cost savings of not having to maintain such an infrastructure will help fund the rapid expansion of wireless IP based services.That    s my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone considered the real cost of maintaining the wire line infrastructure?
Perhaps the cost savings of not having to maintain such an infrastructure will help fund the rapid expansion of wireless IP based services.That’s my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608826</id>
	<title>Bell Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262291700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bell Canada has been completely VOIP since 2006, in fact, they partially funded one of the big VOIP providers to develop it, so in case of failure, they wouldn't have egg on their face if they developed the process 1st and it failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bell Canada has been completely VOIP since 2006 , in fact , they partially funded one of the big VOIP providers to develop it , so in case of failure , they would n't have egg on their face if they developed the process 1st and it failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bell Canada has been completely VOIP since 2006, in fact, they partially funded one of the big VOIP providers to develop it, so in case of failure, they wouldn't have egg on their face if they developed the process 1st and it failed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30613420</id>
	<title>Re:Analog lines aren't just for phones ya know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230813900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gah! Mate please help me help the world by stopping these lies being spread.</p><p>Everyone seems to think fax cant work over VOIP, same with credit card terminals</p><p>FACT: It CAN and does work RELIABLY.</p><p>Let me explain something to you</p><p>In VOIP World there are things called codecs, the codecs control the compression and quality of the RTP Signal between two VOIP End points, the most widely used would probably have to be G.711 and G.729</p><p>G.729 is a compressed codec, it is not suitable for faxes but is often used on cheap home VOIP routers because of its low bandwidth requriements</p><p>G.711 is the same codec you use when you pick up a normal every day land line. 64kilobits per second just like your analog line (although its 64 both ways unlike analog which is half-duplex)</p><p>If YOU USE G.711 between the two endpoints, YOUR FAXES WILL WORK, YOUR CREDIT CARD TERMINALS WILL WORK</p><p>From a CCIE who has done hundreds of call manager deployments, all with working fax and credit card terminals (The only gotcha i would make to this statement is i steer clear of Cisco ATA's, there quite shoddy, we normally go for FXS cards in the router or VG224 if the customer has enough analog endpoints)</p><p>Theres even a TCL script for cisco routers that let a cisco router act like a fax machine, convert the fax into an email and send it to mailbox, thats awesome when combined with an ISDN Line because it means:<br>1. Your fax line is never busy unless all your ISDN circuits are used up<br>2. You can add and remove fax numbers at whim if you have your own Direct-Indial<br>3. YOu can receive faxes without actually requiring a physical fax machine so you can save on paper and ink</p><p>Cheers<br>Pete<br>CCIE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gah !
Mate please help me help the world by stopping these lies being spread.Everyone seems to think fax cant work over VOIP , same with credit card terminalsFACT : It CAN and does work RELIABLY.Let me explain something to youIn VOIP World there are things called codecs , the codecs control the compression and quality of the RTP Signal between two VOIP End points , the most widely used would probably have to be G.711 and G.729G.729 is a compressed codec , it is not suitable for faxes but is often used on cheap home VOIP routers because of its low bandwidth requriementsG.711 is the same codec you use when you pick up a normal every day land line .
64kilobits per second just like your analog line ( although its 64 both ways unlike analog which is half-duplex ) If YOU USE G.711 between the two endpoints , YOUR FAXES WILL WORK , YOUR CREDIT CARD TERMINALS WILL WORKFrom a CCIE who has done hundreds of call manager deployments , all with working fax and credit card terminals ( The only gotcha i would make to this statement is i steer clear of Cisco ATA 's , there quite shoddy , we normally go for FXS cards in the router or VG224 if the customer has enough analog endpoints ) Theres even a TCL script for cisco routers that let a cisco router act like a fax machine , convert the fax into an email and send it to mailbox , thats awesome when combined with an ISDN Line because it means : 1 .
Your fax line is never busy unless all your ISDN circuits are used up2 .
You can add and remove fax numbers at whim if you have your own Direct-Indial3 .
YOu can receive faxes without actually requiring a physical fax machine so you can save on paper and inkCheersPeteCCIE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gah!
Mate please help me help the world by stopping these lies being spread.Everyone seems to think fax cant work over VOIP, same with credit card terminalsFACT: It CAN and does work RELIABLY.Let me explain something to youIn VOIP World there are things called codecs, the codecs control the compression and quality of the RTP Signal between two VOIP End points, the most widely used would probably have to be G.711 and G.729G.729 is a compressed codec, it is not suitable for faxes but is often used on cheap home VOIP routers because of its low bandwidth requriementsG.711 is the same codec you use when you pick up a normal every day land line.
64kilobits per second just like your analog line (although its 64 both ways unlike analog which is half-duplex)If YOU USE G.711 between the two endpoints, YOUR FAXES WILL WORK, YOUR CREDIT CARD TERMINALS WILL WORKFrom a CCIE who has done hundreds of call manager deployments, all with working fax and credit card terminals (The only gotcha i would make to this statement is i steer clear of Cisco ATA's, there quite shoddy, we normally go for FXS cards in the router or VG224 if the customer has enough analog endpoints)Theres even a TCL script for cisco routers that let a cisco router act like a fax machine, convert the fax into an email and send it to mailbox, thats awesome when combined with an ISDN Line because it means:1.
Your fax line is never busy unless all your ISDN circuits are used up2.
You can add and remove fax numbers at whim if you have your own Direct-Indial3.
YOu can receive faxes without actually requiring a physical fax machine so you can save on paper and inkCheersPeteCCIE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606358</id>
	<title>and it's really annoying when people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262281080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>start a conversation in the subject only to finish it in the body of the comment.</p><p>Knock it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>start a conversation in the subject only to finish it in the body of the comment.Knock it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>start a conversation in the subject only to finish it in the body of the comment.Knock it off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606140</id>
	<title>Will VoiP phones be powered over ethernet?</title>
	<author>sizzzzlerz</author>
	<datestamp>1262279880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or (as I believe would be the case), the phone is powered from house wiring meaning, if your power goes out, you've lost your phone service. If the central office provides the power for the local loop (as is currently done), they have batteries fail over to when their power goes out. Several years ago, my power went out for 3 days. Using an old dial phone which didn't require external power, I still had phone service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or ( as I believe would be the case ) , the phone is powered from house wiring meaning , if your power goes out , you 've lost your phone service .
If the central office provides the power for the local loop ( as is currently done ) , they have batteries fail over to when their power goes out .
Several years ago , my power went out for 3 days .
Using an old dial phone which did n't require external power , I still had phone service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or (as I believe would be the case), the phone is powered from house wiring meaning, if your power goes out, you've lost your phone service.
If the central office provides the power for the local loop (as is currently done), they have batteries fail over to when their power goes out.
Several years ago, my power went out for 3 days.
Using an old dial phone which didn't require external power, I still had phone service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608484</id>
	<title>Re:Isnt it ironic ? they are the ones withholding</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262289960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm of the opinion that municipalities should own utilities. Here in Springfield the city owns the electric company, and we have the cheapest and most dependable power in the state. The power company actually turns a profit as well, selling excess power to private utilities in surrounding communities. Meanwhile, the poor folks who have Amerin have crappy service, abysmal customer service, and high prices.</p><p>The reason is that unlike most businesses, you can't shop around for a utility; it's not like you can go down the street and get a competing electric company. Corporations are beholden to stockholders, and in most businesses that means they have to be beholden to their customers as well. An electric company doesn't have this "problem"; you're stuck with them.</p><p>As Lilly Tomlin's character "Ernestine the telephone operator" always said, "We're the phone company. We don't HAVE to."</p><p>The electric company here IS beholden to their customers, who vote in local elections. If the electric service gets bad, the mayor loses his job. In effect, the customers are also the stockholders.</p><p>To the folks you mention yelling "socialism" I say, how are you with those socialist roads, police, and fire departments? Some things should be free market, but when there is no free market (like electricity or other wired/piped infrastructure, roads etc.), government should own it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm of the opinion that municipalities should own utilities .
Here in Springfield the city owns the electric company , and we have the cheapest and most dependable power in the state .
The power company actually turns a profit as well , selling excess power to private utilities in surrounding communities .
Meanwhile , the poor folks who have Amerin have crappy service , abysmal customer service , and high prices.The reason is that unlike most businesses , you ca n't shop around for a utility ; it 's not like you can go down the street and get a competing electric company .
Corporations are beholden to stockholders , and in most businesses that means they have to be beholden to their customers as well .
An electric company does n't have this " problem " ; you 're stuck with them.As Lilly Tomlin 's character " Ernestine the telephone operator " always said , " We 're the phone company .
We do n't HAVE to .
" The electric company here IS beholden to their customers , who vote in local elections .
If the electric service gets bad , the mayor loses his job .
In effect , the customers are also the stockholders.To the folks you mention yelling " socialism " I say , how are you with those socialist roads , police , and fire departments ?
Some things should be free market , but when there is no free market ( like electricity or other wired/piped infrastructure , roads etc .
) , government should own it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm of the opinion that municipalities should own utilities.
Here in Springfield the city owns the electric company, and we have the cheapest and most dependable power in the state.
The power company actually turns a profit as well, selling excess power to private utilities in surrounding communities.
Meanwhile, the poor folks who have Amerin have crappy service, abysmal customer service, and high prices.The reason is that unlike most businesses, you can't shop around for a utility; it's not like you can go down the street and get a competing electric company.
Corporations are beholden to stockholders, and in most businesses that means they have to be beholden to their customers as well.
An electric company doesn't have this "problem"; you're stuck with them.As Lilly Tomlin's character "Ernestine the telephone operator" always said, "We're the phone company.
We don't HAVE to.
"The electric company here IS beholden to their customers, who vote in local elections.
If the electric service gets bad, the mayor loses his job.
In effect, the customers are also the stockholders.To the folks you mention yelling "socialism" I say, how are you with those socialist roads, police, and fire departments?
Some things should be free market, but when there is no free market (like electricity or other wired/piped infrastructure, roads etc.
), government should own it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606772</id>
	<title>Not really cutting landlines</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262282640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I was always under the impression that landlines were necessary. When there's a power outage you can't use cellular or cordless.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The FCC Public Notice (TFA refers to a Notice of Inquiry, but links to a Public Notice soliciting comments as to whether the FCC should issue of a Notice of Inquiry) isn't about cutting "landlines", its about replacing PSTN with IP as the implementation technology for telephone service.</p><p>But the concern you raise is valid even in that context; issues like usefulness in emergencies (both in terms of 911 service and resilience to power failures and other sources of outages) are things that would no doubt be significant areas if the FCC's investigation of such a transition moves forward -- which I fully expect it to.</p><p>The context of the FCC Public Notice is about the transition in the context of the Congressional mandate for the FCC to provide guidance on acheiving universal broadband access and utilization, and transitioning the phone system to IP so that the IP network is the single universal communication network that has to be maintained would make sense as a means of doing that.</p><p>Of course, that does raise the question of the kind of common carrier provisions that have applied to the providers of access to the PSTN network because it is the nation's principal universal communication system and frequently and naturally (because of the infrastructure requirements) the subject of regional monopolies, but not (though they are often the same providers) to the providers of IP access.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was always under the impression that landlines were necessary .
When there 's a power outage you ca n't use cellular or cordless .
The FCC Public Notice ( TFA refers to a Notice of Inquiry , but links to a Public Notice soliciting comments as to whether the FCC should issue of a Notice of Inquiry ) is n't about cutting " landlines " , its about replacing PSTN with IP as the implementation technology for telephone service.But the concern you raise is valid even in that context ; issues like usefulness in emergencies ( both in terms of 911 service and resilience to power failures and other sources of outages ) are things that would no doubt be significant areas if the FCC 's investigation of such a transition moves forward -- which I fully expect it to.The context of the FCC Public Notice is about the transition in the context of the Congressional mandate for the FCC to provide guidance on acheiving universal broadband access and utilization , and transitioning the phone system to IP so that the IP network is the single universal communication network that has to be maintained would make sense as a means of doing that.Of course , that does raise the question of the kind of common carrier provisions that have applied to the providers of access to the PSTN network because it is the nation 's principal universal communication system and frequently and naturally ( because of the infrastructure requirements ) the subject of regional monopolies , but not ( though they are often the same providers ) to the providers of IP access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was always under the impression that landlines were necessary.
When there's a power outage you can't use cellular or cordless.
The FCC Public Notice (TFA refers to a Notice of Inquiry, but links to a Public Notice soliciting comments as to whether the FCC should issue of a Notice of Inquiry) isn't about cutting "landlines", its about replacing PSTN with IP as the implementation technology for telephone service.But the concern you raise is valid even in that context; issues like usefulness in emergencies (both in terms of 911 service and resilience to power failures and other sources of outages) are things that would no doubt be significant areas if the FCC's investigation of such a transition moves forward -- which I fully expect it to.The context of the FCC Public Notice is about the transition in the context of the Congressional mandate for the FCC to provide guidance on acheiving universal broadband access and utilization, and transitioning the phone system to IP so that the IP network is the single universal communication network that has to be maintained would make sense as a means of doing that.Of course, that does raise the question of the kind of common carrier provisions that have applied to the providers of access to the PSTN network because it is the nation's principal universal communication system and frequently and naturally (because of the infrastructure requirements) the subject of regional monopolies, but not (though they are often the same providers) to the providers of IP access.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608498</id>
	<title>Re:Don't take my POTS!</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1262290020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are talking "absolute reliability" (or at least standalone reliability) keep a CB radio handy with both automobile and alligator clip power leads (run off car in car, run off battery or batteries). Get more than one and you can set up friends who don't have them. Arrange to monitor a channel (not 9, leave that open for emergency use) when the "excrement hits the Emerson".</p><p>Since NOLA will get nailed again sooner or later, consider becoming an amateur radio operator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are talking " absolute reliability " ( or at least standalone reliability ) keep a CB radio handy with both automobile and alligator clip power leads ( run off car in car , run off battery or batteries ) .
Get more than one and you can set up friends who do n't have them .
Arrange to monitor a channel ( not 9 , leave that open for emergency use ) when the " excrement hits the Emerson " .Since NOLA will get nailed again sooner or later , consider becoming an amateur radio operator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are talking "absolute reliability" (or at least standalone reliability) keep a CB radio handy with both automobile and alligator clip power leads (run off car in car, run off battery or batteries).
Get more than one and you can set up friends who don't have them.
Arrange to monitor a channel (not 9, leave that open for emergency use) when the "excrement hits the Emerson".Since NOLA will get nailed again sooner or later, consider becoming an amateur radio operator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30622734</id>
	<title>What a way to make more money.</title>
	<author>plazman30</author>
	<datestamp>1230915480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, talk about a sleazy way to make more money.  AT&amp;T stops offering traditional landline service.  To fill the gap, you need to get either a cell phone or VOIP.

Well, Cell Phone service costs WAY MORE than landline service.  And to get VOIP, you need high speed Internet.  For poeple like you and me, it probably wouldn't make a difference.  But think of the elderly, that probably have old traditional landline service and pay for long distance by the minute.  Their montly phone bill would go up from $19.99 a month to at least double that, possibly more.

Andy</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , talk about a sleazy way to make more money .
AT&amp;T stops offering traditional landline service .
To fill the gap , you need to get either a cell phone or VOIP .
Well , Cell Phone service costs WAY MORE than landline service .
And to get VOIP , you need high speed Internet .
For poeple like you and me , it probably would n't make a difference .
But think of the elderly , that probably have old traditional landline service and pay for long distance by the minute .
Their montly phone bill would go up from $ 19.99 a month to at least double that , possibly more .
Andy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, talk about a sleazy way to make more money.
AT&amp;T stops offering traditional landline service.
To fill the gap, you need to get either a cell phone or VOIP.
Well, Cell Phone service costs WAY MORE than landline service.
And to get VOIP, you need high speed Internet.
For poeple like you and me, it probably wouldn't make a difference.
But think of the elderly, that probably have old traditional landline service and pay for long distance by the minute.
Their montly phone bill would go up from $19.99 a month to at least double that, possibly more.
Andy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30612342</id>
	<title>Re:No Landlines? Hah.</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1262280000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lies. The analog portion of the phone system is only in the last mile. The backend of the phone system has been digital for a very long time, and it is ALREADY common to see IP-based backhaul with QOS.</p></div></blockquote><p>Exactly. The electromechanical switching systems went out in the 80s, but the digital switched network has been isolated, for good reason.<br> <br>from Wikipedia:</p><blockquote><div><p>It is becoming increasingly common for telecommunications providers to use VoIP telephony over dedicated <b>and</b> public IP networks to connect switching stations and to interconnect with other telephony network providers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>and...</p><blockquote><div><p>With the current separation of the Internet and the public switched telephone network, <b>a certain amount of redundancy is provided.</b> An Internet outage does not necessarily mean that a voice communication outage will occur simultaneously, allowing individuals to call for emergency services and many businesses to continue to operate normally.<br> <br>In situations where telephone services become completely reliant on the Internet infrastructure, <b>a single-point failure can isolate communities from all communication, including Enhanced 911 and equivalent services in other locales.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Yeah, copper wire really sucks...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lies .
The analog portion of the phone system is only in the last mile .
The backend of the phone system has been digital for a very long time , and it is ALREADY common to see IP-based backhaul with QOS.Exactly .
The electromechanical switching systems went out in the 80s , but the digital switched network has been isolated , for good reason .
from Wikipedia : It is becoming increasingly common for telecommunications providers to use VoIP telephony over dedicated and public IP networks to connect switching stations and to interconnect with other telephony network providers .
and...With the current separation of the Internet and the public switched telephone network , a certain amount of redundancy is provided .
An Internet outage does not necessarily mean that a voice communication outage will occur simultaneously , allowing individuals to call for emergency services and many businesses to continue to operate normally .
In situations where telephone services become completely reliant on the Internet infrastructure , a single-point failure can isolate communities from all communication , including Enhanced 911 and equivalent services in other locales .
Yeah , copper wire really sucks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lies.
The analog portion of the phone system is only in the last mile.
The backend of the phone system has been digital for a very long time, and it is ALREADY common to see IP-based backhaul with QOS.Exactly.
The electromechanical switching systems went out in the 80s, but the digital switched network has been isolated, for good reason.
from Wikipedia:It is becoming increasingly common for telecommunications providers to use VoIP telephony over dedicated and public IP networks to connect switching stations and to interconnect with other telephony network providers.
and...With the current separation of the Internet and the public switched telephone network, a certain amount of redundancy is provided.
An Internet outage does not necessarily mean that a voice communication outage will occur simultaneously, allowing individuals to call for emergency services and many businesses to continue to operate normally.
In situations where telephone services become completely reliant on the Internet infrastructure, a single-point failure can isolate communities from all communication, including Enhanced 911 and equivalent services in other locales.
Yeah, copper wire really sucks...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607854</id>
	<title>Fuck     want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262286720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you. I'll post how I</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you .
I 'll post how I</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you.
I'll post how I</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608474</id>
	<title>Re:Leave the wire in place, change the technology.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262289900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As there is no way that phone companies would want to (or be allowed to) abandon millions of miles of copper wire and the tasty franchises and monopolies that went along with their installation, there will be no switch to a wireless-only phone network.</p></div></blockquote><p>This isn't about a "switch to a wireless phone network", its about abandoning <b>analog</b> landlines (as you can tell from reading the headline of the summary), and switching to an all-digital, IP-based instead of PSTN-based, phone network.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As there is no way that phone companies would want to ( or be allowed to ) abandon millions of miles of copper wire and the tasty franchises and monopolies that went along with their installation , there will be no switch to a wireless-only phone network.This is n't about a " switch to a wireless phone network " , its about abandoning analog landlines ( as you can tell from reading the headline of the summary ) , and switching to an all-digital , IP-based instead of PSTN-based , phone network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As there is no way that phone companies would want to (or be allowed to) abandon millions of miles of copper wire and the tasty franchises and monopolies that went along with their installation, there will be no switch to a wireless-only phone network.This isn't about a "switch to a wireless phone network", its about abandoning analog landlines (as you can tell from reading the headline of the summary), and switching to an all-digital, IP-based instead of PSTN-based, phone network.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607596</id>
	<title>Rural broadband coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262285700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader for years...never posted. But this topic is one that finally got me to at least post as an AC.</p><p>My parents live ON a major highway in N. Mississippi -- it's four-lane split highway that has interstate-level traffic volume. It's the main route from the interstate to a major state university (about 25 miles). I.E., they don't live within a designated city limits (not too far beyond though) but they also don't live out in the sticks either.</p><p>Both of my folks have called AT&amp;T repeatedly to ask about DSL. They've watched their yard be dug up by AT&amp;T running new lines and have asked the guys putting down lines about it (they get shrugs). They've asked about the AT&amp;T "box" not far down the highway from their driveway and caught up with guys working at the box (no answers). They've all but begged AT&amp;T for broadband going on at least 3 years now (probably more actually), to no avail. I've searched for broadband solutions for them myself, but found that satellite and mobile broadband have ridiculous usage limits for too high a price. Also, sat broadband locks folks into a contract and has some of the worst customer complaints I've seen for any product. I've even researched ISDN (installation is too expensive) and multi-link dial-up (couldn't find a provider). Short of them winning the lotto and hiring someone to lay the lines themselves, I don't know what they can do to get something better than crappy early 90's level dial-up. Recently I suggested that they call the cable company and see if they've gone beyond their usual "eff you, we don't go out that far" business model, but after 20 years of the "eff you" I doubt that anything's changed.</p><p>As I stressed, they live ON a major highway in AT&amp;T's territory. There are many people living in the surrounding community OFF the highway. If my parents have had such trouble getting affordable broadband service, what chance do those folks have? There are thousands of people in old Bellsouth territory living in rural areas that AT&amp;T (or any other company) haven't even come close to providing any broadband options.</p><p>AT&amp;T going all IP? What, 20 years from now? Unless they intend to give up thousands upon thousands of customers or flip on some magical wireless broadband network no one knows they've installed, it's not gonna happen nationwide even close to soon. Oh, I'm sure what will happen is they'll switch over where they can and continue to leave rural customers further and further behind. Then they'll wait for the gov't to issue some "do it now or else" order and special tax to finish the job.</p><p>Though considering how many failures I've had with my VOIP service in the middle of a major city, it might be a good thing if they can't switch off the old analog lines for rural folks. That's all many of those people have to call for emergency services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a / .
reader for years...never posted .
But this topic is one that finally got me to at least post as an AC.My parents live ON a major highway in N. Mississippi -- it 's four-lane split highway that has interstate-level traffic volume .
It 's the main route from the interstate to a major state university ( about 25 miles ) .
I.E. , they do n't live within a designated city limits ( not too far beyond though ) but they also do n't live out in the sticks either.Both of my folks have called AT&amp;T repeatedly to ask about DSL .
They 've watched their yard be dug up by AT&amp;T running new lines and have asked the guys putting down lines about it ( they get shrugs ) .
They 've asked about the AT&amp;T " box " not far down the highway from their driveway and caught up with guys working at the box ( no answers ) .
They 've all but begged AT&amp;T for broadband going on at least 3 years now ( probably more actually ) , to no avail .
I 've searched for broadband solutions for them myself , but found that satellite and mobile broadband have ridiculous usage limits for too high a price .
Also , sat broadband locks folks into a contract and has some of the worst customer complaints I 've seen for any product .
I 've even researched ISDN ( installation is too expensive ) and multi-link dial-up ( could n't find a provider ) .
Short of them winning the lotto and hiring someone to lay the lines themselves , I do n't know what they can do to get something better than crappy early 90 's level dial-up .
Recently I suggested that they call the cable company and see if they 've gone beyond their usual " eff you , we do n't go out that far " business model , but after 20 years of the " eff you " I doubt that anything 's changed.As I stressed , they live ON a major highway in AT&amp;T 's territory .
There are many people living in the surrounding community OFF the highway .
If my parents have had such trouble getting affordable broadband service , what chance do those folks have ?
There are thousands of people in old Bellsouth territory living in rural areas that AT&amp;T ( or any other company ) have n't even come close to providing any broadband options.AT&amp;T going all IP ?
What , 20 years from now ?
Unless they intend to give up thousands upon thousands of customers or flip on some magical wireless broadband network no one knows they 've installed , it 's not gon na happen nationwide even close to soon .
Oh , I 'm sure what will happen is they 'll switch over where they can and continue to leave rural customers further and further behind .
Then they 'll wait for the gov't to issue some " do it now or else " order and special tax to finish the job.Though considering how many failures I 've had with my VOIP service in the middle of a major city , it might be a good thing if they ca n't switch off the old analog lines for rural folks .
That 's all many of those people have to call for emergency services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a /.
reader for years...never posted.
But this topic is one that finally got me to at least post as an AC.My parents live ON a major highway in N. Mississippi -- it's four-lane split highway that has interstate-level traffic volume.
It's the main route from the interstate to a major state university (about 25 miles).
I.E., they don't live within a designated city limits (not too far beyond though) but they also don't live out in the sticks either.Both of my folks have called AT&amp;T repeatedly to ask about DSL.
They've watched their yard be dug up by AT&amp;T running new lines and have asked the guys putting down lines about it (they get shrugs).
They've asked about the AT&amp;T "box" not far down the highway from their driveway and caught up with guys working at the box (no answers).
They've all but begged AT&amp;T for broadband going on at least 3 years now (probably more actually), to no avail.
I've searched for broadband solutions for them myself, but found that satellite and mobile broadband have ridiculous usage limits for too high a price.
Also, sat broadband locks folks into a contract and has some of the worst customer complaints I've seen for any product.
I've even researched ISDN (installation is too expensive) and multi-link dial-up (couldn't find a provider).
Short of them winning the lotto and hiring someone to lay the lines themselves, I don't know what they can do to get something better than crappy early 90's level dial-up.
Recently I suggested that they call the cable company and see if they've gone beyond their usual "eff you, we don't go out that far" business model, but after 20 years of the "eff you" I doubt that anything's changed.As I stressed, they live ON a major highway in AT&amp;T's territory.
There are many people living in the surrounding community OFF the highway.
If my parents have had such trouble getting affordable broadband service, what chance do those folks have?
There are thousands of people in old Bellsouth territory living in rural areas that AT&amp;T (or any other company) haven't even come close to providing any broadband options.AT&amp;T going all IP?
What, 20 years from now?
Unless they intend to give up thousands upon thousands of customers or flip on some magical wireless broadband network no one knows they've installed, it's not gonna happen nationwide even close to soon.
Oh, I'm sure what will happen is they'll switch over where they can and continue to leave rural customers further and further behind.
Then they'll wait for the gov't to issue some "do it now or else" order and special tax to finish the job.Though considering how many failures I've had with my VOIP service in the middle of a major city, it might be a good thing if they can't switch off the old analog lines for rural folks.
That's all many of those people have to call for emergency services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606006</id>
	<title>Requirements need to be clear and solid</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1262279340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any proposed replacement must satisfy the following conditions showing it is a true improvement</p><p>a) be cheaper now and for the long term for customers<br>b) be more reliable<br>c) provide better 911 and other emergency services information</p><p>From the above<br>a) there will not be an initial upfront customer cost over and above current costs.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; If it is to be cheaper overall the provider is to eat the up front cost and just delay reducing costs to the customer.<br>b) things like a touch tone charge are disallowed<br>c) it must not depend on power available at the customers site<br>d) digital features like allowing customers to add a digital description containing things like number of house occupants, ages, medial conditions to be sent along with a 911 call should be considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any proposed replacement must satisfy the following conditions showing it is a true improvementa ) be cheaper now and for the long term for customersb ) be more reliablec ) provide better 911 and other emergency services informationFrom the abovea ) there will not be an initial upfront customer cost over and above current costs .
    If it is to be cheaper overall the provider is to eat the up front cost and just delay reducing costs to the customer.b ) things like a touch tone charge are disallowedc ) it must not depend on power available at the customers sited ) digital features like allowing customers to add a digital description containing things like number of house occupants , ages , medial conditions to be sent along with a 911 call should be considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any proposed replacement must satisfy the following conditions showing it is a true improvementa) be cheaper now and for the long term for customersb) be more reliablec) provide better 911 and other emergency services informationFrom the abovea) there will not be an initial upfront customer cost over and above current costs.
    If it is to be cheaper overall the provider is to eat the up front cost and just delay reducing costs to the customer.b) things like a touch tone charge are disallowedc) it must not depend on power available at the customers sited) digital features like allowing customers to add a digital description containing things like number of house occupants, ages, medial conditions to be sent along with a 911 call should be considered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607932</id>
	<title>What's so bad about it?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262286960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, seriously, what's so bad about it? Sometimes the first few words of what you're going to say are the topic of your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , seriously , what 's so bad about it ?
Sometimes the first few words of what you 're going to say are the topic of your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, seriously, what's so bad about it?
Sometimes the first few words of what you're going to say are the topic of your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606032</id>
	<title>Sure, but...</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1262279400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make sure I can still call a frigging ambulance when the electricity is out to my house and their local DSL box. This should include powering and charging cordless phone base and receiver typically used with VOIP for a few days.<br>And that I can just dial and hang up and have someone local check out my house/apartment, not just give highway patrol my phone number or at most the broad area that GPS suggested.</p><p>I still don't like the concept that my 911 or other calls can be disabled by a new worm attacking the unpatched windows idiots, but I am not sure what AT&amp;T can do about that, given that they don't control most of Internet's core infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make sure I can still call a frigging ambulance when the electricity is out to my house and their local DSL box .
This should include powering and charging cordless phone base and receiver typically used with VOIP for a few days.And that I can just dial and hang up and have someone local check out my house/apartment , not just give highway patrol my phone number or at most the broad area that GPS suggested.I still do n't like the concept that my 911 or other calls can be disabled by a new worm attacking the unpatched windows idiots , but I am not sure what AT&amp;T can do about that , given that they do n't control most of Internet 's core infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make sure I can still call a frigging ambulance when the electricity is out to my house and their local DSL box.
This should include powering and charging cordless phone base and receiver typically used with VOIP for a few days.And that I can just dial and hang up and have someone local check out my house/apartment, not just give highway patrol my phone number or at most the broad area that GPS suggested.I still don't like the concept that my 911 or other calls can be disabled by a new worm attacking the unpatched windows idiots, but I am not sure what AT&amp;T can do about that, given that they don't control most of Internet's core infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606162</id>
	<title>Trading monopoly for oligopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262280000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just cut my landline, it was garbage.  The phone company wasn't about to bring DSL or Fios to my area, and no one that I wanted to hear from was likely to actually call it.  I think that if all of my neighbors do similar, we may actually get decent Internet access out there.  The cable company just started offering TV out there, and alas no broadband.  They're late to market, and the main reason that I'd purchase their service is not offered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just cut my landline , it was garbage .
The phone company was n't about to bring DSL or Fios to my area , and no one that I wanted to hear from was likely to actually call it .
I think that if all of my neighbors do similar , we may actually get decent Internet access out there .
The cable company just started offering TV out there , and alas no broadband .
They 're late to market , and the main reason that I 'd purchase their service is not offered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just cut my landline, it was garbage.
The phone company wasn't about to bring DSL or Fios to my area, and no one that I wanted to hear from was likely to actually call it.
I think that if all of my neighbors do similar, we may actually get decent Internet access out there.
The cable company just started offering TV out there, and alas no broadband.
They're late to market, and the main reason that I'd purchase their service is not offered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609440</id>
	<title>Re:People will die</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1262251920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is my complaint about digital TV as well.</p><p>When a local disaster occurs, and there's a blackout, people relied on battery powered TVs to get local information on what's happening. We seem to be moving away from tried and true technologies and into the realm of crappy, bug-ridden, oversold technologies that don't work when something bad happens.</p><p>Well, maybe when rich, white people start dying they'll change things, but when poor black people die, it's not a big issue for these companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is my complaint about digital TV as well.When a local disaster occurs , and there 's a blackout , people relied on battery powered TVs to get local information on what 's happening .
We seem to be moving away from tried and true technologies and into the realm of crappy , bug-ridden , oversold technologies that do n't work when something bad happens.Well , maybe when rich , white people start dying they 'll change things , but when poor black people die , it 's not a big issue for these companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is my complaint about digital TV as well.When a local disaster occurs, and there's a blackout, people relied on battery powered TVs to get local information on what's happening.
We seem to be moving away from tried and true technologies and into the realm of crappy, bug-ridden, oversold technologies that don't work when something bad happens.Well, maybe when rich, white people start dying they'll change things, but when poor black people die, it's not a big issue for these companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605994</id>
	<title>latency oh latency.</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1262279340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What could possibly go wrong? I said.<br>
My network should fly over head!<br>
<br>
Through the air my data will go.<br>
To where, to who, I wouldn't know?<br>
<br>
Thanks to WEP my data is Encrypted.<br>
At least until a hack has been scripted.<br>
(<a href="http://www.tech-faq.com/wi-fi-software-tools.shtml" title="tech-faq.com">.....</a> [tech-faq.com])</htmltext>
<tokenext>What could possibly go wrong ?
I said .
My network should fly over head !
Through the air my data will go .
To where , to who , I would n't know ?
Thanks to WEP my data is Encrypted .
At least until a hack has been scripted .
( ..... [ tech-faq.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What could possibly go wrong?
I said.
My network should fly over head!
Through the air my data will go.
To where, to who, I wouldn't know?
Thanks to WEP my data is Encrypted.
At least until a hack has been scripted.
(..... [tech-faq.com])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608262</id>
	<title>Re:Bottled Water</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262288580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't understand your analogy here. Why, this isn't related to cars at all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't understand your analogy here .
Why , this is n't related to cars at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't understand your analogy here.
Why, this isn't related to cars at all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608472</id>
	<title>Great idea!</title>
	<author>DrJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1262289900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just look at how well the forced conversion to digital TV worked out.  They <i>said</i> the reason for the forced conversion was to help bring better OTA TV coverage to rural areas.  In my very rural area we had 5 network TV stations: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS before the forced conversion.  Now we have three, only one of which actually switched to digital.   The crippled $20 off boxes don't pass through analog signals without degradation so I have to replug the antenna in order to switch channels.
<br> <br>
Ah yes, another stellar example of the best government money can buy.   Did it not suffice that the telecoms have kept the US in the technological telecommunications toilet compared to the rest of the developed world?  Now they've destroyed OTA TV and are planing to destroy POTS and DSL.  Yet whenever we try to fight the corporate destruction of our country, our efforts get thwarted by the simple ploy of crying "socialism!".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at how well the forced conversion to digital TV worked out .
They said the reason for the forced conversion was to help bring better OTA TV coverage to rural areas .
In my very rural area we had 5 network TV stations : ABC , NBC , CBS , Fox , and PBS before the forced conversion .
Now we have three , only one of which actually switched to digital .
The crippled $ 20 off boxes do n't pass through analog signals without degradation so I have to replug the antenna in order to switch channels .
Ah yes , another stellar example of the best government money can buy .
Did it not suffice that the telecoms have kept the US in the technological telecommunications toilet compared to the rest of the developed world ?
Now they 've destroyed OTA TV and are planing to destroy POTS and DSL .
Yet whenever we try to fight the corporate destruction of our country , our efforts get thwarted by the simple ploy of crying " socialism !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at how well the forced conversion to digital TV worked out.
They said the reason for the forced conversion was to help bring better OTA TV coverage to rural areas.
In my very rural area we had 5 network TV stations: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS before the forced conversion.
Now we have three, only one of which actually switched to digital.
The crippled $20 off boxes don't pass through analog signals without degradation so I have to replug the antenna in order to switch channels.
Ah yes, another stellar example of the best government money can buy.
Did it not suffice that the telecoms have kept the US in the technological telecommunications toilet compared to the rest of the developed world?
Now they've destroyed OTA TV and are planing to destroy POTS and DSL.
Yet whenever we try to fight the corporate destruction of our country, our efforts get thwarted by the simple ploy of crying "socialism!
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606706</id>
	<title>Rural people</title>
	<author>Rostin</author>
	<datestamp>1262282520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barring the sudden availability of much better internet access, this is bad news for my parents.  They live about 15 miles from the nearest town, which is itself nothing to really speak of.  Wireless is available, but they are on the very edge of the service area, so it is unreliable.  They've been using a satellite-based service for a year or two, but the latency is terrible.  A ping to google takes around 1.5 s (yes, seconds).  I haven't tried to call anyone on skype from their house, but I imagine it would be unusable.  Their cell phone service is somewhat spotty, as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barring the sudden availability of much better internet access , this is bad news for my parents .
They live about 15 miles from the nearest town , which is itself nothing to really speak of .
Wireless is available , but they are on the very edge of the service area , so it is unreliable .
They 've been using a satellite-based service for a year or two , but the latency is terrible .
A ping to google takes around 1.5 s ( yes , seconds ) .
I have n't tried to call anyone on skype from their house , but I imagine it would be unusable .
Their cell phone service is somewhat spotty , as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barring the sudden availability of much better internet access, this is bad news for my parents.
They live about 15 miles from the nearest town, which is itself nothing to really speak of.
Wireless is available, but they are on the very edge of the service area, so it is unreliable.
They've been using a satellite-based service for a year or two, but the latency is terrible.
A ping to google takes around 1.5 s (yes, seconds).
I haven't tried to call anyone on skype from their house, but I imagine it would be unusable.
Their cell phone service is somewhat spotty, as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606444</id>
	<title>Fuck AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262281620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate this company so fucking much that I would snipe their employees and seriously vandalize their buildings if I could do it and get away with it.</p><p>If any of you Deathstar employees are reading this, YES I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU.  I wish you dead, all of you.</p><p>I would love to have Randall Stephenson's head hanging on my wall above my fireplace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate this company so fucking much that I would snipe their employees and seriously vandalize their buildings if I could do it and get away with it.If any of you Deathstar employees are reading this , YES I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU .
I wish you dead , all of you.I would love to have Randall Stephenson 's head hanging on my wall above my fireplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate this company so fucking much that I would snipe their employees and seriously vandalize their buildings if I could do it and get away with it.If any of you Deathstar employees are reading this, YES I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU.
I wish you dead, all of you.I would love to have Randall Stephenson's head hanging on my wall above my fireplace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608298</id>
	<title>i dont think it will happon</title>
	<author>luther349</author>
	<datestamp>1262288820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>even the government know how important the old analog phone lines can be. most people still have there landlines even if they have voip or a cell. i have a windstream landline and dsl and a old phone from the 70s that runs off the phone line power i use when i lose power and it always works. my dsl probably would still work if i had a ups system in place. but i do beleve some voip systems do work if the local power fails like cable phones.  or if you had a ups on your dsl modem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>even the government know how important the old analog phone lines can be .
most people still have there landlines even if they have voip or a cell .
i have a windstream landline and dsl and a old phone from the 70s that runs off the phone line power i use when i lose power and it always works .
my dsl probably would still work if i had a ups system in place .
but i do beleve some voip systems do work if the local power fails like cable phones .
or if you had a ups on your dsl modem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even the government know how important the old analog phone lines can be.
most people still have there landlines even if they have voip or a cell.
i have a windstream landline and dsl and a old phone from the 70s that runs off the phone line power i use when i lose power and it always works.
my dsl probably would still work if i had a ups system in place.
but i do beleve some voip systems do work if the local power fails like cable phones.
or if you had a ups on your dsl modem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606420</id>
	<title>Re:Analog lines aren't just for phones ya know...</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1262281500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two answers for you there.  T.38 and terminals with ethernet jacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two answers for you there .
T.38 and terminals with ethernet jacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two answers for you there.
T.38 and terminals with ethernet jacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609342</id>
	<title>Re:Some other roadblocks</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262251320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Migrate into the 21st century.  The disappearance of POTS lines will encourage this much needed change.</p><p>2) Credit card companies are switching everyone over to smart card enabled machines anyway.  Best to make them all IP enabled while they're at it.</p><p>3) Migrate into the 21st century.  Security systems could be made MUCH better if they use an IP connection instead.</p><p>4) VoIP is just as reliable as the POTS protocol (I can never remember what order the S and T come in).  What you mean is that current broadband connections are not as reliable as POTS.  When POTS is phased out, it's replacement will have to meet that reliability standard, either with beefed up broadband or with dedicated VoIP lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Migrate into the 21st century .
The disappearance of POTS lines will encourage this much needed change.2 ) Credit card companies are switching everyone over to smart card enabled machines anyway .
Best to make them all IP enabled while they 're at it.3 ) Migrate into the 21st century .
Security systems could be made MUCH better if they use an IP connection instead.4 ) VoIP is just as reliable as the POTS protocol ( I can never remember what order the S and T come in ) .
What you mean is that current broadband connections are not as reliable as POTS .
When POTS is phased out , it 's replacement will have to meet that reliability standard , either with beefed up broadband or with dedicated VoIP lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Migrate into the 21st century.
The disappearance of POTS lines will encourage this much needed change.2) Credit card companies are switching everyone over to smart card enabled machines anyway.
Best to make them all IP enabled while they're at it.3) Migrate into the 21st century.
Security systems could be made MUCH better if they use an IP connection instead.4) VoIP is just as reliable as the POTS protocol (I can never remember what order the S and T come in).
What you mean is that current broadband connections are not as reliable as POTS.
When POTS is phased out, it's replacement will have to meet that reliability standard, either with beefed up broadband or with dedicated VoIP lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608078</id>
	<title>Re:Some other roadblocks</title>
	<author>DrTime</author>
	<datestamp>1262287740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Faxes and modems can work reliably over VOIP if the on ramp uses V150.1 Modem Over IP. I am familiar with an application that depends on this and it works quite well with our modem equipped devices.
</p><p>Cisco has a gateway with V150.1 and it works well.
</p><p>I do not expect this to be widely implemented until people demand it once they know it can work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Faxes and modems can work reliably over VOIP if the on ramp uses V150.1 Modem Over IP .
I am familiar with an application that depends on this and it works quite well with our modem equipped devices .
Cisco has a gateway with V150.1 and it works well .
I do not expect this to be widely implemented until people demand it once they know it can work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Faxes and modems can work reliably over VOIP if the on ramp uses V150.1 Modem Over IP.
I am familiar with an application that depends on this and it works quite well with our modem equipped devices.
Cisco has a gateway with V150.1 and it works well.
I do not expect this to be widely implemented until people demand it once they know it can work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606148</id>
	<title>Bottled Water</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1262279940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This plan is like saying municipal water is outdated and unnecessary because "everyone" can buy bottled water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This plan is like saying municipal water is outdated and unnecessary because " everyone " can buy bottled water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This plan is like saying municipal water is outdated and unnecessary because "everyone" can buy bottled water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607628</id>
	<title>Scaremongering</title>
	<author>nOw2</author>
	<datestamp>1262285880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scaremongering summary doesn't seem to convey the correct meaning.</p><p>I think the implication is actually a move to something like the new style BT network being implemented in the UK. Called the 21st Century Network (21CN). See <a href="http://www.btplc.com/21cn/" title="btplc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.btplc.com/21cn/</a> [btplc.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scaremongering summary does n't seem to convey the correct meaning.I think the implication is actually a move to something like the new style BT network being implemented in the UK .
Called the 21st Century Network ( 21CN ) .
See http : //www.btplc.com/21cn/ [ btplc.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scaremongering summary doesn't seem to convey the correct meaning.I think the implication is actually a move to something like the new style BT network being implemented in the UK.
Called the 21st Century Network (21CN).
See http://www.btplc.com/21cn/ [btplc.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610356</id>
	<title>Digital Signals = SPYING, PROFIT, CORUPTION</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262257560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC's mission statement is missing. They no longer serve the fucking public interest!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC 's mission statement is missing .
They no longer serve the fucking public interest !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC's mission statement is missing.
They no longer serve the fucking public interest!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606606</id>
	<title>Re:Analog lines aren't just for phones ya know...</title>
	<author>IgePanda</author>
	<datestamp>1262282100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fax machines and Stand Alone Credit Card terminals require them too. You can sometimes jury rig it to work, but it's a crap shoot....</p></div><p>Fax Over IP would be a viable solution.  We just don't have the standalone devices as of yet, but it would be pretty trivial for AT&amp;T to setup a fax receive service. T-mobile I believe already has something similar already but my info on that is out of date.   Outbound would require different standalone hardware, but I expect Canon/Epson/HP and such would be more than happy to offer an inkjet with this funcationality for a trivial fee and ink. </p><p>Stand Alone credit card terminals should be less of an issue since they typically operate below 9600bps.  I've at least heard of Vonage service used for these things. But network CC terminals exist.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fax machines and Stand Alone Credit Card terminals require them too .
You can sometimes jury rig it to work , but it 's a crap shoot....Fax Over IP would be a viable solution .
We just do n't have the standalone devices as of yet , but it would be pretty trivial for AT&amp;T to setup a fax receive service .
T-mobile I believe already has something similar already but my info on that is out of date .
Outbound would require different standalone hardware , but I expect Canon/Epson/HP and such would be more than happy to offer an inkjet with this funcationality for a trivial fee and ink .
Stand Alone credit card terminals should be less of an issue since they typically operate below 9600bps .
I 've at least heard of Vonage service used for these things .
But network CC terminals exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fax machines and Stand Alone Credit Card terminals require them too.
You can sometimes jury rig it to work, but it's a crap shoot....Fax Over IP would be a viable solution.
We just don't have the standalone devices as of yet, but it would be pretty trivial for AT&amp;T to setup a fax receive service.
T-mobile I believe already has something similar already but my info on that is out of date.
Outbound would require different standalone hardware, but I expect Canon/Epson/HP and such would be more than happy to offer an inkjet with this funcationality for a trivial fee and ink.
Stand Alone credit card terminals should be less of an issue since they typically operate below 9600bps.
I've at least heard of Vonage service used for these things.
But network CC terminals exist.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607790</id>
	<title>Re:Some other roadblocks</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262286480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The biggest issue - VOIP is simply not reliable. POTS lines are required by federal regulations to have a certain uptime, VOIP lines are not.</p></div></blockquote><p>Since the context here is the FCC taking the first step in exploring policy for a switch from PSTN to IP-based networks as the basis for the nation's primary, universally accessible communication network, while one should certainly demand that the FCC require, as part of that policy, that the IP network have the same uptime requirement that applies to the PSTN network it is replacing, I don't think it makes sense -- in that context -- to view the difference in <i>current</i> regulatory requirements for reliability as an intrinsic difference between the technologies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest issue - VOIP is simply not reliable .
POTS lines are required by federal regulations to have a certain uptime , VOIP lines are not.Since the context here is the FCC taking the first step in exploring policy for a switch from PSTN to IP-based networks as the basis for the nation 's primary , universally accessible communication network , while one should certainly demand that the FCC require , as part of that policy , that the IP network have the same uptime requirement that applies to the PSTN network it is replacing , I do n't think it makes sense -- in that context -- to view the difference in current regulatory requirements for reliability as an intrinsic difference between the technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest issue - VOIP is simply not reliable.
POTS lines are required by federal regulations to have a certain uptime, VOIP lines are not.Since the context here is the FCC taking the first step in exploring policy for a switch from PSTN to IP-based networks as the basis for the nation's primary, universally accessible communication network, while one should certainly demand that the FCC require, as part of that policy, that the IP network have the same uptime requirement that applies to the PSTN network it is replacing, I don't think it makes sense -- in that context -- to view the difference in current regulatory requirements for reliability as an intrinsic difference between the technologies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606096</id>
	<title>I would have dropped my landline by now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if AT&amp;T hadn't dropped from 4 bars to 2 in my area.</p><p>Honestly, their cell network is nowhere near ready for a switch.  Large areas aren't even covered by EDGE.  And the way their network is collapsing under the weight of a handful of people reading nytimes.com from their iPhones, I really don't want to see what it looks like with even more users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if AT&amp;T had n't dropped from 4 bars to 2 in my area.Honestly , their cell network is nowhere near ready for a switch .
Large areas are n't even covered by EDGE .
And the way their network is collapsing under the weight of a handful of people reading nytimes.com from their iPhones , I really do n't want to see what it looks like with even more users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if AT&amp;T hadn't dropped from 4 bars to 2 in my area.Honestly, their cell network is nowhere near ready for a switch.
Large areas aren't even covered by EDGE.
And the way their network is collapsing under the weight of a handful of people reading nytimes.com from their iPhones, I really don't want to see what it looks like with even more users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608270</id>
	<title>Sounds great, but not for us</title>
	<author>bobjr94</author>
	<datestamp>1262288640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We only live about 20 outside Tacoma WA, but we have no cable service (TV or Internet), no DSL, poor to none cell service, no wireless internet options....Its satellite or dial up, neither really work for viop services. When I tried dial up we cant even get 56k, it topped out at 26k.

From calls to comcast &amp; quest it sounds like our area is not even on the coming soon list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We only live about 20 outside Tacoma WA , but we have no cable service ( TV or Internet ) , no DSL , poor to none cell service , no wireless internet options....Its satellite or dial up , neither really work for viop services .
When I tried dial up we cant even get 56k , it topped out at 26k .
From calls to comcast &amp; quest it sounds like our area is not even on the coming soon list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We only live about 20 outside Tacoma WA, but we have no cable service (TV or Internet), no DSL, poor to none cell service, no wireless internet options....Its satellite or dial up, neither really work for viop services.
When I tried dial up we cant even get 56k, it topped out at 26k.
From calls to comcast &amp; quest it sounds like our area is not even on the coming soon list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610496</id>
	<title>If POTS goes...</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1262258580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It they drop POTS, I'm not going to be choosing VIOP as the alternative. I'm going to a cell phone. They've been losing to cell phones a lot lately, with the portability and cheaper prices, and this will just force more people over. They won't be getting a 100\% conversion rate, so I expect their customer base to shrink greatly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It they drop POTS , I 'm not going to be choosing VIOP as the alternative .
I 'm going to a cell phone .
They 've been losing to cell phones a lot lately , with the portability and cheaper prices , and this will just force more people over .
They wo n't be getting a 100 \ % conversion rate , so I expect their customer base to shrink greatly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It they drop POTS, I'm not going to be choosing VIOP as the alternative.
I'm going to a cell phone.
They've been losing to cell phones a lot lately, with the portability and cheaper prices, and this will just force more people over.
They won't be getting a 100\% conversion rate, so I expect their customer base to shrink greatly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30612184</id>
	<title>Shove VOIP up your....</title>
	<author>arfonrg</author>
	<datestamp>1262277660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After working at a VOIP provider (yes, in a technical capacity), I say: "you can shove VOIP up your a$$".  Gimme POTs, it is FAR more durable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After working at a VOIP provider ( yes , in a technical capacity ) , I say : " you can shove VOIP up your a $ $ " .
Gim me POTs , it is FAR more durable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After working at a VOIP provider (yes, in a technical capacity), I say: "you can shove VOIP up your a$$".
Gimme POTs, it is FAR more durable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607706</id>
	<title>safety from threats.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262286180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and when the aliens disable our wireless communications, then what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and when the aliens disable our wireless communications , then what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and when the aliens disable our wireless communications, then what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607632</id>
	<title>The US never made it to ISDN</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1262285880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
In parts of Europe, voice phone service has been digital for a decade or more, using ISDN.  ISDN voice is 64Kb/s uncompressed, so you get digital audio for the last mile in the same format as the rest of the phone network, and with no packetization lag.
ISDN was supposed to take voice digital. Unfortunately, US phone companies took it as an opportunity to switch from flat-rate local call pricing to per-minute pricing, so it never went anywhere.
</p><p>
The US did ISDN power wrong - Europe provides power over ISDN, but the US does not.  So ISDN home equipment remains powered up as long as the central office has power.  (There's a cute trick with ISDN power - normally, it's one DC polarity, and you can draw a fair amount of power, enough to run answering machines, wireless base stations, and ISDN phone displays. In emergencies, the central office reverses the DC polarity and lowers the current limit.  You can still make calls, but the accessories power down.)  Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark are about 1/3 voice ISDN.
</p><p>
Here are some <a href="http://gigaset.com/shc/0,1935,hq\_en\_0\_152651\_rArNrNrNrN,00.html" title="gigaset.com">modern ISDN phones.</a> [gigaset.com]  They have nice features, like a running display of call cost and SMS capability.  ISDN and DSL can be run on the same wire pair, so using ISDN for voice and DSL for data works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In parts of Europe , voice phone service has been digital for a decade or more , using ISDN .
ISDN voice is 64Kb/s uncompressed , so you get digital audio for the last mile in the same format as the rest of the phone network , and with no packetization lag .
ISDN was supposed to take voice digital .
Unfortunately , US phone companies took it as an opportunity to switch from flat-rate local call pricing to per-minute pricing , so it never went anywhere .
The US did ISDN power wrong - Europe provides power over ISDN , but the US does not .
So ISDN home equipment remains powered up as long as the central office has power .
( There 's a cute trick with ISDN power - normally , it 's one DC polarity , and you can draw a fair amount of power , enough to run answering machines , wireless base stations , and ISDN phone displays .
In emergencies , the central office reverses the DC polarity and lowers the current limit .
You can still make calls , but the accessories power down .
) Germany , Switzerland , and Denmark are about 1/3 voice ISDN .
Here are some modern ISDN phones .
[ gigaset.com ] They have nice features , like a running display of call cost and SMS capability .
ISDN and DSL can be run on the same wire pair , so using ISDN for voice and DSL for data works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In parts of Europe, voice phone service has been digital for a decade or more, using ISDN.
ISDN voice is 64Kb/s uncompressed, so you get digital audio for the last mile in the same format as the rest of the phone network, and with no packetization lag.
ISDN was supposed to take voice digital.
Unfortunately, US phone companies took it as an opportunity to switch from flat-rate local call pricing to per-minute pricing, so it never went anywhere.
The US did ISDN power wrong - Europe provides power over ISDN, but the US does not.
So ISDN home equipment remains powered up as long as the central office has power.
(There's a cute trick with ISDN power - normally, it's one DC polarity, and you can draw a fair amount of power, enough to run answering machines, wireless base stations, and ISDN phone displays.
In emergencies, the central office reverses the DC polarity and lowers the current limit.
You can still make calls, but the accessories power down.
)  Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark are about 1/3 voice ISDN.
Here are some modern ISDN phones.
[gigaset.com]  They have nice features, like a running display of call cost and SMS capability.
ISDN and DSL can be run on the same wire pair, so using ISDN for voice and DSL for data works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606712</id>
	<title>Leave the wire in place, change the technology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262282520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As there is no way that phone companies would want to (or be allowed to) abandon millions of miles of copper wire and the tasty franchises and monopolies that went along with their installation, there will be no switch to a wireless-only phone network.  Phone companies aren't suggesting any such thing, don't have and don't want to build the required wireless bandwidth, and have invested a ton of money in digital switches and fiber connections between their facilities.</p><p>I'd guess that the switch-to-subscriber last-mile connection is probably about the only analog left in most phone systems. However, changing that last mile from analog to digital would be the way to go - and would be hugely less expensive than replacing wire with fiber.</p><p>Each current subscriber would receive either a new digital handset or an A-to-D converter if they wanted to keep their current handset.  Note that this seems to have worked out OK for the TV switchover.</p><p>The new system would continue to provide DC current to power the customer handsets or converters so should continue to work even in case of AC power outs.  The new digital handset/converter would provide some sort of packet-based transmission to the (probably already digital) switch where it would enter (certainly already digital) long distance system.</p><p>Why bother to do this?  New markets for new products from the phone company; new features on your newly-digital POTS handset.  Why fire up a PC to get VOIP service - or non-voice communication?  How about email directly to grandma's phone?  A real videophone?  Digital service to every home with universal Internet access?  Multiple subscribers in remote areas on a single piece of wire without party lines?  Multiple concurrent phone calls from/to your home phone with only one phone number?</p><p>A pile of new products and services to sell.  Big profits.  If I owned a phone company, I'd want to do it.  Especially if I could get the A-to-D converters subsidized by the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As there is no way that phone companies would want to ( or be allowed to ) abandon millions of miles of copper wire and the tasty franchises and monopolies that went along with their installation , there will be no switch to a wireless-only phone network .
Phone companies are n't suggesting any such thing , do n't have and do n't want to build the required wireless bandwidth , and have invested a ton of money in digital switches and fiber connections between their facilities.I 'd guess that the switch-to-subscriber last-mile connection is probably about the only analog left in most phone systems .
However , changing that last mile from analog to digital would be the way to go - and would be hugely less expensive than replacing wire with fiber.Each current subscriber would receive either a new digital handset or an A-to-D converter if they wanted to keep their current handset .
Note that this seems to have worked out OK for the TV switchover.The new system would continue to provide DC current to power the customer handsets or converters so should continue to work even in case of AC power outs .
The new digital handset/converter would provide some sort of packet-based transmission to the ( probably already digital ) switch where it would enter ( certainly already digital ) long distance system.Why bother to do this ?
New markets for new products from the phone company ; new features on your newly-digital POTS handset .
Why fire up a PC to get VOIP service - or non-voice communication ?
How about email directly to grandma 's phone ?
A real videophone ?
Digital service to every home with universal Internet access ?
Multiple subscribers in remote areas on a single piece of wire without party lines ?
Multiple concurrent phone calls from/to your home phone with only one phone number ? A pile of new products and services to sell .
Big profits .
If I owned a phone company , I 'd want to do it .
Especially if I could get the A-to-D converters subsidized by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As there is no way that phone companies would want to (or be allowed to) abandon millions of miles of copper wire and the tasty franchises and monopolies that went along with their installation, there will be no switch to a wireless-only phone network.
Phone companies aren't suggesting any such thing, don't have and don't want to build the required wireless bandwidth, and have invested a ton of money in digital switches and fiber connections between their facilities.I'd guess that the switch-to-subscriber last-mile connection is probably about the only analog left in most phone systems.
However, changing that last mile from analog to digital would be the way to go - and would be hugely less expensive than replacing wire with fiber.Each current subscriber would receive either a new digital handset or an A-to-D converter if they wanted to keep their current handset.
Note that this seems to have worked out OK for the TV switchover.The new system would continue to provide DC current to power the customer handsets or converters so should continue to work even in case of AC power outs.
The new digital handset/converter would provide some sort of packet-based transmission to the (probably already digital) switch where it would enter (certainly already digital) long distance system.Why bother to do this?
New markets for new products from the phone company; new features on your newly-digital POTS handset.
Why fire up a PC to get VOIP service - or non-voice communication?
How about email directly to grandma's phone?
A real videophone?
Digital service to every home with universal Internet access?
Multiple subscribers in remote areas on a single piece of wire without party lines?
Multiple concurrent phone calls from/to your home phone with only one phone number?A pile of new products and services to sell.
Big profits.
If I owned a phone company, I'd want to do it.
Especially if I could get the A-to-D converters subsidized by the government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609108</id>
	<title>SS7 over IP...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262293140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... might well be worth hacking....</p><p>http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3555.en.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... might well be worth hacking....http : //events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3555.en.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... might well be worth hacking....http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3555.en.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610972</id>
	<title>Give the PSTN to the phone phreaks!</title>
	<author>mbstone</author>
	<datestamp>1262262960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All we ever wanted to do was play with it.  Give the PSTN over to a nonprofit group headed by, say, the editors of 2600 mag.  We might even add some features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All we ever wanted to do was play with it .
Give the PSTN over to a nonprofit group headed by , say , the editors of 2600 mag .
We might even add some features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All we ever wanted to do was play with it.
Give the PSTN over to a nonprofit group headed by, say, the editors of 2600 mag.
We might even add some features.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610330</id>
	<title>Better alternative please.</title>
	<author>Pinback</author>
	<datestamp>1262257440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If AT&amp;T is going to all the trouble to get this approved, can we please get something better than an analog line with DTMF?</p><p>How about a camera phone? How about something smart enough to not ring if the person calling isn't someone I want to talk to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If AT&amp;T is going to all the trouble to get this approved , can we please get something better than an analog line with DTMF ? How about a camera phone ?
How about something smart enough to not ring if the person calling is n't someone I want to talk to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AT&amp;T is going to all the trouble to get this approved, can we please get something better than an analog line with DTMF?How about a camera phone?
How about something smart enough to not ring if the person calling isn't someone I want to talk to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606212</id>
	<title>Don't take my POTS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262280240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll keep my land line at my house active as long as possible.

</p><p>I have three small kids and I need something absolutely reliable in case of an emergency.

</p><p>While I do absolutely love modern mobile tech (Droid!), I prefer using a land line while at home. I simply don't enjoy having long conversations on a mobile phone. The newest phone at my house is a Nortel Meridian M9616CW which was (for me) the ultimate geek phone in the mid 90s. They seem to fetch a good price:

</p><p> <a href="http://www.telephonegenie.com/customer/product.php?productid=16149" title="telephonegenie.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.telephonegenie.com/customer/product.php?productid=16149</a> [telephonegenie.com]

</p><p>The rest are all Western Electric, Automatic Electric and ITT phones from the early 40s - 70s that I've collected and repaired. They all work perfectly (even rotary dialing) on the Cox Digital phone service.

</p><p>As the article mentioned, POTS is preferable in disaster areas. I live in an area of New Orleans that didn't flood in Katrina. The only way I was able to contact people in my neighborhood who stayed for the storm was on their land lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll keep my land line at my house active as long as possible .
I have three small kids and I need something absolutely reliable in case of an emergency .
While I do absolutely love modern mobile tech ( Droid !
) , I prefer using a land line while at home .
I simply do n't enjoy having long conversations on a mobile phone .
The newest phone at my house is a Nortel Meridian M9616CW which was ( for me ) the ultimate geek phone in the mid 90s .
They seem to fetch a good price : http : //www.telephonegenie.com/customer/product.php ? productid = 16149 [ telephonegenie.com ] The rest are all Western Electric , Automatic Electric and ITT phones from the early 40s - 70s that I 've collected and repaired .
They all work perfectly ( even rotary dialing ) on the Cox Digital phone service .
As the article mentioned , POTS is preferable in disaster areas .
I live in an area of New Orleans that did n't flood in Katrina .
The only way I was able to contact people in my neighborhood who stayed for the storm was on their land lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll keep my land line at my house active as long as possible.
I have three small kids and I need something absolutely reliable in case of an emergency.
While I do absolutely love modern mobile tech (Droid!
), I prefer using a land line while at home.
I simply don't enjoy having long conversations on a mobile phone.
The newest phone at my house is a Nortel Meridian M9616CW which was (for me) the ultimate geek phone in the mid 90s.
They seem to fetch a good price:

 http://www.telephonegenie.com/customer/product.php?productid=16149 [telephonegenie.com]

The rest are all Western Electric, Automatic Electric and ITT phones from the early 40s - 70s that I've collected and repaired.
They all work perfectly (even rotary dialing) on the Cox Digital phone service.
As the article mentioned, POTS is preferable in disaster areas.
I live in an area of New Orleans that didn't flood in Katrina.
The only way I was able to contact people in my neighborhood who stayed for the storm was on their land lines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058</id>
	<title>Analog lines aren't just for phones ya know...</title>
	<author>rsilvergun</author>
	<datestamp>1262279520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fax machines and Stand Alone Credit Card terminals require them too. You can sometimes jury rig it to work, but it's a crap shoot....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fax machines and Stand Alone Credit Card terminals require them too .
You can sometimes jury rig it to work , but it 's a crap shoot... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fax machines and Stand Alone Credit Card terminals require them too.
You can sometimes jury rig it to work, but it's a crap shoot....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607888</id>
	<title>911</title>
	<author>randallman</author>
	<datestamp>1262286840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As expected, there are numerous responses with concerns about 911 availability.  The biggest issue is that 911 depends on the reliability of the network it is used on.  So since it's so important, why are we piggy backing it on other services.  Maybe the FCC should set aside part of the spectrum for emergency frequencies and we can all have emergency radios in our house.  Even if it's just an emergency beacon device of some sort, it might be enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As expected , there are numerous responses with concerns about 911 availability .
The biggest issue is that 911 depends on the reliability of the network it is used on .
So since it 's so important , why are we piggy backing it on other services .
Maybe the FCC should set aside part of the spectrum for emergency frequencies and we can all have emergency radios in our house .
Even if it 's just an emergency beacon device of some sort , it might be enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As expected, there are numerous responses with concerns about 911 availability.
The biggest issue is that 911 depends on the reliability of the network it is used on.
So since it's so important, why are we piggy backing it on other services.
Maybe the FCC should set aside part of the spectrum for emergency frequencies and we can all have emergency radios in our house.
Even if it's just an emergency beacon device of some sort, it might be enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609246</id>
	<title>Re:No Landlines? Hah.</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1262250720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>partly true</p><p>POTS still requires DMS 500 or some other class 5 switch or whatever it's called. and that means the overpriced cards that can only take a few lines. my employer has a few of these switches and they are huge. the 21st century equivalent is 2 1U rack servers that can outperform 10 of these switches</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>partly truePOTS still requires DMS 500 or some other class 5 switch or whatever it 's called .
and that means the overpriced cards that can only take a few lines .
my employer has a few of these switches and they are huge .
the 21st century equivalent is 2 1U rack servers that can outperform 10 of these switches</tokentext>
<sentencetext>partly truePOTS still requires DMS 500 or some other class 5 switch or whatever it's called.
and that means the overpriced cards that can only take a few lines.
my employer has a few of these switches and they are huge.
the 21st century equivalent is 2 1U rack servers that can outperform 10 of these switches</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606342</id>
	<title>Sooner or later</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1262281020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is one of market share and costs.  At some point, the costs of maintaining POTS will exceed the revenue produced by it.  When that happens, or maybe a little before, POTS is dead.  It really doesn't matter if not everyone has switched over or not, it will just be terminated.</p><p>That is the reason they want an announced-by-the-government date, as it would eliminate the carrier from being the bad guy.</p><p>The problem is today end-user vVOIP has no tariffs that require reliability.  If Vonage service goes out, so what?  Because of the number of hands it has to go through, it is unlikely we are going to see much mandated reliability for VOIP service anytime soon.  This means that your "landline" phone is not going to have anywhere near the reliability that POTS service has today, and there will be no regulation that says it has to be.</p><p>All in all, this sounds like an interesting, but utterly useless idea.  But unless something is done about pseudo-carriers like Vonage and Magic Jack POTS service is doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is one of market share and costs .
At some point , the costs of maintaining POTS will exceed the revenue produced by it .
When that happens , or maybe a little before , POTS is dead .
It really does n't matter if not everyone has switched over or not , it will just be terminated.That is the reason they want an announced-by-the-government date , as it would eliminate the carrier from being the bad guy.The problem is today end-user vVOIP has no tariffs that require reliability .
If Vonage service goes out , so what ?
Because of the number of hands it has to go through , it is unlikely we are going to see much mandated reliability for VOIP service anytime soon .
This means that your " landline " phone is not going to have anywhere near the reliability that POTS service has today , and there will be no regulation that says it has to be.All in all , this sounds like an interesting , but utterly useless idea .
But unless something is done about pseudo-carriers like Vonage and Magic Jack POTS service is doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is one of market share and costs.
At some point, the costs of maintaining POTS will exceed the revenue produced by it.
When that happens, or maybe a little before, POTS is dead.
It really doesn't matter if not everyone has switched over or not, it will just be terminated.That is the reason they want an announced-by-the-government date, as it would eliminate the carrier from being the bad guy.The problem is today end-user vVOIP has no tariffs that require reliability.
If Vonage service goes out, so what?
Because of the number of hands it has to go through, it is unlikely we are going to see much mandated reliability for VOIP service anytime soon.
This means that your "landline" phone is not going to have anywhere near the reliability that POTS service has today, and there will be no regulation that says it has to be.All in all, this sounds like an interesting, but utterly useless idea.
But unless something is done about pseudo-carriers like Vonage and Magic Jack POTS service is doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610574</id>
	<title>Dial Terminals do not work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262259240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They absolutely require analog telephony and neither digital phone systems nor VOIP will accommodate them.   And there are MILLIONS of them deployed and running right now on analog dial.    Verifone and Hypercom (the two main manufacturers) are trying their best to sell IP enabled devices but they still have machines made nearly 20 years ago (like the best terminal ever made, the Verifone Tranz330) still chugging away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They absolutely require analog telephony and neither digital phone systems nor VOIP will accommodate them .
And there are MILLIONS of them deployed and running right now on analog dial .
Verifone and Hypercom ( the two main manufacturers ) are trying their best to sell IP enabled devices but they still have machines made nearly 20 years ago ( like the best terminal ever made , the Verifone Tranz330 ) still chugging away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They absolutely require analog telephony and neither digital phone systems nor VOIP will accommodate them.
And there are MILLIONS of them deployed and running right now on analog dial.
Verifone and Hypercom (the two main manufacturers) are trying their best to sell IP enabled devices but they still have machines made nearly 20 years ago (like the best terminal ever made, the Verifone Tranz330) still chugging away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606038</id>
	<title>True, True</title>
	<author>jmauro</author>
	<datestamp>1262279460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>[T]hough many Americans are still without decent internet access</i></p><p>If they're AT&amp;T customers that's probably especially true.</p><p>I have no problem with removing analog phone lines from a requirement as long as they're required to still provide phone service to rural areas via VOIP boxes or cell to landline convertors or something similar.    I think they'll find that the whole thing will wind up being more expensive than just keep analog pairs around (especially if the phone still needs to work in a power outage).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ T ] hough many Americans are still without decent internet accessIf they 're AT&amp;T customers that 's probably especially true.I have no problem with removing analog phone lines from a requirement as long as they 're required to still provide phone service to rural areas via VOIP boxes or cell to landline convertors or something similar .
I think they 'll find that the whole thing will wind up being more expensive than just keep analog pairs around ( especially if the phone still needs to work in a power outage ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[T]hough many Americans are still without decent internet accessIf they're AT&amp;T customers that's probably especially true.I have no problem with removing analog phone lines from a requirement as long as they're required to still provide phone service to rural areas via VOIP boxes or cell to landline convertors or something similar.
I think they'll find that the whole thing will wind up being more expensive than just keep analog pairs around (especially if the phone still needs to work in a power outage).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606118</id>
	<title>If AT&amp;T wants that...</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1262279760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If AT&amp;T wants the FCC to set a date to cut landlines, the FCC should force AT&amp;T (and other corporations) to get the country's infrastructure up to snuff first. We can talk about dates after that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If AT&amp;T wants the FCC to set a date to cut landlines , the FCC should force AT&amp;T ( and other corporations ) to get the country 's infrastructure up to snuff first .
We can talk about dates after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AT&amp;T wants the FCC to set a date to cut landlines, the FCC should force AT&amp;T (and other corporations) to get the country's infrastructure up to snuff first.
We can talk about dates after that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606408</id>
	<title>Re:Analog lines aren't just for phones ya know...</title>
	<author>SaDan</author>
	<datestamp>1262281440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the right hardware, fax machines, credit card terminals, and satellite receivers can work over VoIP.  I used to have to support folks with VoIP service at a wireless ISP, so I know it can be done.  It's not as fast as a normal POTS line (usually limited to 9600 baud connections or lower), but I've seen it work.</p><p>You could also move away from a fax machine to a PDF scanner, and get credit card terminals that work over ethernet, then send everything over your internet connection instead of doing analog to digital to analog conversions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the right hardware , fax machines , credit card terminals , and satellite receivers can work over VoIP .
I used to have to support folks with VoIP service at a wireless ISP , so I know it can be done .
It 's not as fast as a normal POTS line ( usually limited to 9600 baud connections or lower ) , but I 've seen it work.You could also move away from a fax machine to a PDF scanner , and get credit card terminals that work over ethernet , then send everything over your internet connection instead of doing analog to digital to analog conversions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the right hardware, fax machines, credit card terminals, and satellite receivers can work over VoIP.
I used to have to support folks with VoIP service at a wireless ISP, so I know it can be done.
It's not as fast as a normal POTS line (usually limited to 9600 baud connections or lower), but I've seen it work.You could also move away from a fax machine to a PDF scanner, and get credit card terminals that work over ethernet, then send everything over your internet connection instead of doing analog to digital to analog conversions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606130</id>
	<title>Some other roadblocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used VOIP for years at both my business and my house - but we still have a landline.  Just a few other roadblocks we ran into that weren't mentioned:</p><ul>
<li>faxing is unreliable.  Yes, businesses should migrate into the 21st century and ditch the fax machine, but MANY businesses (including many of my suppliers) still rely on the fax for their daily operations.  We've gotten around that by using a fax-to-email service, but that's sometimes a pain to deal with.</li><li>credit card machines are similar (also using a modem).  Again, move into the 21st century and use an IP connection instead, but change is hard.  Many businesses are still using their 20 year old credit card machine, and until you phase those out you'll still need a landline.</li><li>security systems apparently don't work well without a landline - I don't know the mechanics of it but I suspect it's similar.</li><li>
The biggest issue - VOIP is simply not reliable.  POTS lines are required by federal regulations to have a certain uptime, VOIP lines are not.  If your VOIP provider goes down in the middle of a business day you have no recourse other than perhaps an SLA agreement with them.  We use several and they're generally very reliable, but not to the standard of the good old copper line.</li></ul><p>I love the flexibility I get with VOIP, I can work from anywhere with a decent internet connection and have all kinds of routing options through my Asterisk server, but we still have our incoming calls defaulting to a POTS line that runs into the Asterisk box.  VOIP is constantly gaining ground but it's not there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used VOIP for years at both my business and my house - but we still have a landline .
Just a few other roadblocks we ran into that were n't mentioned : faxing is unreliable .
Yes , businesses should migrate into the 21st century and ditch the fax machine , but MANY businesses ( including many of my suppliers ) still rely on the fax for their daily operations .
We 've gotten around that by using a fax-to-email service , but that 's sometimes a pain to deal with.credit card machines are similar ( also using a modem ) .
Again , move into the 21st century and use an IP connection instead , but change is hard .
Many businesses are still using their 20 year old credit card machine , and until you phase those out you 'll still need a landline.security systems apparently do n't work well without a landline - I do n't know the mechanics of it but I suspect it 's similar .
The biggest issue - VOIP is simply not reliable .
POTS lines are required by federal regulations to have a certain uptime , VOIP lines are not .
If your VOIP provider goes down in the middle of a business day you have no recourse other than perhaps an SLA agreement with them .
We use several and they 're generally very reliable , but not to the standard of the good old copper line.I love the flexibility I get with VOIP , I can work from anywhere with a decent internet connection and have all kinds of routing options through my Asterisk server , but we still have our incoming calls defaulting to a POTS line that runs into the Asterisk box .
VOIP is constantly gaining ground but it 's not there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used VOIP for years at both my business and my house - but we still have a landline.
Just a few other roadblocks we ran into that weren't mentioned:
faxing is unreliable.
Yes, businesses should migrate into the 21st century and ditch the fax machine, but MANY businesses (including many of my suppliers) still rely on the fax for their daily operations.
We've gotten around that by using a fax-to-email service, but that's sometimes a pain to deal with.credit card machines are similar (also using a modem).
Again, move into the 21st century and use an IP connection instead, but change is hard.
Many businesses are still using their 20 year old credit card machine, and until you phase those out you'll still need a landline.security systems apparently don't work well without a landline - I don't know the mechanics of it but I suspect it's similar.
The biggest issue - VOIP is simply not reliable.
POTS lines are required by federal regulations to have a certain uptime, VOIP lines are not.
If your VOIP provider goes down in the middle of a business day you have no recourse other than perhaps an SLA agreement with them.
We use several and they're generally very reliable, but not to the standard of the good old copper line.I love the flexibility I get with VOIP, I can work from anywhere with a decent internet connection and have all kinds of routing options through my Asterisk server, but we still have our incoming calls defaulting to a POTS line that runs into the Asterisk box.
VOIP is constantly gaining ground but it's not there yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606504</id>
	<title>Re:Cut landlines? Implications...</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1262281800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a power outage, you can use cellular - maybe.  Depends on how the towers are configured.  Some towers just have minimal battery UPS systems, some use generators.  In an extended outage, a cell phone company would have to maintain power on (most) every tower as compared to a more centralized POTS facility. Likewise, it has to keep power up to the backhaul systems.  Doable, but more expensive and we know how well our favorite cell phone providers are with 'expensive'.
<br> <br>
Cordless phones are easy - a battery UPS - but most people won't bother.  If you have a basic POTS phone, one that doesn't need external power for basic operation, then it can get power from the POTS line.<br> <br>
There is no intrinsic reason IP based systems can't be as reliable, or more reliable than POTS, but it typically doesn't happen that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a power outage , you can use cellular - maybe .
Depends on how the towers are configured .
Some towers just have minimal battery UPS systems , some use generators .
In an extended outage , a cell phone company would have to maintain power on ( most ) every tower as compared to a more centralized POTS facility .
Likewise , it has to keep power up to the backhaul systems .
Doable , but more expensive and we know how well our favorite cell phone providers are with 'expensive' .
Cordless phones are easy - a battery UPS - but most people wo n't bother .
If you have a basic POTS phone , one that does n't need external power for basic operation , then it can get power from the POTS line .
There is no intrinsic reason IP based systems ca n't be as reliable , or more reliable than POTS , but it typically does n't happen that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a power outage, you can use cellular - maybe.
Depends on how the towers are configured.
Some towers just have minimal battery UPS systems, some use generators.
In an extended outage, a cell phone company would have to maintain power on (most) every tower as compared to a more centralized POTS facility.
Likewise, it has to keep power up to the backhaul systems.
Doable, but more expensive and we know how well our favorite cell phone providers are with 'expensive'.
Cordless phones are easy - a battery UPS - but most people won't bother.
If you have a basic POTS phone, one that doesn't need external power for basic operation, then it can get power from the POTS line.
There is no intrinsic reason IP based systems can't be as reliable, or more reliable than POTS, but it typically doesn't happen that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608982</id>
	<title>Re:Analog lines aren't just for phones ya know...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262292420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The POTS based credit card terminals are REALLY annoying.  They're basically an IP terminal with a modem, so you have to wait for the modem to dial each time.</p><p>Fax machines should have been obsolete a long time ago.  Good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The POTS based credit card terminals are REALLY annoying .
They 're basically an IP terminal with a modem , so you have to wait for the modem to dial each time.Fax machines should have been obsolete a long time ago .
Good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The POTS based credit card terminals are REALLY annoying.
They're basically an IP terminal with a modem, so you have to wait for the modem to dial each time.Fax machines should have been obsolete a long time ago.
Good riddance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609938</id>
	<title>Re:Analog lines aren't just for phones ya know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262254860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fax works fine with VoIP services like vonage, packet8 et al, all the way up to commercial systems like Alcatel/Lucent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fax works fine with VoIP services like vonage , packet8 et al , all the way up to commercial systems like Alcatel/Lucent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fax works fine with VoIP services like vonage, packet8 et al, all the way up to commercial systems like Alcatel/Lucent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606974</id>
	<title>Re:Isnt it ironic ? they are the ones withholding</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1262283360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... whats ironic is that people think they should be able to live in whatever backwater part of the country, and still expect all the services you'd find in a city.  i used to think universal service was a good thing... but seriously, all of us are paying a lot of money because some fuckwad in a moutain cabin with no one around for miles needs a phone line.  How about we accept that there are tradeoffs for living in a rural vs. city environment, and let people make the choice and live with the consequences.</p><p>No need for socialism... but a great need to stop this entitlement that no matter where you live I should have to help pay for your phone service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... whats ironic is that people think they should be able to live in whatever backwater part of the country , and still expect all the services you 'd find in a city .
i used to think universal service was a good thing... but seriously , all of us are paying a lot of money because some fuckwad in a moutain cabin with no one around for miles needs a phone line .
How about we accept that there are tradeoffs for living in a rural vs. city environment , and let people make the choice and live with the consequences.No need for socialism... but a great need to stop this entitlement that no matter where you live I should have to help pay for your phone service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... whats ironic is that people think they should be able to live in whatever backwater part of the country, and still expect all the services you'd find in a city.
i used to think universal service was a good thing... but seriously, all of us are paying a lot of money because some fuckwad in a moutain cabin with no one around for miles needs a phone line.
How about we accept that there are tradeoffs for living in a rural vs. city environment, and let people make the choice and live with the consequences.No need for socialism... but a great need to stop this entitlement that no matter where you live I should have to help pay for your phone service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606602</id>
	<title>People will die</title>
	<author>W.Mandamus</author>
	<datestamp>1262282040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Katrina the power went out, the cell phone towers went down, the police multiplexing radio stopped working.  The only communication people had when the water started coming into their homes were their analog phone lines.  When everything else stopped working those remained operational.  I still remember people calling in to a local radio station (from their landlines) to say that they were trapped in their attic and request help.  Getting rid of analog phones is the worst idea I've ever heard and shows that that the people suggesting it have never seen the information black hole that results from a major disaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Katrina the power went out , the cell phone towers went down , the police multiplexing radio stopped working .
The only communication people had when the water started coming into their homes were their analog phone lines .
When everything else stopped working those remained operational .
I still remember people calling in to a local radio station ( from their landlines ) to say that they were trapped in their attic and request help .
Getting rid of analog phones is the worst idea I 've ever heard and shows that that the people suggesting it have never seen the information black hole that results from a major disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Katrina the power went out, the cell phone towers went down, the police multiplexing radio stopped working.
The only communication people had when the water started coming into their homes were their analog phone lines.
When everything else stopped working those remained operational.
I still remember people calling in to a local radio station (from their landlines) to say that they were trapped in their attic and request help.
Getting rid of analog phones is the worst idea I've ever heard and shows that that the people suggesting it have never seen the information black hole that results from a major disaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606210</id>
	<title>Sure you can stop supporting landlines...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262280240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when you start supporting a cheap and reliable alternative.</p><p>I'm not going to hold my breath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when you start supporting a cheap and reliable alternative.I 'm not going to hold my breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when you start supporting a cheap and reliable alternative.I'm not going to hold my breath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605788</id>
	<title>VOIP sucks.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262278380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had a reliable VOIP service, I would be happy, but the most reliable thing is POTS.  It's simple and it works.  I know some people that are just VOIP or just cell phone, but neither is reliable enough to replace my dedicated line - I've tried it, twice, and its just not enough.  Plus land lines are dirt cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had a reliable VOIP service , I would be happy , but the most reliable thing is POTS .
It 's simple and it works .
I know some people that are just VOIP or just cell phone , but neither is reliable enough to replace my dedicated line - I 've tried it , twice , and its just not enough .
Plus land lines are dirt cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had a reliable VOIP service, I would be happy, but the most reliable thing is POTS.
It's simple and it works.
I know some people that are just VOIP or just cell phone, but neither is reliable enough to replace my dedicated line - I've tried it, twice, and its just not enough.
Plus land lines are dirt cheap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608884</id>
	<title>VoIP gave people choice, and they chose.</title>
	<author>Alrescha</author>
	<datestamp>1262292000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ATT whines about people leaving for alternative services as if it were inevitable.  I don't think it was.</p><p>VoIP gave people alternatives to being gouged $25 or $30 a month for just *dialtone*, and people chose.  I have a T-Mobile prepaid cell phone and I pay less than that *per year* for the 'dialtone' component.</p><p>I'd pay $100/year for a wired circuit and dialtone, but that kind of money just isn't enough for the likes of AT&amp;T.</p><p>A.<br>(who has been off the PSTN for a long, long time)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ATT whines about people leaving for alternative services as if it were inevitable .
I do n't think it was.VoIP gave people alternatives to being gouged $ 25 or $ 30 a month for just * dialtone * , and people chose .
I have a T-Mobile prepaid cell phone and I pay less than that * per year * for the 'dialtone ' component.I 'd pay $ 100/year for a wired circuit and dialtone , but that kind of money just is n't enough for the likes of AT&amp;T.A .
( who has been off the PSTN for a long , long time )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATT whines about people leaving for alternative services as if it were inevitable.
I don't think it was.VoIP gave people alternatives to being gouged $25 or $30 a month for just *dialtone*, and people chose.
I have a T-Mobile prepaid cell phone and I pay less than that *per year* for the 'dialtone' component.I'd pay $100/year for a wired circuit and dialtone, but that kind of money just isn't enough for the likes of AT&amp;T.A.
(who has been off the PSTN for a long, long time)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30611182</id>
	<title>Re:Leave the wire in place, change the technology.</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1262265060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The analog network will be abandoned the minute it is no longer profitable to maintain.  That happens when enough subscribers drop off.  This will clearly happen, either dropping off to join Vonage and their ilk or dropping off to go wireless only.</p><p>The government doesn't really have the power to force a carrier to maintain wires that are no longer profitable.  They might try forcing companies that own both wireless licenses and are tariffed phone carriers to maintain their phone network, but a simple divestiture of the loss-ridden part of the business ends that threat in one simple move.  If there isn't any money in it, there isn't anyone that will want to do it.  And what AT&amp;T is clearly trying to do is get government on the side of the abandonment.</p><p>Every person that says they dropped land line service for wireless adds fuel to the fire in support of abandonment.  It's coming, and probably coming within the next five years or so.  The network is hugely expensive to maintain and without millions of stay-at-home suburban housewives paying for landline service it is almost guaranteed to disappear.</p><p>The biggest reason why this will happen is the current PSTN is tariffed with toothy regulations behind it.  Wireless and VOIP aren't and there are few, if any, regulations.  So if the service goes out for an hour nobody has to pay penalties.  So the level of maintenance required and on-call technicians is much lower.  You can operate a VOIP phone company - off someone else's data network - on a shoestring and oursource the customer service to India.  This means the level of profit is much, much higher.</p><p>Supplying DC to each house over a pair of wires?  Why?  Why not just make it someone else's problem like Vonage does.  No regulations, no requirements, just profits.</p><p>Yup, I'd be planning on what to do after the shut the phones off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analog network will be abandoned the minute it is no longer profitable to maintain .
That happens when enough subscribers drop off .
This will clearly happen , either dropping off to join Vonage and their ilk or dropping off to go wireless only.The government does n't really have the power to force a carrier to maintain wires that are no longer profitable .
They might try forcing companies that own both wireless licenses and are tariffed phone carriers to maintain their phone network , but a simple divestiture of the loss-ridden part of the business ends that threat in one simple move .
If there is n't any money in it , there is n't anyone that will want to do it .
And what AT&amp;T is clearly trying to do is get government on the side of the abandonment.Every person that says they dropped land line service for wireless adds fuel to the fire in support of abandonment .
It 's coming , and probably coming within the next five years or so .
The network is hugely expensive to maintain and without millions of stay-at-home suburban housewives paying for landline service it is almost guaranteed to disappear.The biggest reason why this will happen is the current PSTN is tariffed with toothy regulations behind it .
Wireless and VOIP are n't and there are few , if any , regulations .
So if the service goes out for an hour nobody has to pay penalties .
So the level of maintenance required and on-call technicians is much lower .
You can operate a VOIP phone company - off someone else 's data network - on a shoestring and oursource the customer service to India .
This means the level of profit is much , much higher.Supplying DC to each house over a pair of wires ?
Why ? Why not just make it someone else 's problem like Vonage does .
No regulations , no requirements , just profits.Yup , I 'd be planning on what to do after the shut the phones off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analog network will be abandoned the minute it is no longer profitable to maintain.
That happens when enough subscribers drop off.
This will clearly happen, either dropping off to join Vonage and their ilk or dropping off to go wireless only.The government doesn't really have the power to force a carrier to maintain wires that are no longer profitable.
They might try forcing companies that own both wireless licenses and are tariffed phone carriers to maintain their phone network, but a simple divestiture of the loss-ridden part of the business ends that threat in one simple move.
If there isn't any money in it, there isn't anyone that will want to do it.
And what AT&amp;T is clearly trying to do is get government on the side of the abandonment.Every person that says they dropped land line service for wireless adds fuel to the fire in support of abandonment.
It's coming, and probably coming within the next five years or so.
The network is hugely expensive to maintain and without millions of stay-at-home suburban housewives paying for landline service it is almost guaranteed to disappear.The biggest reason why this will happen is the current PSTN is tariffed with toothy regulations behind it.
Wireless and VOIP aren't and there are few, if any, regulations.
So if the service goes out for an hour nobody has to pay penalties.
So the level of maintenance required and on-call technicians is much lower.
You can operate a VOIP phone company - off someone else's data network - on a shoestring and oursource the customer service to India.
This means the level of profit is much, much higher.Supplying DC to each house over a pair of wires?
Why?  Why not just make it someone else's problem like Vonage does.
No regulations, no requirements, just profits.Yup, I'd be planning on what to do after the shut the phones off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607782</id>
	<title>Re:People will die</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1262286420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the phone lines worked underwater?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the phone lines worked underwater ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the phone lines worked underwater?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610374</id>
	<title>Bottled water sources</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1262257680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some instances bottled water comes from municipal water, with additional filtering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some instances bottled water comes from municipal water , with additional filtering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some instances bottled water comes from municipal water, with additional filtering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606064</id>
	<title>silver lining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the valid points/problems in the previous comments aside, at least this would finally put an end to fax machines, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the valid points/problems in the previous comments aside , at least this would finally put an end to fax machines , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the valid points/problems in the previous comments aside, at least this would finally put an end to fax machines, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606610</id>
	<title>Credit card machines</title>
	<author>ChadM</author>
	<datestamp>1262282100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The majority of dialup credit card machines on the market do not work well with VOIP lines. If AT&amp;T forces this change, a few hundred thousand small businesses will be forced into buying new machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of dialup credit card machines on the market do not work well with VOIP lines .
If AT&amp;T forces this change , a few hundred thousand small businesses will be forced into buying new machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of dialup credit card machines on the market do not work well with VOIP lines.
If AT&amp;T forces this change, a few hundred thousand small businesses will be forced into buying new machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30651316</id>
	<title>Re:Isnt it ironic ? they are the ones withholding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1231091460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Echoing Areyoukiddingme (1289470):  Boone Electric is the cooperative here, and the only complaint I have is the occasional sub-second power outage - they force me to reset about half the digital clocks in the house.  But the prices are reasonable, service is excellent, and they go far above and beyond to maintain the lines and repair damage.  I've seen their trucks and linemen out in the worst ice storms restoring service.  That outweighs the occasional power blip by far.  And they treat their employees well, too.</p><p>I've lived places where the utilities were privatized protected monopolies - it stinks.</p><p>- T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Echoing Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) : Boone Electric is the cooperative here , and the only complaint I have is the occasional sub-second power outage - they force me to reset about half the digital clocks in the house .
But the prices are reasonable , service is excellent , and they go far above and beyond to maintain the lines and repair damage .
I 've seen their trucks and linemen out in the worst ice storms restoring service .
That outweighs the occasional power blip by far .
And they treat their employees well , too.I 've lived places where the utilities were privatized protected monopolies - it stinks.- T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Echoing Areyoukiddingme (1289470):  Boone Electric is the cooperative here, and the only complaint I have is the occasional sub-second power outage - they force me to reset about half the digital clocks in the house.
But the prices are reasonable, service is excellent, and they go far above and beyond to maintain the lines and repair damage.
I've seen their trucks and linemen out in the worst ice storms restoring service.
That outweighs the occasional power blip by far.
And they treat their employees well, too.I've lived places where the utilities were privatized protected monopolies - it stinks.- T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606190</id>
	<title>copper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262280120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's copper in them there lines. our slave script has become so devalued that the copper is worth a huge amount of script. as members of the slave class are starting to rip wires out of the ground to sell for food it becomes increasingly important to companies to get to the metal first either to liquidate it or to better secure it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's copper in them there lines .
our slave script has become so devalued that the copper is worth a huge amount of script .
as members of the slave class are starting to rip wires out of the ground to sell for food it becomes increasingly important to companies to get to the metal first either to liquidate it or to better secure it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's copper in them there lines.
our slave script has become so devalued that the copper is worth a huge amount of script.
as members of the slave class are starting to rip wires out of the ground to sell for food it becomes increasingly important to companies to get to the metal first either to liquidate it or to better secure it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606254</id>
	<title>Crumbling Infrastructure</title>
	<author>seven of five</author>
	<datestamp>1262280480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In our northside Chicago neighborhood, the ATT-maintained land lines get all noisy and cross-talky whenever it rains. <br>
We can hear other conversations on the line.<br>
We call the 611 number, and they fiddle with it, it gets better. The next time it rains, the lines get noisy.<br> <br>
I'm completely unsurprised that ATT doesn't want to have land lines anymore. They're too cheap to be bothered with upkeep.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In our northside Chicago neighborhood , the ATT-maintained land lines get all noisy and cross-talky whenever it rains .
We can hear other conversations on the line .
We call the 611 number , and they fiddle with it , it gets better .
The next time it rains , the lines get noisy .
I 'm completely unsurprised that ATT does n't want to have land lines anymore .
They 're too cheap to be bothered with upkeep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In our northside Chicago neighborhood, the ATT-maintained land lines get all noisy and cross-talky whenever it rains.
We can hear other conversations on the line.
We call the 611 number, and they fiddle with it, it gets better.
The next time it rains, the lines get noisy.
I'm completely unsurprised that ATT doesn't want to have land lines anymore.
They're too cheap to be bothered with upkeep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606582</id>
	<title>Re:Isnt it ironic ? they are the ones withholding</title>
	<author>Digicrat</author>
	<datestamp>1262282040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>yet, if, any government agency would, god forbid, to step in to eliminate this blatant slighting of citizens, those bastards all start up yelling 'competition' , 'hands off business', 'no government intervention', 'socialism'.</p></div><p>Why would the government forbid something that <b>they</b> initiated by asking ATT this question in the first place!</p><p>Landlines are the most reliable and proven communications technology in use today.  It's used everywhere, well understood, and proven to be highly versatile over the years.  Cutting the line would be bad for everyone - VoIP and Cell service only last so long on battery power in an emergency (ie:blackout), but landlines can last for days -- in the 2003 blackout internet went down immediately, cell's became sketchy and went out altogether within a day, but landlines worked throughout the blackout without a hitch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yet , if , any government agency would , god forbid , to step in to eliminate this blatant slighting of citizens , those bastards all start up yelling 'competition ' , 'hands off business ' , 'no government intervention ' , 'socialism'.Why would the government forbid something that they initiated by asking ATT this question in the first place ! Landlines are the most reliable and proven communications technology in use today .
It 's used everywhere , well understood , and proven to be highly versatile over the years .
Cutting the line would be bad for everyone - VoIP and Cell service only last so long on battery power in an emergency ( ie : blackout ) , but landlines can last for days -- in the 2003 blackout internet went down immediately , cell 's became sketchy and went out altogether within a day , but landlines worked throughout the blackout without a hitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet, if, any government agency would, god forbid, to step in to eliminate this blatant slighting of citizens, those bastards all start up yelling 'competition' , 'hands off business', 'no government intervention', 'socialism'.Why would the government forbid something that they initiated by asking ATT this question in the first place!Landlines are the most reliable and proven communications technology in use today.
It's used everywhere, well understood, and proven to be highly versatile over the years.
Cutting the line would be bad for everyone - VoIP and Cell service only last so long on battery power in an emergency (ie:blackout), but landlines can last for days -- in the 2003 blackout internet went down immediately, cell's became sketchy and went out altogether within a day, but landlines worked throughout the blackout without a hitch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606962</id>
	<title>Re:Cut landlines? Implications...</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1262283300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Landlines are not always independant of local power providers, and thus not always isolated from outages. It can depend on your area and provider. In fact, I would argue that cellular service would be more reliable, presuming it is available in your area and you have a car adapter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Landlines are not always independant of local power providers , and thus not always isolated from outages .
It can depend on your area and provider .
In fact , I would argue that cellular service would be more reliable , presuming it is available in your area and you have a car adapter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Landlines are not always independant of local power providers, and thus not always isolated from outages.
It can depend on your area and provider.
In fact, I would argue that cellular service would be more reliable, presuming it is available in your area and you have a car adapter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606008</id>
	<title>Cut landlines? Implications...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was always under the impression that landlines were necessary.  When there's a power outage you can't use cellular or cordless.

I hate to sound like an idiot, but it seems like I'm missing some integral part of the story here.  How would this work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was always under the impression that landlines were necessary .
When there 's a power outage you ca n't use cellular or cordless .
I hate to sound like an idiot , but it seems like I 'm missing some integral part of the story here .
How would this work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was always under the impression that landlines were necessary.
When there's a power outage you can't use cellular or cordless.
I hate to sound like an idiot, but it seems like I'm missing some integral part of the story here.
How would this work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978</id>
	<title>Isnt it ironic ? they are the ones withholding</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262279220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>decent internet access from many people because it is unprofitable for them to deliver, while still holding on to their granted monopolies in those areas. and then they even go to the extent of saying that they want to cut the landline cords. this basically means a lot of people will not only be without decent internet access, but also decent phone communication. unbelievable bastardiness.</p><p>yet, if, any government agency would, god forbid, to step in to eliminate this blatant slighting of citizens, those bastards all start up yelling 'competition' , 'hands off business', 'no government intervention', 'socialism'.</p><p>maybe socialism is indeed what is needed. for, apparently, what we have on our hands became an outright feudalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>decent internet access from many people because it is unprofitable for them to deliver , while still holding on to their granted monopolies in those areas .
and then they even go to the extent of saying that they want to cut the landline cords .
this basically means a lot of people will not only be without decent internet access , but also decent phone communication .
unbelievable bastardiness.yet , if , any government agency would , god forbid , to step in to eliminate this blatant slighting of citizens , those bastards all start up yelling 'competition ' , 'hands off business ' , 'no government intervention ' , 'socialism'.maybe socialism is indeed what is needed .
for , apparently , what we have on our hands became an outright feudalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>decent internet access from many people because it is unprofitable for them to deliver, while still holding on to their granted monopolies in those areas.
and then they even go to the extent of saying that they want to cut the landline cords.
this basically means a lot of people will not only be without decent internet access, but also decent phone communication.
unbelievable bastardiness.yet, if, any government agency would, god forbid, to step in to eliminate this blatant slighting of citizens, those bastards all start up yelling 'competition' , 'hands off business', 'no government intervention', 'socialism'.maybe socialism is indeed what is needed.
for, apparently, what we have on our hands became an outright feudalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30615594</id>
	<title>Available to everyone? Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Dock</author>
	<datestamp>1230841920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In the article, broadband internet and cellular access are considered to be available to everyone, though many Americans are still without decent internet access.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well that's news to me, since I have no broadband. Sprint-&gt;Embarq-&gt;CenturySomethingOrOther has told our county that they've rolled out all the service they intend to, pretty much. My exchange isn't even over 50\% for DSL availability. Time Warner has told the county the same thing. They've got all the easy customers they want and are telling anyone that asks from the state that they have no intention of rolling out new service anywhere, for any reason. Not even if the state pays them with <strong>subsidies and grants</strong>. Both companies have refused to even submit proposals for the broadband stimulus money -- they don't want it. They've got what they want and screw the entire communities being left behind.<br>
<br>
So AT&amp;T, <em>fuck you</em>. There are a ton of people in this country that have nothing and will get nothing for the foreseeable future.<br>
<br>
As to landlines, <em>fuck you</em> again. I get one bar at home and have to wander around the yard to send a text. My battery that lasts 14 days in any normal place lasts about a day out here, it has to run so hot. I've got 40,000 people with me, so it's not like there are five guys living in a barn out here.<br>
<br>
I swear these telco companies are some of the most evil our country has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the article , broadband internet and cellular access are considered to be available to everyone , though many Americans are still without decent internet access .
Well that 's news to me , since I have no broadband .
Sprint- &gt; Embarq- &gt; CenturySomethingOrOther has told our county that they 've rolled out all the service they intend to , pretty much .
My exchange is n't even over 50 \ % for DSL availability .
Time Warner has told the county the same thing .
They 've got all the easy customers they want and are telling anyone that asks from the state that they have no intention of rolling out new service anywhere , for any reason .
Not even if the state pays them with subsidies and grants .
Both companies have refused to even submit proposals for the broadband stimulus money -- they do n't want it .
They 've got what they want and screw the entire communities being left behind .
So AT&amp;T , fuck you .
There are a ton of people in this country that have nothing and will get nothing for the foreseeable future .
As to landlines , fuck you again .
I get one bar at home and have to wander around the yard to send a text .
My battery that lasts 14 days in any normal place lasts about a day out here , it has to run so hot .
I 've got 40,000 people with me , so it 's not like there are five guys living in a barn out here .
I swear these telco companies are some of the most evil our country has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the article, broadband internet and cellular access are considered to be available to everyone, though many Americans are still without decent internet access.
Well that's news to me, since I have no broadband.
Sprint-&gt;Embarq-&gt;CenturySomethingOrOther has told our county that they've rolled out all the service they intend to, pretty much.
My exchange isn't even over 50\% for DSL availability.
Time Warner has told the county the same thing.
They've got all the easy customers they want and are telling anyone that asks from the state that they have no intention of rolling out new service anywhere, for any reason.
Not even if the state pays them with subsidies and grants.
Both companies have refused to even submit proposals for the broadband stimulus money -- they don't want it.
They've got what they want and screw the entire communities being left behind.
So AT&amp;T, fuck you.
There are a ton of people in this country that have nothing and will get nothing for the foreseeable future.
As to landlines, fuck you again.
I get one bar at home and have to wander around the yard to send a text.
My battery that lasts 14 days in any normal place lasts about a day out here, it has to run so hot.
I've got 40,000 people with me, so it's not like there are five guys living in a barn out here.
I swear these telco companies are some of the most evil our country has.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30611182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30613420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30612342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30651316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1337235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30605978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30651316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30612334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30611182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30612342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30607790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1337235.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30613420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30609938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30610574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30608982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1337235.30606408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
