<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_1343251</id>
	<title>Google Wants To Administer the First White Spaces</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262788920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>aabelro writes <i>"Google proposes to the FCC to become the <a href="http://www.infoq.com/news/2010/01/Google-White-Spaces-Database">administrator of a White Spaces Database</a> containing geo-location information about devices using the free channels in the radio spectrum."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>aabelro writes " Google proposes to the FCC to become the administrator of a White Spaces Database containing geo-location information about devices using the free channels in the radio spectrum .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aabelro writes "Google proposes to the FCC to become the administrator of a White Spaces Database containing geo-location information about devices using the free channels in the radio spectrum.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669622</id>
	<title>Conspiracy Theory...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really like the "Google is NSA" tag.  I think it's my favorite conspiracy theory yet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really like the " Google is NSA " tag .
I think it 's my favorite conspiracy theory yet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really like the "Google is NSA" tag.
I think it's my favorite conspiracy theory yet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669980</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1262795520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC should have responsibility for this,and so should maintain the data.</p><p>Google wants to get a foot in the door to be able to control/promote a wireless carrier in this spectrum.</p><p>And that I don't much mind.  But they should have to pay, or at least compete, for that space.</p><p>In a way, this is worse than the major carriers playing tic-tac-toe with spectrum auctions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC should have responsibility for this,and so should maintain the data.Google wants to get a foot in the door to be able to control/promote a wireless carrier in this spectrum.And that I do n't much mind .
But they should have to pay , or at least compete , for that space.In a way , this is worse than the major carriers playing tic-tac-toe with spectrum auctions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC should have responsibility for this,and so should maintain the data.Google wants to get a foot in the door to be able to control/promote a wireless carrier in this spectrum.And that I don't much mind.
But they should have to pay, or at least compete, for that space.In a way, this is worse than the major carriers playing tic-tac-toe with spectrum auctions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670462</id>
	<title>Come on people... who will do it better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262797260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you HONESTLY think the government will run it better than google?  And, do you think the government won't simply do it in OTHER businesses' interest?  Google is the obvious choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you HONESTLY think the government will run it better than google ?
And , do you think the government wo n't simply do it in OTHER businesses ' interest ?
Google is the obvious choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you HONESTLY think the government will run it better than google?
And, do you think the government won't simply do it in OTHER businesses' interest?
Google is the obvious choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669434</id>
	<title>say it loud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>White spaces? What about Black Spaces and Latino Spaces and Asian Spaces?</p><p>Google is attempting to monopolize racism!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>White spaces ?
What about Black Spaces and Latino Spaces and Asian Spaces ? Google is attempting to monopolize racism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>White spaces?
What about Black Spaces and Latino Spaces and Asian Spaces?Google is attempting to monopolize racism!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669390</id>
	<title>This is just like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262792760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...letting Pfizer admin the FDA... oh wait, their lobbyists already do.
<br> <br>
These aren't the droids you're looking for, move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...letting Pfizer admin the FDA... oh wait , their lobbyists already do .
These are n't the droids you 're looking for , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...letting Pfizer admin the FDA... oh wait, their lobbyists already do.
These aren't the droids you're looking for, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30678006</id>
	<title>Re:Has this all been thought out?</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1262789820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious. How is it that the Primary user with a truckload of fancy gear has no internet access to query the database but the secondary user, who is very close by, does have internet access to query the database?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious .
How is it that the Primary user with a truckload of fancy gear has no internet access to query the database but the secondary user , who is very close by , does have internet access to query the database ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious.
How is it that the Primary user with a truckload of fancy gear has no internet access to query the database but the secondary user, who is very close by, does have internet access to query the database?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669804</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Lostlander</author>
	<datestamp>1262794800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bah that hasn't happened in the first world for a few hundred years how do we know if it even works anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah that has n't happened in the first world for a few hundred years how do we know if it even works anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah that hasn't happened in the first world for a few hundred years how do we know if it even works anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671024</id>
	<title>Fp faGOrz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262799180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>inteNtions and Look at your soft,</htmltext>
<tokenext>inteNtions and Look at your soft,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inteNtions and Look at your soft,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669722</id>
	<title>Really, It's Entered the Realm of Parody:</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1262794440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eric Schmidt is just one furry white cat and a cigarette-holder short of a Bond villain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eric Schmidt is just one furry white cat and a cigarette-holder short of a Bond villain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eric Schmidt is just one furry white cat and a cigarette-holder short of a Bond villain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669826</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262794920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  People need to RTFA.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google proposes the operation of a WSDB for at least 5 years, promising to &ldquo;transfer to a successor entity the Database, the IP addresses and URLs used to access the Database, and the list of registered Fixed WSDs&rdquo; in case they cannot live up to it. Google proposal does not limit the possibility of existing other such databases.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
People need to RTFA.Google proposes the operation of a WSDB for at least 5 years , promising to    transfer to a successor entity the Database , the IP addresses and URLs used to access the Database , and the list of registered Fixed WSDs    in case they can not live up to it .
Google proposal does not limit the possibility of existing other such databases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
People need to RTFA.Google proposes the operation of a WSDB for at least 5 years, promising to “transfer to a successor entity the Database, the IP addresses and URLs used to access the Database, and the list of registered Fixed WSDs” in case they cannot live up to it.
Google proposal does not limit the possibility of existing other such databases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669652</id>
	<title>Article is Misleading</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1262794080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is *not* about gated communities; rather, it has to do with allocating the radio spectrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is * not * about gated communities ; rather , it has to do with allocating the radio spectrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is *not* about gated communities; rather, it has to do with allocating the radio spectrum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669606</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>el\_tedward</author>
	<datestamp>1262793780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have much more of an ability to make change through the democratic process than we do by trying to scream at/boycott a corporation until we get what we want.</p><p>Not that most people know enough about what is going on in the world to change their vote based on something technology related like this, but that'll probably change as more old people die. We have a much better chance of getting people to go out and vote than we do with getting enough people to boycott a corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have much more of an ability to make change through the democratic process than we do by trying to scream at/boycott a corporation until we get what we want.Not that most people know enough about what is going on in the world to change their vote based on something technology related like this , but that 'll probably change as more old people die .
We have a much better chance of getting people to go out and vote than we do with getting enough people to boycott a corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have much more of an ability to make change through the democratic process than we do by trying to scream at/boycott a corporation until we get what we want.Not that most people know enough about what is going on in the world to change their vote based on something technology related like this, but that'll probably change as more old people die.
We have a much better chance of getting people to go out and vote than we do with getting enough people to boycott a corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30672092</id>
	<title>I see no problem with it</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262803320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't plan to become a database administrator ourselves, but do want to work with the FCC to make sure that a white spaces database gets up and running. We hope that this will unfold in a matter of months, not years.</p></div><p>and</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google proposes the operation of a WSDB for at least 5 years, promising to &ldquo;transfer to a successor entity the Database, the IP addresses and URLs used to access the Database, and the list of registered Fixed WSDs&rdquo; in case they cannot live up to it. Google proposal does not limit the possibility of existing other such databases.</p></div><p>
They're not proposing to do it on their own and willing to hand over everything if they fuck it up.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't plan to become a database administrator ourselves , but do want to work with the FCC to make sure that a white spaces database gets up and running .
We hope that this will unfold in a matter of months , not years.andGoogle proposes the operation of a WSDB for at least 5 years , promising to    transfer to a successor entity the Database , the IP addresses and URLs used to access the Database , and the list of registered Fixed WSDs    in case they can not live up to it .
Google proposal does not limit the possibility of existing other such databases .
They 're not proposing to do it on their own and willing to hand over everything if they fuck it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't plan to become a database administrator ourselves, but do want to work with the FCC to make sure that a white spaces database gets up and running.
We hope that this will unfold in a matter of months, not years.andGoogle proposes the operation of a WSDB for at least 5 years, promising to “transfer to a successor entity the Database, the IP addresses and URLs used to access the Database, and the list of registered Fixed WSDs” in case they cannot live up to it.
Google proposal does not limit the possibility of existing other such databases.
They're not proposing to do it on their own and willing to hand over everything if they fuck it up.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670384</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1262796900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC is not necessarily always trustworthy, IMHO. They were scolded by a federal court when they tried to force adoption of <a href="http://bplinterference.wikispaces.com/" title="wikispaces.com">BPL</a> [wikispaces.com] because they "...failed to satisfy the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act ('APA') by redacting studies on which it relied in promulgating the rule and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its choice of the extrapolation factor for measuring Access BPL emissions." [ <a href="http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/07/22/10977/?nc=1" title="arrl.org">source ]</a> [arrl.org]</p><p>The long and short of this story is that the FCC wanted BPL deployed, and was (according to two federal judges) apparently willing to <a href="http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/05/08/10811/?nc=1" title="arrl.org">suppress factual data</a> [arrl.org] to 'get it done' regardless of the harm it would do to Amateur Radio - you remember those guys that provide emergency communications when the fancy trunked systems die in emergencies? Yeah, them.</p><p>The judges said (quoted from the above article) that "...the Commission redacted individual lines from certain pages on which it otherwise relied...there is little doubt that the Commission deliberately attempted to 'exclude [ ] from the record evidence adverse to its position'"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC is not necessarily always trustworthy , IMHO .
They were scolded by a federal court when they tried to force adoption of BPL [ wikispaces.com ] because they " ...failed to satisfy the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act ( 'APA ' ) by redacting studies on which it relied in promulgating the rule and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its choice of the extrapolation factor for measuring Access BPL emissions .
" [ source ] [ arrl.org ] The long and short of this story is that the FCC wanted BPL deployed , and was ( according to two federal judges ) apparently willing to suppress factual data [ arrl.org ] to 'get it done ' regardless of the harm it would do to Amateur Radio - you remember those guys that provide emergency communications when the fancy trunked systems die in emergencies ?
Yeah , them.The judges said ( quoted from the above article ) that " ...the Commission redacted individual lines from certain pages on which it otherwise relied...there is little doubt that the Commission deliberately attempted to 'exclude [ ] from the record evidence adverse to its position ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC is not necessarily always trustworthy, IMHO.
They were scolded by a federal court when they tried to force adoption of BPL [wikispaces.com] because they "...failed to satisfy the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act ('APA') by redacting studies on which it relied in promulgating the rule and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its choice of the extrapolation factor for measuring Access BPL emissions.
" [ source ] [arrl.org]The long and short of this story is that the FCC wanted BPL deployed, and was (according to two federal judges) apparently willing to suppress factual data [arrl.org] to 'get it done' regardless of the harm it would do to Amateur Radio - you remember those guys that provide emergency communications when the fancy trunked systems die in emergencies?
Yeah, them.The judges said (quoted from the above article) that "...the Commission redacted individual lines from certain pages on which it otherwise relied...there is little doubt that the Commission deliberately attempted to 'exclude [ ] from the record evidence adverse to its position'"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670870</id>
	<title>Has this all been thought out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262798520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never been comfortable with the entire White Space approach, especially the database idea.  A big problem is that primary users are only protected out to a predetermined contour, not to their actual range as used in the field.  For example, TV stations are only protected out to a given contour (a specific distance out from the tower, where the station's signal strength is predicted to weaken to a predetermined threshold) specified in their license.  However, many, many people in rural areas watch over-the-air television at distances well outside the contour, by using antennas that are larger, and mounted higher (often with mast-mounted preamplifiers), than those assumed when the signal strength threshold was set.  Should a secondary user query the Google database from this area, he will get authority to transmit on the television channel, since he's outside the protected contour of the TV station, and would then interfere with the television reception in the area.  A homeowner (or, more likely, a farm owner) could complain to the FCC, only to be told that he's outside the protected coverage area of the TV station and has to accept the interference.  I doubt he'd be happy with that answer.</p><p>A similar problem arises with the licensed wireless microphones used in electronic news-gathering (ENG) trucks.  They're quite mobile, and cover large areas.  How are they supposed to get Internet connectivity in the field to check the database?  Presumably they're out of cellular range, since they're in rural, White Space areas; what do they do?  And if they use the channel without updating the database, how is a secondary user going to know he's there?  The secondary user will query the database, get an "all clear" and, not knowing the microphone is nearby, transmit on the same channel as the microphone.</p><p>It just seems like the practical aspects of all this need some more thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been comfortable with the entire White Space approach , especially the database idea .
A big problem is that primary users are only protected out to a predetermined contour , not to their actual range as used in the field .
For example , TV stations are only protected out to a given contour ( a specific distance out from the tower , where the station 's signal strength is predicted to weaken to a predetermined threshold ) specified in their license .
However , many , many people in rural areas watch over-the-air television at distances well outside the contour , by using antennas that are larger , and mounted higher ( often with mast-mounted preamplifiers ) , than those assumed when the signal strength threshold was set .
Should a secondary user query the Google database from this area , he will get authority to transmit on the television channel , since he 's outside the protected contour of the TV station , and would then interfere with the television reception in the area .
A homeowner ( or , more likely , a farm owner ) could complain to the FCC , only to be told that he 's outside the protected coverage area of the TV station and has to accept the interference .
I doubt he 'd be happy with that answer.A similar problem arises with the licensed wireless microphones used in electronic news-gathering ( ENG ) trucks .
They 're quite mobile , and cover large areas .
How are they supposed to get Internet connectivity in the field to check the database ?
Presumably they 're out of cellular range , since they 're in rural , White Space areas ; what do they do ?
And if they use the channel without updating the database , how is a secondary user going to know he 's there ?
The secondary user will query the database , get an " all clear " and , not knowing the microphone is nearby , transmit on the same channel as the microphone.It just seems like the practical aspects of all this need some more thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been comfortable with the entire White Space approach, especially the database idea.
A big problem is that primary users are only protected out to a predetermined contour, not to their actual range as used in the field.
For example, TV stations are only protected out to a given contour (a specific distance out from the tower, where the station's signal strength is predicted to weaken to a predetermined threshold) specified in their license.
However, many, many people in rural areas watch over-the-air television at distances well outside the contour, by using antennas that are larger, and mounted higher (often with mast-mounted preamplifiers), than those assumed when the signal strength threshold was set.
Should a secondary user query the Google database from this area, he will get authority to transmit on the television channel, since he's outside the protected contour of the TV station, and would then interfere with the television reception in the area.
A homeowner (or, more likely, a farm owner) could complain to the FCC, only to be told that he's outside the protected coverage area of the TV station and has to accept the interference.
I doubt he'd be happy with that answer.A similar problem arises with the licensed wireless microphones used in electronic news-gathering (ENG) trucks.
They're quite mobile, and cover large areas.
How are they supposed to get Internet connectivity in the field to check the database?
Presumably they're out of cellular range, since they're in rural, White Space areas; what do they do?
And if they use the channel without updating the database, how is a secondary user going to know he's there?
The secondary user will query the database, get an "all clear" and, not knowing the microphone is nearby, transmit on the same channel as the microphone.It just seems like the practical aspects of all this need some more thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674602</id>
	<title>Re:Google slogan mmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262770860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhuh. And we all know what happened when the last guy who wanted to have his own "Whitespace", you know, the angry Austrian Corporal with the funny moustache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhuh .
And we all know what happened when the last guy who wanted to have his own " Whitespace " , you know , the angry Austrian Corporal with the funny moustache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhuh.
And we all know what happened when the last guy who wanted to have his own "Whitespace", you know, the angry Austrian Corporal with the funny moustache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670064</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>thearkitex</author>
	<datestamp>1262795700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government is not for profit.</p></div><p>You have no idea how hard I'm trying to keep from falling out of my chair.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government is not for profit.You have no idea how hard I 'm trying to keep from falling out of my chair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government is not for profit.You have no idea how hard I'm trying to keep from falling out of my chair.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670750</id>
	<title>Governement can't be fired though.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262798100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you give the government the job, they will never let it go.  If you delegate it to a company you can replace them for poor performance.  The government won't fire itself for poor performance.  Example is of course the Newark Airport TSA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you give the government the job , they will never let it go .
If you delegate it to a company you can replace them for poor performance .
The government wo n't fire itself for poor performance .
Example is of course the Newark Airport TSA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you give the government the job, they will never let it go.
If you delegate it to a company you can replace them for poor performance.
The government won't fire itself for poor performance.
Example is of course the Newark Airport TSA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670104</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1262795820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I trust Corps more than I trust the Gov.  I trust a Corp to act in its own self interest damn the rest, as for the Gov we live in a Republic motives change depending whose in charge.<br>
&nbsp; <br>I'm not opposed to a Corp being in charge of the white space but I am opposed to it being Google because of the conflict of interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust Corps more than I trust the Gov .
I trust a Corp to act in its own self interest damn the rest , as for the Gov we live in a Republic motives change depending whose in charge .
  I 'm not opposed to a Corp being in charge of the white space but I am opposed to it being Google because of the conflict of interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust Corps more than I trust the Gov.
I trust a Corp to act in its own self interest damn the rest, as for the Gov we live in a Republic motives change depending whose in charge.
  I'm not opposed to a Corp being in charge of the white space but I am opposed to it being Google because of the conflict of interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669796</id>
	<title>Not really different from other oursourcing by FCC</title>
	<author>mlksys</author>
	<datestamp>1262794800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC currently outsources a lot of activities including frequency coordination, license examinations, and so on.</p><p>They can put rules in place in the agreement requiring free access.  I had to remind one of their outsourced organizations of that when I wanted access to their database, it was granted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC currently outsources a lot of activities including frequency coordination , license examinations , and so on.They can put rules in place in the agreement requiring free access .
I had to remind one of their outsourced organizations of that when I wanted access to their database , it was granted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC currently outsources a lot of activities including frequency coordination, license examinations, and so on.They can put rules in place in the agreement requiring free access.
I had to remind one of their outsourced organizations of that when I wanted access to their database, it was granted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670034</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1262795640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC might subcontract to Google.</p><p>I honestly don't care who does it, as long as they do a good job of it and remain under the watchful eye of the FCC.  Audits, supervision, and whatever else is needed to keep the grunts that actually handle it in line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC might subcontract to Google.I honestly do n't care who does it , as long as they do a good job of it and remain under the watchful eye of the FCC .
Audits , supervision , and whatever else is needed to keep the grunts that actually handle it in line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC might subcontract to Google.I honestly don't care who does it, as long as they do a good job of it and remain under the watchful eye of the FCC.
Audits, supervision, and whatever else is needed to keep the grunts that actually handle it in line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669516</id>
	<title>Fox, meet henhouse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that the way that broadcasters have "parked" spectrum is appalling.  Did you know every FM slot is "taken" even in areas where no one uses them ?  I once tried to buy a radio station-it was an education.

  The fact is that even here in media saturated NYC there's a lot of unused RF, and at the higher UHF allocations the fact that one market might interfere with another is greatly lessened.

There is no good reason why we need to regulate the way we have been.  It's like making a national park with strips of industry.  The real reason is that this was a great "restraint of trade" for the established propaganda providers (see "community FM radio")

Still, if I were a broadcaster, I'd be very afraid.    Since the Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate america, google can't do a worse job than the FCC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that the way that broadcasters have " parked " spectrum is appalling .
Did you know every FM slot is " taken " even in areas where no one uses them ?
I once tried to buy a radio station-it was an education .
The fact is that even here in media saturated NYC there 's a lot of unused RF , and at the higher UHF allocations the fact that one market might interfere with another is greatly lessened .
There is no good reason why we need to regulate the way we have been .
It 's like making a national park with strips of industry .
The real reason is that this was a great " restraint of trade " for the established propaganda providers ( see " community FM radio " ) Still , if I were a broadcaster , I 'd be very afraid .
Since the Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate america , google ca n't do a worse job than the FCC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that the way that broadcasters have "parked" spectrum is appalling.
Did you know every FM slot is "taken" even in areas where no one uses them ?
I once tried to buy a radio station-it was an education.
The fact is that even here in media saturated NYC there's a lot of unused RF, and at the higher UHF allocations the fact that one market might interfere with another is greatly lessened.
There is no good reason why we need to regulate the way we have been.
It's like making a national park with strips of industry.
The real reason is that this was a great "restraint of trade" for the established propaganda providers (see "community FM radio")

Still, if I were a broadcaster, I'd be very afraid.
Since the Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate america, google can't do a worse job than the FCC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669762</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Suki I</author>
	<datestamp>1262794680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which other firm do you propose administer it?  The government is going to hire some firm to build and administer it and will have oversight over it.  Google or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which other firm do you propose administer it ?
The government is going to hire some firm to build and administer it and will have oversight over it .
Google or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which other firm do you propose administer it?
The government is going to hire some firm to build and administer it and will have oversight over it.
Google or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1262793180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is, if people don't like what the government is doing there is no real way for rapid change. An international boycott of Google could both change its plans quickly and perhaps put it out of business. Any time you'd try that with the government you would simply get thrown in jail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , if people do n't like what the government is doing there is no real way for rapid change .
An international boycott of Google could both change its plans quickly and perhaps put it out of business .
Any time you 'd try that with the government you would simply get thrown in jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, if people don't like what the government is doing there is no real way for rapid change.
An international boycott of Google could both change its plans quickly and perhaps put it out of business.
Any time you'd try that with the government you would simply get thrown in jail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669426</id>
	<title>MInification</title>
	<author>hightower\_40</author>
	<datestamp>1262792940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps they'll use a whitespace minifier to remove all of the whitespace from the electromagnetic spectrum, so our radios will load faster!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they 'll use a whitespace minifier to remove all of the whitespace from the electromagnetic spectrum , so our radios will load faster !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they'll use a whitespace minifier to remove all of the whitespace from the electromagnetic spectrum, so our radios will load faster!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30679478</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1262804040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets see, how did they manage to boycott their government and win. <br> <br>

A) They had the right and ability to bear arms that were comparable across the board. Having a 9MM simi-auto pistol may protect you against a robber with a handgun, knife or any other type of small arm, but its not going to do anything to a tank, a person with a fully-auto weapon with lots of ammo, a trained sniper, etc. When both groups use muskets its a lot more fair than one group's highest weapons are simi-automatic weapons and the other group has cruise missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, helicopters, planes, etc. <br> <br>

B) They were far away from the government. When it took a month at best to send orders back and forth between Europe and the US, the generals are going to be unable to get orders from their government compared to the fast action of the colonists. <br> <br>

C) They had support of a superpower at the time (France) which helped them win the war. <br> <br>

D) They won. If they lost their names would be cursed as traitors, George Washington's name would have been the same as calling someone a "Benedict Arnold" today.  <br> <br>

For the conditions of the revolution to be replicated today, the average American needs to have a fully-automatic weapon at their disposal, having a plane wouldn't be uncommon, the wealthy would own atomic bombs, and the middle class would need to be able to afford a cruise missile. Cell phones would need to have 20 day or more lag to connect to the other line, the revolutionaries would need to have support of a superpower either of a major European country, or a major Asian country. And the revolutionaries would need to win. <br> <br>

Face it, the American Revolution was a rare revolution in terms of timing and could not be replicated today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see , how did they manage to boycott their government and win .
A ) They had the right and ability to bear arms that were comparable across the board .
Having a 9MM simi-auto pistol may protect you against a robber with a handgun , knife or any other type of small arm , but its not going to do anything to a tank , a person with a fully-auto weapon with lots of ammo , a trained sniper , etc .
When both groups use muskets its a lot more fair than one group 's highest weapons are simi-automatic weapons and the other group has cruise missiles , tanks , nuclear weapons , helicopters , planes , etc .
B ) They were far away from the government .
When it took a month at best to send orders back and forth between Europe and the US , the generals are going to be unable to get orders from their government compared to the fast action of the colonists .
C ) They had support of a superpower at the time ( France ) which helped them win the war .
D ) They won .
If they lost their names would be cursed as traitors , George Washington 's name would have been the same as calling someone a " Benedict Arnold " today .
For the conditions of the revolution to be replicated today , the average American needs to have a fully-automatic weapon at their disposal , having a plane would n't be uncommon , the wealthy would own atomic bombs , and the middle class would need to be able to afford a cruise missile .
Cell phones would need to have 20 day or more lag to connect to the other line , the revolutionaries would need to have support of a superpower either of a major European country , or a major Asian country .
And the revolutionaries would need to win .
Face it , the American Revolution was a rare revolution in terms of timing and could not be replicated today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see, how did they manage to boycott their government and win.
A) They had the right and ability to bear arms that were comparable across the board.
Having a 9MM simi-auto pistol may protect you against a robber with a handgun, knife or any other type of small arm, but its not going to do anything to a tank, a person with a fully-auto weapon with lots of ammo, a trained sniper, etc.
When both groups use muskets its a lot more fair than one group's highest weapons are simi-automatic weapons and the other group has cruise missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, helicopters, planes, etc.
B) They were far away from the government.
When it took a month at best to send orders back and forth between Europe and the US, the generals are going to be unable to get orders from their government compared to the fast action of the colonists.
C) They had support of a superpower at the time (France) which helped them win the war.
D) They won.
If they lost their names would be cursed as traitors, George Washington's name would have been the same as calling someone a "Benedict Arnold" today.
For the conditions of the revolution to be replicated today, the average American needs to have a fully-automatic weapon at their disposal, having a plane wouldn't be uncommon, the wealthy would own atomic bombs, and the middle class would need to be able to afford a cruise missile.
Cell phones would need to have 20 day or more lag to connect to the other line, the revolutionaries would need to have support of a superpower either of a major European country, or a major Asian country.
And the revolutionaries would need to win.
Face it, the American Revolution was a rare revolution in terms of timing and could not be replicated today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</id>
	<title>Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262792700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would much rather the FCC be the administrator of it.  I know Google is the big player right now, but it is still just a corporation(especially one that profits from data mining/advertising).  The government is not for profit.  Google is completely for profit.  The government is more likely to make access to the database free.  As always, as those who know my views can guess, I trust the government more than I do corporations, and this includes corporations like Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would much rather the FCC be the administrator of it .
I know Google is the big player right now , but it is still just a corporation ( especially one that profits from data mining/advertising ) .
The government is not for profit .
Google is completely for profit .
The government is more likely to make access to the database free .
As always , as those who know my views can guess , I trust the government more than I do corporations , and this includes corporations like Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would much rather the FCC be the administrator of it.
I know Google is the big player right now, but it is still just a corporation(especially one that profits from data mining/advertising).
The government is not for profit.
Google is completely for profit.
The government is more likely to make access to the database free.
As always, as those who know my views can guess, I trust the government more than I do corporations, and this includes corporations like Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674586</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>hierophanta</author>
	<datestamp>1262770800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government is not for profit.  Google is completely for profit.</p>  </div><p>Governments are FOR-profit organizations.  Its just that they arent trying to profit from it's citizens (that would be like eating yourself).  The semantics get funny because governments print money but in the true sense or the word they certainly do.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Profit" title="thefreedictionary.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Profit</a> [thefreedictionary.com] -
<br> <br>
profit  (prft)
n.
1. An advantageous gain or return; benefit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government is not for profit .
Google is completely for profit .
Governments are FOR-profit organizations .
Its just that they arent trying to profit from it 's citizens ( that would be like eating yourself ) .
The semantics get funny because governments print money but in the true sense or the word they certainly do .
http : //www.thefreedictionary.com/Profit [ thefreedictionary.com ] - profit ( prft ) n . 1. An advantageous gain or return ; benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government is not for profit.
Google is completely for profit.
Governments are FOR-profit organizations.
Its just that they arent trying to profit from it's citizens (that would be like eating yourself).
The semantics get funny because governments print money but in the true sense or the word they certainly do.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Profit [thefreedictionary.com] -
 
profit  (prft)
n.
1. An advantageous gain or return; benefit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>syzler</author>
	<datestamp>1262793900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe a group of people boycotted their government a while back.  They were not all thrown in jail, in fact I believe most of them are now referred to as the founding fathers of the United States of America.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe a group of people boycotted their government a while back .
They were not all thrown in jail , in fact I believe most of them are now referred to as the founding fathers of the United States of America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe a group of people boycotted their government a while back.
They were not all thrown in jail, in fact I believe most of them are now referred to as the founding fathers of the United States of America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670056</id>
	<title>Not the only administrator...</title>
	<author>sanjosanjo</author>
	<datestamp>1262795700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They want to be one of the administrators - not the only administrator.  There are many organizations that will be running databases - all flowing from a master database that the FCC controls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They want to be one of the administrators - not the only administrator .
There are many organizations that will be running databases - all flowing from a master database that the FCC controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want to be one of the administrators - not the only administrator.
There are many organizations that will be running databases - all flowing from a master database that the FCC controls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669750</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>MrTester</author>
	<datestamp>1262794620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont confuse the administrator of the database with the governor of the data therein.  Google is just proposing to provide the technical solution, not decide the policies that get someone on the list.</p><p>And if Google gets this, the goverment will certainly write into their charter limits on what and when they can charge.</p><p>I just dont see an issue here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont confuse the administrator of the database with the governor of the data therein .
Google is just proposing to provide the technical solution , not decide the policies that get someone on the list.And if Google gets this , the goverment will certainly write into their charter limits on what and when they can charge.I just dont see an issue here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont confuse the administrator of the database with the governor of the data therein.
Google is just proposing to provide the technical solution, not decide the policies that get someone on the list.And if Google gets this, the goverment will certainly write into their charter limits on what and when they can charge.I just dont see an issue here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30686340</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>g8oz</author>
	<datestamp>1262896440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe there are a group of people are boycotting their government in a similar vein right now. They are commonly referred to as the Taliban.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there are a group of people are boycotting their government in a similar vein right now .
They are commonly referred to as the Taliban .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there are a group of people are boycotting their government in a similar vein right now.
They are commonly referred to as the Taliban.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669564</id>
	<title>Will it have</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But will 'white space'  have any Black programming  ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But will 'white space ' have any Black programming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But will 'white space'  have any Black programming  ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30681638</id>
	<title>well no.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262875680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when the administration changes, fcc will become the influence area of another private interest block. it may happen to be the at&amp;t - riaa - media cartel that seek to undermine everyone in the digital age for their own interest.</p><p>google is there to stay. the company vision is sound and reliable. it wont just change in 4 years. brin and page dont seem to be retiring or dying anytime soon, so the vision will keep going like this and even strengthening in future.</p><p>you would be much better off relying on google to administer it.</p><p>for if i know anything, the cartel/telecom block is going to screw every single person out there as soon as their supported candidates are in administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when the administration changes , fcc will become the influence area of another private interest block .
it may happen to be the at&amp;t - riaa - media cartel that seek to undermine everyone in the digital age for their own interest.google is there to stay .
the company vision is sound and reliable .
it wont just change in 4 years .
brin and page dont seem to be retiring or dying anytime soon , so the vision will keep going like this and even strengthening in future.you would be much better off relying on google to administer it.for if i know anything , the cartel/telecom block is going to screw every single person out there as soon as their supported candidates are in administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when the administration changes, fcc will become the influence area of another private interest block.
it may happen to be the at&amp;t - riaa - media cartel that seek to undermine everyone in the digital age for their own interest.google is there to stay.
the company vision is sound and reliable.
it wont just change in 4 years.
brin and page dont seem to be retiring or dying anytime soon, so the vision will keep going like this and even strengthening in future.you would be much better off relying on google to administer it.for if i know anything, the cartel/telecom block is going to screw every single person out there as soon as their supported candidates are in administration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669438</id>
	<title>we will never bend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freebanders 4VR!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freebanders 4VR !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freebanders 4VR!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670648</id>
	<title>Bad idea</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1262797800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first thing a hacker would do is use a trim() function and destroy all the data...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing a hacker would do is use a trim ( ) function and destroy all the data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing a hacker would do is use a trim() function and destroy all the data...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669820</id>
	<title>Google slogan mmm</title>
	<author>Ractive</author>
	<datestamp>1262794920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google slogan : "Don't be evil"</p><p>Google slogan in 5 years : "Don't be soooo evil"</p><p>Google slogan in 10 years : "Just don't be as evil as Satan himself"</p><p>Google slogan in 20 years : "All your arses are belong to us"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google slogan : " Do n't be evil " Google slogan in 5 years : " Do n't be soooo evil " Google slogan in 10 years : " Just do n't be as evil as Satan himself " Google slogan in 20 years : " All your arses are belong to us "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google slogan : "Don't be evil"Google slogan in 5 years : "Don't be soooo evil"Google slogan in 10 years : "Just don't be as evil as Satan himself"Google slogan in 20 years : "All your arses are belong to us"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30673426</id>
	<title>Whitespace?</title>
	<author>rp</author>
	<datestamp>1262808840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While they're at it, why don't they create a Brainfucks database.  Now that would be useful.</p><p>Looking forward to see the API bindings on Google Code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While they 're at it , why do n't they create a Brainfucks database .
Now that would be useful.Looking forward to see the API bindings on Google Code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While they're at it, why don't they create a Brainfucks database.
Now that would be useful.Looking forward to see the API bindings on Google Code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671100</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1262799480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I trust Google.<br>
Ten years from now when the founders leave, I may not.<br>
Its innovative to give Google 5years, no more, no less to do it.<br>
They will do a fantastic job, but it should go out to
<a href="http://www.fbo.gov/" title="fbo.gov" rel="nofollow">bid</a> [fbo.gov], shouldn't it?<br>

<br> <br>
Not all feds are good, and not all feds are bad. I didn't always believe it, but I now do. [but thats a POLL I imagine...]<br> <br>

Heres something the feds won't do as well as
<a href="http://www.wikispeedia.org/" title="wikispeedia.org" rel="nofollow">we are.</a> [wikispeedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust Google .
Ten years from now when the founders leave , I may not .
Its innovative to give Google 5years , no more , no less to do it .
They will do a fantastic job , but it should go out to bid [ fbo.gov ] , should n't it ?
Not all feds are good , and not all feds are bad .
I did n't always believe it , but I now do .
[ but thats a POLL I imagine... ] Heres something the feds wo n't do as well as we are .
[ wikispeedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust Google.
Ten years from now when the founders leave, I may not.
Its innovative to give Google 5years, no more, no less to do it.
They will do a fantastic job, but it should go out to
bid [fbo.gov], shouldn't it?
Not all feds are good, and not all feds are bad.
I didn't always believe it, but I now do.
[but thats a POLL I imagine...] 

Heres something the feds won't do as well as
we are.
[wikispeedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670936</id>
	<title>Re:say it loud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262798760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.gnaa.us/" title="www.gnaa.us" rel="nofollow">GNAA</a> [www.gnaa.us] will never allow Google to get away with this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GNAA [ www.gnaa.us ] will never allow Google to get away with this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GNAA [www.gnaa.us] will never allow Google to get away with this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671016</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1262799180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ummm, where to you get the idea that government is not for profit?</p><p>The only difference between government and a corporation is who gets the profit.</p><p>Corporation - profits go to investors, private sector workers.<br>Government - profits go to public sector workers, bureaucrats</p><p>The rest is all the same.  Driving business to their industry...</p><p>Take a look at the drug war.  It's a business for police officers, prison guards, lawyers...<br>Or take a look at public education.  it's a business for teachers and teacher unions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ummm , where to you get the idea that government is not for profit ? The only difference between government and a corporation is who gets the profit.Corporation - profits go to investors , private sector workers.Government - profits go to public sector workers , bureaucratsThe rest is all the same .
Driving business to their industry...Take a look at the drug war .
It 's a business for police officers , prison guards , lawyers...Or take a look at public education .
it 's a business for teachers and teacher unions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ummm, where to you get the idea that government is not for profit?The only difference between government and a corporation is who gets the profit.Corporation - profits go to investors, private sector workers.Government - profits go to public sector workers, bureaucratsThe rest is all the same.
Driving business to their industry...Take a look at the drug war.
It's a business for police officers, prison guards, lawyers...Or take a look at public education.
it's a business for teachers and teacher unions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30676322</id>
	<title>Evil is as Evil does.</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1262778960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is simply a way to monetize something that was intended to be free.</p><p>Free or not, where there is a demand, the market will create itself and Google plans on being there first. I RTFA and it seems to me that they are just trying to "grade" a whitespace based on its physical location and the devices at that location. So and so coordinates, with yada-yada using it. Check. The database is simply to let those users know who is who, and where.</p><p>The next step would be, in my mind, to strangle the supply of whitespace by camping as many geo-locations as possible.<br>(wow, that actually sounds like fun...Pitch a tent and roast marshmallows!)</p><p>My first impulse(were I without a conscience) would be to lease/mount a transmitter on every cell tower out there, specifically to fill whitespace. It could simply broadcast old Jimmy Swaggart reruns or simply white-noise. Just keep it filled to claim priority. After all, the idea is to keep people from interfering with ANY other transmissions...even if it is someone simply camping the whitespace there. This is basically a Land-Rush on the whitespace, and the lawyers think that mapping it all will give them something to work with...some sort of claim of rights to that whitespace.</p><p>When you have most of it camped, you are then in a position to start making deals.</p><p>Market created.</p><p>The problem is eventually that "non-existent" market will drive use to the point it actually WOULD interfere with adjacent frequencies...exactly what was trying to be prevented by the creation of whitespaces.</p><p>Back to square one with Google making truckloads of cash in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is simply a way to monetize something that was intended to be free.Free or not , where there is a demand , the market will create itself and Google plans on being there first .
I RTFA and it seems to me that they are just trying to " grade " a whitespace based on its physical location and the devices at that location .
So and so coordinates , with yada-yada using it .
Check. The database is simply to let those users know who is who , and where.The next step would be , in my mind , to strangle the supply of whitespace by camping as many geo-locations as possible .
( wow , that actually sounds like fun...Pitch a tent and roast marshmallows !
) My first impulse ( were I without a conscience ) would be to lease/mount a transmitter on every cell tower out there , specifically to fill whitespace .
It could simply broadcast old Jimmy Swaggart reruns or simply white-noise .
Just keep it filled to claim priority .
After all , the idea is to keep people from interfering with ANY other transmissions...even if it is someone simply camping the whitespace there .
This is basically a Land-Rush on the whitespace , and the lawyers think that mapping it all will give them something to work with...some sort of claim of rights to that whitespace.When you have most of it camped , you are then in a position to start making deals.Market created.The problem is eventually that " non-existent " market will drive use to the point it actually WOULD interfere with adjacent frequencies...exactly what was trying to be prevented by the creation of whitespaces.Back to square one with Google making truckloads of cash in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is simply a way to monetize something that was intended to be free.Free or not, where there is a demand, the market will create itself and Google plans on being there first.
I RTFA and it seems to me that they are just trying to "grade" a whitespace based on its physical location and the devices at that location.
So and so coordinates, with yada-yada using it.
Check. The database is simply to let those users know who is who, and where.The next step would be, in my mind, to strangle the supply of whitespace by camping as many geo-locations as possible.
(wow, that actually sounds like fun...Pitch a tent and roast marshmallows!
)My first impulse(were I without a conscience) would be to lease/mount a transmitter on every cell tower out there, specifically to fill whitespace.
It could simply broadcast old Jimmy Swaggart reruns or simply white-noise.
Just keep it filled to claim priority.
After all, the idea is to keep people from interfering with ANY other transmissions...even if it is someone simply camping the whitespace there.
This is basically a Land-Rush on the whitespace, and the lawyers think that mapping it all will give them something to work with...some sort of claim of rights to that whitespace.When you have most of it camped, you are then in a position to start making deals.Market created.The problem is eventually that "non-existent" market will drive use to the point it actually WOULD interfere with adjacent frequencies...exactly what was trying to be prevented by the creation of whitespaces.Back to square one with Google making truckloads of cash in the process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669590</id>
	<title>Google Wants To Administer the First White Spaces</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Wants To Administer the First White Spaces?</p><p>Does that mean Google wants to control all Python code? They have gone too far this time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Wants To Administer the First White Spaces ? Does that mean Google wants to control all Python code ?
They have gone too far this time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Wants To Administer the First White Spaces?Does that mean Google wants to control all Python code?
They have gone too far this time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674408</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>flatrock</author>
	<datestamp>1262770020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Database and its administration will be paid for either directly through some form of fees or indirectly through taxes.  In neither case is it free, its just a matter of who gets the bill.</p><p>It is highly unlikely the FCC is going to hire civil servants to develop and maintain such a database in any case.  If they do it will take longer, cost more, and have more problems.  Why?  Because the government is the only entity with even more beaucracy and inefficiency than large corporations, and less direct incentive to do the job well.  It is more cost effective and more sensible to contract out the work to a company that already has the technology and the people with the expertise required.</p><p>Since Google has the capabilities and the expertise they should be able to do this reasonably well.  However, even if another company gets the bid, Google's proposal will at least mention issues that the government might otherwise miss.  The government can only specify what they want as well as they understand the issues, and a lot of times things go badly simply because the governemtn doesn't know what they want at the begining and the requirements evolve over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Database and its administration will be paid for either directly through some form of fees or indirectly through taxes .
In neither case is it free , its just a matter of who gets the bill.It is highly unlikely the FCC is going to hire civil servants to develop and maintain such a database in any case .
If they do it will take longer , cost more , and have more problems .
Why ? Because the government is the only entity with even more beaucracy and inefficiency than large corporations , and less direct incentive to do the job well .
It is more cost effective and more sensible to contract out the work to a company that already has the technology and the people with the expertise required.Since Google has the capabilities and the expertise they should be able to do this reasonably well .
However , even if another company gets the bid , Google 's proposal will at least mention issues that the government might otherwise miss .
The government can only specify what they want as well as they understand the issues , and a lot of times things go badly simply because the governemtn does n't know what they want at the begining and the requirements evolve over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Database and its administration will be paid for either directly through some form of fees or indirectly through taxes.
In neither case is it free, its just a matter of who gets the bill.It is highly unlikely the FCC is going to hire civil servants to develop and maintain such a database in any case.
If they do it will take longer, cost more, and have more problems.
Why?  Because the government is the only entity with even more beaucracy and inefficiency than large corporations, and less direct incentive to do the job well.
It is more cost effective and more sensible to contract out the work to a company that already has the technology and the people with the expertise required.Since Google has the capabilities and the expertise they should be able to do this reasonably well.
However, even if another company gets the bid, Google's proposal will at least mention issues that the government might otherwise miss.
The government can only specify what they want as well as they understand the issues, and a lot of times things go badly simply because the governemtn doesn't know what they want at the begining and the requirements evolve over time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670206</id>
	<title>Re:Oddly, Google could be the good guy here</title>
	<author>Julie188</author>
	<datestamp>1262796240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm extremely concerned at the amount of power Google is gathering, its data collection, its lack of privacy protection. BUT in this case, Google is the good guy. The FCC forced this whole database option upon the white spaces industry and then said white spaces database admins can charge fees for the service. The company with the most experience (and in Microsoft's camp) was actually partially funded by an FCC commissioner<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so the FCC could be granting a profit-making contract to "one of its own." Now the FCC can't say that it doesn't have another option. Google is big enough -- and its proposal not only says it wants to offer this service for free (possibly), but it includes a method for multiple providers, keeping competition in the game.
(My full views here if you are interested: <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/49544" title="networkworld.com">http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/49544</a> [networkworld.com]).<br>

Julie <br>
--<br>
Network World's Google Subnet</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm extremely concerned at the amount of power Google is gathering , its data collection , its lack of privacy protection .
BUT in this case , Google is the good guy .
The FCC forced this whole database option upon the white spaces industry and then said white spaces database admins can charge fees for the service .
The company with the most experience ( and in Microsoft 's camp ) was actually partially funded by an FCC commissioner ... so the FCC could be granting a profit-making contract to " one of its own .
" Now the FCC ca n't say that it does n't have another option .
Google is big enough -- and its proposal not only says it wants to offer this service for free ( possibly ) , but it includes a method for multiple providers , keeping competition in the game .
( My full views here if you are interested : http : //www.networkworld.com/community/node/49544 [ networkworld.com ] ) .
Julie -- Network World 's Google Subnet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm extremely concerned at the amount of power Google is gathering, its data collection, its lack of privacy protection.
BUT in this case, Google is the good guy.
The FCC forced this whole database option upon the white spaces industry and then said white spaces database admins can charge fees for the service.
The company with the most experience (and in Microsoft's camp) was actually partially funded by an FCC commissioner ... so the FCC could be granting a profit-making contract to "one of its own.
" Now the FCC can't say that it doesn't have another option.
Google is big enough -- and its proposal not only says it wants to offer this service for free (possibly), but it includes a method for multiple providers, keeping competition in the game.
(My full views here if you are interested: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/49544 [networkworld.com]).
Julie 
--
Network World's Google Subnet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30686518</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>g8oz</author>
	<datestamp>1262897280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe there are a group of people that are boycotting their government in a similar vein right now. They are commonly referred to as the Taliban.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there are a group of people that are boycotting their government in a similar vein right now .
They are commonly referred to as the Taliban .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there are a group of people that are boycotting their government in a similar vein right now.
They are commonly referred to as the Taliban.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30673576</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262809560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do no evil.  Just control everything, then change the definition of evil.  Step 4, profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do no evil .
Just control everything , then change the definition of evil .
Step 4 , profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do no evil.
Just control everything, then change the definition of evil.
Step 4, profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671672</id>
	<title>Inevitable</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1262801700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't we know Google was after administrating white space for <a href="http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=101968" title="artima.com">the past five years?</a> [artima.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we know Google was after administrating white space for the past five years ?
[ artima.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we know Google was after administrating white space for the past five years?
[artima.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30673448</id>
	<title>Re:Has this all been thought out?</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1262808960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're leaving out a major stipulation of the FCC's ruling: whitespace devices must listen before transmitting, not just query the database.  They can't just check the database and begin broadcasting.  Not only does that potentially cause the interference with the primary user you're concerned about, it could easily run right over the top of other whitespace devices, thereby seriously limiting their utility.</p><p>Given the listen before transmit rule, and given that the rural areas you're talking about have the least number of active primary users, it seems unlikely a marginal TV station will ever suffer interference from a whitespace device.  There's plenty of truly empty spectrum to use first.  Unless they proliferate even more wildly than Google dreams, I find it hard to believe whitespace devices could even come close to crowding the licensed users in rural areas.</p><p>Consider also that very likely it's your farmer's own whitespace devices that are the closest to his TV receiver.  After all, his nearest neighbor is a mile or two away.  If he encounters a bad device that somehow, against all the mechanisms in place, manages to interfere with his television reception, he can always turn it off.  More likely, considering said whitespace device is probably providing him Internet service, he'll turn the TV off and get his TV program through his Internet-providing whitespace device, with a better picture, albeit more slowly.  (Yes, as it turns out, it's possible to get a fuzzy signal out of a digital television tuner.  My brother pulls in marginal stations that way.)</p><p>As for your licensed wireless mics, I suspect they'll be gradually replaced with whitespace mics.  The tech who has to find a usable chunk of spectrum manually had better learn other skills, because that process is a completely automated feature of whitespace devices.  More than likely, they'll be able to get Internet connectivity using the other whitespace devices in the area.  I can easily see whitespace devices proliferating widely enough that every area has at least one whitespace ISP.  It might even be free for low throughputs.</p><p>If Google has dreamed big enough, they'll use something similar to the Android development process to push, entice, cajole, and bully hardware vendors into producing whitespace devices capable of mesh networking.  The spectrum in question allows signals to propogate far enough that a whitespace mesh has some small chance of springing up.  Then the whole world changes.  Internet becomes truly ubiquitous.</p><p>But that's just a dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're leaving out a major stipulation of the FCC 's ruling : whitespace devices must listen before transmitting , not just query the database .
They ca n't just check the database and begin broadcasting .
Not only does that potentially cause the interference with the primary user you 're concerned about , it could easily run right over the top of other whitespace devices , thereby seriously limiting their utility.Given the listen before transmit rule , and given that the rural areas you 're talking about have the least number of active primary users , it seems unlikely a marginal TV station will ever suffer interference from a whitespace device .
There 's plenty of truly empty spectrum to use first .
Unless they proliferate even more wildly than Google dreams , I find it hard to believe whitespace devices could even come close to crowding the licensed users in rural areas.Consider also that very likely it 's your farmer 's own whitespace devices that are the closest to his TV receiver .
After all , his nearest neighbor is a mile or two away .
If he encounters a bad device that somehow , against all the mechanisms in place , manages to interfere with his television reception , he can always turn it off .
More likely , considering said whitespace device is probably providing him Internet service , he 'll turn the TV off and get his TV program through his Internet-providing whitespace device , with a better picture , albeit more slowly .
( Yes , as it turns out , it 's possible to get a fuzzy signal out of a digital television tuner .
My brother pulls in marginal stations that way .
) As for your licensed wireless mics , I suspect they 'll be gradually replaced with whitespace mics .
The tech who has to find a usable chunk of spectrum manually had better learn other skills , because that process is a completely automated feature of whitespace devices .
More than likely , they 'll be able to get Internet connectivity using the other whitespace devices in the area .
I can easily see whitespace devices proliferating widely enough that every area has at least one whitespace ISP .
It might even be free for low throughputs.If Google has dreamed big enough , they 'll use something similar to the Android development process to push , entice , cajole , and bully hardware vendors into producing whitespace devices capable of mesh networking .
The spectrum in question allows signals to propogate far enough that a whitespace mesh has some small chance of springing up .
Then the whole world changes .
Internet becomes truly ubiquitous.But that 's just a dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're leaving out a major stipulation of the FCC's ruling: whitespace devices must listen before transmitting, not just query the database.
They can't just check the database and begin broadcasting.
Not only does that potentially cause the interference with the primary user you're concerned about, it could easily run right over the top of other whitespace devices, thereby seriously limiting their utility.Given the listen before transmit rule, and given that the rural areas you're talking about have the least number of active primary users, it seems unlikely a marginal TV station will ever suffer interference from a whitespace device.
There's plenty of truly empty spectrum to use first.
Unless they proliferate even more wildly than Google dreams, I find it hard to believe whitespace devices could even come close to crowding the licensed users in rural areas.Consider also that very likely it's your farmer's own whitespace devices that are the closest to his TV receiver.
After all, his nearest neighbor is a mile or two away.
If he encounters a bad device that somehow, against all the mechanisms in place, manages to interfere with his television reception, he can always turn it off.
More likely, considering said whitespace device is probably providing him Internet service, he'll turn the TV off and get his TV program through his Internet-providing whitespace device, with a better picture, albeit more slowly.
(Yes, as it turns out, it's possible to get a fuzzy signal out of a digital television tuner.
My brother pulls in marginal stations that way.
)As for your licensed wireless mics, I suspect they'll be gradually replaced with whitespace mics.
The tech who has to find a usable chunk of spectrum manually had better learn other skills, because that process is a completely automated feature of whitespace devices.
More than likely, they'll be able to get Internet connectivity using the other whitespace devices in the area.
I can easily see whitespace devices proliferating widely enough that every area has at least one whitespace ISP.
It might even be free for low throughputs.If Google has dreamed big enough, they'll use something similar to the Android development process to push, entice, cajole, and bully hardware vendors into producing whitespace devices capable of mesh networking.
The spectrum in question allows signals to propogate far enough that a whitespace mesh has some small chance of springing up.
Then the whole world changes.
Internet becomes truly ubiquitous.But that's just a dream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670870</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30679478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30681638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30673576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30678006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30686518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30673448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30686340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_1343251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30673448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30678006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669626
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30686340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669804
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30679478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30686518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30681638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30673576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30671016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30670648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_1343251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30669820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_1343251.30674602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
