<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_1321239</id>
	<title>Analyst Estimates AT&amp;T Needs To Spend $5B To Catch Up</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263998100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>itwbennett writes <i>"The public's perception of AT&amp;T's network is poor and declining, apparently because of <a href="http://www.itworld.com/networking/93311/analyst-atampt-needs-spend-us5b-catch">real shortcomings when compared with Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel</a>,' says Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall Investment Research. 'AT&amp;T's capital expenditures on its wireless network from 2006 through September 2009 totaled about $21.6 billion, compared with $25.4 billion for Verizon and $16 billion for Sprint (including Sprint's investments in WiMax operator Clearwire). Over that time, Verizon has spent far more per subscriber: $353, compared with $308 for AT&amp;T,' Hallaren said. 'Even Sprint has outspent AT&amp;T per subscriber, laying out $310 for network capital expenditure.' All this means AT&amp;T has a choice, says Hallaren: 'spend or suffer.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>itwbennett writes " The public 's perception of AT&amp;T 's network is poor and declining , apparently because of real shortcomings when compared with Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel, ' says Gerard Hallaren , director of research at TownHall Investment Research .
'AT&amp;T 's capital expenditures on its wireless network from 2006 through September 2009 totaled about $ 21.6 billion , compared with $ 25.4 billion for Verizon and $ 16 billion for Sprint ( including Sprint 's investments in WiMax operator Clearwire ) .
Over that time , Verizon has spent far more per subscriber : $ 353 , compared with $ 308 for AT&amp;T, ' Hallaren said .
'Even Sprint has outspent AT&amp;T per subscriber , laying out $ 310 for network capital expenditure .
' All this means AT&amp;T has a choice , says Hallaren : 'spend or suffer .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itwbennett writes "The public's perception of AT&amp;T's network is poor and declining, apparently because of real shortcomings when compared with Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel,' says Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall Investment Research.
'AT&amp;T's capital expenditures on its wireless network from 2006 through September 2009 totaled about $21.6 billion, compared with $25.4 billion for Verizon and $16 billion for Sprint (including Sprint's investments in WiMax operator Clearwire).
Over that time, Verizon has spent far more per subscriber: $353, compared with $308 for AT&amp;T,' Hallaren said.
'Even Sprint has outspent AT&amp;T per subscriber, laying out $310 for network capital expenditure.
' All this means AT&amp;T has a choice, says Hallaren: 'spend or suffer.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833060</id>
	<title>Re:$45 is "far more"??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I paid them $2400 ($50 * 12 months * 4 years) and their network expenses were in the $300 range?  The phone might have been $300.</p><p>It sounds like once they have the 4G network up an can live without changing it for 30 years, we would see a drop in monthly prices if competition worked in corp America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I paid them $ 2400 ( $ 50 * 12 months * 4 years ) and their network expenses were in the $ 300 range ?
The phone might have been $ 300.It sounds like once they have the 4G network up an can live without changing it for 30 years , we would see a drop in monthly prices if competition worked in corp America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I paid them $2400 ($50 * 12 months * 4 years) and their network expenses were in the $300 range?
The phone might have been $300.It sounds like once they have the 4G network up an can live without changing it for 30 years, we would see a drop in monthly prices if competition worked in corp America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832738</id>
	<title>Re:They're spending all right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon has truly slapped AT&amp;T in the face with the map ads. The weak response by AT&amp;T with Luke Wilson is laughable at best. The commercials are truly pathetic. Great...you can talk and surf the web with AT&amp;T as long as you are within the tiny limited 3G coverage area. Know what.....fuck you Luke! Join your brother and attempt suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon has truly slapped AT&amp;T in the face with the map ads .
The weak response by AT&amp;T with Luke Wilson is laughable at best .
The commercials are truly pathetic .
Great...you can talk and surf the web with AT&amp;T as long as you are within the tiny limited 3G coverage area .
Know what.....fuck you Luke !
Join your brother and attempt suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon has truly slapped AT&amp;T in the face with the map ads.
The weak response by AT&amp;T with Luke Wilson is laughable at best.
The commercials are truly pathetic.
Great...you can talk and surf the web with AT&amp;T as long as you are within the tiny limited 3G coverage area.
Know what.....fuck you Luke!
Join your brother and attempt suicide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831752</id>
	<title>$45 is "far more"??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, that is far more?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , that is far more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, that is far more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832626</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T spend or suffer?</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1264006020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's clearly spend or make your customers suffer and there's plenty of evidence which way they'll probably go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's clearly spend or make your customers suffer and there 's plenty of evidence which way they 'll probably go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's clearly spend or make your customers suffer and there's plenty of evidence which way they'll probably go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832160</id>
	<title>Follow the money</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1264004160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, who paid for this and what's in it for them?  I've yet to see a piece of so-called "business research" of this nature which was produced with no ulterior motive.</p><p>The most obvious thoughts that spring to mind are:</p><ul><li>AT&amp;T paid for it.  They want an excuse to be able to add another "extra" onto the bill of all their customers (or get a government subsidy).</li><li>Verizon paid for it.  They want to be able to say "Don't use AT&amp;T, their network is obsolete and they can't afford to upgrade it".</li></ul><p>Any others?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , who paid for this and what 's in it for them ?
I 've yet to see a piece of so-called " business research " of this nature which was produced with no ulterior motive.The most obvious thoughts that spring to mind are : AT&amp;T paid for it .
They want an excuse to be able to add another " extra " onto the bill of all their customers ( or get a government subsidy ) .Verizon paid for it .
They want to be able to say " Do n't use AT&amp;T , their network is obsolete and they ca n't afford to upgrade it " .Any others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, who paid for this and what's in it for them?
I've yet to see a piece of so-called "business research" of this nature which was produced with no ulterior motive.The most obvious thoughts that spring to mind are:AT&amp;T paid for it.
They want an excuse to be able to add another "extra" onto the bill of all their customers (or get a government subsidy).Verizon paid for it.
They want to be able to say "Don't use AT&amp;T, their network is obsolete and they can't afford to upgrade it".Any others?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833468</id>
	<title>700 Mhz anyone?</title>
	<author>sneakyimp</author>
	<datestamp>1264008780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So whatever happened to the much-ballyhooed 700 Mhz spectrum?  Didn't AT&amp;T &amp; verizon both invest in that bit? So far I haven't seen hide nor hair of any 700mhz devices nor any announcements about wireless service using this spectrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So whatever happened to the much-ballyhooed 700 Mhz spectrum ?
Did n't AT&amp;T &amp; verizon both invest in that bit ?
So far I have n't seen hide nor hair of any 700mhz devices nor any announcements about wireless service using this spectrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So whatever happened to the much-ballyhooed 700 Mhz spectrum?
Didn't AT&amp;T &amp; verizon both invest in that bit?
So far I haven't seen hide nor hair of any 700mhz devices nor any announcements about wireless service using this spectrum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832676</id>
	<title>considering the 3g maps</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1264006200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at the differences in the US 3G coverage maps shown in the Verizon commercials, I think $5B is freaking cheap!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the differences in the US 3G coverage maps shown in the Verizon commercials , I think $ 5B is freaking cheap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the differences in the US 3G coverage maps shown in the Verizon commercials, I think $5B is freaking cheap!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831854</id>
	<title>They got lazy and slothful</title>
	<author>TheHawke</author>
	<datestamp>1264002780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They rested on their laurels with the iPhone along with retarding their capital expenditures to beef up their stock price when earnings season rolled around. They are paying for that dearly now with major issues with infrastructure and bandwidth issues.</p><p>Major mistake, playing to the stockholders instead of their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They rested on their laurels with the iPhone along with retarding their capital expenditures to beef up their stock price when earnings season rolled around .
They are paying for that dearly now with major issues with infrastructure and bandwidth issues.Major mistake , playing to the stockholders instead of their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They rested on their laurels with the iPhone along with retarding their capital expenditures to beef up their stock price when earnings season rolled around.
They are paying for that dearly now with major issues with infrastructure and bandwidth issues.Major mistake, playing to the stockholders instead of their customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832026</id>
	<title>Goodbye AT$T</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT$T just keeps getting worse and worse. They were overcharging me a lot 10 years ago and I changed my service to Bellsouth and I was so much happier. Then AT$T bought Bellsouth and so I unhappily had AT$T again. Deciding to give them another chance I stayed with them. But then came the unexplained fees and hugely overcharging me for $899 for long distance service that should have been less than $20. So at the beginning of this year I discontinued their service again for a Cable phone service that is great and $10 less a month.<br>
<br>
I will never again let AT$T into my life !!</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT $ T just keeps getting worse and worse .
They were overcharging me a lot 10 years ago and I changed my service to Bellsouth and I was so much happier .
Then AT $ T bought Bellsouth and so I unhappily had AT $ T again .
Deciding to give them another chance I stayed with them .
But then came the unexplained fees and hugely overcharging me for $ 899 for long distance service that should have been less than $ 20 .
So at the beginning of this year I discontinued their service again for a Cable phone service that is great and $ 10 less a month .
I will never again let AT $ T into my life !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT$T just keeps getting worse and worse.
They were overcharging me a lot 10 years ago and I changed my service to Bellsouth and I was so much happier.
Then AT$T bought Bellsouth and so I unhappily had AT$T again.
Deciding to give them another chance I stayed with them.
But then came the unexplained fees and hugely overcharging me for $899 for long distance service that should have been less than $20.
So at the beginning of this year I discontinued their service again for a Cable phone service that is great and $10 less a month.
I will never again let AT$T into my life !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836078</id>
	<title>Re:700 Mhz anyone?</title>
	<author>balbeir</author>
	<datestamp>1264018920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LTE (aka 4G) is where Verizon's 700Mhz spectrum will be used. It's being trialed in Boston and Seatlle I believe</htmltext>
<tokenext>LTE ( aka 4G ) is where Verizon 's 700Mhz spectrum will be used .
It 's being trialed in Boston and Seatlle I believe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LTE (aka 4G) is where Verizon's 700Mhz spectrum will be used.
It's being trialed in Boston and Seatlle I believe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30838326</id>
	<title>Money</title>
	<author>WilyCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1263984780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T already spent their all of their money on marketing against Verizon's map ads...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T already spent their all of their money on marketing against Verizon 's map ads.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T already spent their all of their money on marketing against Verizon's map ads...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831794</id>
	<title>Wasted research...</title>
	<author>Zantac69</author>
	<datestamp>1264002480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most AT&amp;T users could tell you that AT&amp;T really needs to get their shit together.  No need for expensive research.<br> <br>Personally, I am with AT&amp;T now because:<br>1 - I had to have a GSM phone (CDMA FTL!)<br>2 - T-Mobile's covereage sucks where I live in Atlanta (or at least it did 18 months ago)<br> <br>I am pissed and dont have much of a choice - its MaBell of Tmob.  Not much is out there that would drive me to the shackles of CDMA hell with BigRed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most AT&amp;T users could tell you that AT&amp;T really needs to get their shit together .
No need for expensive research .
Personally , I am with AT&amp;T now because : 1 - I had to have a GSM phone ( CDMA FTL !
) 2 - T-Mobile 's covereage sucks where I live in Atlanta ( or at least it did 18 months ago ) I am pissed and dont have much of a choice - its MaBell of Tmob .
Not much is out there that would drive me to the shackles of CDMA hell with BigRed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most AT&amp;T users could tell you that AT&amp;T really needs to get their shit together.
No need for expensive research.
Personally, I am with AT&amp;T now because:1 - I had to have a GSM phone (CDMA FTL!
)2 - T-Mobile's covereage sucks where I live in Atlanta (or at least it did 18 months ago) I am pissed and dont have much of a choice - its MaBell of Tmob.
Not much is out there that would drive me to the shackles of CDMA hell with BigRed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833406</id>
	<title>Re:They got lazy and slothful</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1264008600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Major mistake, playing to the stockholders instead of their customers.</i></p><p>Major mistake, playing to the <b>customers</b> instead of their <b>mobile subscribers</b>.</p><p>FTFY</p><p>Obligatory car analogy:</p><p>3 lane highway with several hundred cars == mild congestion</p><p>same 3 lane highway with several thousand cars, buses, 18 wheelers == #!$^WTF@#$\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Major mistake , playing to the stockholders instead of their customers.Major mistake , playing to the customers instead of their mobile subscribers.FTFYObligatory car analogy : 3 lane highway with several hundred cars = = mild congestionsame 3 lane highway with several thousand cars , buses , 18 wheelers = = # ! $ ^ WTF @ # $ \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Major mistake, playing to the stockholders instead of their customers.Major mistake, playing to the customers instead of their mobile subscribers.FTFYObligatory car analogy:3 lane highway with several hundred cars == mild congestionsame 3 lane highway with several thousand cars, buses, 18 wheelers == #!$^WTF@#$\%</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833200</id>
	<title>Re:efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The spectral efficiency of CDMA technology is just fine. If not, why would it have been chosen for all 3G implementations? It's for other reasons that LTE uses OFDMA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The spectral efficiency of CDMA technology is just fine .
If not , why would it have been chosen for all 3G implementations ?
It 's for other reasons that LTE uses OFDMA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spectral efficiency of CDMA technology is just fine.
If not, why would it have been chosen for all 3G implementations?
It's for other reasons that LTE uses OFDMA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831928</id>
	<title>Of course they need money to upgrade their network</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...they spend most of their budget on wiretapping for the NSA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they spend most of their budget on wiretapping for the NSA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they spend most of their budget on wiretapping for the NSA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832268</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T doesn't like to go outside the company for backhaul, now that it has a wireless company and a transport company under one roof.<br>
As their old transport contracts are expiring they are rolling those circuits onto their own network.<br>They are focusing on cost savings this way instead of spending their efforts on bringing new cell sites online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T does n't like to go outside the company for backhaul , now that it has a wireless company and a transport company under one roof .
As their old transport contracts are expiring they are rolling those circuits onto their own network.They are focusing on cost savings this way instead of spending their efforts on bringing new cell sites online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T doesn't like to go outside the company for backhaul, now that it has a wireless company and a transport company under one roof.
As their old transport contracts are expiring they are rolling those circuits onto their own network.They are focusing on cost savings this way instead of spending their efforts on bringing new cell sites online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718</id>
	<title>efficiency</title>
	<author>drougie</author>
	<datestamp>1264002120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These numbers are misleading. AT&amp;T doesn't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These numbers are misleading .
AT&amp;T does n't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These numbers are misleading.
AT&amp;T doesn't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831948</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well you're missing that 90\% of Canada's population lives within 300 miles of the US boarder. So they didn't have to (finally) upgrade their network over all of Canada. I also doubt that they rolled it out to ever part of the small part of Canada they have to either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you 're missing that 90 \ % of Canada 's population lives within 300 miles of the US boarder .
So they did n't have to ( finally ) upgrade their network over all of Canada .
I also doubt that they rolled it out to ever part of the small part of Canada they have to either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you're missing that 90\% of Canada's population lives within 300 miles of the US boarder.
So they didn't have to (finally) upgrade their network over all of Canada.
I also doubt that they rolled it out to ever part of the small part of Canada they have to either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834656</id>
	<title>Verizon has...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1264013400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. a large land line customer base from whom they can squeeze cash while providing piss poor service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. a large land line customer base from whom they can squeeze cash while providing piss poor service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. a large land line customer base from whom they can squeeze cash while providing piss poor service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834806</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1264014060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Executives like money?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Executives like money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Executives like money?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832560</id>
	<title>Website needs clue injection to catch up</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264005840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;title&gt;Analyst: AT&amp;amp;amp;T needs to spend US$5B to catch up | ITworld&lt;/title&gt;</p><p>That title is so &amp;amped it goes to 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Analyst : AT&amp;amp ; T needs to spend US $ 5B to catch up | ITworldThat title is so &amp;amped it goes to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Analyst: AT&amp;amp;T needs to spend US$5B to catch up | ITworldThat title is so &amp;amped it goes to 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832024</id>
	<title>Stockholders will make it painful</title>
	<author>Coopjust</author>
	<datestamp>1264003440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After resting on the success of the iPhones and what they had, AT&amp;T now has to spend the money to catch up.
<br> <br>
Expect the majority of shareholders, who are ridiculously short sighted, to hate AT&amp;T for it and decry it as a waste of money, just like how all the Verizon stockholders were whining about the investment per household for FiOS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After resting on the success of the iPhones and what they had , AT&amp;T now has to spend the money to catch up .
Expect the majority of shareholders , who are ridiculously short sighted , to hate AT&amp;T for it and decry it as a waste of money , just like how all the Verizon stockholders were whining about the investment per household for FiOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After resting on the success of the iPhones and what they had, AT&amp;T now has to spend the money to catch up.
Expect the majority of shareholders, who are ridiculously short sighted, to hate AT&amp;T for it and decry it as a waste of money, just like how all the Verizon stockholders were whining about the investment per household for FiOS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832902</id>
	<title>Re:efficiency</title>
	<author>Creepy</author>
	<datestamp>1264006980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk and surf can be done on any GSM network, not just AT&amp;T - lack of it on Verizon networks is a byproduct of CDMA technology.  CDMA itself has bad spectral efficiency and is essentially being killed off in the 3GPP and 4G, so I expect Verizon and Sprint will need to extend or replace it.  That said, AT&amp;T's data rates are pretty shoddy according to my brother - he likes T-Mobile better (I don't have a data plan, so I have no idea).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk and surf can be done on any GSM network , not just AT&amp;T - lack of it on Verizon networks is a byproduct of CDMA technology .
CDMA itself has bad spectral efficiency and is essentially being killed off in the 3GPP and 4G , so I expect Verizon and Sprint will need to extend or replace it .
That said , AT&amp;T 's data rates are pretty shoddy according to my brother - he likes T-Mobile better ( I do n't have a data plan , so I have no idea ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk and surf can be done on any GSM network, not just AT&amp;T - lack of it on Verizon networks is a byproduct of CDMA technology.
CDMA itself has bad spectral efficiency and is essentially being killed off in the 3GPP and 4G, so I expect Verizon and Sprint will need to extend or replace it.
That said, AT&amp;T's data rates are pretty shoddy according to my brother - he likes T-Mobile better (I don't have a data plan, so I have no idea).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832404</id>
	<title>Between Verizon and AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264005240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I chose Verizon.  There is no point in having a fast network or browsing while calling <i>if I can't freakin' connect to the network</i>.</p><p>I'm quite happy with my HTC Ozone and having at least two bars reception no matter where I am, even in the elevators at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I chose Verizon .
There is no point in having a fast network or browsing while calling if I ca n't freakin ' connect to the network.I 'm quite happy with my HTC Ozone and having at least two bars reception no matter where I am , even in the elevators at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I chose Verizon.
There is no point in having a fast network or browsing while calling if I can't freakin' connect to the network.I'm quite happy with my HTC Ozone and having at least two bars reception no matter where I am, even in the elevators at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831642</id>
	<title>Sprint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264001760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pretty sure nobody needs to catch up with Sprint / Nextel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure nobody needs to catch up with Sprint / Nextel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure nobody needs to catch up with Sprint / Nextel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832050</id>
	<title>I would call to complain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But my iPhone would probably just drop the call.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But my iPhone would probably just drop the call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my iPhone would probably just drop the call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836596</id>
	<title>Not to worry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263978060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... AT&amp;T will simply collect it from their clueless customers with some added hidden fees, or by using promotions to sucker people into getting dependent on their service and reluctant to break away when the honeymoon is over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... AT&amp;T will simply collect it from their clueless customers with some added hidden fees , or by using promotions to sucker people into getting dependent on their service and reluctant to break away when the honeymoon is over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... AT&amp;T will simply collect it from their clueless customers with some added hidden fees, or by using promotions to sucker people into getting dependent on their service and reluctant to break away when the honeymoon is over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834598</id>
	<title>Re:Wasted research...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the love of $DIETY.<br>
CDMA != WCDMA.

You might as well be saying you can't connect to the internet unless you have RJ-45</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the love of $ DIETY .
CDMA ! = WCDMA .
You might as well be saying you ca n't connect to the internet unless you have RJ-45</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the love of $DIETY.
CDMA != WCDMA.
You might as well be saying you can't connect to the internet unless you have RJ-45</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1264002000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bell and Telus collectively spent about $1 billion rolling out 7.2 Mbps GSM across Canada, and did it in about one year. Canada is larger than the US, and has 1/10th the population. That means it costs a lot more to provide bandwidth on a per-person basis. Backhaul links are less available as well, further increasing difficulties.</p><p>So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much, especially when they already have the towers and the problem is (apparently) backhaul - which is cheap.</p><p>What am I missing here?</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bell and Telus collectively spent about $ 1 billion rolling out 7.2 Mbps GSM across Canada , and did it in about one year .
Canada is larger than the US , and has 1/10th the population .
That means it costs a lot more to provide bandwidth on a per-person basis .
Backhaul links are less available as well , further increasing difficulties.So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much , especially when they already have the towers and the problem is ( apparently ) backhaul - which is cheap.What am I missing here ? Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bell and Telus collectively spent about $1 billion rolling out 7.2 Mbps GSM across Canada, and did it in about one year.
Canada is larger than the US, and has 1/10th the population.
That means it costs a lot more to provide bandwidth on a per-person basis.
Backhaul links are less available as well, further increasing difficulties.So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much, especially when they already have the towers and the problem is (apparently) backhaul - which is cheap.What am I missing here?Maury</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833276</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T's real choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naive:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All this means AT&amp;T has a choice, says Hallaren: 'spend or suffer'.</p></div><p>Correct:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All this means AT&amp;T has a choice, says Hallaren: 'spend or collude with "competitors" to ensure they have as much time as they need to catch up (because after all, if a silly matter like <i>technical prowess</i> can beat ONE big company, it could very well beat the others, too, so they have a vested interest in making sure this doesn't happen until they're ready for it) and lobby congress for legal assistance to keep anyone new from taking advantage of this situation'.</p></div><p>So which one's cheaper?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Naive : All this means AT&amp;T has a choice , says Hallaren : 'spend or suffer'.Correct : All this means AT&amp;T has a choice , says Hallaren : 'spend or collude with " competitors " to ensure they have as much time as they need to catch up ( because after all , if a silly matter like technical prowess can beat ONE big company , it could very well beat the others , too , so they have a vested interest in making sure this does n't happen until they 're ready for it ) and lobby congress for legal assistance to keep anyone new from taking advantage of this situation'.So which one 's cheaper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naive:All this means AT&amp;T has a choice, says Hallaren: 'spend or suffer'.Correct:All this means AT&amp;T has a choice, says Hallaren: 'spend or collude with "competitors" to ensure they have as much time as they need to catch up (because after all, if a silly matter like technical prowess can beat ONE big company, it could very well beat the others, too, so they have a vested interest in making sure this doesn't happen until they're ready for it) and lobby congress for legal assistance to keep anyone new from taking advantage of this situation'.So which one's cheaper?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832672</id>
	<title>Re:Wasted research...</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1264006200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1 - I had to have a GSM phone (CDMA FTL!)</p></div></blockquote><p>
I personally find this hilarious on two counts:<br>
1.) GSM and EDGE are TDMA technologies that are inferior in every way to the CDMA waveform.<br>
2.) Your 3G service through AT&amp;T is based off of CDMA. (All GSM carriers use W-CDMA for 3G service. See also #1.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 - I had to have a GSM phone ( CDMA FTL !
) I personally find this hilarious on two counts : 1 .
) GSM and EDGE are TDMA technologies that are inferior in every way to the CDMA waveform .
2. ) Your 3G service through AT&amp;T is based off of CDMA .
( All GSM carriers use W-CDMA for 3G service .
See also # 1 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 - I had to have a GSM phone (CDMA FTL!
)
I personally find this hilarious on two counts:
1.
) GSM and EDGE are TDMA technologies that are inferior in every way to the CDMA waveform.
2.) Your 3G service through AT&amp;T is based off of CDMA.
(All GSM carriers use W-CDMA for 3G service.
See also #1.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832204</id>
	<title>Re:Wasted research...</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1264004340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm kinda interested in whats going to happen when both ATT and Verizon go to LTE.. That could get very, very interesting..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kinda interested in whats going to happen when both ATT and Verizon go to LTE.. That could get very , very interesting. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kinda interested in whats going to happen when both ATT and Verizon go to LTE.. That could get very, very interesting..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836464</id>
	<title>Re:They got lazy and slothful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theyre stock price is almost unchanged year over year, with only small fluctuations over the last 52 weeks.  Thats how most high dividend yield stocks trade, they dont go up or down very much.  So youre wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theyre stock price is almost unchanged year over year , with only small fluctuations over the last 52 weeks .
Thats how most high dividend yield stocks trade , they dont go up or down very much .
So youre wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theyre stock price is almost unchanged year over year, with only small fluctuations over the last 52 weeks.
Thats how most high dividend yield stocks trade, they dont go up or down very much.
So youre wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831968</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264003200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada's population is pretty lumpy, so I'm not sure the infrastructure costs per subscriber are hugely different, and presumably, the U.S. providers have to service about 10 times as many people (or maybe 6 times as many, depending on the assumptions you make about redundancy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada 's population is pretty lumpy , so I 'm not sure the infrastructure costs per subscriber are hugely different , and presumably , the U.S. providers have to service about 10 times as many people ( or maybe 6 times as many , depending on the assumptions you make about redundancy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada's population is pretty lumpy, so I'm not sure the infrastructure costs per subscriber are hugely different, and presumably, the U.S. providers have to service about 10 times as many people (or maybe 6 times as many, depending on the assumptions you make about redundancy).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831768</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bell and Telus collectively spent about $1 billion rolling out 7.2 Mbps GSM across Canada, and did it in about one year. Canada is larger than the US, and has 1/10th the population. That means it costs a lot more to provide bandwidth on a per-person basis. Backhaul links are less available as well, further increasing difficulties.</p><p>So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much, especially when they already have the towers and the problem is (apparently) backhaul - which is cheap.</p><p>What am I missing here?</p><p>Maury</p></div><p>Canada's people tend to be compressed into a band hugging the U.S. -- so your "Canada is larger than the US" doesn't quite fit. I doubt Bell or Telus has service on Ellesmere Island</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bell and Telus collectively spent about $ 1 billion rolling out 7.2 Mbps GSM across Canada , and did it in about one year .
Canada is larger than the US , and has 1/10th the population .
That means it costs a lot more to provide bandwidth on a per-person basis .
Backhaul links are less available as well , further increasing difficulties.So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much , especially when they already have the towers and the problem is ( apparently ) backhaul - which is cheap.What am I missing here ? MauryCanada 's people tend to be compressed into a band hugging the U.S. -- so your " Canada is larger than the US " does n't quite fit .
I doubt Bell or Telus has service on Ellesmere Island</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bell and Telus collectively spent about $1 billion rolling out 7.2 Mbps GSM across Canada, and did it in about one year.
Canada is larger than the US, and has 1/10th the population.
That means it costs a lot more to provide bandwidth on a per-person basis.
Backhaul links are less available as well, further increasing difficulties.So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much, especially when they already have the towers and the problem is (apparently) backhaul - which is cheap.What am I missing here?MauryCanada's people tend to be compressed into a band hugging the U.S. -- so your "Canada is larger than the US" doesn't quite fit.
I doubt Bell or Telus has service on Ellesmere Island
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30837230</id>
	<title>Re:700 Mhz anyone?</title>
	<author>Wireless Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1263980640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T's 700mhz spectrum is reserved solely for <a href="http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&amp;cdvn=news&amp;newsarticleid=25428" title="att.com">LTE</a> [att.com].<blockquote><div><p>In the future, AT&amp;T's 700 MHz spectrum holdings will provide the foundation for deployment of next-generation wireless broadband platforms such as HSPA+ and LTE.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T 's 700mhz spectrum is reserved solely for LTE [ att.com ] .In the future , AT&amp;T 's 700 MHz spectrum holdings will provide the foundation for deployment of next-generation wireless broadband platforms such as HSPA + and LTE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T's 700mhz spectrum is reserved solely for LTE [att.com].In the future, AT&amp;T's 700 MHz spectrum holdings will provide the foundation for deployment of next-generation wireless broadband platforms such as HSPA+ and LTE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832766</id>
	<title>if wishes were horses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then simply looking at per subscriber spending would be a valid metric.  That way the vendors could buy as much blow as they wanted for the acquisition department and then bill it through higher bids.
<p>
As it is, verizon is no longer the absolute leader.  Sprint, ATT, even some of the small guys like boost and cricket have competitive products.  All verizon can say is they have the premium product, and use the higher fees to maintain the premium product.
</p><p>
I suspect the issue is not spending, but the free space in cell towers and new cell towers, which I understand are not as easy to set, since everyone wants a cell phone, but no one wants a tower in the neighborhood.  In places like NYC I can imagine that just finding real estate, much less real estate that one is allowed to attach to, is a major issue.   It seems like at 15-25 billion, everyone is spending as much as they possible can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then simply looking at per subscriber spending would be a valid metric .
That way the vendors could buy as much blow as they wanted for the acquisition department and then bill it through higher bids .
As it is , verizon is no longer the absolute leader .
Sprint , ATT , even some of the small guys like boost and cricket have competitive products .
All verizon can say is they have the premium product , and use the higher fees to maintain the premium product .
I suspect the issue is not spending , but the free space in cell towers and new cell towers , which I understand are not as easy to set , since everyone wants a cell phone , but no one wants a tower in the neighborhood .
In places like NYC I can imagine that just finding real estate , much less real estate that one is allowed to attach to , is a major issue .
It seems like at 15-25 billion , everyone is spending as much as they possible can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then simply looking at per subscriber spending would be a valid metric.
That way the vendors could buy as much blow as they wanted for the acquisition department and then bill it through higher bids.
As it is, verizon is no longer the absolute leader.
Sprint, ATT, even some of the small guys like boost and cricket have competitive products.
All verizon can say is they have the premium product, and use the higher fees to maintain the premium product.
I suspect the issue is not spending, but the free space in cell towers and new cell towers, which I understand are not as easy to set, since everyone wants a cell phone, but no one wants a tower in the neighborhood.
In places like NYC I can imagine that just finding real estate, much less real estate that one is allowed to attach to, is a major issue.
It seems like at 15-25 billion, everyone is spending as much as they possible can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30847172</id>
	<title>cost analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264095180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This analysis of whos network has the most coverage, or who is upgrading the most, by comparing the money spent per customer or overall even, is a very bad one.  It does not take into account 1. how many towers / square feet of coverage they have already, 2. how many customers they have, 3. are they spending the money on more towers or network capacity upgrades, 4. the price of their plans and how much money theyve made over time, etc. Much more specific information and math for cost analysis could clear up some of this. I have the feeling that at&amp;t is raking in the dough almost more than sprint and verizon is doing the poorest of the 3, judging by what they are charging now for unlimited voice.  AT&amp;T &amp; Sprint are charging 99 flat for u-voice, and verizon only 70.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This analysis of whos network has the most coverage , or who is upgrading the most , by comparing the money spent per customer or overall even , is a very bad one .
It does not take into account 1. how many towers / square feet of coverage they have already , 2. how many customers they have , 3. are they spending the money on more towers or network capacity upgrades , 4. the price of their plans and how much money theyve made over time , etc .
Much more specific information and math for cost analysis could clear up some of this .
I have the feeling that at&amp;t is raking in the dough almost more than sprint and verizon is doing the poorest of the 3 , judging by what they are charging now for unlimited voice .
AT&amp;T &amp; Sprint are charging 99 flat for u-voice , and verizon only 70 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This analysis of whos network has the most coverage, or who is upgrading the most, by comparing the money spent per customer or overall even, is a very bad one.
It does not take into account 1. how many towers / square feet of coverage they have already, 2. how many customers they have, 3. are they spending the money on more towers or network capacity upgrades, 4. the price of their plans and how much money theyve made over time, etc.
Much more specific information and math for cost analysis could clear up some of this.
I have the feeling that at&amp;t is raking in the dough almost more than sprint and verizon is doing the poorest of the 3, judging by what they are charging now for unlimited voice.
AT&amp;T &amp; Sprint are charging 99 flat for u-voice, and verizon only 70.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836022</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1264018680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did a pretty good job of it.  I have a friend back home (north of the 55th parallel) who wanted an iPhone but couldn't get one because Rogers didn't have service out where she lives (you drive an hour on the two lane primary highway from the nearest major city, population 30k, then turn onto the secondary highway and drive for fifteen minutes, then turn onto the gravel....).  She's now got a Telus iPhone and has service, no problem.</p><p>If she's got Telus/Bell GSM then they've probably rolled it out pretty much everywhere they serve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did a pretty good job of it .
I have a friend back home ( north of the 55th parallel ) who wanted an iPhone but could n't get one because Rogers did n't have service out where she lives ( you drive an hour on the two lane primary highway from the nearest major city , population 30k , then turn onto the secondary highway and drive for fifteen minutes , then turn onto the gravel.... ) .
She 's now got a Telus iPhone and has service , no problem.If she 's got Telus/Bell GSM then they 've probably rolled it out pretty much everywhere they serve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did a pretty good job of it.
I have a friend back home (north of the 55th parallel) who wanted an iPhone but couldn't get one because Rogers didn't have service out where she lives (you drive an hour on the two lane primary highway from the nearest major city, population 30k, then turn onto the secondary highway and drive for fifteen minutes, then turn onto the gravel....).
She's now got a Telus iPhone and has service, no problem.If she's got Telus/Bell GSM then they've probably rolled it out pretty much everywhere they serve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832532</id>
	<title>We have seen this game before.</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1264005720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When this becomes a more serious problem they will beg/demand/get massive tax breaks and claim that it will go to infrastructure building. Then they will pass the majority to their stock holders. If anyone complains and suggests regulation concerning either the tax breaks (outside of suggesting more tax breaks) or how the additional revenue should be spent will be branded a socialist and an enemy of capitalism.</p><p>We saw this under both Clinton and Bush and we will see it again under Obama, because there is one simple fact that no one in government can understand. You cannot bribe businesses. You can sign contracts where they provide a service for a price, you can enforce current legislation and if you are willing to waste the time you can write new legislation, but you will never get anything done with bribery (ie. tax cuts).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When this becomes a more serious problem they will beg/demand/get massive tax breaks and claim that it will go to infrastructure building .
Then they will pass the majority to their stock holders .
If anyone complains and suggests regulation concerning either the tax breaks ( outside of suggesting more tax breaks ) or how the additional revenue should be spent will be branded a socialist and an enemy of capitalism.We saw this under both Clinton and Bush and we will see it again under Obama , because there is one simple fact that no one in government can understand .
You can not bribe businesses .
You can sign contracts where they provide a service for a price , you can enforce current legislation and if you are willing to waste the time you can write new legislation , but you will never get anything done with bribery ( ie .
tax cuts ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When this becomes a more serious problem they will beg/demand/get massive tax breaks and claim that it will go to infrastructure building.
Then they will pass the majority to their stock holders.
If anyone complains and suggests regulation concerning either the tax breaks (outside of suggesting more tax breaks) or how the additional revenue should be spent will be branded a socialist and an enemy of capitalism.We saw this under both Clinton and Bush and we will see it again under Obama, because there is one simple fact that no one in government can understand.
You cannot bribe businesses.
You can sign contracts where they provide a service for a price, you can enforce current legislation and if you are willing to waste the time you can write new legislation, but you will never get anything done with bribery (ie.
tax cuts).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832288</id>
	<title>I read this as $58</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and wondered what the problem was</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and wondered what the problem was</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and wondered what the problem was</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831892</id>
	<title>biznatCh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>vitality. L1kE an</htmltext>
<tokenext>vitality .
L1kE an</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vitality.
L1kE an</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834222</id>
	<title>i can has competition?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1264011600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we get some real competition between cellphone providers.  AFAICT they are all the same company, offering the same shoddy service for the same insane price.  The cheapest plan you can get is $40/mo and 450 minutes.  Can we have a plan that doesn't assume i'm a twelve year old girl who must constantly yammer?  Most of my calls are less than 5 minutes and i make a call about every two or three days.  The pay as you go plans (inaccurately called "pre-paid") are often monthly plans in disguise because you can lose your number if you stop paying.  Most of those systems are gimped and cost more per minute than a plan.  It's not a real option.</p><p>Howabout divorcing hardware and infrastructure?  i buy a phone.  i connect the phone to my credit card. i dial a number.  i select the provider that gives me the best combination of coverage and price.  If X network is strong there but charges more than Y, but the call is trivial... i'll go with Y.  If the call is important to me i can pick X.  The companies would trample each other to provide good AND cheap service.</p><p>Howabout making it a utility?  There's no real competition in the US, so why pretend there is? i buy a phone.  Associate it with a credit card and call/text/surf until my thumbs are tired or my bill gets out of control.  With no stockholders to please the prices could stay low.  Or hell, just have a public utility option (wink).  The state could compete against companies.</p><p>Howabout recognizing that companies benefit from people being able to access info and shop.  The model works for Google, maybe we can apply it to telecom. Folks that are selling something fund the system that makes those sales possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we get some real competition between cellphone providers .
AFAICT they are all the same company , offering the same shoddy service for the same insane price .
The cheapest plan you can get is $ 40/mo and 450 minutes .
Can we have a plan that does n't assume i 'm a twelve year old girl who must constantly yammer ?
Most of my calls are less than 5 minutes and i make a call about every two or three days .
The pay as you go plans ( inaccurately called " pre-paid " ) are often monthly plans in disguise because you can lose your number if you stop paying .
Most of those systems are gimped and cost more per minute than a plan .
It 's not a real option.Howabout divorcing hardware and infrastructure ?
i buy a phone .
i connect the phone to my credit card .
i dial a number .
i select the provider that gives me the best combination of coverage and price .
If X network is strong there but charges more than Y , but the call is trivial... i 'll go with Y. If the call is important to me i can pick X. The companies would trample each other to provide good AND cheap service.Howabout making it a utility ?
There 's no real competition in the US , so why pretend there is ?
i buy a phone .
Associate it with a credit card and call/text/surf until my thumbs are tired or my bill gets out of control .
With no stockholders to please the prices could stay low .
Or hell , just have a public utility option ( wink ) .
The state could compete against companies.Howabout recognizing that companies benefit from people being able to access info and shop .
The model works for Google , maybe we can apply it to telecom .
Folks that are selling something fund the system that makes those sales possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we get some real competition between cellphone providers.
AFAICT they are all the same company, offering the same shoddy service for the same insane price.
The cheapest plan you can get is $40/mo and 450 minutes.
Can we have a plan that doesn't assume i'm a twelve year old girl who must constantly yammer?
Most of my calls are less than 5 minutes and i make a call about every two or three days.
The pay as you go plans (inaccurately called "pre-paid") are often monthly plans in disguise because you can lose your number if you stop paying.
Most of those systems are gimped and cost more per minute than a plan.
It's not a real option.Howabout divorcing hardware and infrastructure?
i buy a phone.
i connect the phone to my credit card.
i dial a number.
i select the provider that gives me the best combination of coverage and price.
If X network is strong there but charges more than Y, but the call is trivial... i'll go with Y.  If the call is important to me i can pick X.  The companies would trample each other to provide good AND cheap service.Howabout making it a utility?
There's no real competition in the US, so why pretend there is?
i buy a phone.
Associate it with a credit card and call/text/surf until my thumbs are tired or my bill gets out of control.
With no stockholders to please the prices could stay low.
Or hell, just have a public utility option (wink).
The state could compete against companies.Howabout recognizing that companies benefit from people being able to access info and shop.
The model works for Google, maybe we can apply it to telecom.
Folks that are selling something fund the system that makes those sales possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30837398</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much, especially when they already have the towers and the problem is (apparently) backhaul - which is cheap.</i></p><p>Spectrum allocation.  Its costs increase with the number of users served per unit area.  No problem in Canada, big problem in New York.</p><p>AT&amp;T should've spent more money at the FCC auctions over the past several years, because as things stand now, they're pretty much fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much , especially when they already have the towers and the problem is ( apparently ) backhaul - which is cheap.Spectrum allocation .
Its costs increase with the number of users served per unit area .
No problem in Canada , big problem in New York.AT&amp;T should 've spent more money at the FCC auctions over the past several years , because as things stand now , they 're pretty much fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why is this going to cost AT&amp;T 5 times as much, especially when they already have the towers and the problem is (apparently) backhaul - which is cheap.Spectrum allocation.
Its costs increase with the number of users served per unit area.
No problem in Canada, big problem in New York.AT&amp;T should've spent more money at the FCC auctions over the past several years, because as things stand now, they're pretty much fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834318</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T wireless is hilariously funny...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>especially their new commercials whinging about being able to talk and surf the web at the same time or slightly higher download speeds(WTF downloads with a phone?!) which somehow makes their deficient coverage go away.</p><p>Anyways, I noticed that AT&amp;T and most other wireless providers had crappy coverage compared to Verizon about 8 or so years ago when my parents were thinking about getting a cellphone to take with them when they travelled by car around the US &amp; Canada.  Pretty much every wireless provider excepting Verizon ONLY had coverage around major cities and larger towns.  Most had no coverage in Canada or, again, only around large cities and town(FAR fewere of those in Canada especially the middle section of the country).</p><p>All of this meant to me, that even though Verizon was a little higher in monthly pricing than their competitors it was the only realistic option outside of GROSSLY expensive satellite phone for them.  (I had Verizon for years before I even bothered to check this and had already noticed that when camping way out in the middle of nowhere(100s of miles from even a town with a population of 75k or more... which also brings up the funny incidents of all the little villages with almost as many bars as houses...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:O<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)) Verizon phones still had signal while other people's phones if they got signal at all were roaming -&gt; obscene charges.)</p><p>Anyways, AT&amp;T will have to spend money(realistically they all do anyways) but they will whinge and moan about it as *shock* they might have to cut back on the big bonuses and spend them on the company itself  to actually keep from running their company into the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>especially their new commercials whinging about being able to talk and surf the web at the same time or slightly higher download speeds ( WTF downloads with a phone ? !
) which somehow makes their deficient coverage go away.Anyways , I noticed that AT&amp;T and most other wireless providers had crappy coverage compared to Verizon about 8 or so years ago when my parents were thinking about getting a cellphone to take with them when they travelled by car around the US &amp; Canada .
Pretty much every wireless provider excepting Verizon ONLY had coverage around major cities and larger towns .
Most had no coverage in Canada or , again , only around large cities and town ( FAR fewere of those in Canada especially the middle section of the country ) .All of this meant to me , that even though Verizon was a little higher in monthly pricing than their competitors it was the only realistic option outside of GROSSLY expensive satellite phone for them .
( I had Verizon for years before I even bothered to check this and had already noticed that when camping way out in the middle of nowhere ( 100s of miles from even a town with a population of 75k or more... which also brings up the funny incidents of all the little villages with almost as many bars as houses... : O ; ) ) Verizon phones still had signal while other people 's phones if they got signal at all were roaming - &gt; obscene charges .
) Anyways , AT&amp;T will have to spend money ( realistically they all do anyways ) but they will whinge and moan about it as * shock * they might have to cut back on the big bonuses and spend them on the company itself to actually keep from running their company into the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>especially their new commercials whinging about being able to talk and surf the web at the same time or slightly higher download speeds(WTF downloads with a phone?!
) which somehow makes their deficient coverage go away.Anyways, I noticed that AT&amp;T and most other wireless providers had crappy coverage compared to Verizon about 8 or so years ago when my parents were thinking about getting a cellphone to take with them when they travelled by car around the US &amp; Canada.
Pretty much every wireless provider excepting Verizon ONLY had coverage around major cities and larger towns.
Most had no coverage in Canada or, again, only around large cities and town(FAR fewere of those in Canada especially the middle section of the country).All of this meant to me, that even though Verizon was a little higher in monthly pricing than their competitors it was the only realistic option outside of GROSSLY expensive satellite phone for them.
(I had Verizon for years before I even bothered to check this and had already noticed that when camping way out in the middle of nowhere(100s of miles from even a town with a population of 75k or more... which also brings up the funny incidents of all the little villages with almost as many bars as houses... :O ;)) Verizon phones still had signal while other people's phones if they got signal at all were roaming -&gt; obscene charges.
)Anyways, AT&amp;T will have to spend money(realistically they all do anyways) but they will whinge and moan about it as *shock* they might have to cut back on the big bonuses and spend them on the company itself  to actually keep from running their company into the ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831682</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint?</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1264001940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait; what?  You mean all that "Those people in Operation Chokehold are just blowing blue smoke out their ass; we're just as good as the other guys" press releasing was just *posturing*?</p><p>Say it ain't *so*, Joe!</p><p>In fact, while Nextel's *coverage* sucks in the Tampa market, their customer service has come *way* up, and I say that having been a customer 10 years now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait ; what ?
You mean all that " Those people in Operation Chokehold are just blowing blue smoke out their ass ; we 're just as good as the other guys " press releasing was just * posturing * ? Say it ai n't * so * , Joe ! In fact , while Nextel 's * coverage * sucks in the Tampa market , their customer service has come * way * up , and I say that having been a customer 10 years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait; what?
You mean all that "Those people in Operation Chokehold are just blowing blue smoke out their ass; we're just as good as the other guys" press releasing was just *posturing*?Say it ain't *so*, Joe!In fact, while Nextel's *coverage* sucks in the Tampa market, their customer service has come *way* up, and I say that having been a customer 10 years now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832008</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"handful of cities along the US border" != "across Canada"</p><p>If 99\% of your population lives in 5 cities, it's pretty easy to give "everyone" cell phone coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" handful of cities along the US border " ! = " across Canada " If 99 \ % of your population lives in 5 cities , it 's pretty easy to give " everyone " cell phone coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"handful of cities along the US border" != "across Canada"If 99\% of your population lives in 5 cities, it's pretty easy to give "everyone" cell phone coverage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30841712</id>
	<title>Re:Wasted research...</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1264003800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No kidding. Since you obviously don't understand where the CDMA in W-CDMA came from, I'll explain it. The WCDMA standard, for all intents and purposes, is just CDMA in 5 MHz bandwidth rather than CDMA's 1.25 MHz bandwidth. Sure, there are some goodies for interop between WCDMA and GSM (and some portions twiddled to lower royalties and such), but the tech is the same. The point of my original post was to show that GSM was a dead end technology as soon as CDMA was developed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
Since you obviously do n't understand where the CDMA in W-CDMA came from , I 'll explain it .
The WCDMA standard , for all intents and purposes , is just CDMA in 5 MHz bandwidth rather than CDMA 's 1.25 MHz bandwidth .
Sure , there are some goodies for interop between WCDMA and GSM ( and some portions twiddled to lower royalties and such ) , but the tech is the same .
The point of my original post was to show that GSM was a dead end technology as soon as CDMA was developed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
Since you obviously don't understand where the CDMA in W-CDMA came from, I'll explain it.
The WCDMA standard, for all intents and purposes, is just CDMA in 5 MHz bandwidth rather than CDMA's 1.25 MHz bandwidth.
Sure, there are some goodies for interop between WCDMA and GSM (and some portions twiddled to lower royalties and such), but the tech is the same.
The point of my original post was to show that GSM was a dead end technology as soon as CDMA was developed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831958</id>
	<title>They're spending all right...</title>
	<author>dasunst3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264003200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... on Luke Wilson.  My solution to public perception issue?  Less on marketing and more on infrastructure upgrades and support (engineering, equipment, installation, customer support, etc.).  I strongly believe that beyond an initial marketing push, if a product is truly good, it can sell itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... on Luke Wilson .
My solution to public perception issue ?
Less on marketing and more on infrastructure upgrades and support ( engineering , equipment , installation , customer support , etc. ) .
I strongly believe that beyond an initial marketing push , if a product is truly good , it can sell itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... on Luke Wilson.
My solution to public perception issue?
Less on marketing and more on infrastructure upgrades and support (engineering, equipment, installation, customer support, etc.).
I strongly believe that beyond an initial marketing push, if a product is truly good, it can sell itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832702</id>
	<title>Re:$45 is "far more"??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, that is far more?</p></div><p>If there were only 1 or 100 subscribers I'd agree with you but putting it into context and relatively speaking, yeah, $45 per subscriber with millions of subscribers... yeah, that's a LOT.</p><p>Maybe you're filthy rich and to you this is pennies but to me... that's a LOT do money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , that is far more ? If there were only 1 or 100 subscribers I 'd agree with you but putting it into context and relatively speaking , yeah , $ 45 per subscriber with millions of subscribers... yeah , that 's a LOT.Maybe you 're filthy rich and to you this is pennies but to me... that 's a LOT do money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, that is far more?If there were only 1 or 100 subscribers I'd agree with you but putting it into context and relatively speaking, yeah, $45 per subscriber with millions of subscribers... yeah, that's a LOT.Maybe you're filthy rich and to you this is pennies but to me... that's a LOT do money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832066</id>
	<title>Why not wait?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why bother with doing 3G only?</p><p>Why not wait and deploy the next generation and 3G at the same time?</p><p>If your going to do all that work and visit all those sites, it would make more sense to LEAPFROG Verizon and the other carriers while your at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother with doing 3G only ? Why not wait and deploy the next generation and 3G at the same time ? If your going to do all that work and visit all those sites , it would make more sense to LEAPFROG Verizon and the other carriers while your at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother with doing 3G only?Why not wait and deploy the next generation and 3G at the same time?If your going to do all that work and visit all those sites, it would make more sense to LEAPFROG Verizon and the other carriers while your at it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832370</id>
	<title>Re:They're spending all right...</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1264005120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I strongly believe that beyond an initial marketing push, if a product is truly good, it can sell itself.</i></p><p>Well, we do have the computer field as a major counterexample.  The best-selling  computer system for a long time has been MS Windows, which has always been the crappiest product available.  They're a prime example of an old business guideline:  The best way to be a major vendor is to have the biggest advertising budget.  If you have that, there's no point on paying extra money to have a good product, because it won't get you a significant increase in sales.  Only a tiny part of the market understands how to judge quality, and you can safely leave those sales to the small companies that will never be large.</p><p>Of course, the telephone business has long worked on a different basis.  Their business plan has always been to make deals with governmental authorities to get a local monopoly wherever possible.  Then quality doesn't matter because the regulators will guarantee that you always have a profit and no competitors.</p><p>At present, there is a small amount of competition allowed in the recently-developed wireless phone market.  But this is only a temporary situation.  The phone companies are hard at work on mergers and acquisitions, plus "campaign contributions" to reestablish regulated local monopolies.  So we can expect that fairly soon they'll be back to their normal non-competitive situation.  AT&amp;T's only real problem is management that hasn't heard about the competitive market.  But this is only a temporary situation.</p><p>"We're the Phone Company.  We don't care.  We don't have to."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly believe that beyond an initial marketing push , if a product is truly good , it can sell itself.Well , we do have the computer field as a major counterexample .
The best-selling computer system for a long time has been MS Windows , which has always been the crappiest product available .
They 're a prime example of an old business guideline : The best way to be a major vendor is to have the biggest advertising budget .
If you have that , there 's no point on paying extra money to have a good product , because it wo n't get you a significant increase in sales .
Only a tiny part of the market understands how to judge quality , and you can safely leave those sales to the small companies that will never be large.Of course , the telephone business has long worked on a different basis .
Their business plan has always been to make deals with governmental authorities to get a local monopoly wherever possible .
Then quality does n't matter because the regulators will guarantee that you always have a profit and no competitors.At present , there is a small amount of competition allowed in the recently-developed wireless phone market .
But this is only a temporary situation .
The phone companies are hard at work on mergers and acquisitions , plus " campaign contributions " to reestablish regulated local monopolies .
So we can expect that fairly soon they 'll be back to their normal non-competitive situation .
AT&amp;T 's only real problem is management that has n't heard about the competitive market .
But this is only a temporary situation .
" We 're the Phone Company .
We do n't care .
We do n't have to .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly believe that beyond an initial marketing push, if a product is truly good, it can sell itself.Well, we do have the computer field as a major counterexample.
The best-selling  computer system for a long time has been MS Windows, which has always been the crappiest product available.
They're a prime example of an old business guideline:  The best way to be a major vendor is to have the biggest advertising budget.
If you have that, there's no point on paying extra money to have a good product, because it won't get you a significant increase in sales.
Only a tiny part of the market understands how to judge quality, and you can safely leave those sales to the small companies that will never be large.Of course, the telephone business has long worked on a different basis.
Their business plan has always been to make deals with governmental authorities to get a local monopoly wherever possible.
Then quality doesn't matter because the regulators will guarantee that you always have a profit and no competitors.At present, there is a small amount of competition allowed in the recently-developed wireless phone market.
But this is only a temporary situation.
The phone companies are hard at work on mergers and acquisitions, plus "campaign contributions" to reestablish regulated local monopolies.
So we can expect that fairly soon they'll be back to their normal non-competitive situation.
AT&amp;T's only real problem is management that hasn't heard about the competitive market.
But this is only a temporary situation.
"We're the Phone Company.
We don't care.
We don't have to.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834478</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1264012560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to keep in mind that these numbers mean absolutely nothing.</p><p>If company A spent 100$/client to bring you service X and company B spent 75$/client to bring you the same X, it just means that one of them got a better deal.</p><p>Conversely, if company A spent 100$/client and brought you service X and company B spent 100$/client to bring you service Y (which is half as good as X) it just means that they both spent the same amount of cash.</p><p>And again, just because someone spends more on you, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily better. In Quebec for example, our govn't typically spends 35\% more on road repairs than our neighbors, yet our roads still suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to keep in mind that these numbers mean absolutely nothing.If company A spent 100 $ /client to bring you service X and company B spent 75 $ /client to bring you the same X , it just means that one of them got a better deal.Conversely , if company A spent 100 $ /client and brought you service X and company B spent 100 $ /client to bring you service Y ( which is half as good as X ) it just means that they both spent the same amount of cash.And again , just because someone spends more on you , it does n't mean that it 's necessarily better .
In Quebec for example , our gov n't typically spends 35 \ % more on road repairs than our neighbors , yet our roads still suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to keep in mind that these numbers mean absolutely nothing.If company A spent 100$/client to bring you service X and company B spent 75$/client to bring you the same X, it just means that one of them got a better deal.Conversely, if company A spent 100$/client and brought you service X and company B spent 100$/client to bring you service Y (which is half as good as X) it just means that they both spent the same amount of cash.And again, just because someone spends more on you, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily better.
In Quebec for example, our govn't typically spends 35\% more on road repairs than our neighbors, yet our roads still suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836592</id>
	<title>Around the holidays...</title>
	<author>my\_left\_nut</author>
	<datestamp>1263978060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all of a sudden, AT&amp;Ts 3G service was unavailable for days (not hours) at a time. This was not in a remote area, but in a suburb 25 miles due west of Philadelphia, PA. At the time, signal bars were up at 5. Go figure. 3G service eventually did return, though.</p><p>I like the iPhone, but if their 3G service is so spotty, I might eventually be forced to switch providers.</p><p>AT&amp;T are you listening?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all of a sudden , AT&amp;Ts 3G service was unavailable for days ( not hours ) at a time .
This was not in a remote area , but in a suburb 25 miles due west of Philadelphia , PA. At the time , signal bars were up at 5 .
Go figure .
3G service eventually did return , though.I like the iPhone , but if their 3G service is so spotty , I might eventually be forced to switch providers.AT&amp;T are you listening ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all of a sudden, AT&amp;Ts 3G service was unavailable for days (not hours) at a time.
This was not in a remote area, but in a suburb 25 miles due west of Philadelphia, PA. At the time, signal bars were up at 5.
Go figure.
3G service eventually did return, though.I like the iPhone, but if their 3G service is so spotty, I might eventually be forced to switch providers.AT&amp;T are you listening?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834586</id>
	<title>Different issue</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1264013100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US has significantly more large, densely populated cities than Canada, and AT&amp;T also has to hook up a lot of small towns. There are over <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_States\_cities\_by\_population" title="wikipedia.org">270 cities in the US that have at least 100k people living in them</a> [wikipedia.org], and AT&amp;T doesn't stop there with trying to provide full 3G service; I routinely get it in places like Harrisonburg and Warrenton in Virginia where the population is about 50k.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has significantly more large , densely populated cities than Canada , and AT&amp;T also has to hook up a lot of small towns .
There are over 270 cities in the US that have at least 100k people living in them [ wikipedia.org ] , and AT&amp;T does n't stop there with trying to provide full 3G service ; I routinely get it in places like Harrisonburg and Warrenton in Virginia where the population is about 50k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has significantly more large, densely populated cities than Canada, and AT&amp;T also has to hook up a lot of small towns.
There are over 270 cities in the US that have at least 100k people living in them [wikipedia.org], and AT&amp;T doesn't stop there with trying to provide full 3G service; I routinely get it in places like Harrisonburg and Warrenton in Virginia where the population is about 50k.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832808</id>
	<title>UMTS</title>
	<author>justleavealonemmmkay</author>
	<datestamp>1264006680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well at least they're running a real GSMA network, not some chauvinistic USian version of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well at least they 're running a real GSMA network , not some chauvinistic USian version of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well at least they're running a real GSMA network, not some chauvinistic USian version of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834660</id>
	<title>Re:efficiency</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1264013400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd say it's more likely a business decision.  When I (G1) or my wife (Cliq) use voice, the data access cuts of.  Since they use the same tech as AT&amp;T it's more likely a business decision to cut down on bandwidth usage for data + voice at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say it 's more likely a business decision .
When I ( G1 ) or my wife ( Cliq ) use voice , the data access cuts of .
Since they use the same tech as AT&amp;T it 's more likely a business decision to cut down on bandwidth usage for data + voice at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say it's more likely a business decision.
When I (G1) or my wife (Cliq) use voice, the data access cuts of.
Since they use the same tech as AT&amp;T it's more likely a business decision to cut down on bandwidth usage for data + voice at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833214</id>
	<title>Re:They got lazy and slothful</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1264008000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do wonder how much of this is Apples fault.  Apple forced AT&amp;T to spend on updating their voice-mail system so that it would be search-able, and other make it look cool features.  Apple also siphons off a bunch of the per user revenue of customer they bring in, and bringing in a bandwidth hog onto the network.  Had apple chosen to tell AT&amp;T what bandwidth to have instead of what shiny features to have, then the customers would have been happier with AT&amp;T, but the iPhone wouldn't have been the cool thing.  So Apple may have forced AT&amp;T to take all the blame, and can soon leave them with all the stink when the exclusive contract is up, but that doesn't mean they weren't to blame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do wonder how much of this is Apples fault .
Apple forced AT&amp;T to spend on updating their voice-mail system so that it would be search-able , and other make it look cool features .
Apple also siphons off a bunch of the per user revenue of customer they bring in , and bringing in a bandwidth hog onto the network .
Had apple chosen to tell AT&amp;T what bandwidth to have instead of what shiny features to have , then the customers would have been happier with AT&amp;T , but the iPhone would n't have been the cool thing .
So Apple may have forced AT&amp;T to take all the blame , and can soon leave them with all the stink when the exclusive contract is up , but that does n't mean they were n't to blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do wonder how much of this is Apples fault.
Apple forced AT&amp;T to spend on updating their voice-mail system so that it would be search-able, and other make it look cool features.
Apple also siphons off a bunch of the per user revenue of customer they bring in, and bringing in a bandwidth hog onto the network.
Had apple chosen to tell AT&amp;T what bandwidth to have instead of what shiny features to have, then the customers would have been happier with AT&amp;T, but the iPhone wouldn't have been the cool thing.
So Apple may have forced AT&amp;T to take all the blame, and can soon leave them with all the stink when the exclusive contract is up, but that doesn't mean they weren't to blame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832920</id>
	<title>Analyst? Needs to be fired...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T has over 80 million wireless subscribers. They made $3.6 billion in the third quarter from wireless alone. They are doing fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T has over 80 million wireless subscribers .
They made $ 3.6 billion in the third quarter from wireless alone .
They are doing fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T has over 80 million wireless subscribers.
They made $3.6 billion in the third quarter from wireless alone.
They are doing fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831956</id>
	<title>The analyst must not be an MBA</title>
	<author>drainbramage</author>
	<datestamp>1264003200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect AT&amp;T feels that those numbers represent a cost per subscriber rather than an investment per subscriber.<br>Now how about a big round of executive bonus...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect AT&amp;T feels that those numbers represent a cost per subscriber rather than an investment per subscriber.Now how about a big round of executive bonus.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect AT&amp;T feels that those numbers represent a cost per subscriber rather than an investment per subscriber.Now how about a big round of executive bonus...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833502</id>
	<title>Re:Wasted research...</title>
	<author>jwinster</author>
	<datestamp>1264008900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm fairly certain AT&amp;T considers their network problems a public relations problem, not an actual network problem.  This seems fairly evident given their recent style of ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain AT&amp;T considers their network problems a public relations problem , not an actual network problem .
This seems fairly evident given their recent style of ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain AT&amp;T considers their network problems a public relations problem, not an actual network problem.
This seems fairly evident given their recent style of ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832854</id>
	<title>Luke Wilson lied to me.</title>
	<author>gimmebeer</author>
	<datestamp>1264006800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what I'm getting out of this article.  Why Luke, WHY!?!?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I 'm getting out of this article .
Why Luke , WHY ! ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I'm getting out of this article.
Why Luke, WHY!?!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832378</id>
	<title>Re:$45 is "far more"??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's almost 15\% more, <strong>per subscriber</strong></p><p>I know I'd consider a 15\% raise a pretty big one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's almost 15 \ % more , per subscriberI know I 'd consider a 15 \ % raise a pretty big one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's almost 15\% more, per subscriberI know I'd consider a 15\% raise a pretty big one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832250</id>
	<title>Fiber/T1s?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw wireless, AT&amp;T's wired backbone is by far the worst in the world.  Their Manilla tech support is probably the worst that I've ever spoken to.  No one has a good wireless network.  I wait all day on Verizon too...they should fix the infrastructure and their business model first before blowing all of that money on their network.  They still have the iPhone...neat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw wireless , AT&amp;T 's wired backbone is by far the worst in the world .
Their Manilla tech support is probably the worst that I 've ever spoken to .
No one has a good wireless network .
I wait all day on Verizon too...they should fix the infrastructure and their business model first before blowing all of that money on their network .
They still have the iPhone...neat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw wireless, AT&amp;T's wired backbone is by far the worst in the world.
Their Manilla tech support is probably the worst that I've ever spoken to.
No one has a good wireless network.
I wait all day on Verizon too...they should fix the infrastructure and their business model first before blowing all of that money on their network.
They still have the iPhone...neat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831710</id>
	<title>Buh bye AT&amp;T, enjoy history's dust bin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T's little game a while back where they decided that they were going to blame and overcharge iPhone users for their problems pretty much guaranteed I won't be looking into AT&amp;T for service any time soon. I think the iPhone is a silly and largely pointless thing, like most Apple products, but that was just ridiculous.</p><p>"Oh gee, we sold a whole bunch of phones that are built to be and advertised as mobile media platforms, let's blame the users of those phones using them as mobile media platforms for all our network's problems".</p><p>Okay, AT&amp;T. Lemme know how that works for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T 's little game a while back where they decided that they were going to blame and overcharge iPhone users for their problems pretty much guaranteed I wo n't be looking into AT&amp;T for service any time soon .
I think the iPhone is a silly and largely pointless thing , like most Apple products , but that was just ridiculous .
" Oh gee , we sold a whole bunch of phones that are built to be and advertised as mobile media platforms , let 's blame the users of those phones using them as mobile media platforms for all our network 's problems " .Okay , AT&amp;T .
Lem me know how that works for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T's little game a while back where they decided that they were going to blame and overcharge iPhone users for their problems pretty much guaranteed I won't be looking into AT&amp;T for service any time soon.
I think the iPhone is a silly and largely pointless thing, like most Apple products, but that was just ridiculous.
"Oh gee, we sold a whole bunch of phones that are built to be and advertised as mobile media platforms, let's blame the users of those phones using them as mobile media platforms for all our network's problems".Okay, AT&amp;T.
Lemme know how that works for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30838838</id>
	<title>Re:efficiency</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1263986580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These numbers are misleading. AT&amp;T doesn't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time.</p></div><p>Heh...As an honest question, who gives a rat's ass if you can talk and surf at the same time? How would you find time to steer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These numbers are misleading .
AT&amp;T does n't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time.Heh...As an honest question , who gives a rat 's ass if you can talk and surf at the same time ?
How would you find time to steer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These numbers are misleading.
AT&amp;T doesn't need to spend as much money to be as productive in infrastructure expansion as its CDMA competitors because their engineers can talk and surf at the same time.Heh...As an honest question, who gives a rat's ass if you can talk and surf at the same time?
How would you find time to steer?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833408</id>
	<title>Re:efficiency</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1264008600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone with a droid confirm if the "can't surf and talk" is true?  The droid features on Verizon specifically state that the multi-tasking OS "does" <a href="http://phones.verizonwireless.com/motorola/droid/#/features/multitasking" title="verizonwireless.com">"Make a call, take a picture, answer a IM, <b>and</b> switch between up to 6 apps at once"</a> [verizonwireless.com].  So I guess that AT&amp;T really means is what a black-berry doesn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone with a droid confirm if the " ca n't surf and talk " is true ?
The droid features on Verizon specifically state that the multi-tasking OS " does " " Make a call , take a picture , answer a IM , and switch between up to 6 apps at once " [ verizonwireless.com ] .
So I guess that AT&amp;T really means is what a black-berry does n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone with a droid confirm if the "can't surf and talk" is true?
The droid features on Verizon specifically state that the multi-tasking OS "does" "Make a call, take a picture, answer a IM, and switch between up to 6 apps at once" [verizonwireless.com].
So I guess that AT&amp;T really means is what a black-berry doesn't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832236</id>
	<title>Axe grinding time</title>
	<author>bobetov</author>
	<datestamp>1264004520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, another satisfied iPhone user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , another satisfied iPhone user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, another satisfied iPhone user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832770</id>
	<title>cheaper by a dozen</title>
	<author>slonik</author>
	<datestamp>1264006560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not think that $ by $ comparison is valid here.<br>Actually, GSM networking equipment for AT&amp;T's network is cheaper to buy that similar CDMA equipment that Verizon and Sprint uses. GSM market is sooo much larger than CDMA so that the economy of scale plays nicely here. You might get further with 21B$ upgrading your GSM network than with 25B$ for CDMA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not think that $ by $ comparison is valid here.Actually , GSM networking equipment for AT&amp;T 's network is cheaper to buy that similar CDMA equipment that Verizon and Sprint uses .
GSM market is sooo much larger than CDMA so that the economy of scale plays nicely here .
You might get further with 21B $ upgrading your GSM network than with 25B $ for CDMA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not think that $ by $ comparison is valid here.Actually, GSM networking equipment for AT&amp;T's network is cheaper to buy that similar CDMA equipment that Verizon and Sprint uses.
GSM market is sooo much larger than CDMA so that the economy of scale plays nicely here.
You might get further with 21B$ upgrading your GSM network than with 25B$ for CDMA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831786</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. AT&amp;T let the US wireless service fall behind and they didn't put money into it - they concentrated on their land line stuff.</p><p>2. <i>Bell and Telus <b>collectively</b> spent about $1 billion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i>  - notice the collectively. It wouldn't surprise me if Telus paid most of it.</p><p>3. Things are worse here in the States, therefore they have to spend more money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
AT&amp;T let the US wireless service fall behind and they did n't put money into it - they concentrated on their land line stuff.2 .
Bell and Telus collectively spent about $ 1 billion ... - notice the collectively .
It would n't surprise me if Telus paid most of it.3 .
Things are worse here in the States , therefore they have to spend more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
AT&amp;T let the US wireless service fall behind and they didn't put money into it - they concentrated on their land line stuff.2.
Bell and Telus collectively spent about $1 billion ...  - notice the collectively.
It wouldn't surprise me if Telus paid most of it.3.
Things are worse here in the States, therefore they have to spend more money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30838838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30837230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30837398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30841712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1321239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30838838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30841712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30837230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30837398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30834806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30832378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1321239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30831854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30833214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1321239.30836464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
