<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_0418221</id>
	<title>FCC Probes Google and T-Mobile For Double-Whammy Fees</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264670640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Julie188 writes <i>"On Monday, the FCC asked Google, AT&amp;T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon to <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/56523">explain how they tell their customers about early wireless contract termination fees</a>. Notice that Google is the only handset retailer in the bunch. That's because if someone buys a Nexus One phone from Google with a two-year T-Mobile contract, and the user wants out of that contract, the user is expected to pay two early termination fees. One fee would be charged by Google and a second charged by T-Mobile."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Julie188 writes " On Monday , the FCC asked Google , AT&amp;T , Sprint , T-Mobile , and Verizon to explain how they tell their customers about early wireless contract termination fees .
Notice that Google is the only handset retailer in the bunch .
That 's because if someone buys a Nexus One phone from Google with a two-year T-Mobile contract , and the user wants out of that contract , the user is expected to pay two early termination fees .
One fee would be charged by Google and a second charged by T-Mobile .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Julie188 writes "On Monday, the FCC asked Google, AT&amp;T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon to explain how they tell their customers about early wireless contract termination fees.
Notice that Google is the only handset retailer in the bunch.
That's because if someone buys a Nexus One phone from Google with a two-year T-Mobile contract, and the user wants out of that contract, the user is expected to pay two early termination fees.
One fee would be charged by Google and a second charged by T-Mobile.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933690</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Google</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1264696320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tested this out just now, the problem was it is presented far into the deal, IE they convince me I want it with the highlights and the advantages, I feel like we have a verbal contract minus some legal crap. So I decide yes, sounds good I go through 3 more pages and then fill in all my personal information, then I am finally presented with a little tag <a href="https://www.google.com/phone/static/en\_US-tmobile\_terms\_conditions.html" title="google.com">"agree to tmobile contract"</a> [google.com], read the contract... oh $200 early termination that's reasonable check and move on.  Credit card details, choose your plan... now 30 minutes of time vested into the thing, oh wait google wants another $180 wtf? I thought we had a agreement?  This is better than over the phone,  where Qwest made me a good deal on internet $35 a month...became $45 after 30 minutes of giving lots of details on the phone, oh yeah taxes fees (asked that at the beginning was assured $35) but oh well time already invested, a OK deal I was less excited... I give notice to current provider, send back my other box, then get the hardware with another contract, and more crap like this.  Well now I have sunk alott of time and effort and my other options are more costly than before we had a agreement, than when I got the final contract.<br>This is bait and switch IMHO, that is what google is doing IMHO, that is what these contracts seam designed to do.  This is a justified investigation, spread the word and get google to post the final cost more prominently (which they are starting to do, just now.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tested this out just now , the problem was it is presented far into the deal , IE they convince me I want it with the highlights and the advantages , I feel like we have a verbal contract minus some legal crap .
So I decide yes , sounds good I go through 3 more pages and then fill in all my personal information , then I am finally presented with a little tag " agree to tmobile contract " [ google.com ] , read the contract... oh $ 200 early termination that 's reasonable check and move on .
Credit card details , choose your plan... now 30 minutes of time vested into the thing , oh wait google wants another $ 180 wtf ?
I thought we had a agreement ?
This is better than over the phone , where Qwest made me a good deal on internet $ 35 a month...became $ 45 after 30 minutes of giving lots of details on the phone , oh yeah taxes fees ( asked that at the beginning was assured $ 35 ) but oh well time already invested , a OK deal I was less excited... I give notice to current provider , send back my other box , then get the hardware with another contract , and more crap like this .
Well now I have sunk alott of time and effort and my other options are more costly than before we had a agreement , than when I got the final contract.This is bait and switch IMHO , that is what google is doing IMHO , that is what these contracts seam designed to do .
This is a justified investigation , spread the word and get google to post the final cost more prominently ( which they are starting to do , just now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tested this out just now, the problem was it is presented far into the deal, IE they convince me I want it with the highlights and the advantages, I feel like we have a verbal contract minus some legal crap.
So I decide yes, sounds good I go through 3 more pages and then fill in all my personal information, then I am finally presented with a little tag "agree to tmobile contract" [google.com], read the contract... oh $200 early termination that's reasonable check and move on.
Credit card details, choose your plan... now 30 minutes of time vested into the thing, oh wait google wants another $180 wtf?
I thought we had a agreement?
This is better than over the phone,  where Qwest made me a good deal on internet $35 a month...became $45 after 30 minutes of giving lots of details on the phone, oh yeah taxes fees (asked that at the beginning was assured $35) but oh well time already invested, a OK deal I was less excited... I give notice to current provider, send back my other box, then get the hardware with another contract, and more crap like this.
Well now I have sunk alott of time and effort and my other options are more costly than before we had a agreement, than when I got the final contract.This is bait and switch IMHO, that is what google is doing IMHO, that is what these contracts seam designed to do.
This is a justified investigation, spread the word and get google to post the final cost more prominently (which they are starting to do, just now.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933358</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>kannibal\_klown</author>
	<datestamp>1264694820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.</p><p>Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.</p></div><p>Even with AT&amp;T, I had no real problems using unlocked devices on their network.  Heck, they once even gave me an unlock code for my Blackberry since AT&amp;T has agreement with RIM to do that if asked.  They closest they came to a problem was when I was reporting a network outtage in my town, they prefer I report it with a known + locked phone so they could be sure it wasn't just my unlocked phone crashing lame, but I still had a 2+ year old AT&amp;T phone lying around).  I was the first to report, but the rest of the town started calling shortly after.</p><p>Likewise, a local T-Mobile store had NO problem setting up a friend's unlocked Nexus One with a new T-Mobile "Everything Plus" account (Plus means no contract and you save on the monthly fee).    They actually thought it was cool.</p><p>The only problem I have with the iPhone is you're forced to get the "unlimited" data plan for $30 per month, and supposedly they pole their IMEI numbers from time to time to auto-bill people using an iPhone on an account without said plan.  Most of my data goes through my wireless network so $30 per month is a little overkill.</p><p>I don't see much of an issue here.  You're subsidizing the phone and getting it on the cheap, is it any wonder that there's a hefty penalty if you back out after the 2-week grace period?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.Now , from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android , I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.Even with AT&amp;T , I had no real problems using unlocked devices on their network .
Heck , they once even gave me an unlock code for my Blackberry since AT&amp;T has agreement with RIM to do that if asked .
They closest they came to a problem was when I was reporting a network outtage in my town , they prefer I report it with a known + locked phone so they could be sure it was n't just my unlocked phone crashing lame , but I still had a 2 + year old AT&amp;T phone lying around ) .
I was the first to report , but the rest of the town started calling shortly after.Likewise , a local T-Mobile store had NO problem setting up a friend 's unlocked Nexus One with a new T-Mobile " Everything Plus " account ( Plus means no contract and you save on the monthly fee ) .
They actually thought it was cool.The only problem I have with the iPhone is you 're forced to get the " unlimited " data plan for $ 30 per month , and supposedly they pole their IMEI numbers from time to time to auto-bill people using an iPhone on an account without said plan .
Most of my data goes through my wireless network so $ 30 per month is a little overkill.I do n't see much of an issue here .
You 're subsidizing the phone and getting it on the cheap , is it any wonder that there 's a hefty penalty if you back out after the 2-week grace period ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.Even with AT&amp;T, I had no real problems using unlocked devices on their network.
Heck, they once even gave me an unlock code for my Blackberry since AT&amp;T has agreement with RIM to do that if asked.
They closest they came to a problem was when I was reporting a network outtage in my town, they prefer I report it with a known + locked phone so they could be sure it wasn't just my unlocked phone crashing lame, but I still had a 2+ year old AT&amp;T phone lying around).
I was the first to report, but the rest of the town started calling shortly after.Likewise, a local T-Mobile store had NO problem setting up a friend's unlocked Nexus One with a new T-Mobile "Everything Plus" account (Plus means no contract and you save on the monthly fee).
They actually thought it was cool.The only problem I have with the iPhone is you're forced to get the "unlimited" data plan for $30 per month, and supposedly they pole their IMEI numbers from time to time to auto-bill people using an iPhone on an account without said plan.
Most of my data goes through my wireless network so $30 per month is a little overkill.I don't see much of an issue here.
You're subsidizing the phone and getting it on the cheap, is it any wonder that there's a hefty penalty if you back out after the 2-week grace period?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30942366</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Google</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1264677240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm sorry, but I've got no sympathy for people who sign up for a subsidized service and don't read the conditions.</i></p><p>Yes, because I'm sure you've read and fully understood all the fine print on every contract you've signed. What a fucking moronic thing to say. Tell me, if one of your contracts insisted that your family was to be sold into slavery, would you have no sympathy for yourself? People like you enable companies to screw people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but I 've got no sympathy for people who sign up for a subsidized service and do n't read the conditions.Yes , because I 'm sure you 've read and fully understood all the fine print on every contract you 've signed .
What a fucking moronic thing to say .
Tell me , if one of your contracts insisted that your family was to be sold into slavery , would you have no sympathy for yourself ?
People like you enable companies to screw people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but I've got no sympathy for people who sign up for a subsidized service and don't read the conditions.Yes, because I'm sure you've read and fully understood all the fine print on every contract you've signed.
What a fucking moronic thing to say.
Tell me, if one of your contracts insisted that your family was to be sold into slavery, would you have no sympathy for yourself?
People like you enable companies to screw people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932318</id>
	<title>Re:Silence has generally been the best policy</title>
	<author>CaptBubba</author>
	<datestamp>1264689000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For communications companies, they are awfully good at not telling you anything they don't want you to pay attention to.</p></div><p>Of course they are, they stick marketing professionals on the team that makes these to make sure you don't read it.  From the fees being in super small print in some vaguely titled paragraph of the contract to the notices of changes to your account being on the back of the second to last page of your monthly bill it is all been carefully designed so that the vast majority of people never ever read it.</p><p>It is the same reason that when your credit card changes terms you get a separate letter which looks like just some random piece of bulk junk mail, and if you do open it and read it, one of the the first things you see is "You don't have to do anything!" and the terms go into effect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For communications companies , they are awfully good at not telling you anything they do n't want you to pay attention to.Of course they are , they stick marketing professionals on the team that makes these to make sure you do n't read it .
From the fees being in super small print in some vaguely titled paragraph of the contract to the notices of changes to your account being on the back of the second to last page of your monthly bill it is all been carefully designed so that the vast majority of people never ever read it.It is the same reason that when your credit card changes terms you get a separate letter which looks like just some random piece of bulk junk mail , and if you do open it and read it , one of the the first things you see is " You do n't have to do anything !
" and the terms go into effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For communications companies, they are awfully good at not telling you anything they don't want you to pay attention to.Of course they are, they stick marketing professionals on the team that makes these to make sure you don't read it.
From the fees being in super small print in some vaguely titled paragraph of the contract to the notices of changes to your account being on the back of the second to last page of your monthly bill it is all been carefully designed so that the vast majority of people never ever read it.It is the same reason that when your credit card changes terms you get a separate letter which looks like just some random piece of bulk junk mail, and if you do open it and read it, one of the the first things you see is "You don't have to do anything!
" and the terms go into effect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30944522</id>
	<title>FWIW</title>
	<author>jcombel</author>
	<datestamp>1264688820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>t-mobile let me off the contract for no charge because they had few towers in my area... and they didn't even ask for any sort of annoying proof that i was in the area i said i was.
<br> <br>
i had to retreat to at&amp;t, but i took my nexus one with me.  from the phone conversations i had with t-mobile, and the excellent customer care i received then, i'm pretty sure that if i move to an area with t-mobile in good supply, or if they expand in my neighborhood, i'll go back
<br> <br>
still haven't gotten a bill from google yet, but i'm sure that's coming</htmltext>
<tokenext>t-mobile let me off the contract for no charge because they had few towers in my area... and they did n't even ask for any sort of annoying proof that i was in the area i said i was .
i had to retreat to at&amp;t , but i took my nexus one with me .
from the phone conversations i had with t-mobile , and the excellent customer care i received then , i 'm pretty sure that if i move to an area with t-mobile in good supply , or if they expand in my neighborhood , i 'll go back still have n't gotten a bill from google yet , but i 'm sure that 's coming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t-mobile let me off the contract for no charge because they had few towers in my area... and they didn't even ask for any sort of annoying proof that i was in the area i said i was.
i had to retreat to at&amp;t, but i took my nexus one with me.
from the phone conversations i had with t-mobile, and the excellent customer care i received then, i'm pretty sure that if i move to an area with t-mobile in good supply, or if they expand in my neighborhood, i'll go back
 
still haven't gotten a bill from google yet, but i'm sure that's coming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931086</id>
	<title>Asking is for chumps</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264674660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they really want to know how these conditions are presented, it's better that they send in a few investigators undercover and get it all on tape. That way they can cost the jobs of a few lowest-rung minimum wage idiots who are working their ass off for a couple percent commission.</p><p>At least they will catch someone. Maybe the FCC isn't familiar with the "exculpatory no". They will become very familiar with it asking the policy makers at these companies, though. So that's nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they really want to know how these conditions are presented , it 's better that they send in a few investigators undercover and get it all on tape .
That way they can cost the jobs of a few lowest-rung minimum wage idiots who are working their ass off for a couple percent commission.At least they will catch someone .
Maybe the FCC is n't familiar with the " exculpatory no " .
They will become very familiar with it asking the policy makers at these companies , though .
So that 's nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they really want to know how these conditions are presented, it's better that they send in a few investigators undercover and get it all on tape.
That way they can cost the jobs of a few lowest-rung minimum wage idiots who are working their ass off for a couple percent commission.At least they will catch someone.
Maybe the FCC isn't familiar with the "exculpatory no".
They will become very familiar with it asking the policy makers at these companies, though.
So that's nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933100</id>
	<title>Re:In the companies' defense</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264693680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Oh wait, this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco!<br></i><br>We got into the mortgage fiasco because we allowed the mortgage companies to take out insurance on their losses, in effect letting them eat their cake while still having it. The mortgage companies were in a position where the only way they could lose was for the insurance companies to go bankrupt.</p><p>AIG should have been allowed to fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco ! We got into the mortgage fiasco because we allowed the mortgage companies to take out insurance on their losses , in effect letting them eat their cake while still having it .
The mortgage companies were in a position where the only way they could lose was for the insurance companies to go bankrupt.AIG should have been allowed to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco!We got into the mortgage fiasco because we allowed the mortgage companies to take out insurance on their losses, in effect letting them eat their cake while still having it.
The mortgage companies were in a position where the only way they could lose was for the insurance companies to go bankrupt.AIG should have been allowed to fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931916</id>
	<title>Someone put a gun to my head and made me sign it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy fucking fuck, why are people so fucking stupid? You're not paying Google an early termination fee, you're paying for the rest of your phone. T-Mobile is charging a termination fee, because you signed a two year contract, and you're backing out of that contract, and they want to recoup the expenses lost on your fickle ass. Yes, they're probably making money on it either way, that's kind of the whole point! When has a cell phone carrier ever not dinged you for reneging on their contracts?</p><p>You wanted an unlocked phone but you still wanted the discount for selling your soul for two years. You made yourself their bitch, so take it like a bitch.</p><p>Ask yourself who gains by spreading all this inaccurate bullshit about two termination fees? Google is selling directly to the customers, cutting carriers out of the loop. The only one optionally in the loop is T-Mobile, which is the carrier most friendly to unlocked and uncrippled phones. If this keeps up, pretty soon people might start thinking that a cell phone is simply a computer. Who buys a computer that only works with one company's internet? That's crazy. It's like a car that only works with one company's gas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy fucking fuck , why are people so fucking stupid ?
You 're not paying Google an early termination fee , you 're paying for the rest of your phone .
T-Mobile is charging a termination fee , because you signed a two year contract , and you 're backing out of that contract , and they want to recoup the expenses lost on your fickle ass .
Yes , they 're probably making money on it either way , that 's kind of the whole point !
When has a cell phone carrier ever not dinged you for reneging on their contracts ? You wanted an unlocked phone but you still wanted the discount for selling your soul for two years .
You made yourself their bitch , so take it like a bitch.Ask yourself who gains by spreading all this inaccurate bullshit about two termination fees ?
Google is selling directly to the customers , cutting carriers out of the loop .
The only one optionally in the loop is T-Mobile , which is the carrier most friendly to unlocked and uncrippled phones .
If this keeps up , pretty soon people might start thinking that a cell phone is simply a computer .
Who buys a computer that only works with one company 's internet ?
That 's crazy .
It 's like a car that only works with one company 's gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy fucking fuck, why are people so fucking stupid?
You're not paying Google an early termination fee, you're paying for the rest of your phone.
T-Mobile is charging a termination fee, because you signed a two year contract, and you're backing out of that contract, and they want to recoup the expenses lost on your fickle ass.
Yes, they're probably making money on it either way, that's kind of the whole point!
When has a cell phone carrier ever not dinged you for reneging on their contracts?You wanted an unlocked phone but you still wanted the discount for selling your soul for two years.
You made yourself their bitch, so take it like a bitch.Ask yourself who gains by spreading all this inaccurate bullshit about two termination fees?
Google is selling directly to the customers, cutting carriers out of the loop.
The only one optionally in the loop is T-Mobile, which is the carrier most friendly to unlocked and uncrippled phones.
If this keeps up, pretty soon people might start thinking that a cell phone is simply a computer.
Who buys a computer that only works with one company's internet?
That's crazy.
It's like a car that only works with one company's gas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936698</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Google</title>
	<author>jmrives</author>
	<datestamp>1264704660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and I am sure you read every word of every EULA for every piece of software that you install as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and I am sure you read every word of every EULA for every piece of software that you install as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and I am sure you read every word of every EULA for every piece of software that you install as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933072</id>
	<title>Re:Someone put a gun to my head and made me sign i</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realise that you only have to pay google the 350 IF you don't return the phone.</p><p>350+200 = 550 which is about the original price of the phone.</p><p>so</p><p>350 = current value of phone<br>200 = value of lost from contract  (having to sell the phone at refurbished price and other things)</p><p>How is it any different from increasing the termination fee? If anything, this is better since it's specific to the expensive device and they skip out on the middle man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realise that you only have to pay google the 350 IF you do n't return the phone.350 + 200 = 550 which is about the original price of the phone.so350 = current value of phone200 = value of lost from contract ( having to sell the phone at refurbished price and other things ) How is it any different from increasing the termination fee ?
If anything , this is better since it 's specific to the expensive device and they skip out on the middle man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realise that you only have to pay google the 350 IF you don't return the phone.350+200 = 550 which is about the original price of the phone.so350 = current value of phone200 = value of lost from contract  (having to sell the phone at refurbished price and other things)How is it any different from increasing the termination fee?
If anything, this is better since it's specific to the expensive device and they skip out on the middle man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.31003038</id>
	<title>Double ETFs</title>
	<author>mattc06</author>
	<datestamp>1265115300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a previous sales rep for an authorized reseller for a big cell company (in the US and not for T-Mobile), I have to tell everyone that whenever an authorized reseller sells a phone to a customer, that customer has 2 contracts. One with the cell company and another with the company selling the phone. The cell company's contract is like usual, with the deal about their etf (early termination fee) and the company that sold you the phone has a contract usually stating something along the lines of: if you cancel the service and do not return the phone back within x days, they will charge you for the full (unsubsidized) cost of the phone.</p><p>This is normal.. The cell phone company gives the company selling the phone (and contract) money for the contract, meaning if the contract is canceled before x days (I think its usually 90) the cell company doesn't get paid for the phone and loses money. It does suck though because currently, the only company to offer comparable contract-less plans (and therefore no etf) is T-Mobile, but for that to work people need to realize the actual cost of the phones and not be shocked by a $300-$600 phone prices.</p><p>Anyways, I'm happy with my contract-less plan with T-Mobile and the amount paid for my Nexus One.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a previous sales rep for an authorized reseller for a big cell company ( in the US and not for T-Mobile ) , I have to tell everyone that whenever an authorized reseller sells a phone to a customer , that customer has 2 contracts .
One with the cell company and another with the company selling the phone .
The cell company 's contract is like usual , with the deal about their etf ( early termination fee ) and the company that sold you the phone has a contract usually stating something along the lines of : if you cancel the service and do not return the phone back within x days , they will charge you for the full ( unsubsidized ) cost of the phone.This is normal.. The cell phone company gives the company selling the phone ( and contract ) money for the contract , meaning if the contract is canceled before x days ( I think its usually 90 ) the cell company does n't get paid for the phone and loses money .
It does suck though because currently , the only company to offer comparable contract-less plans ( and therefore no etf ) is T-Mobile , but for that to work people need to realize the actual cost of the phones and not be shocked by a $ 300- $ 600 phone prices.Anyways , I 'm happy with my contract-less plan with T-Mobile and the amount paid for my Nexus One .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a previous sales rep for an authorized reseller for a big cell company (in the US and not for T-Mobile), I have to tell everyone that whenever an authorized reseller sells a phone to a customer, that customer has 2 contracts.
One with the cell company and another with the company selling the phone.
The cell company's contract is like usual, with the deal about their etf (early termination fee) and the company that sold you the phone has a contract usually stating something along the lines of: if you cancel the service and do not return the phone back within x days, they will charge you for the full (unsubsidized) cost of the phone.This is normal.. The cell phone company gives the company selling the phone (and contract) money for the contract, meaning if the contract is canceled before x days (I think its usually 90) the cell company doesn't get paid for the phone and loses money.
It does suck though because currently, the only company to offer comparable contract-less plans (and therefore no etf) is T-Mobile, but for that to work people need to realize the actual cost of the phones and not be shocked by a $300-$600 phone prices.Anyways, I'm happy with my contract-less plan with T-Mobile and the amount paid for my Nexus One.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932084</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno - it isn't typical practice for consumers to get charged TWO sets of termination fees - so unless they're both relatively small and add up to a typical fee this could easily be seen as misleading if it wasn't CLEARLY stated.</p><p>Also - it is almost impossible to get an unsubsidized service in the US - at best you can pay the subsidized rates and just not get the subsidy.  This is showing the slightest signs of changing, but we're a long way from where we need to be.</p><p>Honestly, carriers should be banned from combining phone subsidies with plan rates.  They should just have two contracts - one for the service, and another for the phone.  The two should be unbundled and people should be able to pick either one or terminate either one in isolation - without triggering any penalty clauses in the other.</p><p>Carriers could still charge termination fees, and subsidize phones, but if you bring your own phone you could avoid the big ones.  Since the two deals couldn't be linked it would prevent games like manipulating prices on one and making it up on the other - if they charge deflated prices for the phone and inflated plans then people can just buy the phone without a plan and use it with a different carrier.  If both prices reflect real costs then this won't be worth anybody's while.  The purpose of subsidies should be to assist people with getting a plan who might not otherwise fork out the up-front cash - not to trap people with stuff they don't want.  If they don't like the service they can take their AT&amp;T phone and use it with T-mobile as long as they keep paying AT&amp;T for the cost of the phone itself sans plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno - it is n't typical practice for consumers to get charged TWO sets of termination fees - so unless they 're both relatively small and add up to a typical fee this could easily be seen as misleading if it was n't CLEARLY stated.Also - it is almost impossible to get an unsubsidized service in the US - at best you can pay the subsidized rates and just not get the subsidy .
This is showing the slightest signs of changing , but we 're a long way from where we need to be.Honestly , carriers should be banned from combining phone subsidies with plan rates .
They should just have two contracts - one for the service , and another for the phone .
The two should be unbundled and people should be able to pick either one or terminate either one in isolation - without triggering any penalty clauses in the other.Carriers could still charge termination fees , and subsidize phones , but if you bring your own phone you could avoid the big ones .
Since the two deals could n't be linked it would prevent games like manipulating prices on one and making it up on the other - if they charge deflated prices for the phone and inflated plans then people can just buy the phone without a plan and use it with a different carrier .
If both prices reflect real costs then this wo n't be worth anybody 's while .
The purpose of subsidies should be to assist people with getting a plan who might not otherwise fork out the up-front cash - not to trap people with stuff they do n't want .
If they do n't like the service they can take their AT&amp;T phone and use it with T-mobile as long as they keep paying AT&amp;T for the cost of the phone itself sans plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno - it isn't typical practice for consumers to get charged TWO sets of termination fees - so unless they're both relatively small and add up to a typical fee this could easily be seen as misleading if it wasn't CLEARLY stated.Also - it is almost impossible to get an unsubsidized service in the US - at best you can pay the subsidized rates and just not get the subsidy.
This is showing the slightest signs of changing, but we're a long way from where we need to be.Honestly, carriers should be banned from combining phone subsidies with plan rates.
They should just have two contracts - one for the service, and another for the phone.
The two should be unbundled and people should be able to pick either one or terminate either one in isolation - without triggering any penalty clauses in the other.Carriers could still charge termination fees, and subsidize phones, but if you bring your own phone you could avoid the big ones.
Since the two deals couldn't be linked it would prevent games like manipulating prices on one and making it up on the other - if they charge deflated prices for the phone and inflated plans then people can just buy the phone without a plan and use it with a different carrier.
If both prices reflect real costs then this won't be worth anybody's while.
The purpose of subsidies should be to assist people with getting a plan who might not otherwise fork out the up-front cash - not to trap people with stuff they don't want.
If they don't like the service they can take their AT&amp;T phone and use it with T-mobile as long as they keep paying AT&amp;T for the cost of the phone itself sans plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932784</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1264691760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a smartphone is designed correctly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... i.e. securely, then the part that is a phone (connects to the network, makes and receives calls) should be protected from the rest of the device, which runs the OS, applications, etc..  which simply asks to make a phone call, shows the networks status, get notified of incoming calls, texts, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>If this was the case then the Smart part of the phone could be open, but the iPhone and the Android phones do not appear to have this separation properly done?  So they have to some degree lock it down<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a smartphone is designed correctly .... i.e. securely , then the part that is a phone ( connects to the network , makes and receives calls ) should be protected from the rest of the device , which runs the OS , applications , etc.. which simply asks to make a phone call , shows the networks status , get notified of incoming calls , texts , etc ....If this was the case then the Smart part of the phone could be open , but the iPhone and the Android phones do not appear to have this separation properly done ?
So they have to some degree lock it down ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a smartphone is designed correctly .... i.e. securely, then the part that is a phone (connects to the network, makes and receives calls) should be protected from the rest of the device, which runs the OS, applications, etc..  which simply asks to make a phone call, shows the networks status, get notified of incoming calls, texts, etc ....If this was the case then the Smart part of the phone could be open, but the iPhone and the Android phones do not appear to have this separation properly done?
So they have to some degree lock it down ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931394</id>
	<title>moD fup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">join in especiallay but I'd rather hear I ever did. It Are you GAY goal here? How can FreeBSD's there are only Vary for different of reality. Keep of challenges that</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>join in especiallay but I 'd rather hear I ever did .
It Are you GAY goal here ?
How can FreeBSD 's there are only Vary for different of reality .
Keep of challenges that [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>join in especiallay but I'd rather hear I ever did.
It Are you GAY goal here?
How can FreeBSD's there are only Vary for different of reality.
Keep of challenges that [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931334</id>
	<title>Re:Silence has generally been the best policy</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1264677720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, most phone companies are like that.  I think there are two options to deal with that:</p><p>1) Don't buy from people trying to rip you off.<br>This suffers, when every phone company tries to do just that.</p><p>2) Pay attention when signing a contract. This is usually a good idea anyway.</p><p>I don't think that the government needs to regulate everything. We in Germany also have a law/ruling (not sure which), that in your typical contract between a company and a person, it can not contain "unexpected" parts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , most phone companies are like that .
I think there are two options to deal with that : 1 ) Do n't buy from people trying to rip you off.This suffers , when every phone company tries to do just that.2 ) Pay attention when signing a contract .
This is usually a good idea anyway.I do n't think that the government needs to regulate everything .
We in Germany also have a law/ruling ( not sure which ) , that in your typical contract between a company and a person , it can not contain " unexpected " parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, most phone companies are like that.
I think there are two options to deal with that:1) Don't buy from people trying to rip you off.This suffers, when every phone company tries to do just that.2) Pay attention when signing a contract.
This is usually a good idea anyway.I don't think that the government needs to regulate everything.
We in Germany also have a law/ruling (not sure which), that in your typical contract between a company and a person, it can not contain "unexpected" parts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30939248</id>
	<title>Re:In the companies' defense</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1264710900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That isn't the whole story though...
<br> <br>
1) The lenders were allowed to do as you say, as well as play all sorts of other shell games.  NINJA (No Income, No Job Applications) being a big one.  My wife worked at a lender.  There is no question that the lenders knew that they were frequently committing fraud.  We had many a conversation where she would call me up and tell me that she was refusing to do work, and that she may get fired over it, because she was told to commit crimes.  Luckily, she did not have to work.  I can't imagine that the rest of the people in her office were as willing to respond to a request with an email saying "No, problem, just send me an email stating that our legal departments has ok'ed this as legal, and I'll get right on it."
<br> <br>
2) Regulators knew what was happening, but did nothing.
<br> <br>
3) Politicians knew what was happening, but they knew that they looked good now because of the fraud, and would shift the blame later when it all collapsed.  No doubt many of them were making huge sums of money off of the artificial inflation caused by the fraud.
<br> <br>
4) Mortgage brokers knew what was happening, but got their money at the time of sale, so they didn't care if the mortgage was bad.  This led to the common practice of filing fraudulent loans.
<br> <br>
5) Real Estate agents get paid on commission based on the selling price of the house.  This led them to encourage buyers to buy houses that everyone knew they could not afford, and to recommend mortgage brokers and lenders that would help the buyer commit fraud.
<br> <br>
6) Buyers knew they could not afford the houses they were buying, but figured that they could pay for the house with the artificially created inflation on it's value.  Frequently they figured that they would just sell before the enevitable crash.  They thought they could play the market and get rich via fraud.
<br> <br>
So, while your comment is right and true, you should not blame ONLY the mortgage companies.  Everyone in the chain was in on the scam, and just as everyone planned, when things collapsed, they could each point to a different person and truthfully say that "they caused this".</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't the whole story though.. . 1 ) The lenders were allowed to do as you say , as well as play all sorts of other shell games .
NINJA ( No Income , No Job Applications ) being a big one .
My wife worked at a lender .
There is no question that the lenders knew that they were frequently committing fraud .
We had many a conversation where she would call me up and tell me that she was refusing to do work , and that she may get fired over it , because she was told to commit crimes .
Luckily , she did not have to work .
I ca n't imagine that the rest of the people in her office were as willing to respond to a request with an email saying " No , problem , just send me an email stating that our legal departments has ok'ed this as legal , and I 'll get right on it .
" 2 ) Regulators knew what was happening , but did nothing .
3 ) Politicians knew what was happening , but they knew that they looked good now because of the fraud , and would shift the blame later when it all collapsed .
No doubt many of them were making huge sums of money off of the artificial inflation caused by the fraud .
4 ) Mortgage brokers knew what was happening , but got their money at the time of sale , so they did n't care if the mortgage was bad .
This led to the common practice of filing fraudulent loans .
5 ) Real Estate agents get paid on commission based on the selling price of the house .
This led them to encourage buyers to buy houses that everyone knew they could not afford , and to recommend mortgage brokers and lenders that would help the buyer commit fraud .
6 ) Buyers knew they could not afford the houses they were buying , but figured that they could pay for the house with the artificially created inflation on it 's value .
Frequently they figured that they would just sell before the enevitable crash .
They thought they could play the market and get rich via fraud .
So , while your comment is right and true , you should not blame ONLY the mortgage companies .
Everyone in the chain was in on the scam , and just as everyone planned , when things collapsed , they could each point to a different person and truthfully say that " they caused this " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't the whole story though...
 
1) The lenders were allowed to do as you say, as well as play all sorts of other shell games.
NINJA (No Income, No Job Applications) being a big one.
My wife worked at a lender.
There is no question that the lenders knew that they were frequently committing fraud.
We had many a conversation where she would call me up and tell me that she was refusing to do work, and that she may get fired over it, because she was told to commit crimes.
Luckily, she did not have to work.
I can't imagine that the rest of the people in her office were as willing to respond to a request with an email saying "No, problem, just send me an email stating that our legal departments has ok'ed this as legal, and I'll get right on it.
"
 
2) Regulators knew what was happening, but did nothing.
3) Politicians knew what was happening, but they knew that they looked good now because of the fraud, and would shift the blame later when it all collapsed.
No doubt many of them were making huge sums of money off of the artificial inflation caused by the fraud.
4) Mortgage brokers knew what was happening, but got their money at the time of sale, so they didn't care if the mortgage was bad.
This led to the common practice of filing fraudulent loans.
5) Real Estate agents get paid on commission based on the selling price of the house.
This led them to encourage buyers to buy houses that everyone knew they could not afford, and to recommend mortgage brokers and lenders that would help the buyer commit fraud.
6) Buyers knew they could not afford the houses they were buying, but figured that they could pay for the house with the artificially created inflation on it's value.
Frequently they figured that they would just sell before the enevitable crash.
They thought they could play the market and get rich via fraud.
So, while your comment is right and true, you should not blame ONLY the mortgage companies.
Everyone in the chain was in on the scam, and just as everyone planned, when things collapsed, they could each point to a different person and truthfully say that "they caused this".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932614</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck T-Mobile</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1264690800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The time to complain about a contract is BEFORE you sign it, not after you decide you want to back out of it.</p></div><p>Yeah, thats great and all, but I had a contract with Powertel  and it got bought by T-mobile.  I met the obligations of my contract and T-mobile still hit me with a $400 disconnect fee.  I never paid it, they sold it to a collections agency and I explained what happened.  Every so often it gets bought by a new collection agency and I send them a letter explaining that that debt is not valid and will never be paid.<br>
<br>
What really sucks is that they have "automatic rollover" in most contracts.  So that once you've met your two-year obligation you have about 30 days to disconnect service or else your contract rolls over and you're obligated for another 2 years.  Just by paying the 25th months bill you agree to the contract.  It is stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The time to complain about a contract is BEFORE you sign it , not after you decide you want to back out of it.Yeah , thats great and all , but I had a contract with Powertel and it got bought by T-mobile .
I met the obligations of my contract and T-mobile still hit me with a $ 400 disconnect fee .
I never paid it , they sold it to a collections agency and I explained what happened .
Every so often it gets bought by a new collection agency and I send them a letter explaining that that debt is not valid and will never be paid .
What really sucks is that they have " automatic rollover " in most contracts .
So that once you 've met your two-year obligation you have about 30 days to disconnect service or else your contract rolls over and you 're obligated for another 2 years .
Just by paying the 25th months bill you agree to the contract .
It is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The time to complain about a contract is BEFORE you sign it, not after you decide you want to back out of it.Yeah, thats great and all, but I had a contract with Powertel  and it got bought by T-mobile.
I met the obligations of my contract and T-mobile still hit me with a $400 disconnect fee.
I never paid it, they sold it to a collections agency and I explained what happened.
Every so often it gets bought by a new collection agency and I send them a letter explaining that that debt is not valid and will never be paid.
What really sucks is that they have "automatic rollover" in most contracts.
So that once you've met your two-year obligation you have about 30 days to disconnect service or else your contract rolls over and you're obligated for another 2 years.
Just by paying the 25th months bill you agree to the contract.
It is stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932298</id>
	<title>In the companies' defense</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1264688820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-Google and T-Mobile now have to sell an expensive, otherwise new, phone as a refurbished phone.<br>-T-Mobile can't justify shafting its employee's commission because you broke the contract.<br>-Call it a $200 fee for the phone or a $200 fee for breaking the contract, it's still $200 for walking away one way or another.<br>-You signed the damn thing without finding what remedies the other parties had against you? Oh wait, this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-Google and T-Mobile now have to sell an expensive , otherwise new , phone as a refurbished phone.-T-Mobile ca n't justify shafting its employee 's commission because you broke the contract.-Call it a $ 200 fee for the phone or a $ 200 fee for breaking the contract , it 's still $ 200 for walking away one way or another.-You signed the damn thing without finding what remedies the other parties had against you ?
Oh wait , this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-Google and T-Mobile now have to sell an expensive, otherwise new, phone as a refurbished phone.-T-Mobile can't justify shafting its employee's commission because you broke the contract.-Call it a $200 fee for the phone or a $200 fee for breaking the contract, it's still $200 for walking away one way or another.-You signed the damn thing without finding what remedies the other parties had against you?
Oh wait, this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084</id>
	<title>Fuck Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. Fuck Google. I'm sick of it being painted as some knight in shining armour company that shits butterflies and rescues kittens in it's spare time. Do no evil my arsehole. I'm hoping that both companies are slapped with a VERY nice big fine and forced to change their contracts PLUS let any existing customers out without paying any penalty. I know I'm smoking fairy dust but that is what should happen. That and the bastard lawyer that drafted that "This is a scheduled fee not an early termination fee" line in T-Mobile's contract should be strung up from the tallest tree by his left testicle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Fuck Google .
I 'm sick of it being painted as some knight in shining armour company that shits butterflies and rescues kittens in it 's spare time .
Do no evil my arsehole .
I 'm hoping that both companies are slapped with a VERY nice big fine and forced to change their contracts PLUS let any existing customers out without paying any penalty .
I know I 'm smoking fairy dust but that is what should happen .
That and the bastard lawyer that drafted that " This is a scheduled fee not an early termination fee " line in T-Mobile 's contract should be strung up from the tallest tree by his left testicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Fuck Google.
I'm sick of it being painted as some knight in shining armour company that shits butterflies and rescues kittens in it's spare time.
Do no evil my arsehole.
I'm hoping that both companies are slapped with a VERY nice big fine and forced to change their contracts PLUS let any existing customers out without paying any penalty.
I know I'm smoking fairy dust but that is what should happen.
That and the bastard lawyer that drafted that "This is a scheduled fee not an early termination fee" line in T-Mobile's contract should be strung up from the tallest tree by his left testicle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935754</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1264701900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run my own Android build based on AOSP on my G1 on T-Mobile.  They don't care, why should they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run my own Android build based on AOSP on my G1 on T-Mobile .
They do n't care , why should they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run my own Android build based on AOSP on my G1 on T-Mobile.
They don't care, why should they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935410</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1264701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to ask the bank's permission before you can put new wheels on the car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to ask the bank 's permission before you can put new wheels on the car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to ask the bank's permission before you can put new wheels on the car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931060</id>
	<title>oh noooo!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Google "don't be evil"!<br>That's as if Obama were a warmonging mofo.$</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Google " do n't be evil " ! That 's as if Obama were a warmonging mofo. $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Google "don't be evil"!That's as if Obama were a warmonging mofo.$</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30937876</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on...that would never happen. The populous would never agree to that!</p><p>Just kidding of course..your future predictions have been here for some time now....obviously, with the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on...that would never happen .
The populous would never agree to that ! Just kidding of course..your future predictions have been here for some time now....obviously , with the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on...that would never happen.
The populous would never agree to that!Just kidding of course..your future predictions have been here for some time now....obviously, with the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932928</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Google</title>
	<author>Smooth and Shiny</author>
	<datestamp>1264692900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, yeah, because we all know that all of the people canceling their contracts early are people who are simply doing it to do it. You know, there's no such thing as suddenly losing your job and having to cut costs or anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yeah , because we all know that all of the people canceling their contracts early are people who are simply doing it to do it .
You know , there 's no such thing as suddenly losing your job and having to cut costs or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yeah, because we all know that all of the people canceling their contracts early are people who are simply doing it to do it.
You know, there's no such thing as suddenly losing your job and having to cut costs or anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936892</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck T-Mobile</title>
	<author>fangorious</author>
	<datestamp>1264705200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always had 6+ months lag between my contract expiring and signing a new one, and I'm on my third contract with T-Mobile. I even switched to prepaid for a couple months between the 1st and 2nd contracts with no issue. I take that back, there was an issue with the amount of my phone subsidy after going from pre-paid back to contract post-paid. But never any problems with the contract terms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always had 6 + months lag between my contract expiring and signing a new one , and I 'm on my third contract with T-Mobile .
I even switched to prepaid for a couple months between the 1st and 2nd contracts with no issue .
I take that back , there was an issue with the amount of my phone subsidy after going from pre-paid back to contract post-paid .
But never any problems with the contract terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always had 6+ months lag between my contract expiring and signing a new one, and I'm on my third contract with T-Mobile.
I even switched to prepaid for a couple months between the 1st and 2nd contracts with no issue.
I take that back, there was an issue with the amount of my phone subsidy after going from pre-paid back to contract post-paid.
But never any problems with the contract terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934544</id>
	<title>mo3 do@wn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">sure that I've the system clean for the sta7e of Come Here but now could sink your Project somewhere 4.1BSD product, members all over</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>sure that I 've the system clean for the sta7e of Come Here but now could sink your Project somewhere 4.1BSD product , members all over [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sure that I've the system clean for the sta7e of Come Here but now could sink your Project somewhere 4.1BSD product, members all over [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30939790</id>
	<title>Re:But where is it mentioned?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264669320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Terms of Sale" link on the bottom of the first page you linked to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Terms of Sale " link on the bottom of the first page you linked to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Terms of Sale" link on the bottom of the first page you linked to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931998</id>
	<title>Yu8o fail 1t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264686720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not? It's qui3k WHICH GATHERS infinitesimally Demise.  You don't are 7000 users hobby. It was all Been the best, Many users of BSD So that their</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
It 's qui3k WHICH GATHERS infinitesimally Demise .
You do n't are 7000 users hobby .
It was all Been the best , Many users of BSD So that their</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
It's qui3k WHICH GATHERS infinitesimally Demise.
You don't are 7000 users hobby.
It was all Been the best, Many users of BSD So that their</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932342</id>
	<title>Re:Someone put a gun to my head and made me sign i</title>
	<author>DarkJC</author>
	<datestamp>1264689240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except carriers have used "paying off your subsidy" as the reason for the very very high early termination fees. If, when you cancel your Nexus One contract, you need to pay Google for the rest of the phone, what are you paying for at T-Mobile?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except carriers have used " paying off your subsidy " as the reason for the very very high early termination fees .
If , when you cancel your Nexus One contract , you need to pay Google for the rest of the phone , what are you paying for at T-Mobile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except carriers have used "paying off your subsidy" as the reason for the very very high early termination fees.
If, when you cancel your Nexus One contract, you need to pay Google for the rest of the phone, what are you paying for at T-Mobile?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170</id>
	<title>T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1264675620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.</p><p>Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.</p><p>In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers, but the device manufacturers themselves.</p><p>So really, what is the problem here? You buy it, you do want you want with it. You lease it, you do want they want with it. Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.Now , from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android , I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers , but the device manufacturers themselves.So really , what is the problem here ?
You buy it , you do want you want with it .
You lease it , you do want they want with it .
Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers, but the device manufacturers themselves.So really, what is the problem here?
You buy it, you do want you want with it.
You lease it, you do want they want with it.
Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264682580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but I've got no sympathy for people who sign up for a subsidized service and don't read the conditions.</p><p>The time to complain about a contract is BEFORE you sign it, not after you decide you want to back out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but I 've got no sympathy for people who sign up for a subsidized service and do n't read the conditions.The time to complain about a contract is BEFORE you sign it , not after you decide you want to back out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but I've got no sympathy for people who sign up for a subsidized service and don't read the conditions.The time to complain about a contract is BEFORE you sign it, not after you decide you want to back out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934820</id>
	<title>Fuc4?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>man walking. It's enjoy the loud that *BSD is code sharing SLING you can You can. No,</htmltext>
<tokenext>man walking .
It 's enjoy the loud that * BSD is code sharing SLING you can You can .
No,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>man walking.
It's enjoy the loud that *BSD is code sharing SLING you can You can.
No,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936288</id>
	<title>How about DirecTV?</title>
	<author>Evets</author>
	<datestamp>1264703400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently went to cancel DirecTV service - which I've had for more than a decade, only to find out they tacked on a $400 early termination fee.  This had nothing to do with an agreement that I signed or ever verbally agreed to.  It's just a tactic that they used to try to prevent me from leaving.  The problem is that they can add on these fees and demand payment and in absence of payment, they'll affect your credit.  My only solution is to go to small claims, which will cost me $75 + time and energy.  Most people wouldn't go through all that and either stay or pay the fee and forget about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently went to cancel DirecTV service - which I 've had for more than a decade , only to find out they tacked on a $ 400 early termination fee .
This had nothing to do with an agreement that I signed or ever verbally agreed to .
It 's just a tactic that they used to try to prevent me from leaving .
The problem is that they can add on these fees and demand payment and in absence of payment , they 'll affect your credit .
My only solution is to go to small claims , which will cost me $ 75 + time and energy .
Most people would n't go through all that and either stay or pay the fee and forget about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently went to cancel DirecTV service - which I've had for more than a decade, only to find out they tacked on a $400 early termination fee.
This had nothing to do with an agreement that I signed or ever verbally agreed to.
It's just a tactic that they used to try to prevent me from leaving.
The problem is that they can add on these fees and demand payment and in absence of payment, they'll affect your credit.
My only solution is to go to small claims, which will cost me $75 + time and energy.
Most people wouldn't go through all that and either stay or pay the fee and forget about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934870</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck T-Mobile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What really sucks is that they have "automatic rollover" in most contracts.  So that once you've met your two-year obligation you have about 30 days to disconnect service or else your contract rolls over and you're obligated for another 2 years.  Just by paying the 25th months bill you agree to the contract.  It is stupid.</p></div><p>Ummm, no.  T-moblie does not do this.  I've been with them since they were Voicestream.  Every one-year and two-year contract I every had with them that expired when straight to a month-to-month plan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What really sucks is that they have " automatic rollover " in most contracts .
So that once you 've met your two-year obligation you have about 30 days to disconnect service or else your contract rolls over and you 're obligated for another 2 years .
Just by paying the 25th months bill you agree to the contract .
It is stupid.Ummm , no .
T-moblie does not do this .
I 've been with them since they were Voicestream .
Every one-year and two-year contract I every had with them that expired when straight to a month-to-month plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really sucks is that they have "automatic rollover" in most contracts.
So that once you've met your two-year obligation you have about 30 days to disconnect service or else your contract rolls over and you're obligated for another 2 years.
Just by paying the 25th months bill you agree to the contract.
It is stupid.Ummm, no.
T-moblie does not do this.
I've been with them since they were Voicestream.
Every one-year and two-year contract I every had with them that expired when straight to a month-to-month plan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932860</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264692420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental.<br></i><br>A lot of somebodys, and they're almost all corporations. The record companies, for example, call their wares "intellectual property" as if they own the works. In the US at least, constitutionally they don't. Mankind owns this "property", they merely have a "limited time" monopoly on it, just as someone who rents a house has a limited time monopoly on its use.</p><p>Movie studios, OS and games and other applications companies do the same. They lease a thing to you and tell you you "bought" it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental.A lot of somebodys , and they 're almost all corporations .
The record companies , for example , call their wares " intellectual property " as if they own the works .
In the US at least , constitutionally they do n't .
Mankind owns this " property " , they merely have a " limited time " monopoly on it , just as someone who rents a house has a limited time monopoly on its use.Movie studios , OS and games and other applications companies do the same .
They lease a thing to you and tell you you " bought " it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental.A lot of somebodys, and they're almost all corporations.
The record companies, for example, call their wares "intellectual property" as if they own the works.
In the US at least, constitutionally they don't.
Mankind owns this "property", they merely have a "limited time" monopoly on it, just as someone who rents a house has a limited time monopoly on its use.Movie studios, OS and games and other applications companies do the same.
They lease a thing to you and tell you you "bought" it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933950</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1264697040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Motorola Droid with Verizon and I've been able to install any application I wanted to. What are you referring to when you say that you can't install software on an Android phone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Motorola Droid with Verizon and I 've been able to install any application I wanted to .
What are you referring to when you say that you ca n't install software on an Android phone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Motorola Droid with Verizon and I've been able to install any application I wanted to.
What are you referring to when you say that you can't install software on an Android phone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932668</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Google</title>
	<author>MadRat</author>
	<datestamp>1264691040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right on!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935012</id>
	<title>Is having to pay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is having to pay for the phone being called a termination fee here?? Because thats not fair to google,there not in the business of handing out free cell phones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is having to pay for the phone being called a termination fee here ? ?
Because thats not fair to google,there not in the business of handing out free cell phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is having to pay for the phone being called a termination fee here??
Because thats not fair to google,there not in the business of handing out free cell phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936216</id>
	<title>Re:Silence has generally been the best policy</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1264703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You miss the point of the small print. The small print is REQUIRED by law. Rather than having a * and saying "Restrictions apply, see store, website or whatever for details" they are require to shove all the terms right there on the screen. And it is often too much info to fit in, so they shrink it to fit.</p><p>IMHO, if you don't know what you're signing, then don't sign it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You miss the point of the small print .
The small print is REQUIRED by law .
Rather than having a * and saying " Restrictions apply , see store , website or whatever for details " they are require to shove all the terms right there on the screen .
And it is often too much info to fit in , so they shrink it to fit.IMHO , if you do n't know what you 're signing , then do n't sign it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You miss the point of the small print.
The small print is REQUIRED by law.
Rather than having a * and saying "Restrictions apply, see store, website or whatever for details" they are require to shove all the terms right there on the screen.
And it is often too much info to fit in, so they shrink it to fit.IMHO, if you don't know what you're signing, then don't sign it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934702</id>
	<title>Subsidies are a scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subsidies are a lie.  Your bill does not magically go down after owning a phone for two years (since part of your bill is going towards the phone you purchased).  When companies start giving lower prices for fully paid for phones (or Bring Your Own), then they have a leg to stand on by calling is subsidizing phones.  As it is, either your monthly bill is not subsidizing your "free" phone, or you are overpaying extra profit every month beyond when the subsidy is paid up.</p><p>No wonder these providers try and get you do sign up for your "new every two", it keeps the gravy train coming legitimately, and locks you into an extended contract again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subsidies are a lie .
Your bill does not magically go down after owning a phone for two years ( since part of your bill is going towards the phone you purchased ) .
When companies start giving lower prices for fully paid for phones ( or Bring Your Own ) , then they have a leg to stand on by calling is subsidizing phones .
As it is , either your monthly bill is not subsidizing your " free " phone , or you are overpaying extra profit every month beyond when the subsidy is paid up.No wonder these providers try and get you do sign up for your " new every two " , it keeps the gravy train coming legitimately , and locks you into an extended contract again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subsidies are a lie.
Your bill does not magically go down after owning a phone for two years (since part of your bill is going towards the phone you purchased).
When companies start giving lower prices for fully paid for phones (or Bring Your Own), then they have a leg to stand on by calling is subsidizing phones.
As it is, either your monthly bill is not subsidizing your "free" phone, or you are overpaying extra profit every month beyond when the subsidy is paid up.No wonder these providers try and get you do sign up for your "new every two", it keeps the gravy train coming legitimately, and locks you into an extended contract again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935448</id>
	<title>Cell phone bill of rights...</title>
	<author>TomXP411</author>
	<datestamp>1264701120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more I see of this, the more I think we need some sort of "bill of rights" for cell phone customers. I'm not against people choosing to take the subsidy, assuming they know what they're doing when they sign the contract.

What I don't like is being FORCED in to a subsidy arrangement. When I signed up for T-Mobile about 5 years ago, I had a perfectly good Sony Ericsson phone, yet TMO would not just sell me a SIM card and bill me month to month. Instead, I had to take their free phone (which I shoved in a drawer) and sign a 1 year contract.

Cell phone carriers need to acknowledge that this subsidy agreement is really a CREDIT agreement and handle it in the same manner as any other installment payment plan. We should see the subsidy balance and the subsidy payment amount on our statements. When our subsidy is paid off, we should get a discount on our bill equal to the subsidy payment. If we cancel our subscription, we should only pay the unpaid subsidy balance. Most importantly, we should have the option to buy or bring our "naked" phones and subscribe to a plan without the hidden subsidy surcharge. We should also have the option to unlock any phone once the subsidy is fully paid off.

Example: if the subsidy is $240 over 2 years, I should see a separate $10 line item on my phone bill. If I choose to bring an unlocked phone, or if I choose to pay full retail price, my bill should be $10 less than the guy who lets the carrier give him a "free" phone.

I think T-Mobile seems to be moving this way. How about the rest of you guys, AT&amp;T, Verizon, and Sprint? (Not to mention the other regional carriers.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I see of this , the more I think we need some sort of " bill of rights " for cell phone customers .
I 'm not against people choosing to take the subsidy , assuming they know what they 're doing when they sign the contract .
What I do n't like is being FORCED in to a subsidy arrangement .
When I signed up for T-Mobile about 5 years ago , I had a perfectly good Sony Ericsson phone , yet TMO would not just sell me a SIM card and bill me month to month .
Instead , I had to take their free phone ( which I shoved in a drawer ) and sign a 1 year contract .
Cell phone carriers need to acknowledge that this subsidy agreement is really a CREDIT agreement and handle it in the same manner as any other installment payment plan .
We should see the subsidy balance and the subsidy payment amount on our statements .
When our subsidy is paid off , we should get a discount on our bill equal to the subsidy payment .
If we cancel our subscription , we should only pay the unpaid subsidy balance .
Most importantly , we should have the option to buy or bring our " naked " phones and subscribe to a plan without the hidden subsidy surcharge .
We should also have the option to unlock any phone once the subsidy is fully paid off .
Example : if the subsidy is $ 240 over 2 years , I should see a separate $ 10 line item on my phone bill .
If I choose to bring an unlocked phone , or if I choose to pay full retail price , my bill should be $ 10 less than the guy who lets the carrier give him a " free " phone .
I think T-Mobile seems to be moving this way .
How about the rest of you guys , AT&amp;T , Verizon , and Sprint ?
( Not to mention the other regional carriers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I see of this, the more I think we need some sort of "bill of rights" for cell phone customers.
I'm not against people choosing to take the subsidy, assuming they know what they're doing when they sign the contract.
What I don't like is being FORCED in to a subsidy arrangement.
When I signed up for T-Mobile about 5 years ago, I had a perfectly good Sony Ericsson phone, yet TMO would not just sell me a SIM card and bill me month to month.
Instead, I had to take their free phone (which I shoved in a drawer) and sign a 1 year contract.
Cell phone carriers need to acknowledge that this subsidy agreement is really a CREDIT agreement and handle it in the same manner as any other installment payment plan.
We should see the subsidy balance and the subsidy payment amount on our statements.
When our subsidy is paid off, we should get a discount on our bill equal to the subsidy payment.
If we cancel our subscription, we should only pay the unpaid subsidy balance.
Most importantly, we should have the option to buy or bring our "naked" phones and subscribe to a plan without the hidden subsidy surcharge.
We should also have the option to unlock any phone once the subsidy is fully paid off.
Example: if the subsidy is $240 over 2 years, I should see a separate $10 line item on my phone bill.
If I choose to bring an unlocked phone, or if I choose to pay full retail price, my bill should be $10 less than the guy who lets the carrier give him a "free" phone.
I think T-Mobile seems to be moving this way.
How about the rest of you guys, AT&amp;T, Verizon, and Sprint?
(Not to mention the other regional carriers.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932766</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1264691700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not really leasing since you aren't paying down the depreciation and returning the phone when you're done.  It's more like financing the phone through the provider.  Here's a car analogy:  if you finance a car purchase, the bank owns the car until the last penny is paid for.  If you default, then the repo men come for the car, despite you potentially paying off a large percentage of the loan.  A cell contract is a little different because the cost of the phone and the cost of the service are combined together over the 2 year term.  Nonetheless, Americans need to start learning that cell providers don't "subsidize" phones, they build the cost into the contract.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really leasing since you are n't paying down the depreciation and returning the phone when you 're done .
It 's more like financing the phone through the provider .
Here 's a car analogy : if you finance a car purchase , the bank owns the car until the last penny is paid for .
If you default , then the repo men come for the car , despite you potentially paying off a large percentage of the loan .
A cell contract is a little different because the cost of the phone and the cost of the service are combined together over the 2 year term .
Nonetheless , Americans need to start learning that cell providers do n't " subsidize " phones , they build the cost into the contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really leasing since you aren't paying down the depreciation and returning the phone when you're done.
It's more like financing the phone through the provider.
Here's a car analogy:  if you finance a car purchase, the bank owns the car until the last penny is paid for.
If you default, then the repo men come for the car, despite you potentially paying off a large percentage of the loan.
A cell contract is a little different because the cost of the phone and the cost of the service are combined together over the 2 year term.
Nonetheless, Americans need to start learning that cell providers don't "subsidize" phones, they build the cost into the contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933998</id>
	<title>Re:But where is it mentioned?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where did you find the link to that?  I went to <a href="http://google.com/phone" title="google.com">http://google.com/phone</a> [google.com], no link their.  I selected the tMobile plan, get a new page, still not linked that I could find.  Select to purchase, couple more pages enter name, credit check... agree to tmobile contract ($200 early termination clearly spelled out.)  STILL NO MENTION.  What once I have transferred my number would the tell me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where did you find the link to that ?
I went to http : //google.com/phone [ google.com ] , no link their .
I selected the tMobile plan , get a new page , still not linked that I could find .
Select to purchase , couple more pages enter name , credit check... agree to tmobile contract ( $ 200 early termination clearly spelled out .
) STILL NO MENTION .
What once I have transferred my number would the tell me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where did you find the link to that?
I went to http://google.com/phone [google.com], no link their.
I selected the tMobile plan, get a new page, still not linked that I could find.
Select to purchase, couple more pages enter name, credit check... agree to tmobile contract ($200 early termination clearly spelled out.
)  STILL NO MENTION.
What once I have transferred my number would the tell me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932506</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>AC-x</author>
	<datestamp>1264690260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.</p><p>In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers, but the device manufacturers themselves.</p></div><p>I've had no trouble with my T-Mobile G2 (aka HTC Hero). Initially T-Mobile blocked the app store until I went into my account settings online to confirm I was over 18 (weird parental controls) but after that I've had no problem installing 3rd party software, using free tethering etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android , I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers , but the device manufacturers themselves.I 've had no trouble with my T-Mobile G2 ( aka HTC Hero ) .
Initially T-Mobile blocked the app store until I went into my account settings online to confirm I was over 18 ( weird parental controls ) but after that I 've had no problem installing 3rd party software , using free tethering etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers, but the device manufacturers themselves.I've had no trouble with my T-Mobile G2 (aka HTC Hero).
Initially T-Mobile blocked the app store until I went into my account settings online to confirm I was over 18 (weird parental controls) but after that I've had no problem installing 3rd party software, using free tethering etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931740</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1264683180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So really, what is the problem here? You buy it, you do want you want with it. You lease it, you do want they want with it.</p></div><p>Trouble is, the way phones are typically sold - free or heavily subsidised as part of a service contract - <b>is</b> closer to leasing than buying.
Since this is the dominant business model, it has a splash back on the way manufacturers design their product, even if you buy it "naked" (I have a nasty suspicion that it also means that "naked" phones are sold at artificially inflated prices to make the subsidies more attractive...)

</p><p>It also depends on how you perceive phones: if you buy a general-purpose computer, you expect it to be a universal tool that you can freely program or install software on and still enjoy the manufacturer's support. If, however, you buy a washing mashine and try and convert it to use dry-cleaning solvent you accept that, if it blows up, that's your fault. When phones were just phones, they clearly fitted into the latter category. Smartphones are in a bit of a limbo: people want to run arbitrary software on them <i>but</i> they also expect them to perform reliably as a phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So really , what is the problem here ?
You buy it , you do want you want with it .
You lease it , you do want they want with it.Trouble is , the way phones are typically sold - free or heavily subsidised as part of a service contract - is closer to leasing than buying .
Since this is the dominant business model , it has a splash back on the way manufacturers design their product , even if you buy it " naked " ( I have a nasty suspicion that it also means that " naked " phones are sold at artificially inflated prices to make the subsidies more attractive... ) It also depends on how you perceive phones : if you buy a general-purpose computer , you expect it to be a universal tool that you can freely program or install software on and still enjoy the manufacturer 's support .
If , however , you buy a washing mashine and try and convert it to use dry-cleaning solvent you accept that , if it blows up , that 's your fault .
When phones were just phones , they clearly fitted into the latter category .
Smartphones are in a bit of a limbo : people want to run arbitrary software on them but they also expect them to perform reliably as a phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So really, what is the problem here?
You buy it, you do want you want with it.
You lease it, you do want they want with it.Trouble is, the way phones are typically sold - free or heavily subsidised as part of a service contract - is closer to leasing than buying.
Since this is the dominant business model, it has a splash back on the way manufacturers design their product, even if you buy it "naked" (I have a nasty suspicion that it also means that "naked" phones are sold at artificially inflated prices to make the subsidies more attractive...)

It also depends on how you perceive phones: if you buy a general-purpose computer, you expect it to be a universal tool that you can freely program or install software on and still enjoy the manufacturer's support.
If, however, you buy a washing mashine and try and convert it to use dry-cleaning solvent you accept that, if it blows up, that's your fault.
When phones were just phones, they clearly fitted into the latter category.
Smartphones are in a bit of a limbo: people want to run arbitrary software on them but they also expect them to perform reliably as a phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935512</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1264701240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not really leasing since you aren't paying down the depreciation and returning the phone when you're done.</p></div><p>(a) I said "closer leasing than buying" not "exactly like leasing".
</p><p>(b) How much is a typical smartphone worth at the end of a typical 18 month contract? Or, more precisely, how much would it be worth if the carriers demanded that every phone was returned and the market was flooded (rather than the minority which currently get sent to money-for-old-phones services)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really leasing since you are n't paying down the depreciation and returning the phone when you 're done .
( a ) I said " closer leasing than buying " not " exactly like leasing " .
( b ) How much is a typical smartphone worth at the end of a typical 18 month contract ?
Or , more precisely , how much would it be worth if the carriers demanded that every phone was returned and the market was flooded ( rather than the minority which currently get sent to money-for-old-phones services ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really leasing since you aren't paying down the depreciation and returning the phone when you're done.
(a) I said "closer leasing than buying" not "exactly like leasing".
(b) How much is a typical smartphone worth at the end of a typical 18 month contract?
Or, more precisely, how much would it be worth if the carriers demanded that every phone was returned and the market was flooded (rather than the minority which currently get sent to money-for-old-phones services)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934244</id>
	<title>Are they going to go after Amazon too?</title>
	<author>MDMurphy</author>
	<datestamp>1264697820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you buy a subsidized phone from a 3rd party retailer ( not the carrier ) they only get their money if you stick around for a while on your contract.</p><p>Amazon has a similar policy, dinging you $250 on a Blackberry from AT&amp;T:<br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=cell\_dp\_activationLink?ie=UTF8&amp;docId=508597" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=cell\_dp\_activationLink?ie=UTF8&amp;docId=508597</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>What's interesting, is Amazon's policy doesn't say anything about dodging the fee if you return the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you buy a subsidized phone from a 3rd party retailer ( not the carrier ) they only get their money if you stick around for a while on your contract.Amazon has a similar policy , dinging you $ 250 on a Blackberry from AT&amp;T : http : //www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref = cell \ _dp \ _activationLink ? ie = UTF8&amp;docId = 508597 [ amazon.com ] What 's interesting , is Amazon 's policy does n't say anything about dodging the fee if you return the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you buy a subsidized phone from a 3rd party retailer ( not the carrier ) they only get their money if you stick around for a while on your contract.Amazon has a similar policy, dinging you $250 on a Blackberry from AT&amp;T:http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=cell\_dp\_activationLink?ie=UTF8&amp;docId=508597 [amazon.com]What's interesting, is Amazon's policy doesn't say anything about dodging the fee if you return the phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931444</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1264678800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait until nearly everything moves to the cloud and unless you hack your device all apps will have to be approved before you can use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until nearly everything moves to the cloud and unless you hack your device all apps will have to be approved before you can use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until nearly everything moves to the cloud and unless you hack your device all apps will have to be approved before you can use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931894</id>
	<title>mod doWn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>year contract. [amazingkreski8n.com] the choosing [mit.edu] found Faster chip</htmltext>
<tokenext>year contract .
[ amazingkreski8n.com ] the choosing [ mit.edu ] found Faster chip</tokentext>
<sentencetext>year contract.
[amazingkreski8n.com] the choosing [mit.edu] found Faster chip</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931374</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean, they have like a sign that says they 'do less evil' or something such... a sign I tell you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean , they have like a sign that says they 'do less evil ' or something such... a sign I tell you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean, they have like a sign that says they 'do less evil' or something such... a sign I tell you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931996</id>
	<title>It's in black and white</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264686720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The terms of sale for a subsidized Nexus One are <a href="http://www.google.com/phone/static/en\_US-terms\_of\_sale.html" title="google.com">pretty clearly spelled out</a> [google.com].<br> <br>

Note that Google recovers $350 + $179 from T-Mo, which is identical to the retail cost of an unlocked phone, or $529.<br> <br>

T-Mobile recovers the $179 paid by the customer up front, plus $21 = $200, .  Probably T-Mobile gives the $179 back to Google, and keeps $21 for itself as its little punitive termination fee.<br> <br>

Probably, Google/T-Mo came up with this policy to discourage people from buying the subsidized phone, then walking away from the contract in order to export or otherwise re-sell the phone for a profit.  Frankly I don't see what all the hullabaloo is here.  You either pay $529 up front, or you pay more than $529 on a subsidized plan, but a sale is still a sale.<br> <br>

The fact is, "free" phones end up costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars over time, even cheap little Nokia or Samsung basic handsets that cost $25 or $50 to actually build.  It's the way U.S. carriers make their money back on the tower infrastructure.  People don't realize that they are being taken for a ride and so when Google is more up front about its pricing structure, people squawk loudly.<br> <br>

[from the link referenced above:] You agree to pay Google an equipment subsidy recovery fee (the "Equipment Recovery Fee") equal to the difference between the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device if you cancel your wireless plan prior to 120 days of continuous wireless service. <b>For example, if the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan was $529 USD and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device was $179 USD with a service plan, the Equipment Recovery Fee you pay will be $350 USD in the event you cancel within the first 120 days of carrier service.</b> The Equipment Recovery Fee is equal to the line item in your confirmation email setting forth the discount on the full priced Nexus handheld device related to your carrier service plan activiation. You authorize Google to charge the Equipment Recovery Fee directly to your credit card, or other payment method used to purchase the Nexus handheld device, upon cancellation of your wireless plan. You will not be charged the Equipment Recovery Fee if you return your Nexus handheld device to Google within the 14 day Return Policy period as set forth below.

You agree that the Equipment Recovery Fee is not a penalty but is for liquidated damages Google will incur as a result of such cancellation. These damages may include, but are not limited to, loss of compensation and administrative costs associated with such cancellation or changing of wireless service provider(s), market changes, and changes in ownership. Please note that the Equipment Recovery Fee is imposed by Google and not your chosen carrier and is in addition to any early termination fees that may be charged by your chosen carrier in connection with termination of your wireless plan prior to fulfillment of your chosen carrier&rsquo;s service agreement term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The terms of sale for a subsidized Nexus One are pretty clearly spelled out [ google.com ] .
Note that Google recovers $ 350 + $ 179 from T-Mo , which is identical to the retail cost of an unlocked phone , or $ 529 .
T-Mobile recovers the $ 179 paid by the customer up front , plus $ 21 = $ 200 , .
Probably T-Mobile gives the $ 179 back to Google , and keeps $ 21 for itself as its little punitive termination fee .
Probably , Google/T-Mo came up with this policy to discourage people from buying the subsidized phone , then walking away from the contract in order to export or otherwise re-sell the phone for a profit .
Frankly I do n't see what all the hullabaloo is here .
You either pay $ 529 up front , or you pay more than $ 529 on a subsidized plan , but a sale is still a sale .
The fact is , " free " phones end up costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars over time , even cheap little Nokia or Samsung basic handsets that cost $ 25 or $ 50 to actually build .
It 's the way U.S. carriers make their money back on the tower infrastructure .
People do n't realize that they are being taken for a ride and so when Google is more up front about its pricing structure , people squawk loudly .
[ from the link referenced above : ] You agree to pay Google an equipment subsidy recovery fee ( the " Equipment Recovery Fee " ) equal to the difference between the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device if you cancel your wireless plan prior to 120 days of continuous wireless service .
For example , if the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan was $ 529 USD and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device was $ 179 USD with a service plan , the Equipment Recovery Fee you pay will be $ 350 USD in the event you cancel within the first 120 days of carrier service .
The Equipment Recovery Fee is equal to the line item in your confirmation email setting forth the discount on the full priced Nexus handheld device related to your carrier service plan activiation .
You authorize Google to charge the Equipment Recovery Fee directly to your credit card , or other payment method used to purchase the Nexus handheld device , upon cancellation of your wireless plan .
You will not be charged the Equipment Recovery Fee if you return your Nexus handheld device to Google within the 14 day Return Policy period as set forth below .
You agree that the Equipment Recovery Fee is not a penalty but is for liquidated damages Google will incur as a result of such cancellation .
These damages may include , but are not limited to , loss of compensation and administrative costs associated with such cancellation or changing of wireless service provider ( s ) , market changes , and changes in ownership .
Please note that the Equipment Recovery Fee is imposed by Google and not your chosen carrier and is in addition to any early termination fees that may be charged by your chosen carrier in connection with termination of your wireless plan prior to fulfillment of your chosen carrier    s service agreement term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terms of sale for a subsidized Nexus One are pretty clearly spelled out [google.com].
Note that Google recovers $350 + $179 from T-Mo, which is identical to the retail cost of an unlocked phone, or $529.
T-Mobile recovers the $179 paid by the customer up front, plus $21 = $200, .
Probably T-Mobile gives the $179 back to Google, and keeps $21 for itself as its little punitive termination fee.
Probably, Google/T-Mo came up with this policy to discourage people from buying the subsidized phone, then walking away from the contract in order to export or otherwise re-sell the phone for a profit.
Frankly I don't see what all the hullabaloo is here.
You either pay $529 up front, or you pay more than $529 on a subsidized plan, but a sale is still a sale.
The fact is, "free" phones end up costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars over time, even cheap little Nokia or Samsung basic handsets that cost $25 or $50 to actually build.
It's the way U.S. carriers make their money back on the tower infrastructure.
People don't realize that they are being taken for a ride and so when Google is more up front about its pricing structure, people squawk loudly.
[from the link referenced above:] You agree to pay Google an equipment subsidy recovery fee (the "Equipment Recovery Fee") equal to the difference between the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device if you cancel your wireless plan prior to 120 days of continuous wireless service.
For example, if the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan was $529 USD and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device was $179 USD with a service plan, the Equipment Recovery Fee you pay will be $350 USD in the event you cancel within the first 120 days of carrier service.
The Equipment Recovery Fee is equal to the line item in your confirmation email setting forth the discount on the full priced Nexus handheld device related to your carrier service plan activiation.
You authorize Google to charge the Equipment Recovery Fee directly to your credit card, or other payment method used to purchase the Nexus handheld device, upon cancellation of your wireless plan.
You will not be charged the Equipment Recovery Fee if you return your Nexus handheld device to Google within the 14 day Return Policy period as set forth below.
You agree that the Equipment Recovery Fee is not a penalty but is for liquidated damages Google will incur as a result of such cancellation.
These damages may include, but are not limited to, loss of compensation and administrative costs associated with such cancellation or changing of wireless service provider(s), market changes, and changes in ownership.
Please note that the Equipment Recovery Fee is imposed by Google and not your chosen carrier and is in addition to any early termination fees that may be charged by your chosen carrier in connection with termination of your wireless plan prior to fulfillment of your chosen carrier’s service agreement term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931088</id>
	<title>Silence has generally been the best policy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think the law requires that the carriers include these early termination fees in print no larger than 3 scan lines to remain on screen for no more than 3 frames during any commercial to be aired between the hours of 3:27a-3:28a... As an alternative, it may be included in the microprint of the signature line of any contract signed by the customer.</p><p>For communications companies, they are awfully good at not telling you anything they don't want you to pay attention to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think the law requires that the carriers include these early termination fees in print no larger than 3 scan lines to remain on screen for no more than 3 frames during any commercial to be aired between the hours of 3 : 27a-3 : 28a... As an alternative , it may be included in the microprint of the signature line of any contract signed by the customer.For communications companies , they are awfully good at not telling you anything they do n't want you to pay attention to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think the law requires that the carriers include these early termination fees in print no larger than 3 scan lines to remain on screen for no more than 3 frames during any commercial to be aired between the hours of 3:27a-3:28a... As an alternative, it may be included in the microprint of the signature line of any contract signed by the customer.For communications companies, they are awfully good at not telling you anything they don't want you to pay attention to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30950914</id>
	<title>Fees, fees, fees! Wheeeee!</title>
	<author>JonathanPDX</author>
	<datestamp>1264786560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh.Phone companies have always done their best to squeeze every drop of blood from the turnips that are their customers. Plans and bundles and contracts, all smoke and mirrors designed to disguise the fact that they simply want to charge you for breathing but cannot, hence the paperwork.

The thing that I would like to see eliminated is this inane "minutes" limit. We are SO past that with today's technology, yet they keep on sticking it to us and we sheep keep on getting sheared.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh.Phone companies have always done their best to squeeze every drop of blood from the turnips that are their customers .
Plans and bundles and contracts , all smoke and mirrors designed to disguise the fact that they simply want to charge you for breathing but can not , hence the paperwork .
The thing that I would like to see eliminated is this inane " minutes " limit .
We are SO past that with today 's technology , yet they keep on sticking it to us and we sheep keep on getting sheared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.Phone companies have always done their best to squeeze every drop of blood from the turnips that are their customers.
Plans and bundles and contracts, all smoke and mirrors designed to disguise the fact that they simply want to charge you for breathing but cannot, hence the paperwork.
The thing that I would like to see eliminated is this inane "minutes" limit.
We are SO past that with today's technology, yet they keep on sticking it to us and we sheep keep on getting sheared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30942366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30939248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30937876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30939790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0418221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30939248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30939790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30942366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932614
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936892
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30934870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.31003038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30936216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30937876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932766
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30935012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0418221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30931916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30932342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0418221.30933072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
