<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_07_170235</id>
	<title>ABC Pulls Channels From Cablevision</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267985280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>wkurzius writes <i>"Cablevision and ABC have failed to come to an agreement after two years of negotiations, and as a result <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/03/just\_after\_the\_stroke\_of.html">ABC has pulled all their channels from the Cablevision lineup</a>.  The dispute is over $40 million in new retransmission fees that Cablevision says they won't give to ABC.  On the other side, Cablevision has been accused of not being fair to their customers despite pocketing $8 billion last year. 'The companies immediately published press releases Sunday morning, blaming each other for failing to reach a deal. Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration, saying they shouldn't be deprived of ABC shows, including the Oscars on Sunday, because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry. Competitors such as Verizon Communications took advantage of the dispute. The company launched television, newspaper, and online ads offering Cablevision customers speedy installs to subscribe to its FiOS television service along with $75 gift cards, highlighting a fierce war for subscribers in the valuable New York market.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>wkurzius writes " Cablevision and ABC have failed to come to an agreement after two years of negotiations , and as a result ABC has pulled all their channels from the Cablevision lineup .
The dispute is over $ 40 million in new retransmission fees that Cablevision says they wo n't give to ABC .
On the other side , Cablevision has been accused of not being fair to their customers despite pocketing $ 8 billion last year .
'The companies immediately published press releases Sunday morning , blaming each other for failing to reach a deal .
Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration , saying they should n't be deprived of ABC shows , including the Oscars on Sunday , because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry .
Competitors such as Verizon Communications took advantage of the dispute .
The company launched television , newspaper , and online ads offering Cablevision customers speedy installs to subscribe to its FiOS television service along with $ 75 gift cards , highlighting a fierce war for subscribers in the valuable New York market .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wkurzius writes "Cablevision and ABC have failed to come to an agreement after two years of negotiations, and as a result ABC has pulled all their channels from the Cablevision lineup.
The dispute is over $40 million in new retransmission fees that Cablevision says they won't give to ABC.
On the other side, Cablevision has been accused of not being fair to their customers despite pocketing $8 billion last year.
'The companies immediately published press releases Sunday morning, blaming each other for failing to reach a deal.
Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration, saying they shouldn't be deprived of ABC shows, including the Oscars on Sunday, because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry.
Competitors such as Verizon Communications took advantage of the dispute.
The company launched television, newspaper, and online ads offering Cablevision customers speedy installs to subscribe to its FiOS television service along with $75 gift cards, highlighting a fierce war for subscribers in the valuable New York market.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394972</id>
	<title>WABC-DT -- get it over the air</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1267965000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WABC-DT transmits from the Empire State Building on VHF channel 7.  Almost every Cablevision subscriber should at least have a shot at getting it -- and the other NY majors --- with not much of an antenna if they have a decent (5th generation or newer) tuner.  And I don't know about Cablevision, but the quality will be a LOT better than what RCN (which has not been cut off) is putting out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WABC-DT transmits from the Empire State Building on VHF channel 7 .
Almost every Cablevision subscriber should at least have a shot at getting it -- and the other NY majors --- with not much of an antenna if they have a decent ( 5th generation or newer ) tuner .
And I do n't know about Cablevision , but the quality will be a LOT better than what RCN ( which has not been cut off ) is putting out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WABC-DT transmits from the Empire State Building on VHF channel 7.
Almost every Cablevision subscriber should at least have a shot at getting it -- and the other NY majors --- with not much of an antenna if they have a decent (5th generation or newer) tuner.
And I don't know about Cablevision, but the quality will be a LOT better than what RCN (which has not been cut off) is putting out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394918</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>therealkevinkretz</author>
	<datestamp>1267964640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that's not why.  Programming costs are about a quarter of the average cable bill.

But I absolutely agree with you: a la carte channel selection would be best for the consumer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's not why .
Programming costs are about a quarter of the average cable bill .
But I absolutely agree with you : a la carte channel selection would be best for the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's not why.
Programming costs are about a quarter of the average cable bill.
But I absolutely agree with you: a la carte channel selection would be best for the consumer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399328</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>NJRoadfan</author>
	<datestamp>1268053440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blame congress for this mess. They passed the 1992 Cable Act which gave the OTA stations the right to charge for retransmission rights. Prior to that, cable companies were free to retransmit the signals at no cost.</p><p>Back in 1991 the local cable company (Suburban Cablevision, now Comcast), played hardball with the networks. They were going to send free A-B switches too all their subscribers for free to switch between cable and their antennas to get the OTA stations for free (I'm guessing diplexers were too expensive for them). In the end they managed to come to an agreement with all the OTA stations for carry rights. One of the first if I recall was WABC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blame congress for this mess .
They passed the 1992 Cable Act which gave the OTA stations the right to charge for retransmission rights .
Prior to that , cable companies were free to retransmit the signals at no cost.Back in 1991 the local cable company ( Suburban Cablevision , now Comcast ) , played hardball with the networks .
They were going to send free A-B switches too all their subscribers for free to switch between cable and their antennas to get the OTA stations for free ( I 'm guessing diplexers were too expensive for them ) .
In the end they managed to come to an agreement with all the OTA stations for carry rights .
One of the first if I recall was WABC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blame congress for this mess.
They passed the 1992 Cable Act which gave the OTA stations the right to charge for retransmission rights.
Prior to that, cable companies were free to retransmit the signals at no cost.Back in 1991 the local cable company (Suburban Cablevision, now Comcast), played hardball with the networks.
They were going to send free A-B switches too all their subscribers for free to switch between cable and their antennas to get the OTA stations for free (I'm guessing diplexers were too expensive for them).
In the end they managed to come to an agreement with all the OTA stations for carry rights.
One of the first if I recall was WABC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392990</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>daveywest</author>
	<datestamp>1267995180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as one in the industry, a la carte will never catch on unless networks are prohibited from packaging.  For instance, you're local cable provider can't buy Cartoon Network without buying MTV and Comedy Central.  My kids and I love Sponge Bob, but we could do without The Situation.</p><p>In the case at hand, I hope all the advertisers are knocking down the door at WABC Monday morning demanding credit for the lost audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as one in the industry , a la carte will never catch on unless networks are prohibited from packaging .
For instance , you 're local cable provider ca n't buy Cartoon Network without buying MTV and Comedy Central .
My kids and I love Sponge Bob , but we could do without The Situation.In the case at hand , I hope all the advertisers are knocking down the door at WABC Monday morning demanding credit for the lost audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as one in the industry, a la carte will never catch on unless networks are prohibited from packaging.
For instance, you're local cable provider can't buy Cartoon Network without buying MTV and Comedy Central.
My kids and I love Sponge Bob, but we could do without The Situation.In the case at hand, I hope all the advertisers are knocking down the door at WABC Monday morning demanding credit for the lost audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394716</id>
	<title>Cablevision just made movies on demand free today</title>
	<author>Coopjust</author>
	<datestamp>1267962960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>	Due to the disruption ABC has caused, Cablevision invites you to enjoy our entire slate of on demand movies at no charge today, Sunday March 7th. To order, go to the iO TV main menu, select On Demand, then Movies on Demand, then choose your movie.

We appreciate your patience and hope ABC allows our customers to view their programming in the very near future.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well, it's a nice gesture, considering how much they've put us in the middle (ABC with nonstop ads and pulling during negotiations, Cablevision pushing an update to change the default of all boxes to channel "1999" with a looped message on how ABC's parent corp needs to prop up their "struggling theme parks" and explaining that Hulu is good).
<br> <br>
I don't care for the Oscars, but it's crap that it hasn't been settled already. Sit down and work something out, and stop putting consumers in the middle. People will bitch at both but most will watch their shows online. Very few will switch service over this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to the disruption ABC has caused , Cablevision invites you to enjoy our entire slate of on demand movies at no charge today , Sunday March 7th .
To order , go to the iO TV main menu , select On Demand , then Movies on Demand , then choose your movie .
We appreciate your patience and hope ABC allows our customers to view their programming in the very near future .
Well , it 's a nice gesture , considering how much they 've put us in the middle ( ABC with nonstop ads and pulling during negotiations , Cablevision pushing an update to change the default of all boxes to channel " 1999 " with a looped message on how ABC 's parent corp needs to prop up their " struggling theme parks " and explaining that Hulu is good ) .
I do n't care for the Oscars , but it 's crap that it has n't been settled already .
Sit down and work something out , and stop putting consumers in the middle .
People will bitch at both but most will watch their shows online .
Very few will switch service over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>	Due to the disruption ABC has caused, Cablevision invites you to enjoy our entire slate of on demand movies at no charge today, Sunday March 7th.
To order, go to the iO TV main menu, select On Demand, then Movies on Demand, then choose your movie.
We appreciate your patience and hope ABC allows our customers to view their programming in the very near future.
Well, it's a nice gesture, considering how much they've put us in the middle (ABC with nonstop ads and pulling during negotiations, Cablevision pushing an update to change the default of all boxes to channel "1999" with a looped message on how ABC's parent corp needs to prop up their "struggling theme parks" and explaining that Hulu is good).
I don't care for the Oscars, but it's crap that it hasn't been settled already.
Sit down and work something out, and stop putting consumers in the middle.
People will bitch at both but most will watch their shows online.
Very few will switch service over this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396198</id>
	<title>And... it's back on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267973220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's over now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's over now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's over now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</id>
	<title>bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1267989480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al la carte, please.</p><p>You want to know why your cable bill is so high? This is why. Cable stations (and now network stations) charge cable companies to carry their channels. So they get paid whether you watch their content or not!</p><p>It is these deals that keep things like Hulu from happening because why would a cable station offer their program for only advertising revenue online when they can get fixed monthly revenue plus advertising over cable/satellite.</p><p>And this is why your cable bill is so high. You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not. And due to big bundles, you're paying for a lot of them.</p><p>Meanwhile, the cable (and satellite) companies make these big bundles so they can hide the cost of carrying these channels by making you think you're paying for breadth of content. Mostly, you're actually paying most of it for 5 ESPN channels! And that's great if you want to pay that much for ESPN. But the rest of us need more choice.</p><p>Each channel should be individually tallied so you know how much you're paying for each channel. If you feel the channel is worth the price, you pay for it. If you feel it isn't worth it, you can not pay for it. And if enough channels don't get picked up by people, they will realize they can't just get free money, they have to provide content people want to watch, and once they do that, they won't care if they get their viewers from cable companies or Hulu.</p><p>This would be preferable to seeing larger and larger bundles pushed on us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al la carte , please.You want to know why your cable bill is so high ?
This is why .
Cable stations ( and now network stations ) charge cable companies to carry their channels .
So they get paid whether you watch their content or not ! It is these deals that keep things like Hulu from happening because why would a cable station offer their program for only advertising revenue online when they can get fixed monthly revenue plus advertising over cable/satellite.And this is why your cable bill is so high .
You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not .
And due to big bundles , you 're paying for a lot of them.Meanwhile , the cable ( and satellite ) companies make these big bundles so they can hide the cost of carrying these channels by making you think you 're paying for breadth of content .
Mostly , you 're actually paying most of it for 5 ESPN channels !
And that 's great if you want to pay that much for ESPN .
But the rest of us need more choice.Each channel should be individually tallied so you know how much you 're paying for each channel .
If you feel the channel is worth the price , you pay for it .
If you feel it is n't worth it , you can not pay for it .
And if enough channels do n't get picked up by people , they will realize they ca n't just get free money , they have to provide content people want to watch , and once they do that , they wo n't care if they get their viewers from cable companies or Hulu.This would be preferable to seeing larger and larger bundles pushed on us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al la carte, please.You want to know why your cable bill is so high?
This is why.
Cable stations (and now network stations) charge cable companies to carry their channels.
So they get paid whether you watch their content or not!It is these deals that keep things like Hulu from happening because why would a cable station offer their program for only advertising revenue online when they can get fixed monthly revenue plus advertising over cable/satellite.And this is why your cable bill is so high.
You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not.
And due to big bundles, you're paying for a lot of them.Meanwhile, the cable (and satellite) companies make these big bundles so they can hide the cost of carrying these channels by making you think you're paying for breadth of content.
Mostly, you're actually paying most of it for 5 ESPN channels!
And that's great if you want to pay that much for ESPN.
But the rest of us need more choice.Each channel should be individually tallied so you know how much you're paying for each channel.
If you feel the channel is worth the price, you pay for it.
If you feel it isn't worth it, you can not pay for it.
And if enough channels don't get picked up by people, they will realize they can't just get free money, they have to provide content people want to watch, and once they do that, they won't care if they get their viewers from cable companies or Hulu.This would be preferable to seeing larger and larger bundles pushed on us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392182</id>
	<title>If I was a subscriber I'd think Class action suite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pay a separate charge for local channels so if they get pulled, I think it's time for a class<br>action law suite as the cable company has a responsibility with collecting fees from me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay a separate charge for local channels so if they get pulled , I think it 's time for a classaction law suite as the cable company has a responsibility with collecting fees from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay a separate charge for local channels so if they get pulled, I think it's time for a classaction law suite as the cable company has a responsibility with collecting fees from me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393128</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267953000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what? I pay ~20/mo (sat service + premium online) for just one channel (XM 202/Sirius 197 The Virus). If I could just pay for that 1 channel I would but I can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what ?
I pay ~ 20/mo ( sat service + premium online ) for just one channel ( XM 202/Sirius 197 The Virus ) .
If I could just pay for that 1 channel I would but I ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what?
I pay ~20/mo (sat service + premium online) for just one channel (XM 202/Sirius 197 The Virus).
If I could just pay for that 1 channel I would but I can't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31402196</id>
	<title>Was this submitted</title>
	<author>sdnoob</author>
	<datestamp>1268072100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by a Disney/ABC employee?</p><p>Cablevision "pocketed 8 billion"??</p><p>Ya, right!  That's their overall corporate GROSS INCOME, not NET, which is hundreds of millions of dollars on the wrong side of zero, according to Wikipedia's Cablevision article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablevision" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablevision</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Cablevision can't give what they don't have, same goes for other programming distribution outlets (such as Charter) that operate in the red.</p><p>These types of ransom demands made by programming providers like Disney need to stop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by a Disney/ABC employee ? Cablevision " pocketed 8 billion " ?
? Ya , right !
That 's their overall corporate GROSS INCOME , not NET , which is hundreds of millions of dollars on the wrong side of zero , according to Wikipedia 's Cablevision article http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablevision [ wikipedia.org ] Cablevision ca n't give what they do n't have , same goes for other programming distribution outlets ( such as Charter ) that operate in the red.These types of ransom demands made by programming providers like Disney need to stop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by a Disney/ABC employee?Cablevision "pocketed 8 billion"?
?Ya, right!
That's their overall corporate GROSS INCOME, not NET, which is hundreds of millions of dollars on the wrong side of zero, according to Wikipedia's Cablevision article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablevision [wikipedia.org]Cablevision can't give what they don't have, same goes for other programming distribution outlets (such as Charter) that operate in the red.These types of ransom demands made by programming providers like Disney need to stop!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393614</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267956180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check antennaweb.org to see if your antenna is set up correctly.  Indoor antennas suck so you can't complain if that is what you're using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check antennaweb.org to see if your antenna is set up correctly .
Indoor antennas suck so you ca n't complain if that is what you 're using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check antennaweb.org to see if your antenna is set up correctly.
Indoor antennas suck so you can't complain if that is what you're using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399774</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1268058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And this is why your cable bill is so high. You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not. And due to big bundles, you're paying for a lot of them.</p></div><p>Last I read, for those of us who don't watch or rarely watch sports, typically 40\% of your bill is used to subsidize all those sports channels. So for people like me, al la carte would mean at least a 40\% reduction in my bill over night.</p><p>Furthermore, cable/sat companies hold hostage popular channels, often requiring people to pay an additional al la carte fee and/or higher cost package frequently resulting in extremely costly channels which most people would watch if it were otherwise provided.</p><p>Anyone remember the entire purpose of cable/sat was to avoid seeing commercials - which providers all promised would never happen. Now we all have commercials, while paying a premium, plus are forced to pay up charges for the channels people actually want to watch, including local channels. Nothing like government enforced monopoly raping...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why your cable bill is so high .
You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not .
And due to big bundles , you 're paying for a lot of them.Last I read , for those of us who do n't watch or rarely watch sports , typically 40 \ % of your bill is used to subsidize all those sports channels .
So for people like me , al la carte would mean at least a 40 \ % reduction in my bill over night.Furthermore , cable/sat companies hold hostage popular channels , often requiring people to pay an additional al la carte fee and/or higher cost package frequently resulting in extremely costly channels which most people would watch if it were otherwise provided.Anyone remember the entire purpose of cable/sat was to avoid seeing commercials - which providers all promised would never happen .
Now we all have commercials , while paying a premium , plus are forced to pay up charges for the channels people actually want to watch , including local channels .
Nothing like government enforced monopoly raping.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why your cable bill is so high.
You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not.
And due to big bundles, you're paying for a lot of them.Last I read, for those of us who don't watch or rarely watch sports, typically 40\% of your bill is used to subsidize all those sports channels.
So for people like me, al la carte would mean at least a 40\% reduction in my bill over night.Furthermore, cable/sat companies hold hostage popular channels, often requiring people to pay an additional al la carte fee and/or higher cost package frequently resulting in extremely costly channels which most people would watch if it were otherwise provided.Anyone remember the entire purpose of cable/sat was to avoid seeing commercials - which providers all promised would never happen.
Now we all have commercials, while paying a premium, plus are forced to pay up charges for the channels people actually want to watch, including local channels.
Nothing like government enforced monopoly raping...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31398702</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, just two words... last mil</title>
	<author>pod</author>
	<datestamp>1268044980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should have been clearer separation between content creation, content delivery and "last mile", each handled, potentially, by a different company. With the way multicast/broadcast distribution works, content delivery tier would handle multicast/broadcast infrastructure. Historically though, this is not how the technology and processes have evolved, obviously, so we have to deal with the system as it is.</p><p>I think you are being overly simplistic and shortsighted by thinking a separate or community-owned last mile will solve these problems. Who would hook into it, how, at what physical location, and at what cost? Who will manage and enforce the separation of networks and standards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should have been clearer separation between content creation , content delivery and " last mile " , each handled , potentially , by a different company .
With the way multicast/broadcast distribution works , content delivery tier would handle multicast/broadcast infrastructure .
Historically though , this is not how the technology and processes have evolved , obviously , so we have to deal with the system as it is.I think you are being overly simplistic and shortsighted by thinking a separate or community-owned last mile will solve these problems .
Who would hook into it , how , at what physical location , and at what cost ?
Who will manage and enforce the separation of networks and standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should have been clearer separation between content creation, content delivery and "last mile", each handled, potentially, by a different company.
With the way multicast/broadcast distribution works, content delivery tier would handle multicast/broadcast infrastructure.
Historically though, this is not how the technology and processes have evolved, obviously, so we have to deal with the system as it is.I think you are being overly simplistic and shortsighted by thinking a separate or community-owned last mile will solve these problems.
Who would hook into it, how, at what physical location, and at what cost?
Who will manage and enforce the separation of networks and standards?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394386</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267960740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the problem with Sirius / XM al-la-carte programming is that only a tiny number of their radios support the option!  If your radio doesn't have hardware / firmware support according to Sirius / XM, you can't choose the a-la-carte option.  That's the catch.</p><p>I have Sirius, but my radio in my car doesn't support a-la-carte.  If it did, I'd switch ASAP as I only listen to about 10 channels for 75\% of the year.  During NFL season I listen to games, so I'd subscribe to the whole package then so I could get every game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the problem with Sirius / XM al-la-carte programming is that only a tiny number of their radios support the option !
If your radio does n't have hardware / firmware support according to Sirius / XM , you ca n't choose the a-la-carte option .
That 's the catch.I have Sirius , but my radio in my car does n't support a-la-carte .
If it did , I 'd switch ASAP as I only listen to about 10 channels for 75 \ % of the year .
During NFL season I listen to games , so I 'd subscribe to the whole package then so I could get every game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the problem with Sirius / XM al-la-carte programming is that only a tiny number of their radios support the option!
If your radio doesn't have hardware / firmware support according to Sirius / XM, you can't choose the a-la-carte option.
That's the catch.I have Sirius, but my radio in my car doesn't support a-la-carte.
If it did, I'd switch ASAP as I only listen to about 10 channels for 75\% of the year.
During NFL season I listen to games, so I'd subscribe to the whole package then so I could get every game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392938</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow really? I had no idea they had this service. You may have just made me a customer of theirs. What great advertising they have!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow really ?
I had no idea they had this service .
You may have just made me a customer of theirs .
What great advertising they have !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow really?
I had no idea they had this service.
You may have just made me a customer of theirs.
What great advertising they have!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395212</id>
	<title>Cablevision not cablevision</title>
	<author>megabunny</author>
	<datestamp>1267966680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's just me, but I had to read the summary a couple of times before I saw the ref to New York.

That's NEW YORK. This is news, but local news. It looks like Cablevision is the local cablevision supplier. Sucks to live in New York, but they probably have OTA digital ABC there...

MB</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's just me , but I had to read the summary a couple of times before I saw the ref to New York .
That 's NEW YORK .
This is news , but local news .
It looks like Cablevision is the local cablevision supplier .
Sucks to live in New York , but they probably have OTA digital ABC there.. . MB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's just me, but I had to read the summary a couple of times before I saw the ref to New York.
That's NEW YORK.
This is news, but local news.
It looks like Cablevision is the local cablevision supplier.
Sucks to live in New York, but they probably have OTA digital ABC there...

MB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392232</id>
	<title>Wow, this sucks.</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1267990560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I'm just dreaming up science fiction here, but if only there were <i>some</i> way that ABC could send their signal directly through space to our TVs and bypass the cable companies completely, we could avoid this horrible situation. Maybe one day it will be possible...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm just dreaming up science fiction here , but if only there were some way that ABC could send their signal directly through space to our TVs and bypass the cable companies completely , we could avoid this horrible situation .
Maybe one day it will be possible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm just dreaming up science fiction here, but if only there were some way that ABC could send their signal directly through space to our TVs and bypass the cable companies completely, we could avoid this horrible situation.
Maybe one day it will be possible...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399572</id>
	<title>Re:Poor ABC</title>
	<author>technomom</author>
	<datestamp>1268056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cablevision already has some of its own television networks, although the are small by comparison to ABC.  They own MSG Sports and a fledgling hyperlocal news network News12.

MSG Sports carries Knicks (basketball), Rangers, Devils and Islanders (hockey) so Cablevision tends to tout "...carries all 9 New York major sports teams" in their ads.    What they don't mention is that the two Cablevision owned franchises, basketball's New York Knicks and hockey's New York Rangers, are horrible.      All of these are further examples how the Dolan family tends to run businesses into the ground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cablevision already has some of its own television networks , although the are small by comparison to ABC .
They own MSG Sports and a fledgling hyperlocal news network News12 .
MSG Sports carries Knicks ( basketball ) , Rangers , Devils and Islanders ( hockey ) so Cablevision tends to tout " ...carries all 9 New York major sports teams " in their ads .
What they do n't mention is that the two Cablevision owned franchises , basketball 's New York Knicks and hockey 's New York Rangers , are horrible .
All of these are further examples how the Dolan family tends to run businesses into the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cablevision already has some of its own television networks, although the are small by comparison to ABC.
They own MSG Sports and a fledgling hyperlocal news network News12.
MSG Sports carries Knicks (basketball), Rangers, Devils and Islanders (hockey) so Cablevision tends to tout "...carries all 9 New York major sports teams" in their ads.
What they don't mention is that the two Cablevision owned franchises, basketball's New York Knicks and hockey's New York Rangers, are horrible.
All of these are further examples how the Dolan family tends to run businesses into the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392508</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1267992060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you honestly think if a la carte ever came about and the cable and media companies would not try and sell it as a better, value added, therefore more expensive, service,  well then you're out of your god-damned mind John McCain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you honestly think if a la carte ever came about and the cable and media companies would not try and sell it as a better , value added , therefore more expensive , service , well then you 're out of your god-damned mind John McCain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you honestly think if a la carte ever came about and the cable and media companies would not try and sell it as a better, value added, therefore more expensive, service,  well then you're out of your god-damned mind John McCain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392890</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1267994580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am about one month into having only "limited basic" (network programming, several religious channels, and whatever HD channels the local cable company forgot to block out). My wife and I had been telling ourselves we were going to rent movies using our local video store's five older movies for five days for $5 deal. But, instead, we have been playing wii fit for 45 minutes to an hour a day, each, watching an occasional show on network, and have barely missed cable.</p><p>I can't stress enough how much this has helped with my diet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am about one month into having only " limited basic " ( network programming , several religious channels , and whatever HD channels the local cable company forgot to block out ) .
My wife and I had been telling ourselves we were going to rent movies using our local video store 's five older movies for five days for $ 5 deal .
But , instead , we have been playing wii fit for 45 minutes to an hour a day , each , watching an occasional show on network , and have barely missed cable.I ca n't stress enough how much this has helped with my diet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am about one month into having only "limited basic" (network programming, several religious channels, and whatever HD channels the local cable company forgot to block out).
My wife and I had been telling ourselves we were going to rent movies using our local video store's five older movies for five days for $5 deal.
But, instead, we have been playing wii fit for 45 minutes to an hour a day, each, watching an occasional show on network, and have barely missed cable.I can't stress enough how much this has helped with my diet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392036</id>
	<title>abc is not reasonable</title>
	<author>meow27</author>
	<datestamp>1267989600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>cablevision gets its money from phone and web services too.<br><br>and if cablevision gives in, everybody else will demand a free lunch.<br><br>i dont think people care the much about losing abc.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>cablevision gets its money from phone and web services too.and if cablevision gives in , everybody else will demand a free lunch.i dont think people care the much about losing abc.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cablevision gets its money from phone and web services too.and if cablevision gives in, everybody else will demand a free lunch.i dont think people care the much about losing abc.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394714</id>
	<title>For Canadians only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267962960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted this to various groups on facebook regarding "Save Local TV" in Canada, so ignore the link... It just loops back here.</p><p>This is what Bell/CTV want your future to look like:<br>http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/170235/ABC-Pulls-Channels-From-Cablevision</p><p>Bell owns CTV, and they want to pull CTV programming from Rogers to ruin them.<br>Shaw is doing the same thing with the purchase of Global, holding more that 60\% of Canadian programming.</p><p>Ce ci est ce que Bell/CTV veullent pour votre futur: [Anglais Seulment]<br>http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/170235/ABC-Pulls-Channels-From-Cablevision</p><p>CTV appartien &#224; Bell, et ils veullent supprimer leurs cha&#238;nes de Rogers pour les ruiner.<br>Shaw fait le m&#234;me, eux aussi, avec leur aquisition de Global, et entre eux, tien plus que 60\% de cha&#238;nes canadiennes [anglais]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted this to various groups on facebook regarding " Save Local TV " in Canada , so ignore the link... It just loops back here.This is what Bell/CTV want your future to look like : http : //news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/170235/ABC-Pulls-Channels-From-CablevisionBell owns CTV , and they want to pull CTV programming from Rogers to ruin them.Shaw is doing the same thing with the purchase of Global , holding more that 60 \ % of Canadian programming.Ce ci est ce que Bell/CTV veullent pour votre futur : [ Anglais Seulment ] http : //news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/170235/ABC-Pulls-Channels-From-CablevisionCTV appartien   Bell , et ils veullent supprimer leurs cha   nes de Rogers pour les ruiner.Shaw fait le m   me , eux aussi , avec leur aquisition de Global , et entre eux , tien plus que 60 \ % de cha   nes canadiennes [ anglais ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted this to various groups on facebook regarding "Save Local TV" in Canada, so ignore the link... It just loops back here.This is what Bell/CTV want your future to look like:http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/170235/ABC-Pulls-Channels-From-CablevisionBell owns CTV, and they want to pull CTV programming from Rogers to ruin them.Shaw is doing the same thing with the purchase of Global, holding more that 60\% of Canadian programming.Ce ci est ce que Bell/CTV veullent pour votre futur: [Anglais Seulment]http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/170235/ABC-Pulls-Channels-From-CablevisionCTV appartien à Bell, et ils veullent supprimer leurs chaînes de Rogers pour les ruiner.Shaw fait le même, eux aussi, avec leur aquisition de Global, et entre eux, tien plus que 60\% de chaînes canadiennes [anglais]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391976</id>
	<title>Disney comedians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty funny listening to a company that makes the dough that Disney does complain about how much Cablevision takes down.  Likewise moaning about what people get on a basic cable plan - I guess they figure the transmission infrastructure is free?   This doesn't let Cablevision and their ilk off the hook for crap service and the general raping of customers (Verizon, Dish, DTV too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty funny listening to a company that makes the dough that Disney does complain about how much Cablevision takes down .
Likewise moaning about what people get on a basic cable plan - I guess they figure the transmission infrastructure is free ?
This does n't let Cablevision and their ilk off the hook for crap service and the general raping of customers ( Verizon , Dish , DTV too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty funny listening to a company that makes the dough that Disney does complain about how much Cablevision takes down.
Likewise moaning about what people get on a basic cable plan - I guess they figure the transmission infrastructure is free?
This doesn't let Cablevision and their ilk off the hook for crap service and the general raping of customers (Verizon, Dish, DTV too).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397166</id>
	<title>Haha</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1267981260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
ABC stuck it to Cablevision.  I hope someone can summarize the terms of the contract.
</p><p>
HBR should do case study on this.
</p><p>
This is hilarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ABC stuck it to Cablevision .
I hope someone can summarize the terms of the contract .
HBR should do case study on this .
This is hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
ABC stuck it to Cablevision.
I hope someone can summarize the terms of the contract.
HBR should do case study on this.
This is hilarious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392342</id>
	<title>Bundle is MIUCH better than a la carte</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267991100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a la carte TV , only what brings money in will get produced. Risky stuff or stuff with an audience too small to be rentable will not even get touched at all. At least with bundle you have a slight chance that the network takes a bit of risk for the off chance of a good pay. With a la carte this most probably disappear completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a la carte TV , only what brings money in will get produced .
Risky stuff or stuff with an audience too small to be rentable will not even get touched at all .
At least with bundle you have a slight chance that the network takes a bit of risk for the off chance of a good pay .
With a la carte this most probably disappear completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a la carte TV , only what brings money in will get produced.
Risky stuff or stuff with an audience too small to be rentable will not even get touched at all.
At least with bundle you have a slight chance that the network takes a bit of risk for the off chance of a good pay.
With a la carte this most probably disappear completely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392756</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1267993740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's some corrections to some factual errors/omissions.  I am not even remotely speaking in an official capacity and I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I do have more insight on the topic that the original poster.</p><p>1) Some channels cost, some are free/almost free, some pay.  The problem is, you can see the total net cost used to be vaguely low/zero because it sort of balances out, kind of.  But that's an unstable situation.  A 10\% increase on one channel, could result in a total net cost change of like 20\%.  So the claws really come out in the battle.  In an internet era, how well do you think television shopping channels are doing?  Hence some inbalance leading to chaos.  Essentially pay TV is collapsing such that the only successful channels (sports and news) happen to be channels that historically were expensive.</p><p>2) Everything you see on commercial/mainstream media TV comes from about a half dozen corps.  You can play games with percentage cutoffs vs number of providers, but "most TV comes from about 6 major corporations" is more or less correct.  So there is no financial reason to have more or less than about a half dozen bundles.  Bundle size/design is a purely marketing driven confuse-opoly situation, like the cellphone business or whatever.  A bundle sends a certain bucket of cash to the Disney empire, and the cableco really doesn't care what fraction of that bucket disney earmarks for ABC vs disney channel vs whatever.</p><p>3) Its a zero sum game, to some extent.  The providers already know that most subscribers only watch about 3 channels and budget their charges accordingly.  On average this works pretty well, since almost everything on TV comes from only a couple multinational corps.  So, you can pay the big media corps $75 for 300 channels of which you only watch 3, or you can pay $25/each to only get the three channels you watch.  Either way the big media corp total revenue will be unchanged.  You're better off with 297 channels available that you MIGHT watch in the future, plus people whom watch more than 3 channels would be really screwed with ala carte.</p><p>4) This ties in with #3.  If a cableco caves into espn or abc, the problem is not that they've lost ONE battle with one channel.  It means they've got to fight perhaps 50 smaller channels to make up the money somewhere else.  Hence the claws come out.  From the cableco perspective, the job isn't to win a battle with one channel, but not to start a war with numerous little channels.  Worst case scenario, since some cablecos are owned partially or in part by content providers, is alliance type activity creating a TV WWI scenario where everyone sues everyone and no one wins or survives but the lawyers.  Its a lot easier to fight one big channel to the death, than fifty little channels.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>they have to provide content people want to watch</p></div><p>5) Ha Ha very funny dude.  Actually, they have to sell eyeballs to advertisers.  If all they had to do was provide highly desired content, we'd have about 500 channels of pr0n.  But in psuedo-christian america, advertisers would get boycotted for advertising on pr0n.  Hence, other than ppv, theres not much pr0n on tv.  No one boycotts advertisers on violent shows, hence we're supersaturated with violent TV.</p><p>6) Some of it is a pure marketing PR stunt.  As a rounded down percentage of the total country population, no one thinks of or watches ABC.  But at least today, they got some PR.  And theres no such thing as bad PR.  Cableco costs go up because of the price of gas, insurance, etc, just like any other business, but this is a very public way of showing an attempt at limiting cost increases, even if its not the real cause of rate increases.  Therefore, "Kabuki Theatre" time, and once enough PR interest is generated, we can go back to business as usual.  I'd give it a couple days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's some corrections to some factual errors/omissions .
I am not even remotely speaking in an official capacity and I do n't have a dog in this particular fight , but I do have more insight on the topic that the original poster.1 ) Some channels cost , some are free/almost free , some pay .
The problem is , you can see the total net cost used to be vaguely low/zero because it sort of balances out , kind of .
But that 's an unstable situation .
A 10 \ % increase on one channel , could result in a total net cost change of like 20 \ % .
So the claws really come out in the battle .
In an internet era , how well do you think television shopping channels are doing ?
Hence some inbalance leading to chaos .
Essentially pay TV is collapsing such that the only successful channels ( sports and news ) happen to be channels that historically were expensive.2 ) Everything you see on commercial/mainstream media TV comes from about a half dozen corps .
You can play games with percentage cutoffs vs number of providers , but " most TV comes from about 6 major corporations " is more or less correct .
So there is no financial reason to have more or less than about a half dozen bundles .
Bundle size/design is a purely marketing driven confuse-opoly situation , like the cellphone business or whatever .
A bundle sends a certain bucket of cash to the Disney empire , and the cableco really does n't care what fraction of that bucket disney earmarks for ABC vs disney channel vs whatever.3 ) Its a zero sum game , to some extent .
The providers already know that most subscribers only watch about 3 channels and budget their charges accordingly .
On average this works pretty well , since almost everything on TV comes from only a couple multinational corps .
So , you can pay the big media corps $ 75 for 300 channels of which you only watch 3 , or you can pay $ 25/each to only get the three channels you watch .
Either way the big media corp total revenue will be unchanged .
You 're better off with 297 channels available that you MIGHT watch in the future , plus people whom watch more than 3 channels would be really screwed with ala carte.4 ) This ties in with # 3 .
If a cableco caves into espn or abc , the problem is not that they 've lost ONE battle with one channel .
It means they 've got to fight perhaps 50 smaller channels to make up the money somewhere else .
Hence the claws come out .
From the cableco perspective , the job is n't to win a battle with one channel , but not to start a war with numerous little channels .
Worst case scenario , since some cablecos are owned partially or in part by content providers , is alliance type activity creating a TV WWI scenario where everyone sues everyone and no one wins or survives but the lawyers .
Its a lot easier to fight one big channel to the death , than fifty little channels.they have to provide content people want to watch5 ) Ha Ha very funny dude .
Actually , they have to sell eyeballs to advertisers .
If all they had to do was provide highly desired content , we 'd have about 500 channels of pr0n .
But in psuedo-christian america , advertisers would get boycotted for advertising on pr0n .
Hence , other than ppv , theres not much pr0n on tv .
No one boycotts advertisers on violent shows , hence we 're supersaturated with violent TV.6 ) Some of it is a pure marketing PR stunt .
As a rounded down percentage of the total country population , no one thinks of or watches ABC .
But at least today , they got some PR .
And theres no such thing as bad PR .
Cableco costs go up because of the price of gas , insurance , etc , just like any other business , but this is a very public way of showing an attempt at limiting cost increases , even if its not the real cause of rate increases .
Therefore , " Kabuki Theatre " time , and once enough PR interest is generated , we can go back to business as usual .
I 'd give it a couple days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's some corrections to some factual errors/omissions.
I am not even remotely speaking in an official capacity and I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I do have more insight on the topic that the original poster.1) Some channels cost, some are free/almost free, some pay.
The problem is, you can see the total net cost used to be vaguely low/zero because it sort of balances out, kind of.
But that's an unstable situation.
A 10\% increase on one channel, could result in a total net cost change of like 20\%.
So the claws really come out in the battle.
In an internet era, how well do you think television shopping channels are doing?
Hence some inbalance leading to chaos.
Essentially pay TV is collapsing such that the only successful channels (sports and news) happen to be channels that historically were expensive.2) Everything you see on commercial/mainstream media TV comes from about a half dozen corps.
You can play games with percentage cutoffs vs number of providers, but "most TV comes from about 6 major corporations" is more or less correct.
So there is no financial reason to have more or less than about a half dozen bundles.
Bundle size/design is a purely marketing driven confuse-opoly situation, like the cellphone business or whatever.
A bundle sends a certain bucket of cash to the Disney empire, and the cableco really doesn't care what fraction of that bucket disney earmarks for ABC vs disney channel vs whatever.3) Its a zero sum game, to some extent.
The providers already know that most subscribers only watch about 3 channels and budget their charges accordingly.
On average this works pretty well, since almost everything on TV comes from only a couple multinational corps.
So, you can pay the big media corps $75 for 300 channels of which you only watch 3, or you can pay $25/each to only get the three channels you watch.
Either way the big media corp total revenue will be unchanged.
You're better off with 297 channels available that you MIGHT watch in the future, plus people whom watch more than 3 channels would be really screwed with ala carte.4) This ties in with #3.
If a cableco caves into espn or abc, the problem is not that they've lost ONE battle with one channel.
It means they've got to fight perhaps 50 smaller channels to make up the money somewhere else.
Hence the claws come out.
From the cableco perspective, the job isn't to win a battle with one channel, but not to start a war with numerous little channels.
Worst case scenario, since some cablecos are owned partially or in part by content providers, is alliance type activity creating a TV WWI scenario where everyone sues everyone and no one wins or survives but the lawyers.
Its a lot easier to fight one big channel to the death, than fifty little channels.they have to provide content people want to watch5) Ha Ha very funny dude.
Actually, they have to sell eyeballs to advertisers.
If all they had to do was provide highly desired content, we'd have about 500 channels of pr0n.
But in psuedo-christian america, advertisers would get boycotted for advertising on pr0n.
Hence, other than ppv, theres not much pr0n on tv.
No one boycotts advertisers on violent shows, hence we're supersaturated with violent TV.6) Some of it is a pure marketing PR stunt.
As a rounded down percentage of the total country population, no one thinks of or watches ABC.
But at least today, they got some PR.
And theres no such thing as bad PR.
Cableco costs go up because of the price of gas, insurance, etc, just like any other business, but this is a very public way of showing an attempt at limiting cost increases, even if its not the real cause of rate increases.
Therefore, "Kabuki Theatre" time, and once enough PR interest is generated, we can go back to business as usual.
I'd give it a couple days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31403358</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, just two words... last mil</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I suspect that you would not like the price of this system.</i></p><p>If I could choose my channels a la carte, I would indeed like it. I have over 100 channels, and aside from the free broadcasted local channels there are maybe a half dozen I actually watch. I'm not into sports, and at any rate if I do want to watch a sporting event I'll do it in a bar. If I want a movie I'll rent it, and not have it heavily censored and not have to see the stupid network logos in the bottom right of the screen.</p><p>I've seen too many good movies butchered by the networks to want to watch anything with a higher rating than PG on television. That leaves the Discover Channely (which lately has become mostly crap aside from Mythbusters), the History Channel, CNN, and... um... Comedy central for South Park. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that you would not like the price of this system.If I could choose my channels a la carte , I would indeed like it .
I have over 100 channels , and aside from the free broadcasted local channels there are maybe a half dozen I actually watch .
I 'm not into sports , and at any rate if I do want to watch a sporting event I 'll do it in a bar .
If I want a movie I 'll rent it , and not have it heavily censored and not have to see the stupid network logos in the bottom right of the screen.I 've seen too many good movies butchered by the networks to want to watch anything with a higher rating than PG on television .
That leaves the Discover Channely ( which lately has become mostly crap aside from Mythbusters ) , the History Channel , CNN , and... um... Comedy central for South Park .
I ca n't think of anything else off the top of my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that you would not like the price of this system.If I could choose my channels a la carte, I would indeed like it.
I have over 100 channels, and aside from the free broadcasted local channels there are maybe a half dozen I actually watch.
I'm not into sports, and at any rate if I do want to watch a sporting event I'll do it in a bar.
If I want a movie I'll rent it, and not have it heavily censored and not have to see the stupid network logos in the bottom right of the screen.I've seen too many good movies butchered by the networks to want to watch anything with a higher rating than PG on television.
That leaves the Discover Channely (which lately has become mostly crap aside from Mythbusters), the History Channel, CNN, and... um... Comedy central for South Park.
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31400742</id>
	<title>ABC Pulls Channels From Cablevision</title>
	<author>fatbuckel</author>
	<datestamp>1268064720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess that whole deregulating thing went pretty well for you....next time...vote.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that whole deregulating thing went pretty well for you....next time...vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that whole deregulating thing went pretty well for you....next time...vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392110</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pay for the lowest basic analog cable.  I watch at most 3 channels, perhaps 5 hours a week. But id rather not go to a pay per view, or id not watch anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay for the lowest basic analog cable .
I watch at most 3 channels , perhaps 5 hours a week .
But id rather not go to a pay per view , or id not watch anything : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay for the lowest basic analog cable.
I watch at most 3 channels, perhaps 5 hours a week.
But id rather not go to a pay per view, or id not watch anything :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392536</id>
	<title>I've said it before, just two words... last mile</title>
	<author>zappepcs</author>
	<datestamp>1267992300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole thing is ridiculous. At face value and and in the deeper business meanings. Stupid, pure and simple stupid. It's 800lbs of stupid.</p><p>This should be avoided, and can be avoided if the last mile is not owned by the content provider. The last mile is community infrastructure that is paid for by subscribers, and should be owned by them. Yes, it seemed easier to outsource this laborious task to someone with a vested interest, but in the end it is not. All those Cablevision subscribers should be able to call customer support and have their content service provision switched while they are on the phone. They should be able to demand a la carte pricing too.</p><p>Instead we continue to allow the last mile community infrastructure to be owned and operated by those who fix the price of using the service. No, what I suggest is not the perfect answer, but it puts the ownership and decision making in the hands of the local community, not hot-headed corporate officers whose interest is bottom line dollars. When the infrastructure is owned by the community, and each 'service provider' is tied to the network, subscribers can choose who they want, not suffer until a new provider is in their neighborhood. As it is, we pay for multiple half assed last mile networks instead of paying for one damn good last mile network. We are charged stupid fees to use those half ass networks, and are at the mercy of 'service providers' marketing groups as to what bundles we have to purchase to watch the few channels we do like.</p><p>This community owned infrastructure would appear to give ABC an upper hand, but it does not. When I'm allowed to choose who I want to pay for service, and choose what channels I don't want to watch, the financing will do an amazing free market thing: kill off content that nobody wants to watch, lower the price of content that people do want to watch, and redirect monies to making content that is worth watching. ABC is going to have this coverage of the Oscars. Why do I have to pay for ABC crap content 24/7/365 to watch it? Why can't I use the pay per view options?</p><p>Television has been made an integral part of American society, and I think it's a sad reflection on that society that it is controlled by so few people, that so little choice is given to the same consumers that have to choose from 400+ options to buy a pair of running shoes. Personally, I think anti-trust laws were created with the intent of stopping this kind of thing. Screw ABC and screw Cablevision, and all their equals. Senator? Congresswoman? if you're listening, I'm holding YOU accountable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole thing is ridiculous .
At face value and and in the deeper business meanings .
Stupid , pure and simple stupid .
It 's 800lbs of stupid.This should be avoided , and can be avoided if the last mile is not owned by the content provider .
The last mile is community infrastructure that is paid for by subscribers , and should be owned by them .
Yes , it seemed easier to outsource this laborious task to someone with a vested interest , but in the end it is not .
All those Cablevision subscribers should be able to call customer support and have their content service provision switched while they are on the phone .
They should be able to demand a la carte pricing too.Instead we continue to allow the last mile community infrastructure to be owned and operated by those who fix the price of using the service .
No , what I suggest is not the perfect answer , but it puts the ownership and decision making in the hands of the local community , not hot-headed corporate officers whose interest is bottom line dollars .
When the infrastructure is owned by the community , and each 'service provider ' is tied to the network , subscribers can choose who they want , not suffer until a new provider is in their neighborhood .
As it is , we pay for multiple half assed last mile networks instead of paying for one damn good last mile network .
We are charged stupid fees to use those half ass networks , and are at the mercy of 'service providers ' marketing groups as to what bundles we have to purchase to watch the few channels we do like.This community owned infrastructure would appear to give ABC an upper hand , but it does not .
When I 'm allowed to choose who I want to pay for service , and choose what channels I do n't want to watch , the financing will do an amazing free market thing : kill off content that nobody wants to watch , lower the price of content that people do want to watch , and redirect monies to making content that is worth watching .
ABC is going to have this coverage of the Oscars .
Why do I have to pay for ABC crap content 24/7/365 to watch it ?
Why ca n't I use the pay per view options ? Television has been made an integral part of American society , and I think it 's a sad reflection on that society that it is controlled by so few people , that so little choice is given to the same consumers that have to choose from 400 + options to buy a pair of running shoes .
Personally , I think anti-trust laws were created with the intent of stopping this kind of thing .
Screw ABC and screw Cablevision , and all their equals .
Senator ? Congresswoman ?
if you 're listening , I 'm holding YOU accountable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole thing is ridiculous.
At face value and and in the deeper business meanings.
Stupid, pure and simple stupid.
It's 800lbs of stupid.This should be avoided, and can be avoided if the last mile is not owned by the content provider.
The last mile is community infrastructure that is paid for by subscribers, and should be owned by them.
Yes, it seemed easier to outsource this laborious task to someone with a vested interest, but in the end it is not.
All those Cablevision subscribers should be able to call customer support and have their content service provision switched while they are on the phone.
They should be able to demand a la carte pricing too.Instead we continue to allow the last mile community infrastructure to be owned and operated by those who fix the price of using the service.
No, what I suggest is not the perfect answer, but it puts the ownership and decision making in the hands of the local community, not hot-headed corporate officers whose interest is bottom line dollars.
When the infrastructure is owned by the community, and each 'service provider' is tied to the network, subscribers can choose who they want, not suffer until a new provider is in their neighborhood.
As it is, we pay for multiple half assed last mile networks instead of paying for one damn good last mile network.
We are charged stupid fees to use those half ass networks, and are at the mercy of 'service providers' marketing groups as to what bundles we have to purchase to watch the few channels we do like.This community owned infrastructure would appear to give ABC an upper hand, but it does not.
When I'm allowed to choose who I want to pay for service, and choose what channels I don't want to watch, the financing will do an amazing free market thing: kill off content that nobody wants to watch, lower the price of content that people do want to watch, and redirect monies to making content that is worth watching.
ABC is going to have this coverage of the Oscars.
Why do I have to pay for ABC crap content 24/7/365 to watch it?
Why can't I use the pay per view options?Television has been made an integral part of American society, and I think it's a sad reflection on that society that it is controlled by so few people, that so little choice is given to the same consumers that have to choose from 400+ options to buy a pair of running shoes.
Personally, I think anti-trust laws were created with the intent of stopping this kind of thing.
Screw ABC and screw Cablevision, and all their equals.
Senator? Congresswoman?
if you're listening, I'm holding YOU accountable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392482</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267991820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to have a radio that supports it. Only one radio supports it. This explains the low adoption rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to have a radio that supports it .
Only one radio supports it .
This explains the low adoption rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to have a radio that supports it.
Only one radio supports it.
This explains the low adoption rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31403658</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268078520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>OK, so now Jesse Jackson gets in some Congresscritter's face and demands that the discrimination against BET cease. </i></p><p>Considering that roughly 15\% of the population is of African descent, that's a large enough demographic to keep it on the air.</p><p>BET's only problem is its terrible programming; I saw <i>Diary of a Mad Black Woman</i> on DVDn and it was hilarious. I saw it (or watched until I changed the channel in disgust) on BET, and they even blurred out the joit that was being smoked, censored out the words "crack whore", etc. All the non-premium channels that show movies are bad about this any more, but that was the worse clusterfuckization of any movie I've seen since <i>The Holy Grail</i> (after ABC aired that, the guys in Monty Python said it would never be shown again unless the contract said it was to be uncut and uninterrupted; what thay did to that movie was offensive).</p><p><i>The Catholic Church sends a few letters and a priest or two about EWTN being discriminated against and how this lack of diversity is affecting people.</i></p><p>Again, EWTN has a large enough demographic; there are a lot of Catholics. At any rate, IINM it's shown over the air here, what's the problem?</p><p><i>How many people will actually pay for Spike when they have to make an individual choice? Better put, how many married men will be able to convince their wives that Spike (with Manswers) is a good thing to spend money on? </i></p><p>I'm single and I don't watch that dreck. Why should I pay for programming I have no interest in at all?</p><p><i>I suspect SyFry will go the same way - some people pay, just not enough.</i></p><p>There's another one I don't watch. As a science fiction loving nerd I think SyFi is an embarrasment. Especially since they chynghed their nyme.</p><p><i>What made the Golf Channel possible was selling it to the cable and satellite companies, not selling it to individual subscribers.</i></p><p>Another useless piece of shit channel. The reason we have all these worthless shitty channels is so the cable companies can brag about how many channels you get. I loved cable when it first came out -- maybe a dozen channels (and Discovery was about science and engineering back then, not "truck my trick" and "worlds most disgusting worplaces"), all of them good, with movies not censored like now, no stupid logos on the screen like now, and it only cost ten bucks a month.</p><p>Give me the channels I had in 1980, charge me fifteen bucks and I'll be happy.</p><p><i>Just the threat of the discrimination lawsuits would be a serious obstacle.</i></p><p>So why aren't there lawsuits and rioting about the lack of Asian channels?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so now Jesse Jackson gets in some Congresscritter 's face and demands that the discrimination against BET cease .
Considering that roughly 15 \ % of the population is of African descent , that 's a large enough demographic to keep it on the air.BET 's only problem is its terrible programming ; I saw Diary of a Mad Black Woman on DVDn and it was hilarious .
I saw it ( or watched until I changed the channel in disgust ) on BET , and they even blurred out the joit that was being smoked , censored out the words " crack whore " , etc .
All the non-premium channels that show movies are bad about this any more , but that was the worse clusterfuckization of any movie I 've seen since The Holy Grail ( after ABC aired that , the guys in Monty Python said it would never be shown again unless the contract said it was to be uncut and uninterrupted ; what thay did to that movie was offensive ) .The Catholic Church sends a few letters and a priest or two about EWTN being discriminated against and how this lack of diversity is affecting people.Again , EWTN has a large enough demographic ; there are a lot of Catholics .
At any rate , IINM it 's shown over the air here , what 's the problem ? How many people will actually pay for Spike when they have to make an individual choice ?
Better put , how many married men will be able to convince their wives that Spike ( with Manswers ) is a good thing to spend money on ?
I 'm single and I do n't watch that dreck .
Why should I pay for programming I have no interest in at all ? I suspect SyFry will go the same way - some people pay , just not enough.There 's another one I do n't watch .
As a science fiction loving nerd I think SyFi is an embarrasment .
Especially since they chynghed their nyme.What made the Golf Channel possible was selling it to the cable and satellite companies , not selling it to individual subscribers.Another useless piece of shit channel .
The reason we have all these worthless shitty channels is so the cable companies can brag about how many channels you get .
I loved cable when it first came out -- maybe a dozen channels ( and Discovery was about science and engineering back then , not " truck my trick " and " worlds most disgusting worplaces " ) , all of them good , with movies not censored like now , no stupid logos on the screen like now , and it only cost ten bucks a month.Give me the channels I had in 1980 , charge me fifteen bucks and I 'll be happy.Just the threat of the discrimination lawsuits would be a serious obstacle.So why are n't there lawsuits and rioting about the lack of Asian channels ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so now Jesse Jackson gets in some Congresscritter's face and demands that the discrimination against BET cease.
Considering that roughly 15\% of the population is of African descent, that's a large enough demographic to keep it on the air.BET's only problem is its terrible programming; I saw Diary of a Mad Black Woman on DVDn and it was hilarious.
I saw it (or watched until I changed the channel in disgust) on BET, and they even blurred out the joit that was being smoked, censored out the words "crack whore", etc.
All the non-premium channels that show movies are bad about this any more, but that was the worse clusterfuckization of any movie I've seen since The Holy Grail (after ABC aired that, the guys in Monty Python said it would never be shown again unless the contract said it was to be uncut and uninterrupted; what thay did to that movie was offensive).The Catholic Church sends a few letters and a priest or two about EWTN being discriminated against and how this lack of diversity is affecting people.Again, EWTN has a large enough demographic; there are a lot of Catholics.
At any rate, IINM it's shown over the air here, what's the problem?How many people will actually pay for Spike when they have to make an individual choice?
Better put, how many married men will be able to convince their wives that Spike (with Manswers) is a good thing to spend money on?
I'm single and I don't watch that dreck.
Why should I pay for programming I have no interest in at all?I suspect SyFry will go the same way - some people pay, just not enough.There's another one I don't watch.
As a science fiction loving nerd I think SyFi is an embarrasment.
Especially since they chynghed their nyme.What made the Golf Channel possible was selling it to the cable and satellite companies, not selling it to individual subscribers.Another useless piece of shit channel.
The reason we have all these worthless shitty channels is so the cable companies can brag about how many channels you get.
I loved cable when it first came out -- maybe a dozen channels (and Discovery was about science and engineering back then, not "truck my trick" and "worlds most disgusting worplaces"), all of them good, with movies not censored like now, no stupid logos on the screen like now, and it only cost ten bucks a month.Give me the channels I had in 1980, charge me fifteen bucks and I'll be happy.Just the threat of the discrimination lawsuits would be a serious obstacle.So why aren't there lawsuits and rioting about the lack of Asian channels?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394624</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1267962300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't affect me. Even if it did, Lost--the only good show on ABC even though the quality is slipping this season--is all over Usenet minutes after it airs. The days of the robber baron media are long gone and frankly I don't give a shit which giant corporation "wins."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't affect me .
Even if it did , Lost--the only good show on ABC even though the quality is slipping this season--is all over Usenet minutes after it airs .
The days of the robber baron media are long gone and frankly I do n't give a shit which giant corporation " wins .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't affect me.
Even if it did, Lost--the only good show on ABC even though the quality is slipping this season--is all over Usenet minutes after it airs.
The days of the robber baron media are long gone and frankly I don't give a shit which giant corporation "wins.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393760</id>
	<title>Re:wow.. i dont believe it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's lots of fun to watch if you have money riding on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's lots of fun to watch if you have money riding on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's lots of fun to watch if you have money riding on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396966</id>
	<title>Re:"pocketing $8 billion last year"</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1267979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ABC employs reporters and Cablevision doesn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ABC employs reporters and Cablevision does n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ABC employs reporters and Cablevision doesn't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31408368</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>tylernt</author>
	<datestamp>1268056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The end result is there are maybe 20 cable channels left.</p></div> </blockquote><p>You say this like it's a bad thing. If a channel can't make it on it's own, it doesn't deserve to survive The market has spoken. That's capitalism.</p><p>Propping stuff up artificially is an indication you're doing it wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The end result is there are maybe 20 cable channels left .
You say this like it 's a bad thing .
If a channel ca n't make it on it 's own , it does n't deserve to survive The market has spoken .
That 's capitalism.Propping stuff up artificially is an indication you 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end result is there are maybe 20 cable channels left.
You say this like it's a bad thing.
If a channel can't make it on it's own, it doesn't deserve to survive The market has spoken.
That's capitalism.Propping stuff up artificially is an indication you're doing it wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392666</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically, Scifi, discovery, and any other expensive but not immediately profitable channels should all die?</p><p>As much as I hate paying for things I dont use, the stuff I do enjoy would never get enough funding to continue if everyone else didnt do the same thing. If everyone switched to a la carte, we'd just end up with a bunch of reality tv because nothing else can turn enough profit on so little of an investment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically , Scifi , discovery , and any other expensive but not immediately profitable channels should all die ? As much as I hate paying for things I dont use , the stuff I do enjoy would never get enough funding to continue if everyone else didnt do the same thing .
If everyone switched to a la carte , we 'd just end up with a bunch of reality tv because nothing else can turn enough profit on so little of an investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically, Scifi, discovery, and any other expensive but not immediately profitable channels should all die?As much as I hate paying for things I dont use, the stuff I do enjoy would never get enough funding to continue if everyone else didnt do the same thing.
If everyone switched to a la carte, we'd just end up with a bunch of reality tv because nothing else can turn enough profit on so little of an investment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392008</id>
	<title>Re:Poor ABC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ABC only has to answer to their advertisers. And I assume they must be very pleased with this move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ABC only has to answer to their advertisers .
And I assume they must be very pleased with this move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ABC only has to answer to their advertisers.
And I assume they must be very pleased with this move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392926</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's about price. People don't want to pay $80/mo for 1000 channels if they're only ever gonna watch 10."</p><p>People assume a la carte equals low price.  But if it ever happens you will pay almost the same for those 10 channels as you do for those 1000.  So most people will choose the bundle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's about price .
People do n't want to pay $ 80/mo for 1000 channels if they 're only ever gon na watch 10 .
" People assume a la carte equals low price .
But if it ever happens you will pay almost the same for those 10 channels as you do for those 1000 .
So most people will choose the bundle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's about price.
People don't want to pay $80/mo for 1000 channels if they're only ever gonna watch 10.
"People assume a la carte equals low price.
But if it ever happens you will pay almost the same for those 10 channels as you do for those 1000.
So most people will choose the bundle...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392876</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>dirk</author>
	<datestamp>1267994460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a great idea if you REALLY want to devolve into total crap.  Everyone (especially geeks) like to complain about all of the crap on their TV.  There are too many crappy reality shows and not enough good content.  If TV went al la carte, this would truly be the case.  The reason most of the smaller niche channels, the ones that have the good original intelligent programming, can survive are because of bundling.  It is, unfortunately, also the reason there are 7 ESPN channels and 12 religious networks, but I will put up with them to have the good content.  Channels like G4, the Science channel, the National Geographic channel, the lesser music channels that still show music such as VH1 classic and Palladium, the History channel, and Ovation wouldn't be able to exist without bundling.  Instead, all that would be left is lowest common denominator TV like MTV and E.  We would lose probably half the channels, but int hat half would be the ones that are willing to take a chance and show interesting niche programing instead of showing reruns of American Idol and the Real World.</p><p>I will happily keep paying for bundles to make sure there is actually something I want to watch available on my cable system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great idea if you REALLY want to devolve into total crap .
Everyone ( especially geeks ) like to complain about all of the crap on their TV .
There are too many crappy reality shows and not enough good content .
If TV went al la carte , this would truly be the case .
The reason most of the smaller niche channels , the ones that have the good original intelligent programming , can survive are because of bundling .
It is , unfortunately , also the reason there are 7 ESPN channels and 12 religious networks , but I will put up with them to have the good content .
Channels like G4 , the Science channel , the National Geographic channel , the lesser music channels that still show music such as VH1 classic and Palladium , the History channel , and Ovation would n't be able to exist without bundling .
Instead , all that would be left is lowest common denominator TV like MTV and E. We would lose probably half the channels , but int hat half would be the ones that are willing to take a chance and show interesting niche programing instead of showing reruns of American Idol and the Real World.I will happily keep paying for bundles to make sure there is actually something I want to watch available on my cable system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great idea if you REALLY want to devolve into total crap.
Everyone (especially geeks) like to complain about all of the crap on their TV.
There are too many crappy reality shows and not enough good content.
If TV went al la carte, this would truly be the case.
The reason most of the smaller niche channels, the ones that have the good original intelligent programming, can survive are because of bundling.
It is, unfortunately, also the reason there are 7 ESPN channels and 12 religious networks, but I will put up with them to have the good content.
Channels like G4, the Science channel, the National Geographic channel, the lesser music channels that still show music such as VH1 classic and Palladium, the History channel, and Ovation wouldn't be able to exist without bundling.
Instead, all that would be left is lowest common denominator TV like MTV and E.  We would lose probably half the channels, but int hat half would be the ones that are willing to take a chance and show interesting niche programing instead of showing reruns of American Idol and the Real World.I will happily keep paying for bundles to make sure there is actually something I want to watch available on my cable system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395028</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267965420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm does anyone remember when Television was supported by ADVERTISING and it was FREE and there were no associated fees?</p><p>I mean.. hmmm  how to wrap my head around this...  hmmmm   well, when they get a Cable audience, don't the associated ad revenues skyrocket as well?</p><p>Soooo</p><p>WHY THE FUCK DO WE PAY FOR CABLE TV WITH COMMERCIALS!!!</p><p>If it has commercials, fuck you, provide it free.</p><p>If it does not, then fine, I MAY subscribe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm does anyone remember when Television was supported by ADVERTISING and it was FREE and there were no associated fees ? I mean.. hmmm how to wrap my head around this... hmmmm well , when they get a Cable audience , do n't the associated ad revenues skyrocket as well ? SooooWHY THE FUCK DO WE PAY FOR CABLE TV WITH COMMERCIALS ! !
! If it has commercials , fuck you , provide it free.If it does not , then fine , I MAY subscribe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm does anyone remember when Television was supported by ADVERTISING and it was FREE and there were no associated fees?I mean.. hmmm  how to wrap my head around this...  hmmmm   well, when they get a Cable audience, don't the associated ad revenues skyrocket as well?SooooWHY THE FUCK DO WE PAY FOR CABLE TV WITH COMMERCIALS!!
!If it has commercials, fuck you, provide it free.If it does not, then fine, I MAY subscribe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</id>
	<title>To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sirius Satellite Radio rolled out an A La Carte program in 2008 (under pressure from the government), and the number of subscribers that have chosen it is tiny.* Really really tiny. Mel Karmazin grits his teeth every time it's mentioned to him, the high cost it took to implement it and the tiny subscriber adoption.
<br> <br>
So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels, for both radio and TV. I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.
<br> <br>
*I will say, Sirius does not exactly go out of its way to promote the A La Carte offering. But it does exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sirius Satellite Radio rolled out an A La Carte program in 2008 ( under pressure from the government ) , and the number of subscribers that have chosen it is tiny .
* Really really tiny .
Mel Karmazin grits his teeth every time it 's mentioned to him , the high cost it took to implement it and the tiny subscriber adoption .
So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels , for both radio and TV .
I 'd say it 's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming .
* I will say , Sirius does not exactly go out of its way to promote the A La Carte offering .
But it does exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sirius Satellite Radio rolled out an A La Carte program in 2008 (under pressure from the government), and the number of subscribers that have chosen it is tiny.
* Really really tiny.
Mel Karmazin grits his teeth every time it's mentioned to him, the high cost it took to implement it and the tiny subscriber adoption.
So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels, for both radio and TV.
I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.
*I will say, Sirius does not exactly go out of its way to promote the A La Carte offering.
But it does exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396510</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, just two words... last mil</title>
	<author>PhilipPeake</author>
	<datestamp>1267975620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are making a lot of assumptions about how the content gets delivered.<br>Historically, and still true for the majority of content it is not delivered on a "channel" specific to the subscriber.<br>Its essentially "broadcast" over the cable network, and subscribers tap into the broadcast.</p><p>There is no way an individual subscriber can change the service provider on this sort of network.</p><p>As systems move to digital delivery it becomes feasible, but requires much more investment than simply the physical cable/fiber network.<br>To do what you describe would require an "exchange" which would receive content from all supported providers, and a means ot switching incoming streams to individual subscribers.</p><p>I suspect that you would not like the price of this system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are making a lot of assumptions about how the content gets delivered.Historically , and still true for the majority of content it is not delivered on a " channel " specific to the subscriber.Its essentially " broadcast " over the cable network , and subscribers tap into the broadcast.There is no way an individual subscriber can change the service provider on this sort of network.As systems move to digital delivery it becomes feasible , but requires much more investment than simply the physical cable/fiber network.To do what you describe would require an " exchange " which would receive content from all supported providers , and a means ot switching incoming streams to individual subscribers.I suspect that you would not like the price of this system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are making a lot of assumptions about how the content gets delivered.Historically, and still true for the majority of content it is not delivered on a "channel" specific to the subscriber.Its essentially "broadcast" over the cable network, and subscribers tap into the broadcast.There is no way an individual subscriber can change the service provider on this sort of network.As systems move to digital delivery it becomes feasible, but requires much more investment than simply the physical cable/fiber network.To do what you describe would require an "exchange" which would receive content from all supported providers, and a means ot switching incoming streams to individual subscribers.I suspect that you would not like the price of this system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392468</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>RoFLKOPTr</author>
	<datestamp>1267991760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels, for both radio and TV. I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.</p></div><p>The push for a la carte isn't about flipping through a zillion channels. It's about price. People don't want to pay $80/mo for 1000 channels if they're only ever gonna watch 10. Sirius costs $10/mo.... to perhaps reduce that to $8/mo isn't even worth the hassle of going through and choosing all the Rock and Jazz channels and never being able to listen to Reggae if you're in a tropical mood.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels , for both radio and TV .
I 'd say it 's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.The push for a la carte is n't about flipping through a zillion channels .
It 's about price .
People do n't want to pay $ 80/mo for 1000 channels if they 're only ever gon na watch 10 .
Sirius costs $ 10/mo.... to perhaps reduce that to $ 8/mo is n't even worth the hassle of going through and choosing all the Rock and Jazz channels and never being able to listen to Reggae if you 're in a tropical mood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels, for both radio and TV.
I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.The push for a la carte isn't about flipping through a zillion channels.
It's about price.
People don't want to pay $80/mo for 1000 channels if they're only ever gonna watch 10.
Sirius costs $10/mo.... to perhaps reduce that to $8/mo isn't even worth the hassle of going through and choosing all the Rock and Jazz channels and never being able to listen to Reggae if you're in a tropical mood.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392010</id>
	<title>The big question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now how do I get NBC dropped from my cable service?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now how do I get NBC dropped from my cable service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now how do I get NBC dropped from my cable service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395476</id>
	<title>And this is why</title>
	<author>The Second Horseman</author>
	<datestamp>1267968840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I use Cablevision for internet connectivity (they're a good internet provider, actually), I don't use them for TV. I use DirecTV. Cablevision where I am in New Jersey won't carry WLIW (PBS) from Long Island, they won't carry BBC America, and they get into these regular pissing matches with the content providers (see the Food Network / HGTV thing a month or two ago).</p><p>If I end up ditching DirecTV, I'd probably use Verizon FIOS because they have BBC America. That'll be cool - Vonage for phone, Verizon for TV and Cablevision for Internet. If you'd told someone 15 years ago they'd be able to do that, they would have thought you were from Bizarro World.</p><p>Cablevision doesn't seem to think that channel selection matters - when they initially refused to carry the YES Network (Yankees) a few years ago when the Yankees ditched off the MSG Network (which Cablevision had a financial interest in), we switched to DirecTV and haven't switched back. Customers will switch to keep something they already had - or if they have to switch, pick the option that allows them to keep their shows. And the channel selection differences from area to area (depending on which cable company bought by Cablevision had the area originally) are just annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I use Cablevision for internet connectivity ( they 're a good internet provider , actually ) , I do n't use them for TV .
I use DirecTV .
Cablevision where I am in New Jersey wo n't carry WLIW ( PBS ) from Long Island , they wo n't carry BBC America , and they get into these regular pissing matches with the content providers ( see the Food Network / HGTV thing a month or two ago ) .If I end up ditching DirecTV , I 'd probably use Verizon FIOS because they have BBC America .
That 'll be cool - Vonage for phone , Verizon for TV and Cablevision for Internet .
If you 'd told someone 15 years ago they 'd be able to do that , they would have thought you were from Bizarro World.Cablevision does n't seem to think that channel selection matters - when they initially refused to carry the YES Network ( Yankees ) a few years ago when the Yankees ditched off the MSG Network ( which Cablevision had a financial interest in ) , we switched to DirecTV and have n't switched back .
Customers will switch to keep something they already had - or if they have to switch , pick the option that allows them to keep their shows .
And the channel selection differences from area to area ( depending on which cable company bought by Cablevision had the area originally ) are just annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I use Cablevision for internet connectivity (they're a good internet provider, actually), I don't use them for TV.
I use DirecTV.
Cablevision where I am in New Jersey won't carry WLIW (PBS) from Long Island, they won't carry BBC America, and they get into these regular pissing matches with the content providers (see the Food Network / HGTV thing a month or two ago).If I end up ditching DirecTV, I'd probably use Verizon FIOS because they have BBC America.
That'll be cool - Vonage for phone, Verizon for TV and Cablevision for Internet.
If you'd told someone 15 years ago they'd be able to do that, they would have thought you were from Bizarro World.Cablevision doesn't seem to think that channel selection matters - when they initially refused to carry the YES Network (Yankees) a few years ago when the Yankees ditched off the MSG Network (which Cablevision had a financial interest in), we switched to DirecTV and haven't switched back.
Customers will switch to keep something they already had - or if they have to switch, pick the option that allows them to keep their shows.
And the channel selection differences from area to area (depending on which cable company bought by Cablevision had the area originally) are just annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392056</id>
	<title>OTH?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I skimmed the article, and the summary seems pretty good.  So, isn't ABC still broadcast over the air?  I didn't see a list of the other ABC channels, but most everything focused on the main ABC one like Lost, Good Morning America, Oscars, etc.</p><p>Also, this seems to be a trend with ESPN and other companies and cable providers having standoffs.  Yes, I'm one of those that got rid of cable and haven't bothered with hooking an antenna to my TV.  Even with a DVR, the commercials and lack of good content just makes watching too much effort (and cost) for the reward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I skimmed the article , and the summary seems pretty good .
So , is n't ABC still broadcast over the air ?
I did n't see a list of the other ABC channels , but most everything focused on the main ABC one like Lost , Good Morning America , Oscars , etc.Also , this seems to be a trend with ESPN and other companies and cable providers having standoffs .
Yes , I 'm one of those that got rid of cable and have n't bothered with hooking an antenna to my TV .
Even with a DVR , the commercials and lack of good content just makes watching too much effort ( and cost ) for the reward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I skimmed the article, and the summary seems pretty good.
So, isn't ABC still broadcast over the air?
I didn't see a list of the other ABC channels, but most everything focused on the main ABC one like Lost, Good Morning America, Oscars, etc.Also, this seems to be a trend with ESPN and other companies and cable providers having standoffs.
Yes, I'm one of those that got rid of cable and haven't bothered with hooking an antenna to my TV.
Even with a DVR, the commercials and lack of good content just makes watching too much effort (and cost) for the reward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393002</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>ragethehotey</author>
	<datestamp>1267995300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Al la carte, please.</p><p>You want to know why your cable bill is so high? This is why. Cable stations (and now network stations) charge cable companies to carry their channels. So they get paid whether you watch their content or not!</p></div><p>This logic has never made any sense to me, since with an a la carte pricing model, only the bullshit that appeals to the lowest common denominator will ever be commercially viable.<br>Do you REALLY want nothing but "Two and a Half Men" and "CSI: Whatfuckingever" all day long?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Al la carte , please.You want to know why your cable bill is so high ?
This is why .
Cable stations ( and now network stations ) charge cable companies to carry their channels .
So they get paid whether you watch their content or not ! This logic has never made any sense to me , since with an a la carte pricing model , only the bullshit that appeals to the lowest common denominator will ever be commercially viable.Do you REALLY want nothing but " Two and a Half Men " and " CSI : Whatfuckingever " all day long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al la carte, please.You want to know why your cable bill is so high?
This is why.
Cable stations (and now network stations) charge cable companies to carry their channels.
So they get paid whether you watch their content or not!This logic has never made any sense to me, since with an a la carte pricing model, only the bullshit that appeals to the lowest common denominator will ever be commercially viable.Do you REALLY want nothing but "Two and a Half Men" and "CSI: Whatfuckingever" all day long?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396898</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but you also have to look at it this way if you choice is pay $80.00/mo for 1000 channels or pay $80.00/mo for your 10 channels which would you choose?  In the long run that is what a la carte would do to cable.  Channels as bundled together because the cost can be shared accross all the channels.  One example in my area is TWC has their sports package.  It has all sports chnls including speed but it also has game show network on there as well?  Now if you like GSN are you going to pay for it all by yourself if no one else in your area wants it?  The packaging keeps the pricing down because otherwise you would only have the main networks left running and do you think if you only choice was ABC, FOX, NBC, ect... that they wouldn't gouge you for all you were worth? For the radio in all honesty I see no need to subscribe to a service for it.  I get it for free and accept the commercial breaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but you also have to look at it this way if you choice is pay $ 80.00/mo for 1000 channels or pay $ 80.00/mo for your 10 channels which would you choose ?
In the long run that is what a la carte would do to cable .
Channels as bundled together because the cost can be shared accross all the channels .
One example in my area is TWC has their sports package .
It has all sports chnls including speed but it also has game show network on there as well ?
Now if you like GSN are you going to pay for it all by yourself if no one else in your area wants it ?
The packaging keeps the pricing down because otherwise you would only have the main networks left running and do you think if you only choice was ABC , FOX , NBC , ect... that they would n't gouge you for all you were worth ?
For the radio in all honesty I see no need to subscribe to a service for it .
I get it for free and accept the commercial breaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but you also have to look at it this way if you choice is pay $80.00/mo for 1000 channels or pay $80.00/mo for your 10 channels which would you choose?
In the long run that is what a la carte would do to cable.
Channels as bundled together because the cost can be shared accross all the channels.
One example in my area is TWC has their sports package.
It has all sports chnls including speed but it also has game show network on there as well?
Now if you like GSN are you going to pay for it all by yourself if no one else in your area wants it?
The packaging keeps the pricing down because otherwise you would only have the main networks left running and do you think if you only choice was ABC, FOX, NBC, ect... that they wouldn't gouge you for all you were worth?
For the radio in all honesty I see no need to subscribe to a service for it.
I get it for free and accept the commercial breaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396132</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>A. Bosch</author>
	<datestamp>1267972860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  Given the lack of competition in this space, by not un-bundling services, are cable companies guilty of unfair trade practices?  Why should I have to buy, for example, a package of movie channels just to get IFC?

IWIWAL
(I wish I were a lawyer)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Given the lack of competition in this space , by not un-bundling services , are cable companies guilty of unfair trade practices ?
Why should I have to buy , for example , a package of movie channels just to get IFC ?
IWIWAL ( I wish I were a lawyer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Given the lack of competition in this space, by not un-bundling services, are cable companies guilty of unfair trade practices?
Why should I have to buy, for example, a package of movie channels just to get IFC?
IWIWAL
(I wish I were a lawyer)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31398872</id>
	<title>Re:wow.. i dont believe it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268047380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well they don't bother showing it on television in the United Kingdom, so it can't be that important. Maybe it is available on some obscure satellite channel. You would have thought the film industry would be keen on publicising itself, but apparently not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well they do n't bother showing it on television in the United Kingdom , so it ca n't be that important .
Maybe it is available on some obscure satellite channel .
You would have thought the film industry would be keen on publicising itself , but apparently not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well they don't bother showing it on television in the United Kingdom, so it can't be that important.
Maybe it is available on some obscure satellite channel.
You would have thought the film industry would be keen on publicising itself, but apparently not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392084</id>
	<title>Can i get a discount now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Good. now Cablevision can discount my bill for losing ABC owner channels, and i can continue to watch ABC shows via ABC's website for free...

Chances of cablevsion actually discounting said bill: none.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good .
now Cablevision can discount my bill for losing ABC owner channels , and i can continue to watch ABC shows via ABC 's website for free.. . Chances of cablevsion actually discounting said bill : none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Good.
now Cablevision can discount my bill for losing ABC owner channels, and i can continue to watch ABC shows via ABC's website for free...

Chances of cablevsion actually discounting said bill: none.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392276</id>
	<title>Cablevision subscribers: The silver spooned set</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1267990740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration, saying they shouldn't be deprived of ABC shows, including the Oscars on Sunday, because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry."
<p>
In other news, according to a new entirely authoritative and conclusive scientific study (i.e. me), Cablevision subscribers have the most unrealistic sense of entitlement of any other pay-for-TV consumers in the entire US.  They also apparently are all billionaire shareholders of Cablevision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration , saying they should n't be deprived of ABC shows , including the Oscars on Sunday , because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry .
" In other news , according to a new entirely authoritative and conclusive scientific study ( i.e .
me ) , Cablevision subscribers have the most unrealistic sense of entitlement of any other pay-for-TV consumers in the entire US .
They also apparently are all billionaire shareholders of Cablevision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration, saying they shouldn't be deprived of ABC shows, including the Oscars on Sunday, because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry.
"

In other news, according to a new entirely authoritative and conclusive scientific study (i.e.
me), Cablevision subscribers have the most unrealistic sense of entitlement of any other pay-for-TV consumers in the entire US.
They also apparently are all billionaire shareholders of Cablevision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394772</id>
	<title>Re:wow.. i dont believe it</title>
	<author>qnetter</author>
	<datestamp>1267963260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do.  Call me back when you've done better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do .
Call me back when you 've done better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do.
Call me back when you've done better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394232</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>TimHunter</author>
	<datestamp>1267960080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4. Netflix</p><p>I have 90+ movies and TV shows in my queue, not counting the streaming queue. I won't run out of DVDs to watch for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
NetflixI have 90 + movies and TV shows in my queue , not counting the streaming queue .
I wo n't run out of DVDs to watch for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
NetflixI have 90+ movies and TV shows in my queue, not counting the streaming queue.
I won't run out of DVDs to watch for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395446</id>
	<title>Their web site</title>
	<author>idontusenumbers</author>
	<datestamp>1267968660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sirius' web site doesn't seem to be working in Safari, but works in FireFox on my Mac.

After inspection, their a la carte package is 50 channels. I don't think they understand what a la carte means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sirius ' web site does n't seem to be working in Safari , but works in FireFox on my Mac .
After inspection , their a la carte package is 50 channels .
I do n't think they understand what a la carte means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sirius' web site doesn't seem to be working in Safari, but works in FireFox on my Mac.
After inspection, their a la carte package is 50 channels.
I don't think they understand what a la carte means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394612</id>
	<title>Why we no longer have Directv</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1267962180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We canceled our Directv a couple years ago when the rates went up.  They simply priced their way out of our home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We canceled our Directv a couple years ago when the rates went up .
They simply priced their way out of our home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We canceled our Directv a couple years ago when the rates went up.
They simply priced their way out of our home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393966</id>
	<title>Re:Poor ABC</title>
	<author>mrclisdue</author>
	<datestamp>1267958520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin.<br>That was right before a big sports event or something too.<br>Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.<br>All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.</p><p>Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.</p></div><p>....Cablevision definitely doesn't have the resources to make their own version of ABC...</p></div><p>So, a big company could never possibly be acquired by a smaller one? And a startup with just *some* money will never be able to compete against a company with more capital.</p><p>You may wish to rethink that particular thought.</p><p>cheers,</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin.That was right before a big sports event or something too.Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.....Cablevision definitely does n't have the resources to make their own version of ABC...So , a big company could never possibly be acquired by a smaller one ?
And a startup with just * some * money will never be able to compete against a company with more capital.You may wish to rethink that particular thought.cheers ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin.That was right before a big sports event or something too.Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.....Cablevision definitely doesn't have the resources to make their own version of ABC...So, a big company could never possibly be acquired by a smaller one?
And a startup with just *some* money will never be able to compete against a company with more capital.You may wish to rethink that particular thought.cheers,
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396566</id>
	<title>They are giving away free ppv to bad it's overload</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267976100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are giving away free ppv to bad it's overload this likely kills there remote dvr.</p><p><a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23913693-Free-on-demand-today" title="dslreports.com">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23913693-Free-on-demand-today</a> [dslreports.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are giving away free ppv to bad it 's overload this likely kills there remote dvr.http : //www.dslreports.com/forum/r23913693-Free-on-demand-today [ dslreports.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are giving away free ppv to bad it's overload this likely kills there remote dvr.http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23913693-Free-on-demand-today [dslreports.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392088</id>
	<title>ABC? What is that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't heard of that website. My favourite is megavideo. They have Lost. Call me when ABC has such good programming, ads-free, for such a convenient cost of 0 dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't heard of that website .
My favourite is megavideo .
They have Lost .
Call me when ABC has such good programming , ads-free , for such a convenient cost of 0 dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't heard of that website.
My favourite is megavideo.
They have Lost.
Call me when ABC has such good programming, ads-free, for such a convenient cost of 0 dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914</id>
	<title>wow.. i dont believe it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People actually watch the oscars?<br>Who wants to watch an entire industry of false people pat themselves on the back for<br>another record breaking year of unoriginality, mediocrity and bullshittery?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People actually watch the oscars ? Who wants to watch an entire industry of false people pat themselves on the back foranother record breaking year of unoriginality , mediocrity and bullshittery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People actually watch the oscars?Who wants to watch an entire industry of false people pat themselves on the back foranother record breaking year of unoriginality, mediocrity and bullshittery?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392900</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>J4</author>
	<datestamp>1267994640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a cablevision subscriber. Your comment exposes the irony of "on demand" programming.<br>If I can get a movie streamed, why not a channel?</p><p>Cablevision has entirely too much influence on downstate NY. If you ever want to see<br>a real turd, get a copy of Newsday, the paper they own. Utter dreck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a cablevision subscriber .
Your comment exposes the irony of " on demand " programming.If I can get a movie streamed , why not a channel ? Cablevision has entirely too much influence on downstate NY .
If you ever want to seea real turd , get a copy of Newsday , the paper they own .
Utter dreck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a cablevision subscriber.
Your comment exposes the irony of "on demand" programming.If I can get a movie streamed, why not a channel?Cablevision has entirely too much influence on downstate NY.
If you ever want to seea real turd, get a copy of Newsday, the paper they own.
Utter dreck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395138</id>
	<title>Re:wow.. i dont believe it</title>
	<author>masonc</author>
	<datestamp>1267966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;People actually watch the oscars?<br>People actually watch TV anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; People actually watch the oscars ? People actually watch TV anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;People actually watch the oscars?People actually watch TV anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392808</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ala carte cable will probably happen - and then be changed in a twisted way never to be seen again.</p><p>The problem is that nobody (and I mean NOBODY) will pay for EWTN.  The majority will not pay for BET.  A few people, but not enough will pay for the Golf Channel.  I don't really see people paying for the Weather Channel either.</p><p>OK, so now Jesse Jackson gets in some Congresscritter's face and demands that the discrimination against BET cease.  So now there is a BET tax.  The Catholic Church sends a few letters and a priest or two about EWTN being discriminated against and how this lack of diversity is affecting people.  So now BET and EWTN are somehow subsidized.</p><p>How many people will actually pay for Spike when they have to make an individual choice?  Better put, how many married men will be able to convince their wives that Spike (with Manswers) is a good thing to spend money on?  Not enough to keep Spike on the air, that's how many.</p><p>I suspect SyFry will go the same way - some people pay, just not enough.  As will be the case with about 75\% of the channel lineup.  It isn't that anyone will make a decision to eliminate these, just that there isn't enough people paying to make it possible to continue to operate.  What made the Golf Channel possible was selling it to the cable and satellite companies, not selling it to individual subscribers.</p><p>The end result is there are maybe 20 cable channels left.  Oh, 22 - I forgot BET and EWTN.  At that point the whole cable TV idea is pretty pointless and developing a new channel is next to impossible - you don't sell the cable management, you have to sell individual subscribers.</p><p>I am sure I am not the only one with this vision.  Just the threat of the discrimination lawsuits would be a serious obstacle.  The market shrinkage is nearly provable and would easily make it next to impossible to get this done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ala carte cable will probably happen - and then be changed in a twisted way never to be seen again.The problem is that nobody ( and I mean NOBODY ) will pay for EWTN .
The majority will not pay for BET .
A few people , but not enough will pay for the Golf Channel .
I do n't really see people paying for the Weather Channel either.OK , so now Jesse Jackson gets in some Congresscritter 's face and demands that the discrimination against BET cease .
So now there is a BET tax .
The Catholic Church sends a few letters and a priest or two about EWTN being discriminated against and how this lack of diversity is affecting people .
So now BET and EWTN are somehow subsidized.How many people will actually pay for Spike when they have to make an individual choice ?
Better put , how many married men will be able to convince their wives that Spike ( with Manswers ) is a good thing to spend money on ?
Not enough to keep Spike on the air , that 's how many.I suspect SyFry will go the same way - some people pay , just not enough .
As will be the case with about 75 \ % of the channel lineup .
It is n't that anyone will make a decision to eliminate these , just that there is n't enough people paying to make it possible to continue to operate .
What made the Golf Channel possible was selling it to the cable and satellite companies , not selling it to individual subscribers.The end result is there are maybe 20 cable channels left .
Oh , 22 - I forgot BET and EWTN .
At that point the whole cable TV idea is pretty pointless and developing a new channel is next to impossible - you do n't sell the cable management , you have to sell individual subscribers.I am sure I am not the only one with this vision .
Just the threat of the discrimination lawsuits would be a serious obstacle .
The market shrinkage is nearly provable and would easily make it next to impossible to get this done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ala carte cable will probably happen - and then be changed in a twisted way never to be seen again.The problem is that nobody (and I mean NOBODY) will pay for EWTN.
The majority will not pay for BET.
A few people, but not enough will pay for the Golf Channel.
I don't really see people paying for the Weather Channel either.OK, so now Jesse Jackson gets in some Congresscritter's face and demands that the discrimination against BET cease.
So now there is a BET tax.
The Catholic Church sends a few letters and a priest or two about EWTN being discriminated against and how this lack of diversity is affecting people.
So now BET and EWTN are somehow subsidized.How many people will actually pay for Spike when they have to make an individual choice?
Better put, how many married men will be able to convince their wives that Spike (with Manswers) is a good thing to spend money on?
Not enough to keep Spike on the air, that's how many.I suspect SyFry will go the same way - some people pay, just not enough.
As will be the case with about 75\% of the channel lineup.
It isn't that anyone will make a decision to eliminate these, just that there isn't enough people paying to make it possible to continue to operate.
What made the Golf Channel possible was selling it to the cable and satellite companies, not selling it to individual subscribers.The end result is there are maybe 20 cable channels left.
Oh, 22 - I forgot BET and EWTN.
At that point the whole cable TV idea is pretty pointless and developing a new channel is next to impossible - you don't sell the cable management, you have to sell individual subscribers.I am sure I am not the only one with this vision.
Just the threat of the discrimination lawsuits would be a serious obstacle.
The market shrinkage is nearly provable and would easily make it next to impossible to get this done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399480</id>
	<title>Re:Poor ABC</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1268055540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.</i><br>I was under the impression that sky1 showed a lot of big american shows before anyone else in the UK (or at least they used to).</p><p>Yeah they fill the rest of the time with repeats but frankly most channels do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.I was under the impression that sky1 showed a lot of big american shows before anyone else in the UK ( or at least they used to ) .Yeah they fill the rest of the time with repeats but frankly most channels do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.I was under the impression that sky1 showed a lot of big american shows before anyone else in the UK (or at least they used to).Yeah they fill the rest of the time with repeats but frankly most channels do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396912</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1267978980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have a large family Cable TV is the way to go.
If you are just a couple or small family it is cheaper to actually buy the content from a provider.

My provider would charge me about 67$ per month for Cable TV.

At 3$ a tv show that means I can watch 22 shows a month or 5 a Week.
This is a lot for a small family or individual when you consider not all shows run every week for 52 weeks most are 26 or less weeks a year.

The dreaded Soap Opera's my girlfriend watches them and thank god the one she does watch is streamed for free on NBC's website.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a large family Cable TV is the way to go .
If you are just a couple or small family it is cheaper to actually buy the content from a provider .
My provider would charge me about 67 $ per month for Cable TV .
At 3 $ a tv show that means I can watch 22 shows a month or 5 a Week .
This is a lot for a small family or individual when you consider not all shows run every week for 52 weeks most are 26 or less weeks a year .
The dreaded Soap Opera 's my girlfriend watches them and thank god the one she does watch is streamed for free on NBC 's website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a large family Cable TV is the way to go.
If you are just a couple or small family it is cheaper to actually buy the content from a provider.
My provider would charge me about 67$ per month for Cable TV.
At 3$ a tv show that means I can watch 22 shows a month or 5 a Week.
This is a lot for a small family or individual when you consider not all shows run every week for 52 weeks most are 26 or less weeks a year.
The dreaded Soap Opera's my girlfriend watches them and thank god the one she does watch is streamed for free on NBC's website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393794</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1267957440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even before the switch to digital, I dropped cable and just used a combo of Internet entertainment and free TV.. although I have used DSL instead of cable for my Internet.. Total monthly bill is less than $50 and I have one tier below the fastest DSL they offer. I could chop off about 15 bucks a month if I removed the landline (which has no long distance) believe me, I have considered removing the landline, as 90 percent of the calls are crap sales people, and upgrading to the next tier of DSL which would cost about 5 bucks, so with a 10 dollar reduction I could have faster DSL and no annoying sales calls.. It's mostly just been my laziness that I haven't done it yet., that and the fact that I have been satisfied with the speed I get, and not jonesing for more DSL speed.. more would be nice, but I just don't see that it will rock my world or anything.
Like most people. I have a cell phone. That influenced my decision not to have long distance on the landline.</p><p>The switch to digital OTA has had quite a few quirks, I agree.. Besides the occasional drop of signals, there are issues with sound.. Sometimes you'll get a commercial or program that has partial sound.. for instance a commercial where the music is playing but the "voice over" is not playing.. I think you will also find that at different times of day they don't broadcast with as much power, and that's generally when you get a lot of dropped signals.. but it has been gradually getting better in my area, and isn't quite as annoying as it has been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even before the switch to digital , I dropped cable and just used a combo of Internet entertainment and free TV.. although I have used DSL instead of cable for my Internet.. Total monthly bill is less than $ 50 and I have one tier below the fastest DSL they offer .
I could chop off about 15 bucks a month if I removed the landline ( which has no long distance ) believe me , I have considered removing the landline , as 90 percent of the calls are crap sales people , and upgrading to the next tier of DSL which would cost about 5 bucks , so with a 10 dollar reduction I could have faster DSL and no annoying sales calls.. It 's mostly just been my laziness that I have n't done it yet. , that and the fact that I have been satisfied with the speed I get , and not jonesing for more DSL speed.. more would be nice , but I just do n't see that it will rock my world or anything .
Like most people .
I have a cell phone .
That influenced my decision not to have long distance on the landline.The switch to digital OTA has had quite a few quirks , I agree.. Besides the occasional drop of signals , there are issues with sound.. Sometimes you 'll get a commercial or program that has partial sound.. for instance a commercial where the music is playing but the " voice over " is not playing.. I think you will also find that at different times of day they do n't broadcast with as much power , and that 's generally when you get a lot of dropped signals.. but it has been gradually getting better in my area , and is n't quite as annoying as it has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even before the switch to digital, I dropped cable and just used a combo of Internet entertainment and free TV.. although I have used DSL instead of cable for my Internet.. Total monthly bill is less than $50 and I have one tier below the fastest DSL they offer.
I could chop off about 15 bucks a month if I removed the landline (which has no long distance) believe me, I have considered removing the landline, as 90 percent of the calls are crap sales people, and upgrading to the next tier of DSL which would cost about 5 bucks, so with a 10 dollar reduction I could have faster DSL and no annoying sales calls.. It's mostly just been my laziness that I haven't done it yet., that and the fact that I have been satisfied with the speed I get, and not jonesing for more DSL speed.. more would be nice, but I just don't see that it will rock my world or anything.
Like most people.
I have a cell phone.
That influenced my decision not to have long distance on the landline.The switch to digital OTA has had quite a few quirks, I agree.. Besides the occasional drop of signals, there are issues with sound.. Sometimes you'll get a commercial or program that has partial sound.. for instance a commercial where the music is playing but the "voice over" is not playing.. I think you will also find that at different times of day they don't broadcast with as much power, and that's generally when you get a lot of dropped signals.. but it has been gradually getting better in my area, and isn't quite as annoying as it has been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394794</id>
	<title>Do we need channels anymore?</title>
	<author>fikx</author>
	<datestamp>1267963500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe this is a dumb question, but the more I read through and think about the factors playing into this, I can't help but visualize that we got channels as a means of getting programs to people: that is, a "channel" is a distributor. The you have networks which have several channels. Aren't Cable companies doing the exact same thing as the networks? Is that the problem with this arrangement? TWO distributors, one feeding into the other fighting each other because they are also competing with each other. <br>
I keep wondering what TV would look like with only one of those (get rid of one, I don't care which) : you have several "paths" into your TV (channels ) and some company grouping programs into those channels and that's it? not the networks deciding how to group programs then cable companies working to group them again so they can make money too...and trying to get by with a fast one on the ones that grouped it first and the networks not trying to force profits out of the downstream companies...<br>
but then again, that would take the networks allowing someone to bypass them (that's worked SO well with companies like RIAA, etc.) or the cableco's being happy with just being a pipe, which limit's their profit (which has worked SO well when we try to get ISP's that get out of the way and let us use the connections they sold us). Like most things, the internet lets us get almost there (we get the stuff we need without a distributor/middleman) but between the extra work to get it (harder than turning on a TV or putting in a CD) and companies trying to kill it, it's still not "taking over"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is a dumb question , but the more I read through and think about the factors playing into this , I ca n't help but visualize that we got channels as a means of getting programs to people : that is , a " channel " is a distributor .
The you have networks which have several channels .
Are n't Cable companies doing the exact same thing as the networks ?
Is that the problem with this arrangement ?
TWO distributors , one feeding into the other fighting each other because they are also competing with each other .
I keep wondering what TV would look like with only one of those ( get rid of one , I do n't care which ) : you have several " paths " into your TV ( channels ) and some company grouping programs into those channels and that 's it ?
not the networks deciding how to group programs then cable companies working to group them again so they can make money too...and trying to get by with a fast one on the ones that grouped it first and the networks not trying to force profits out of the downstream companies.. . but then again , that would take the networks allowing someone to bypass them ( that 's worked SO well with companies like RIAA , etc .
) or the cableco 's being happy with just being a pipe , which limit 's their profit ( which has worked SO well when we try to get ISP 's that get out of the way and let us use the connections they sold us ) .
Like most things , the internet lets us get almost there ( we get the stuff we need without a distributor/middleman ) but between the extra work to get it ( harder than turning on a TV or putting in a CD ) and companies trying to kill it , it 's still not " taking over "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is a dumb question, but the more I read through and think about the factors playing into this, I can't help but visualize that we got channels as a means of getting programs to people: that is, a "channel" is a distributor.
The you have networks which have several channels.
Aren't Cable companies doing the exact same thing as the networks?
Is that the problem with this arrangement?
TWO distributors, one feeding into the other fighting each other because they are also competing with each other.
I keep wondering what TV would look like with only one of those (get rid of one, I don't care which) : you have several "paths" into your TV (channels ) and some company grouping programs into those channels and that's it?
not the networks deciding how to group programs then cable companies working to group them again so they can make money too...and trying to get by with a fast one on the ones that grouped it first and the networks not trying to force profits out of the downstream companies...
but then again, that would take the networks allowing someone to bypass them (that's worked SO well with companies like RIAA, etc.
) or the cableco's being happy with just being a pipe, which limit's their profit (which has worked SO well when we try to get ISP's that get out of the way and let us use the connections they sold us).
Like most things, the internet lets us get almost there (we get the stuff we need without a distributor/middleman) but between the extra work to get it (harder than turning on a TV or putting in a CD) and companies trying to kill it, it's still not "taking over"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393852</id>
	<title>Re:Cablevision subscribers: The silver spooned set</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, maybe its more money than most people can fathom and they are wondering why these companies can't get their act together and just make a lot of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , maybe its more money than most people can fathom and they are wondering why these companies ca n't get their act together and just make a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, maybe its more money than most people can fathom and they are wondering why these companies can't get their act together and just make a lot of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391968</id>
	<title>$75 gift card to switch to Verizon FIOS?</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1267989360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure I'll take that deal - WHEN YOU MAKE FIOS AVAILABLE IN MY @\%&amp;#! NEIGHBORHOOD!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure I 'll take that deal - WHEN YOU MAKE FIOS AVAILABLE IN MY @ \ % &amp; # !
NEIGHBORHOOD ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure I'll take that deal - WHEN YOU MAKE FIOS AVAILABLE IN MY @\%&amp;#!
NEIGHBORHOOD!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397392</id>
	<title>Re:"pocketing $8 billion last year"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming $285 million on $8 billion in revenue is only a 3.5\% profit margin.  If that's the net profit, it's not bad (but not great), but if their gross profit is only 3.5\%, they're doing pretty poorly.<br>
<br>
5\% is healthy, 8\% is great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming $ 285 million on $ 8 billion in revenue is only a 3.5 \ % profit margin .
If that 's the net profit , it 's not bad ( but not great ) , but if their gross profit is only 3.5 \ % , they 're doing pretty poorly .
5 \ % is healthy , 8 \ % is great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming $285 million on $8 billion in revenue is only a 3.5\% profit margin.
If that's the net profit, it's not bad (but not great), but if their gross profit is only 3.5\%, they're doing pretty poorly.
5\% is healthy, 8\% is great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394528</id>
	<title>Re:OTH?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267961580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ESPN has its tentacles into the internet service too. A few months ago I got a notice from Cox that ESPN360 television service is now included with my internet service "at no additional cost." Ya right. Those saints at Disney are providing me that for free? I don't think so. They strong-armed Cox into paying to run their programming through their data service. Cox could give me more speed or a lower cost instead of a television service I have no intention of using, but then Disney would demand more per television subscriber.</p><p>I wrote to the Conn. Attorney General about this since it seems so wrong. Since ESPN is based in Conn., I never heard anything back. I'm shocked, shocked!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ESPN has its tentacles into the internet service too .
A few months ago I got a notice from Cox that ESPN360 television service is now included with my internet service " at no additional cost .
" Ya right .
Those saints at Disney are providing me that for free ?
I do n't think so .
They strong-armed Cox into paying to run their programming through their data service .
Cox could give me more speed or a lower cost instead of a television service I have no intention of using , but then Disney would demand more per television subscriber.I wrote to the Conn. Attorney General about this since it seems so wrong .
Since ESPN is based in Conn. , I never heard anything back .
I 'm shocked , shocked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ESPN has its tentacles into the internet service too.
A few months ago I got a notice from Cox that ESPN360 television service is now included with my internet service "at no additional cost.
" Ya right.
Those saints at Disney are providing me that for free?
I don't think so.
They strong-armed Cox into paying to run their programming through their data service.
Cox could give me more speed or a lower cost instead of a television service I have no intention of using, but then Disney would demand more per television subscriber.I wrote to the Conn. Attorney General about this since it seems so wrong.
Since ESPN is based in Conn., I never heard anything back.
I'm shocked, shocked!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392018</id>
	<title>Re:Poor ABC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin.
That was right before a big sports event or something too.
Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.
All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.</p><p>Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.</p></div><p>I don't personally watch much of ABC, but ABC is a BIG station in the US... as in one of the original <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big\_Three\_television\_networks" title="wikipedia.org">Big 3</a> [wikipedia.org].  Cablevision definitely doesn't have the resources to make their own version of ABC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin .
That was right before a big sports event or something too .
Virgin started their own channel after much complaining .
All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.I do n't personally watch much of ABC , but ABC is a BIG station in the US... as in one of the original Big 3 [ wikipedia.org ] .
Cablevision definitely does n't have the resources to make their own version of ABC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin.
That was right before a big sports event or something too.
Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.
All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.I don't personally watch much of ABC, but ABC is a BIG station in the US... as in one of the original Big 3 [wikipedia.org].
Cablevision definitely doesn't have the resources to make their own version of ABC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392310</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is - that's fine.  But in the end the cable company probably wouldn't make enough money to have any channels except for ESPN, a few of the kids channels, and maybe a news network or two.  "Bundling" is why there's an explosion of channels at all - there isn't enough interest for most channels to stand alone, but if they're bundled together the marginal viewership of all of the channels together is enough to support the bundle.</p><p>Now you might argue that that's a lousy business model, and that's fine.  But you do need to realize that without bundling cable companies really have nothing to offer anymore.  They used to offer a cleaner signal for broadcast channels - digital broadcasts trash that idea completely.  The only thing cable companies have to offer right now on the TV front is diversity of programming - and bundling what makes diversity of programming possible.  Remove that and leave the cable companies only with rebroadcasting broadcast signals and the channels that will pay for themselves with subscriptions and you would end up with a cable company that is likely only able to support ESPN, Fox News, and 900 Home Shopping Channels that the cable company can get for free for its subscriber base.  You certainly aren't going to have the critical mass for a Sci-Fi channel, or a Home and Garden Channel, or a National Geographic channel, or any of the other niche channels that all have their followings but wouldn't alone have the paying subscriber base to be affordable to produce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is - that 's fine .
But in the end the cable company probably would n't make enough money to have any channels except for ESPN , a few of the kids channels , and maybe a news network or two .
" Bundling " is why there 's an explosion of channels at all - there is n't enough interest for most channels to stand alone , but if they 're bundled together the marginal viewership of all of the channels together is enough to support the bundle.Now you might argue that that 's a lousy business model , and that 's fine .
But you do need to realize that without bundling cable companies really have nothing to offer anymore .
They used to offer a cleaner signal for broadcast channels - digital broadcasts trash that idea completely .
The only thing cable companies have to offer right now on the TV front is diversity of programming - and bundling what makes diversity of programming possible .
Remove that and leave the cable companies only with rebroadcasting broadcast signals and the channels that will pay for themselves with subscriptions and you would end up with a cable company that is likely only able to support ESPN , Fox News , and 900 Home Shopping Channels that the cable company can get for free for its subscriber base .
You certainly are n't going to have the critical mass for a Sci-Fi channel , or a Home and Garden Channel , or a National Geographic channel , or any of the other niche channels that all have their followings but would n't alone have the paying subscriber base to be affordable to produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is - that's fine.
But in the end the cable company probably wouldn't make enough money to have any channels except for ESPN, a few of the kids channels, and maybe a news network or two.
"Bundling" is why there's an explosion of channels at all - there isn't enough interest for most channels to stand alone, but if they're bundled together the marginal viewership of all of the channels together is enough to support the bundle.Now you might argue that that's a lousy business model, and that's fine.
But you do need to realize that without bundling cable companies really have nothing to offer anymore.
They used to offer a cleaner signal for broadcast channels - digital broadcasts trash that idea completely.
The only thing cable companies have to offer right now on the TV front is diversity of programming - and bundling what makes diversity of programming possible.
Remove that and leave the cable companies only with rebroadcasting broadcast signals and the channels that will pay for themselves with subscriptions and you would end up with a cable company that is likely only able to support ESPN, Fox News, and 900 Home Shopping Channels that the cable company can get for free for its subscriber base.
You certainly aren't going to have the critical mass for a Sci-Fi channel, or a Home and Garden Channel, or a National Geographic channel, or any of the other niche channels that all have their followings but wouldn't alone have the paying subscriber base to be affordable to produce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392116</id>
	<title>Sign of what comcast / nbc will be to sat tv.</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sign of what comcast / nbc will be to sat tv.</p><p>be ready to get torrents of your shows on.</p><p>2012 games.</p><p>USA Network, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo and more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sign of what comcast / nbc will be to sat tv.be ready to get torrents of your shows on.2012 games.USA Network , Syfy , CNBC , MSNBC , Bravo and more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sign of what comcast / nbc will be to sat tv.be ready to get torrents of your shows on.2012 games.USA Network, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo and more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392152</id>
	<title>Are Craptastic Networks Relevent?</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1267990080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the networks stop relying on all these mindless Reality Shows "staring" all these narcissistic morons, I'll give a shit. I don't have Cablevision, but if Comcast dropped ABC, I wouldn't really care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the networks stop relying on all these mindless Reality Shows " staring " all these narcissistic morons , I 'll give a shit .
I do n't have Cablevision , but if Comcast dropped ABC , I would n't really care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the networks stop relying on all these mindless Reality Shows "staring" all these narcissistic morons, I'll give a shit.
I don't have Cablevision, but if Comcast dropped ABC, I wouldn't really care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394352</id>
	<title>"pocketing $8 billion last year"</title>
	<author>ortholattice</author>
	<datestamp>1267960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that reporters
seem incapable of distinguishing revenue from
profit?

<p>I'm no fan of Cablevision, but let's get the facts straight.
$8 billion is their <i>revenue</i>.  The actual amount they
"pocketed" i.e. kept (the rest going to expenses)
is their net income or profit, which was $285 million.
This still is a pretty large amount, but the $40 million ABC
wants represents a very large chunk of that income, paid
to a single programming supplier.  I'm in no position to judge
whether or not this is fair, but it is natural that any company
would look very carefully at such a large percent of their profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that reporters seem incapable of distinguishing revenue from profit ?
I 'm no fan of Cablevision , but let 's get the facts straight .
$ 8 billion is their revenue .
The actual amount they " pocketed " i.e .
kept ( the rest going to expenses ) is their net income or profit , which was $ 285 million .
This still is a pretty large amount , but the $ 40 million ABC wants represents a very large chunk of that income , paid to a single programming supplier .
I 'm in no position to judge whether or not this is fair , but it is natural that any company would look very carefully at such a large percent of their profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that reporters
seem incapable of distinguishing revenue from
profit?
I'm no fan of Cablevision, but let's get the facts straight.
$8 billion is their revenue.
The actual amount they
"pocketed" i.e.
kept (the rest going to expenses)
is their net income or profit, which was $285 million.
This still is a pretty large amount, but the $40 million ABC
wants represents a very large chunk of that income, paid
to a single programming supplier.
I'm in no position to judge
whether or not this is fair, but it is natural that any company
would look very carefully at such a large percent of their profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392282</id>
	<title>OTA FTW</title>
	<author>2bfree</author>
	<datestamp>1267990740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so glad I finally got rid of cable. If you leave near a major city where your local stations are located, take a look at getting an indoor HD antenna. (I'm using the Winegard SS-3000, kinda big but works great.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so glad I finally got rid of cable .
If you leave near a major city where your local stations are located , take a look at getting an indoor HD antenna .
( I 'm using the Winegard SS-3000 , kinda big but works great .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so glad I finally got rid of cable.
If you leave near a major city where your local stations are located, take a look at getting an indoor HD antenna.
(I'm using the Winegard SS-3000, kinda big but works great.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962</id>
	<title>Poor ABC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin.<br>That was right before a big sports event or something too.<br>Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.<br>All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.</p><p>Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin.That was right before a big sports event or something too.Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky &amp; Virgin.That was right before a big sports event or something too.Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393298</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now we have upgraded cable Internet (I run a website out of my home and needed business class anyway)</p></div><p>1995 called, they want their business model back. FFS, real VPS hosting at an actual data center, with FAR better connectivity than cable, will run you what - $15 a month? Is your customer base all people upgrading now that Geocities is dead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we have upgraded cable Internet ( I run a website out of my home and needed business class anyway ) 1995 called , they want their business model back .
FFS , real VPS hosting at an actual data center , with FAR better connectivity than cable , will run you what - $ 15 a month ?
Is your customer base all people upgrading now that Geocities is dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we have upgraded cable Internet (I run a website out of my home and needed business class anyway)1995 called, they want their business model back.
FFS, real VPS hosting at an actual data center, with FAR better connectivity than cable, will run you what - $15 a month?
Is your customer base all people upgrading now that Geocities is dead?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392370</id>
	<title>Re:wow.. i dont believe it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267991220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>People actually post Anonymous Coward?<br>
Who wants to read another post from a 14 year-old<br>
venting his misanthropy in a shoddy, grammatically challenged diatribe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>People actually post Anonymous Coward ?
Who wants to read another post from a 14 year-old venting his misanthropy in a shoddy , grammatically challenged diatribe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People actually post Anonymous Coward?
Who wants to read another post from a 14 year-old
venting his misanthropy in a shoddy, grammatically challenged diatribe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1267990440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your cable bill is so high because consumers continue to allow cable companies to charge what they do. I dropped "cable" TV (I had DirecTV for a couple of years too) in 2008 and I have been much better off for it. We read more, we listen to more music, and we don't spend hours in front of the TV. I find it to be a win but I understand that entirely too many people do love their TV. Thankfully there are options:</p><p>1. OTA</p><p>This is what we have now. We watch some shows there and the quality is fine, when it works, and when the dog isn't walking in front of the antenna (I still don't understand how digital TV "upgrade" was a good compromise--at least when the signal didn't come in for the old way you could still see something or at least hear something).</p><p>2. Hulu/other streaming availability by network</p><p>We watch the majority of what we want to watch via Hulu. Yeah, I realize it's not the greatest option and not every show is on there but to be completely honest, you shouldn't be watching as much TV as you are anyway. Go outside or something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>3. Movies/Internet</p><p>We used to spend $60 a month on TV. Now we have upgraded cable Internet (I run a website out of my home and needed business class anyway) and we use the Internet a lot more (my masters program is all online) and we spend about $3 a month on Redbox. $57 extra dollars is worth it people.</p><p>---</p><p>As for the bitching about not being able to catch the Oscars... Go to a friend's house, go to a bar, get an antenna, or just wait till the next day. Believe me, you're probably not missing much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your cable bill is so high because consumers continue to allow cable companies to charge what they do .
I dropped " cable " TV ( I had DirecTV for a couple of years too ) in 2008 and I have been much better off for it .
We read more , we listen to more music , and we do n't spend hours in front of the TV .
I find it to be a win but I understand that entirely too many people do love their TV .
Thankfully there are options : 1 .
OTAThis is what we have now .
We watch some shows there and the quality is fine , when it works , and when the dog is n't walking in front of the antenna ( I still do n't understand how digital TV " upgrade " was a good compromise--at least when the signal did n't come in for the old way you could still see something or at least hear something ) .2 .
Hulu/other streaming availability by networkWe watch the majority of what we want to watch via Hulu .
Yeah , I realize it 's not the greatest option and not every show is on there but to be completely honest , you should n't be watching as much TV as you are anyway .
Go outside or something ; ) 3 .
Movies/InternetWe used to spend $ 60 a month on TV .
Now we have upgraded cable Internet ( I run a website out of my home and needed business class anyway ) and we use the Internet a lot more ( my masters program is all online ) and we spend about $ 3 a month on Redbox .
$ 57 extra dollars is worth it people.---As for the bitching about not being able to catch the Oscars... Go to a friend 's house , go to a bar , get an antenna , or just wait till the next day .
Believe me , you 're probably not missing much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your cable bill is so high because consumers continue to allow cable companies to charge what they do.
I dropped "cable" TV (I had DirecTV for a couple of years too) in 2008 and I have been much better off for it.
We read more, we listen to more music, and we don't spend hours in front of the TV.
I find it to be a win but I understand that entirely too many people do love their TV.
Thankfully there are options:1.
OTAThis is what we have now.
We watch some shows there and the quality is fine, when it works, and when the dog isn't walking in front of the antenna (I still don't understand how digital TV "upgrade" was a good compromise--at least when the signal didn't come in for the old way you could still see something or at least hear something).2.
Hulu/other streaming availability by networkWe watch the majority of what we want to watch via Hulu.
Yeah, I realize it's not the greatest option and not every show is on there but to be completely honest, you shouldn't be watching as much TV as you are anyway.
Go outside or something ;)3.
Movies/InternetWe used to spend $60 a month on TV.
Now we have upgraded cable Internet (I run a website out of my home and needed business class anyway) and we use the Internet a lot more (my masters program is all online) and we spend about $3 a month on Redbox.
$57 extra dollars is worth it people.---As for the bitching about not being able to catch the Oscars... Go to a friend's house, go to a bar, get an antenna, or just wait till the next day.
Believe me, you're probably not missing much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396296</id>
	<title>The Whole System is Broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of things wrong with the pay entertainment system works today.  A lot of people think a la carte is the answer.  Another posrt above me beat that one to death an explained pretty good how a la carte would probably kill the whole system, and I think he got it right.  A lot of the crap that you get on cable an satellite is there because it balances everything out.  That is, a shit ton of QVC-esque channels subsidizes the asston of cash that ESPN has managed to extort (thats not a strong enough word, really) from EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE.</p><p>No, the problem with the system is competition.  That is, lack of.  Its been pointed out already that most of the content we watch is produced by only a handfull of companies.  Thats part of the problem.  ABC includes ABC, ABC Family, ESPN and its offshoots, and a bunch of other stuff I cant think of.  NBC has NBC, its news networks, USA, Universal Sports, etc, etc.  Fox has Fox, FX, Fox Sports Net, and a bunch of other crap I cant think of.  If each different channel was its own actual entity, things would be different.  You wouldnt necessarily have the comedy gold on one channel financing the experimental excrement of the CEO's college buddies on another channel.  At the same time off the wall stuff that comes out of right field to become a sensation might not happen because each of these little channels would not be able to finance the writers, directors, actors, and what not to get a new series off the ground.  It's a fine line.</p><p>However stuff like this ABC/Cablevision crap crosses the line.  I'm familiar with carriage disputes. As a DirecTV subscriber and a hockey fan I have become well acquainted with carriage disputes thanks to DirecTV and Versus posturing at eachother.  DirecTV is a huge media conglomerate.  Versus is owned by Comcast, another media conglomerate.  In this case Comcast is playing hardball for two reasons.  One, it's greedy and two, it does not actually want anyone other than Comcast subscribers to have Comcast channels.  Comcast Sports Net for Philadelphia and the northwest part of the country (Washington and Oregon) is also unavailable on DirecTV because Comcast is playing hardball with them.  In this case, a separation of content producer and content provider should be enforced.  Cable companies should not be allowed to have any channels under their control other than one or two in-house variety channels (DirecTV's 101 for example).</p><p>Why do I bring up DirecTV/Versus?  Because this Cablevision/ABC dispute is a potential vision of the future if media consolidating is allowed to continue.  Comcast is in the process of trying to gobble up NBC and all of its properties.  Since we already know Comcast does not want anyone other than Comcast subscribers to watch Comcast channels, you can bet your balls that if Comcast gets NBC, you will see, overnight, a TON of Cableco/NBC Carriage disputes spring up.</p><p>Cablevision does make a good point.  Why SHOULD they have to pay for what is provided over the air for free?  The fact that ANY cable or sat provider pays money to local affiliates to retransmit their signal is just plain stupid.  The only option a local affiliate should have available is the "must carry" provision, where the cable provider carries it because the affiliate told them to, and the affiliate gets nothing.</p><p>So what should people do to deal with retransmission disputes?  Get an antenna and converter box.  I live in the boonies and I only get the standard definition version of my locals from DirecTV, with the high def versions coming....someday.  So if I want to watch HD NBC, FOX, CBS, PBS, or ABC, I have to use an antenna.  DirecTV does not even carry the MyNetworkTV affiliate in this area, or a couple of the additional subchannels.</p><p>If my local network affiliates told DirecTV they wanted more money, I would tell DirecTV to dump them.  DirecTV hardware has an option so you can record stuff off the air with the DirecTV DVR already, so the HD locals are only needed if you do not have access to an antenna.</p><p>So in summation, giant conglomerates suck, and get an antenna. ABC carriage dispute solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of things wrong with the pay entertainment system works today .
A lot of people think a la carte is the answer .
Another posrt above me beat that one to death an explained pretty good how a la carte would probably kill the whole system , and I think he got it right .
A lot of the crap that you get on cable an satellite is there because it balances everything out .
That is , a shit ton of QVC-esque channels subsidizes the asston of cash that ESPN has managed to extort ( thats not a strong enough word , really ) from EVERYONE , and I mean EVERYONE.No , the problem with the system is competition .
That is , lack of .
Its been pointed out already that most of the content we watch is produced by only a handfull of companies .
Thats part of the problem .
ABC includes ABC , ABC Family , ESPN and its offshoots , and a bunch of other stuff I cant think of .
NBC has NBC , its news networks , USA , Universal Sports , etc , etc .
Fox has Fox , FX , Fox Sports Net , and a bunch of other crap I cant think of .
If each different channel was its own actual entity , things would be different .
You wouldnt necessarily have the comedy gold on one channel financing the experimental excrement of the CEO 's college buddies on another channel .
At the same time off the wall stuff that comes out of right field to become a sensation might not happen because each of these little channels would not be able to finance the writers , directors , actors , and what not to get a new series off the ground .
It 's a fine line.However stuff like this ABC/Cablevision crap crosses the line .
I 'm familiar with carriage disputes .
As a DirecTV subscriber and a hockey fan I have become well acquainted with carriage disputes thanks to DirecTV and Versus posturing at eachother .
DirecTV is a huge media conglomerate .
Versus is owned by Comcast , another media conglomerate .
In this case Comcast is playing hardball for two reasons .
One , it 's greedy and two , it does not actually want anyone other than Comcast subscribers to have Comcast channels .
Comcast Sports Net for Philadelphia and the northwest part of the country ( Washington and Oregon ) is also unavailable on DirecTV because Comcast is playing hardball with them .
In this case , a separation of content producer and content provider should be enforced .
Cable companies should not be allowed to have any channels under their control other than one or two in-house variety channels ( DirecTV 's 101 for example ) .Why do I bring up DirecTV/Versus ?
Because this Cablevision/ABC dispute is a potential vision of the future if media consolidating is allowed to continue .
Comcast is in the process of trying to gobble up NBC and all of its properties .
Since we already know Comcast does not want anyone other than Comcast subscribers to watch Comcast channels , you can bet your balls that if Comcast gets NBC , you will see , overnight , a TON of Cableco/NBC Carriage disputes spring up.Cablevision does make a good point .
Why SHOULD they have to pay for what is provided over the air for free ?
The fact that ANY cable or sat provider pays money to local affiliates to retransmit their signal is just plain stupid .
The only option a local affiliate should have available is the " must carry " provision , where the cable provider carries it because the affiliate told them to , and the affiliate gets nothing.So what should people do to deal with retransmission disputes ?
Get an antenna and converter box .
I live in the boonies and I only get the standard definition version of my locals from DirecTV , with the high def versions coming....someday .
So if I want to watch HD NBC , FOX , CBS , PBS , or ABC , I have to use an antenna .
DirecTV does not even carry the MyNetworkTV affiliate in this area , or a couple of the additional subchannels.If my local network affiliates told DirecTV they wanted more money , I would tell DirecTV to dump them .
DirecTV hardware has an option so you can record stuff off the air with the DirecTV DVR already , so the HD locals are only needed if you do not have access to an antenna.So in summation , giant conglomerates suck , and get an antenna .
ABC carriage dispute solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of things wrong with the pay entertainment system works today.
A lot of people think a la carte is the answer.
Another posrt above me beat that one to death an explained pretty good how a la carte would probably kill the whole system, and I think he got it right.
A lot of the crap that you get on cable an satellite is there because it balances everything out.
That is, a shit ton of QVC-esque channels subsidizes the asston of cash that ESPN has managed to extort (thats not a strong enough word, really) from EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE.No, the problem with the system is competition.
That is, lack of.
Its been pointed out already that most of the content we watch is produced by only a handfull of companies.
Thats part of the problem.
ABC includes ABC, ABC Family, ESPN and its offshoots, and a bunch of other stuff I cant think of.
NBC has NBC, its news networks, USA, Universal Sports, etc, etc.
Fox has Fox, FX, Fox Sports Net, and a bunch of other crap I cant think of.
If each different channel was its own actual entity, things would be different.
You wouldnt necessarily have the comedy gold on one channel financing the experimental excrement of the CEO's college buddies on another channel.
At the same time off the wall stuff that comes out of right field to become a sensation might not happen because each of these little channels would not be able to finance the writers, directors, actors, and what not to get a new series off the ground.
It's a fine line.However stuff like this ABC/Cablevision crap crosses the line.
I'm familiar with carriage disputes.
As a DirecTV subscriber and a hockey fan I have become well acquainted with carriage disputes thanks to DirecTV and Versus posturing at eachother.
DirecTV is a huge media conglomerate.
Versus is owned by Comcast, another media conglomerate.
In this case Comcast is playing hardball for two reasons.
One, it's greedy and two, it does not actually want anyone other than Comcast subscribers to have Comcast channels.
Comcast Sports Net for Philadelphia and the northwest part of the country (Washington and Oregon) is also unavailable on DirecTV because Comcast is playing hardball with them.
In this case, a separation of content producer and content provider should be enforced.
Cable companies should not be allowed to have any channels under their control other than one or two in-house variety channels (DirecTV's 101 for example).Why do I bring up DirecTV/Versus?
Because this Cablevision/ABC dispute is a potential vision of the future if media consolidating is allowed to continue.
Comcast is in the process of trying to gobble up NBC and all of its properties.
Since we already know Comcast does not want anyone other than Comcast subscribers to watch Comcast channels, you can bet your balls that if Comcast gets NBC, you will see, overnight, a TON of Cableco/NBC Carriage disputes spring up.Cablevision does make a good point.
Why SHOULD they have to pay for what is provided over the air for free?
The fact that ANY cable or sat provider pays money to local affiliates to retransmit their signal is just plain stupid.
The only option a local affiliate should have available is the "must carry" provision, where the cable provider carries it because the affiliate told them to, and the affiliate gets nothing.So what should people do to deal with retransmission disputes?
Get an antenna and converter box.
I live in the boonies and I only get the standard definition version of my locals from DirecTV, with the high def versions coming....someday.
So if I want to watch HD NBC, FOX, CBS, PBS, or ABC, I have to use an antenna.
DirecTV does not even carry the MyNetworkTV affiliate in this area, or a couple of the additional subchannels.If my local network affiliates told DirecTV they wanted more money, I would tell DirecTV to dump them.
DirecTV hardware has an option so you can record stuff off the air with the DirecTV DVR already, so the HD locals are only needed if you do not have access to an antenna.So in summation, giant conglomerates suck, and get an antenna.
ABC carriage dispute solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392080</id>
	<title>TV content dissapears</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267989840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And no one even noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And no one even noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And no one even noticed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392026</id>
	<title>We need La Carte now and right to buy the box and</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267989600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need La Carte now and right to buy the box and not re foreced to rent them $15-$20 each.</p><p>I'm willing to pay for VS just for the hockey and then drop it and I don't want to be forced buy a lot other channels to get it or be forced to pay for in the base pack for alot poor other stuff on it.</p><p>I have directv and it's better priced then comcast Chicagoland and comcast makes you get there sports pack to get speed (parts of the area) and fox moive channel hear. They also have sci-fi / Syfy in higher level then other areas as well haveing CSN+ (over flow) in a higher pack then CSN all other systems in this area have it in the same level. also CSN is alot better then VS is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need La Carte now and right to buy the box and not re foreced to rent them $ 15- $ 20 each.I 'm willing to pay for VS just for the hockey and then drop it and I do n't want to be forced buy a lot other channels to get it or be forced to pay for in the base pack for alot poor other stuff on it.I have directv and it 's better priced then comcast Chicagoland and comcast makes you get there sports pack to get speed ( parts of the area ) and fox moive channel hear .
They also have sci-fi / Syfy in higher level then other areas as well haveing CSN + ( over flow ) in a higher pack then CSN all other systems in this area have it in the same level .
also CSN is alot better then VS is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need La Carte now and right to buy the box and not re foreced to rent them $15-$20 each.I'm willing to pay for VS just for the hockey and then drop it and I don't want to be forced buy a lot other channels to get it or be forced to pay for in the base pack for alot poor other stuff on it.I have directv and it's better priced then comcast Chicagoland and comcast makes you get there sports pack to get speed (parts of the area) and fox moive channel hear.
They also have sci-fi / Syfy in higher level then other areas as well haveing CSN+ (over flow) in a higher pack then CSN all other systems in this area have it in the same level.
also CSN is alot better then VS is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31402918</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268075280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking for a mod choice, "Overrated: bullshit", but couldn't find one, so I decided to comment instead. You are a typical tv addict. It's the ONLY thing in the world that you care about. Really. Sad and pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking for a mod choice , " Overrated : bullshit " , but could n't find one , so I decided to comment instead .
You are a typical tv addict .
It 's the ONLY thing in the world that you care about .
Really. Sad and pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking for a mod choice, "Overrated: bullshit", but couldn't find one, so I decided to comment instead.
You are a typical tv addict.
It's the ONLY thing in the world that you care about.
Really. Sad and pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396772</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267977660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy crap that is the best thing I have read on here yet.  On your #3 there have been a few pilot programs form companies looking and doing a pick and choose system and the one that I know of came out that for the same 200 chnls I get now I could pick 5 chnls and would pay the same price. To hell with that while I don't watch them all the time I do sometimes watch those other chnls and would rather have the chance to watch them than pay the same price and be more limited.  This was largely because when you went for example on normal cable the basic package everyone has and you told those chnls "well not everyone will get your chnl now what would you like to charge people?"  they set their price high as they would have a smaller advertising market than they do already (200k people possibly watching &gt; 50k people definitely watching).  On #4 the other part isn't just fighting for lower prices for the remaining chnls but if you roll over for 1 chnl then every other chnl will fight twice as hard to try for the same deal since they know your hand can be forced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy crap that is the best thing I have read on here yet .
On your # 3 there have been a few pilot programs form companies looking and doing a pick and choose system and the one that I know of came out that for the same 200 chnls I get now I could pick 5 chnls and would pay the same price .
To hell with that while I do n't watch them all the time I do sometimes watch those other chnls and would rather have the chance to watch them than pay the same price and be more limited .
This was largely because when you went for example on normal cable the basic package everyone has and you told those chnls " well not everyone will get your chnl now what would you like to charge people ?
" they set their price high as they would have a smaller advertising market than they do already ( 200k people possibly watching &gt; 50k people definitely watching ) .
On # 4 the other part is n't just fighting for lower prices for the remaining chnls but if you roll over for 1 chnl then every other chnl will fight twice as hard to try for the same deal since they know your hand can be forced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy crap that is the best thing I have read on here yet.
On your #3 there have been a few pilot programs form companies looking and doing a pick and choose system and the one that I know of came out that for the same 200 chnls I get now I could pick 5 chnls and would pay the same price.
To hell with that while I don't watch them all the time I do sometimes watch those other chnls and would rather have the chance to watch them than pay the same price and be more limited.
This was largely because when you went for example on normal cable the basic package everyone has and you told those chnls "well not everyone will get your chnl now what would you like to charge people?
"  they set their price high as they would have a smaller advertising market than they do already (200k people possibly watching &gt; 50k people definitely watching).
On #4 the other part isn't just fighting for lower prices for the remaining chnls but if you roll over for 1 chnl then every other chnl will fight twice as hard to try for the same deal since they know your hand can be forced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397462</id>
	<title>Re:OTA FTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267984500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I'm using the Winegard SS-3000, kinda big but works great.)</p></div><p>I made my own from the multitude of plans found on the intertubes. Didn't cost a bundle and everyone thinks it's art.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I 'm using the Winegard SS-3000 , kinda big but works great .
) I made my own from the multitude of plans found on the intertubes .
Did n't cost a bundle and everyone thinks it 's art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I'm using the Winegard SS-3000, kinda big but works great.
)I made my own from the multitude of plans found on the intertubes.
Didn't cost a bundle and everyone thinks it's art.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397408</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My family has done exactly the same thing, except for #3. We're going to the local library more. They're connected with libraries all across Michigan and that's where we're getting our movies. They're not the latest releases (I just picked up District 9 today actually), but I don't really have the patience for most movies anymore anyway. Besides, I can't tell you how glad I have been to not have to pay to see some of the tripe I've borrowed. Many movies have been returned within hours. But that's another rant.</p><p>You'd be surprised how many networks will let you watch videos of their shows at their website. A favorite show of ours is Ghost Hunters on SyFy. A week after it airs, we sit down and watch it (with limited commercial interruption even). I don't get why it's so important to have to watch any show at the time it airs.</p><p>Right now, the only way I would consider returning to cable/satellite is via some sort of favorable a la carte plan. I'd be happy to pay for it, I just don't want to see so much of that other garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My family has done exactly the same thing , except for # 3 .
We 're going to the local library more .
They 're connected with libraries all across Michigan and that 's where we 're getting our movies .
They 're not the latest releases ( I just picked up District 9 today actually ) , but I do n't really have the patience for most movies anymore anyway .
Besides , I ca n't tell you how glad I have been to not have to pay to see some of the tripe I 've borrowed .
Many movies have been returned within hours .
But that 's another rant.You 'd be surprised how many networks will let you watch videos of their shows at their website .
A favorite show of ours is Ghost Hunters on SyFy .
A week after it airs , we sit down and watch it ( with limited commercial interruption even ) .
I do n't get why it 's so important to have to watch any show at the time it airs.Right now , the only way I would consider returning to cable/satellite is via some sort of favorable a la carte plan .
I 'd be happy to pay for it , I just do n't want to see so much of that other garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My family has done exactly the same thing, except for #3.
We're going to the local library more.
They're connected with libraries all across Michigan and that's where we're getting our movies.
They're not the latest releases (I just picked up District 9 today actually), but I don't really have the patience for most movies anymore anyway.
Besides, I can't tell you how glad I have been to not have to pay to see some of the tripe I've borrowed.
Many movies have been returned within hours.
But that's another rant.You'd be surprised how many networks will let you watch videos of their shows at their website.
A favorite show of ours is Ghost Hunters on SyFy.
A week after it airs, we sit down and watch it (with limited commercial interruption even).
I don't get why it's so important to have to watch any show at the time it airs.Right now, the only way I would consider returning to cable/satellite is via some sort of favorable a la carte plan.
I'd be happy to pay for it, I just don't want to see so much of that other garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392138</id>
	<title>Re:Poor ABC</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1267989960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to tell the story at least get it right.<br>Virgin was about to launch competing channels to Sky One-Three and Sky didn't like that too much and tried to up the cost and Virgin didn't back down and just pushed forward their launch. As a result all of the "free" Sky channels got pulled (Sky One-Three, Sky News, et al).</p><p>Sky Sports and Sky Movies never got pulled from Virgin's services since they ran on entirely different agreements (plus Sky and Virgin make far too much on those premium channels).</p><p>There was no "big sports event" since no sports channel got pulled. I think this was just before a 24 season start however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to tell the story at least get it right.Virgin was about to launch competing channels to Sky One-Three and Sky did n't like that too much and tried to up the cost and Virgin did n't back down and just pushed forward their launch .
As a result all of the " free " Sky channels got pulled ( Sky One-Three , Sky News , et al ) .Sky Sports and Sky Movies never got pulled from Virgin 's services since they ran on entirely different agreements ( plus Sky and Virgin make far too much on those premium channels ) .There was no " big sports event " since no sports channel got pulled .
I think this was just before a 24 season start however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to tell the story at least get it right.Virgin was about to launch competing channels to Sky One-Three and Sky didn't like that too much and tried to up the cost and Virgin didn't back down and just pushed forward their launch.
As a result all of the "free" Sky channels got pulled (Sky One-Three, Sky News, et al).Sky Sports and Sky Movies never got pulled from Virgin's services since they ran on entirely different agreements (plus Sky and Virgin make far too much on those premium channels).There was no "big sports event" since no sports channel got pulled.
I think this was just before a 24 season start however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393522</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>LazyBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Al la carte, please.</p><p>...</p><p>And this is why your cable bill is so high. You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not.</p></div><p>Regarding a la carte:<br>You feel you're subsidizing everyone else, but everyone else is subsidizing you too.  Everyone asking for a al carte thinks <i>they</i> are going to be the ones that pay less.</p><p>Here's how it would play out.  A less popular cable station gets only $.20/household.  When 19 of 20 households can drop them, they'll need $4/subscriber to make ends meet.  Will the remaining N people pay $4?  No?  Then they'll need to charge even more or chop programming.  Death spiral until it's off the air.</p><p>This will happen to the more popular stations as well, but the numbers will be different.  You'll have vastly fewer channels when it's done (or vastly more info-mercials).</p><p>OTOH, the cable companies are getting bundles pushed on them by the content providers.</p><p>Maybe the best thing the cable companies could do would be pass through the bundles forced on them.  Give us an ABC/ESPN/etc. bundle and see who buys it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Al la carte , please....And this is why your cable bill is so high .
You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not.Regarding a la carte : You feel you 're subsidizing everyone else , but everyone else is subsidizing you too .
Everyone asking for a al carte thinks they are going to be the ones that pay less.Here 's how it would play out .
A less popular cable station gets only $ .20/household .
When 19 of 20 households can drop them , they 'll need $ 4/subscriber to make ends meet .
Will the remaining N people pay $ 4 ?
No ? Then they 'll need to charge even more or chop programming .
Death spiral until it 's off the air.This will happen to the more popular stations as well , but the numbers will be different .
You 'll have vastly fewer channels when it 's done ( or vastly more info-mercials ) .OTOH , the cable companies are getting bundles pushed on them by the content providers.Maybe the best thing the cable companies could do would be pass through the bundles forced on them .
Give us an ABC/ESPN/etc .
bundle and see who buys it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al la carte, please....And this is why your cable bill is so high.
You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not.Regarding a la carte:You feel you're subsidizing everyone else, but everyone else is subsidizing you too.
Everyone asking for a al carte thinks they are going to be the ones that pay less.Here's how it would play out.
A less popular cable station gets only $.20/household.
When 19 of 20 households can drop them, they'll need $4/subscriber to make ends meet.
Will the remaining N people pay $4?
No?  Then they'll need to charge even more or chop programming.
Death spiral until it's off the air.This will happen to the more popular stations as well, but the numbers will be different.
You'll have vastly fewer channels when it's done (or vastly more info-mercials).OTOH, the cable companies are getting bundles pushed on them by the content providers.Maybe the best thing the cable companies could do would be pass through the bundles forced on them.
Give us an ABC/ESPN/etc.
bundle and see who buys it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393044</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1267995540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.</p></div><p>Skyvision is a well known and reputable satellite provider of ala carte channels.  Their subscriber numbers are basically a rounding error compared to the big providers.  As for my relationship with skyvision, and providing ala carte channels, there is a guy on the NANOG mailing list with a well known humorous quote something like "I strongly encourage my competitors to deploy this bad idea".</p><p><a href="http://www.skyvision.com/programming/alacarte.html" title="skyvision.com">http://www.skyvision.com/programming/alacarte.html</a> [skyvision.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say it 's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.Skyvision is a well known and reputable satellite provider of ala carte channels .
Their subscriber numbers are basically a rounding error compared to the big providers .
As for my relationship with skyvision , and providing ala carte channels , there is a guy on the NANOG mailing list with a well known humorous quote something like " I strongly encourage my competitors to deploy this bad idea " .http : //www.skyvision.com/programming/alacarte.html [ skyvision.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.Skyvision is a well known and reputable satellite provider of ala carte channels.
Their subscriber numbers are basically a rounding error compared to the big providers.
As for my relationship with skyvision, and providing ala carte channels, there is a guy on the NANOG mailing list with a well known humorous quote something like "I strongly encourage my competitors to deploy this bad idea".http://www.skyvision.com/programming/alacarte.html [skyvision.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392104</id>
	<title>Is the summary somewhat misleading, or TFA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, the post says "Cablevision and ABC have failed to come to an agreement after two years of negotiations, and as a result ABC has pulled all their channels from the Cablevision lineup."  This would suggest that subscribers are losing access not just to the broadcast ABC station, but all ABC stations including ABC Family, ESPN, and possibly the Disney-branded channels.</p><p>TFA seems to say that the dispute is over just the broadcast ABC station.  They make no mention of other ABC channels that might have been pulled.</p><p>Checking other articles doesn't clear this up - they all seem to be mostly worried that Cablevision subscribers in New York won't be able to see the Oscars.  (Oscar die-hard fans in New York, here's a hint - set up your rabbit ears.  If your TV doesn't do digital, go buy a $20 converter box to go with it.  You may be surprised at how good the broadcast content is in your area.  I know I was.)</p><p>So which is it?  "All" ABC channels or just the actual broadcast channel?  The story of ABC and Cablevision playing chicken over a broadcast station isn't that interesting really.  The story of ABC and Cablevision playing chicken with all ABC cable channels kind of is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , the post says " Cablevision and ABC have failed to come to an agreement after two years of negotiations , and as a result ABC has pulled all their channels from the Cablevision lineup .
" This would suggest that subscribers are losing access not just to the broadcast ABC station , but all ABC stations including ABC Family , ESPN , and possibly the Disney-branded channels.TFA seems to say that the dispute is over just the broadcast ABC station .
They make no mention of other ABC channels that might have been pulled.Checking other articles does n't clear this up - they all seem to be mostly worried that Cablevision subscribers in New York wo n't be able to see the Oscars .
( Oscar die-hard fans in New York , here 's a hint - set up your rabbit ears .
If your TV does n't do digital , go buy a $ 20 converter box to go with it .
You may be surprised at how good the broadcast content is in your area .
I know I was .
) So which is it ?
" All " ABC channels or just the actual broadcast channel ?
The story of ABC and Cablevision playing chicken over a broadcast station is n't that interesting really .
The story of ABC and Cablevision playing chicken with all ABC cable channels kind of is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, the post says "Cablevision and ABC have failed to come to an agreement after two years of negotiations, and as a result ABC has pulled all their channels from the Cablevision lineup.
"  This would suggest that subscribers are losing access not just to the broadcast ABC station, but all ABC stations including ABC Family, ESPN, and possibly the Disney-branded channels.TFA seems to say that the dispute is over just the broadcast ABC station.
They make no mention of other ABC channels that might have been pulled.Checking other articles doesn't clear this up - they all seem to be mostly worried that Cablevision subscribers in New York won't be able to see the Oscars.
(Oscar die-hard fans in New York, here's a hint - set up your rabbit ears.
If your TV doesn't do digital, go buy a $20 converter box to go with it.
You may be surprised at how good the broadcast content is in your area.
I know I was.
)So which is it?
"All" ABC channels or just the actual broadcast channel?
The story of ABC and Cablevision playing chicken over a broadcast station isn't that interesting really.
The story of ABC and Cablevision playing chicken with all ABC cable channels kind of is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393092</id>
	<title>Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267952640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gotta call BS on the A La Carte offering. They *call* it A La Carte, but its really a package where you have to pick up 100 channels. Of course you can choose which 100 channels, but you can't choose just 10 and pay for only those. The smallest package they offer is 65ish channels of music only. Also, you have to pay for at least 3 months at a time. Even finding those limited options takes a bit of looking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta call BS on the A La Carte offering .
They * call * it A La Carte , but its really a package where you have to pick up 100 channels .
Of course you can choose which 100 channels , but you ca n't choose just 10 and pay for only those .
The smallest package they offer is 65ish channels of music only .
Also , you have to pay for at least 3 months at a time .
Even finding those limited options takes a bit of looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta call BS on the A La Carte offering.
They *call* it A La Carte, but its really a package where you have to pick up 100 channels.
Of course you can choose which 100 channels, but you can't choose just 10 and pay for only those.
The smallest package they offer is 65ish channels of music only.
Also, you have to pay for at least 3 months at a time.
Even finding those limited options takes a bit of looking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31401730</id>
	<title>Antenna give you this for free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268069700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>over the air Antenna with atsc tuner in your hdtv and your problem is solved forever and for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>over the air Antenna with atsc tuner in your hdtv and your problem is solved forever and for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>over the air Antenna with atsc tuner in your hdtv and your problem is solved forever and for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395818</id>
	<title>Re:bundle fees have to end</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1267970880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Move your antenna higher so it is harder to interfer with it. I put my rabbit ears in the closet on the high shelf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Move your antenna higher so it is harder to interfer with it .
I put my rabbit ears in the closet on the high shelf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Move your antenna higher so it is harder to interfer with it.
I put my rabbit ears in the closet on the high shelf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31408368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31402918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31403658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31398702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31403358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31398872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_170235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31402918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31398702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396510
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31403358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31399774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31403658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31408368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31397462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31391914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31395138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31398872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31393128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31396898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31394386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_170235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_170235.31392104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
