<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1543250</id>
	<title>Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra For MMS &amp; Tethering?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244827080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"InfoWorld's Bill Snyder questions whether <a href="http://infoworld.com/t/services/att-going-charge-extra-new-iphone-services-041">AT&amp;T's jockeying on tethering and MMS may signal coming iPhone pricing surcharges</a>. After all, as Apple's exclusive US partner, Ma Bell should have plenty of insight into upcoming iPhone features and revenue opportunities. Yet AT&amp;T was very conspicuous in its absence from the list of providers who will support tethering and MMS at <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/06/08/197202/Apples-WWDC-Unveils-iPhone-30-OpenCL-Laptop-Updates-and-More">Tuesday's launch of the new iPhone at WWDC</a>, and by Wednesday, it was backpedaling furiously, saying it will offer both services &mdash; later in the year. Certainly, the exclusive arrangement between the companies is proving to be an <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/att-hamstrings-apple-671">ugly roadblock to Apple's iPhone vision</a>. But Snyder thinks it may go deeper than that: 'My best guess is that we'll see horrendous pricing surcharges for tethering and MMS, on top of the already expensive data and voice charges iPhone users pay. I don't think AT&amp;T execs wanted to stand up at WWDC and announce that.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " InfoWorld 's Bill Snyder questions whether AT&amp;T 's jockeying on tethering and MMS may signal coming iPhone pricing surcharges .
After all , as Apple 's exclusive US partner , Ma Bell should have plenty of insight into upcoming iPhone features and revenue opportunities .
Yet AT&amp;T was very conspicuous in its absence from the list of providers who will support tethering and MMS at Tuesday 's launch of the new iPhone at WWDC , and by Wednesday , it was backpedaling furiously , saying it will offer both services    later in the year .
Certainly , the exclusive arrangement between the companies is proving to be an ugly roadblock to Apple 's iPhone vision .
But Snyder thinks it may go deeper than that : 'My best guess is that we 'll see horrendous pricing surcharges for tethering and MMS , on top of the already expensive data and voice charges iPhone users pay .
I do n't think AT&amp;T execs wanted to stand up at WWDC and announce that .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Bill Snyder questions whether AT&amp;T's jockeying on tethering and MMS may signal coming iPhone pricing surcharges.
After all, as Apple's exclusive US partner, Ma Bell should have plenty of insight into upcoming iPhone features and revenue opportunities.
Yet AT&amp;T was very conspicuous in its absence from the list of providers who will support tethering and MMS at Tuesday's launch of the new iPhone at WWDC, and by Wednesday, it was backpedaling furiously, saying it will offer both services — later in the year.
Certainly, the exclusive arrangement between the companies is proving to be an ugly roadblock to Apple's iPhone vision.
But Snyder thinks it may go deeper than that: 'My best guess is that we'll see horrendous pricing surcharges for tethering and MMS, on top of the already expensive data and voice charges iPhone users pay.
I don't think AT&amp;T execs wanted to stand up at WWDC and announce that.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312197</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1244837040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once this is out, Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth.  Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet.   (With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this, but it's so expensive.)</p><p>Most companies do URL filtering at the gateway.  With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.</p><p>In the USA;<br>If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.<br>If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.</p><p>But what if I provide my own wireless Internet connection and bypass the filters work has in place?</p><p>I speak as one who does the filtering, not one who is trying to bypass them.</p></div><p>The answer, as with all legal matters is: "Talk to a lawyer."  If you're working for a company with corporate policies, then they likely have lawyers, whom you can talk to.  However, you're likely not responsible for making or enforcing corporate policy.</p><p>Now, that said, the first thing to know is that browsing or viewing adult content at work in the USA is a big no no, no matter how you're accessing it.  Viewing adult content in any way that can create a situation where someone else can see it, is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen.</p><p>The computer provided by the corporation is also company property, which must be used for strictly company use.  Bypassing a company enforced filter in any way would be a violation of employment rules.</p><p>So, filter the best you can on your network, and if someone is bypassing your filters, then go through the proper corporate policy of what to do if they bypass the filters, no matter what method they're using.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once this is out , Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth .
Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet .
( With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this , but it 's so expensive .
) Most companies do URL filtering at the gateway .
With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.In the USA ; If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection , work can be held libel.If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect , it is less likely that work can be held libel.But what if I provide my own wireless Internet connection and bypass the filters work has in place ? I speak as one who does the filtering , not one who is trying to bypass them.The answer , as with all legal matters is : " Talk to a lawyer .
" If you 're working for a company with corporate policies , then they likely have lawyers , whom you can talk to .
However , you 're likely not responsible for making or enforcing corporate policy.Now , that said , the first thing to know is that browsing or viewing adult content at work in the USA is a big no no , no matter how you 're accessing it .
Viewing adult content in any way that can create a situation where someone else can see it , is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen.The computer provided by the corporation is also company property , which must be used for strictly company use .
Bypassing a company enforced filter in any way would be a violation of employment rules.So , filter the best you can on your network , and if someone is bypassing your filters , then go through the proper corporate policy of what to do if they bypass the filters , no matter what method they 're using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once this is out, Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth.
Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet.
(With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this, but it's so expensive.
)Most companies do URL filtering at the gateway.
With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.In the USA;If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.But what if I provide my own wireless Internet connection and bypass the filters work has in place?I speak as one who does the filtering, not one who is trying to bypass them.The answer, as with all legal matters is: "Talk to a lawyer.
"  If you're working for a company with corporate policies, then they likely have lawyers, whom you can talk to.
However, you're likely not responsible for making or enforcing corporate policy.Now, that said, the first thing to know is that browsing or viewing adult content at work in the USA is a big no no, no matter how you're accessing it.
Viewing adult content in any way that can create a situation where someone else can see it, is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen.The computer provided by the corporation is also company property, which must be used for strictly company use.
Bypassing a company enforced filter in any way would be a violation of employment rules.So, filter the best you can on your network, and if someone is bypassing your filters, then go through the proper corporate policy of what to do if they bypass the filters, no matter what method they're using.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310853</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that was an awkward moment when they were talking about tethering and totally skipped over AT&amp;T, wasn't it?</p><p>Well, AT&amp;T had no problem repeatedly, illegally <a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/67334/at&amp;t\_whistleblower:\_telecom\_immunity\_is\_a\_cover-up\_\%5Bvideo\%5D/" title="alternet.org" rel="nofollow">spying on me</a> [alternet.org] and <a href="http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/04/6585.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">selling me out</a> [arstechnica.com] <a href="http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/06/20/another-att-secret-room-revealed/" title="homelandstupidity.us" rel="nofollow">multiple</a> [homelandstupidity.us] times and then lobbying to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-9986716-38.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">get themselves off</a> [cnet.com].</p><p>I canceled them as my home service and will never EVER use them again, which precludes an iPhone (for now).</p><p>Which is fine, because rooted Android has had tethering (<a href="http://www.cyrket.com/package/com.androidactivity.tetherBluFree" title="cyrket.com" rel="nofollow">bluetooth</a> [cyrket.com] &amp; <a href="http://www.cyrket.com/asset/7094357630468348762" title="cyrket.com" rel="nofollow">wifi</a> [cyrket.com]) for a while now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that was an awkward moment when they were talking about tethering and totally skipped over AT&amp;T , was n't it ? Well , AT&amp;T had no problem repeatedly , illegally spying on me [ alternet.org ] and selling me out [ arstechnica.com ] multiple [ homelandstupidity.us ] times and then lobbying to get themselves off [ cnet.com ] .I canceled them as my home service and will never EVER use them again , which precludes an iPhone ( for now ) .Which is fine , because rooted Android has had tethering ( bluetooth [ cyrket.com ] &amp; wifi [ cyrket.com ] ) for a while now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that was an awkward moment when they were talking about tethering and totally skipped over AT&amp;T, wasn't it?Well, AT&amp;T had no problem repeatedly, illegally spying on me [alternet.org] and selling me out [arstechnica.com] multiple [homelandstupidity.us] times and then lobbying to get themselves off [cnet.com].I canceled them as my home service and will never EVER use them again, which precludes an iPhone (for now).Which is fine, because rooted Android has had tethering (bluetooth [cyrket.com] &amp; wifi [cyrket.com]) for a while now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311393</id>
	<title>Dittos</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1244834040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keeping my 3G for app testing. Switching to Boost Mobile to save $900 per year <b>with</b> tethering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping my 3G for app testing .
Switching to Boost Mobile to save $ 900 per year with tethering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping my 3G for app testing.
Switching to Boost Mobile to save $900 per year with tethering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637</id>
	<title>Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until they upgrade their capacity. Maybe it's that simple. Maybe it's not a conspiracy to deprive you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until they upgrade their capacity .
Maybe it 's that simple .
Maybe it 's not a conspiracy to deprive you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until they upgrade their capacity.
Maybe it's that simple.
Maybe it's not a conspiracy to deprive you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312727</id>
	<title>Re:Leverage</title>
	<author>FroBugg</author>
	<datestamp>1244838840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The missing option in your scenario is what makes this all ridiculous.</p><p>I'm on AT&amp;T, I do not have an iPhone, and I do not want one. I have a Blackberry Bold, which I'm extremely happy with. I'm also satisfied with AT&amp;T's service.</p><p>The reason this all makes me laugh is that Blackberries do tethering with no extra services or fees. I can connect to my phone through USB or bluetooth and get my laptop online wherever I like, and I don't pay a dime beyond the same unlimited data package iPhone users get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The missing option in your scenario is what makes this all ridiculous.I 'm on AT&amp;T , I do not have an iPhone , and I do not want one .
I have a Blackberry Bold , which I 'm extremely happy with .
I 'm also satisfied with AT&amp;T 's service.The reason this all makes me laugh is that Blackberries do tethering with no extra services or fees .
I can connect to my phone through USB or bluetooth and get my laptop online wherever I like , and I do n't pay a dime beyond the same unlimited data package iPhone users get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The missing option in your scenario is what makes this all ridiculous.I'm on AT&amp;T, I do not have an iPhone, and I do not want one.
I have a Blackberry Bold, which I'm extremely happy with.
I'm also satisfied with AT&amp;T's service.The reason this all makes me laugh is that Blackberries do tethering with no extra services or fees.
I can connect to my phone through USB or bluetooth and get my laptop online wherever I like, and I don't pay a dime beyond the same unlimited data package iPhone users get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312691</id>
	<title>No charges for MMS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My source that works at AT&amp;T said that MMS will be part of your monthly fees that you already pay. So from what I gather, there will be no new charges for MMS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My source that works at AT&amp;T said that MMS will be part of your monthly fees that you already pay .
So from what I gather , there will be no new charges for MMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My source that works at AT&amp;T said that MMS will be part of your monthly fees that you already pay.
So from what I gather, there will be no new charges for MMS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312713</id>
	<title>Re:Leverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Apple can't do anything about it and AT&amp;T will use this in 2010 contract negotiations as a bargaining chip.</p></div><p>Woah - what? Yeah, this will be a bargaining chip, but for Apple, not AT&amp;T. You said yourself that the iPhone is a great device without AT&amp;T. Easy enough for Apple to take their ball and play elsewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple ca n't do anything about it and AT&amp;T will use this in 2010 contract negotiations as a bargaining chip.Woah - what ?
Yeah , this will be a bargaining chip , but for Apple , not AT&amp;T .
You said yourself that the iPhone is a great device without AT&amp;T .
Easy enough for Apple to take their ball and play elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Apple can't do anything about it and AT&amp;T will use this in 2010 contract negotiations as a bargaining chip.Woah - what?
Yeah, this will be a bargaining chip, but for Apple, not AT&amp;T.
You said yourself that the iPhone is a great device without AT&amp;T.
Easy enough for Apple to take their ball and play elsewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316025</id>
	<title>MMS is simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244813460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not about AT&amp;T wanting to charge for MMS, its about the fact that their MMSC servers arent up to the task of all those iPhone users sending MMSs. And the fact that there is no easy way to disable the MMS redirect only for phones that have MMS support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not about AT&amp;T wanting to charge for MMS , its about the fact that their MMSC servers arent up to the task of all those iPhone users sending MMSs .
And the fact that there is no easy way to disable the MMS redirect only for phones that have MMS support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not about AT&amp;T wanting to charge for MMS, its about the fact that their MMSC servers arent up to the task of all those iPhone users sending MMSs.
And the fact that there is no easy way to disable the MMS redirect only for phones that have MMS support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313183</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1244797320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well in throwing T-Mobile in there, you should at least note that the situation is this.. If you bought a G1 phone from them, yes your monthly rate is going to be the same as if you supplied the phone yourself, but you have no 2 year obligation for either phone or service.. It is also a strange situation with the G1.., in comparing it to identical services with their other smartphones from T-Mobile, it came out cheaper per month.. so if they are subsidizing the phone, then they are doing it at a gamble since there is no contract.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well in throwing T-Mobile in there , you should at least note that the situation is this.. If you bought a G1 phone from them , yes your monthly rate is going to be the same as if you supplied the phone yourself , but you have no 2 year obligation for either phone or service.. It is also a strange situation with the G1.. , in comparing it to identical services with their other smartphones from T-Mobile , it came out cheaper per month.. so if they are subsidizing the phone , then they are doing it at a gamble since there is no contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well in throwing T-Mobile in there, you should at least note that the situation is this.. If you bought a G1 phone from them, yes your monthly rate is going to be the same as if you supplied the phone yourself, but you have no 2 year obligation for either phone or service.. It is also a strange situation with the G1.., in comparing it to identical services with their other smartphones from T-Mobile, it came out cheaper per month.. so if they are subsidizing the phone, then they are doing it at a gamble since there is no contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311119</id>
	<title>O2 pricing in the UK</title>
	<author>admcd</author>
	<datestamp>1244832960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>O2 in the UK will be supporting tethering on the iPhone as an add on to their contracts.</p><p>Contracts start at 29.38 GBP (approx 48 USD) for an 18 month contract. Tethering starts at 14.68 GBP (approx 24 USD) extra for a 3GB package.</p><p>Details at: <a href="http://shop.o2.co.uk/update/internet.html" title="o2.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://shop.o2.co.uk/update/internet.html</a> [o2.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>O2 in the UK will be supporting tethering on the iPhone as an add on to their contracts.Contracts start at 29.38 GBP ( approx 48 USD ) for an 18 month contract .
Tethering starts at 14.68 GBP ( approx 24 USD ) extra for a 3GB package.Details at : http : //shop.o2.co.uk/update/internet.html [ o2.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O2 in the UK will be supporting tethering on the iPhone as an add on to their contracts.Contracts start at 29.38 GBP (approx 48 USD) for an 18 month contract.
Tethering starts at 14.68 GBP (approx 24 USD) extra for a 3GB package.Details at: http://shop.o2.co.uk/update/internet.html [o2.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311267</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1244833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&amp;T we would do so. Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that <i>we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts</i>, but listen up AT&amp;T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.</p></div><p>So basically you like the iPhone so much that as long as the exclusivity agreement's in place, you'll put up with any amount of AT&amp;T's crap and paying them anyway.<br> <br>
So presumably if the iPhone moves exclusively to another network, you'll go with *them* too.<br> <br>
Therefore, AT&amp;T and/or other networks have no reason to care about or pay attention to your complaints or threats, only to ensure that they have (and continue to have) the iPhone exclusivity agreement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&amp;T we would do so .
Do n't get me wrong , we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts , but listen up AT&amp;T , you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.So basically you like the iPhone so much that as long as the exclusivity agreement 's in place , you 'll put up with any amount of AT&amp;T 's crap and paying them anyway .
So presumably if the iPhone moves exclusively to another network , you 'll go with * them * too .
Therefore , AT&amp;T and/or other networks have no reason to care about or pay attention to your complaints or threats , only to ensure that they have ( and continue to have ) the iPhone exclusivity agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&amp;T we would do so.
Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&amp;T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.So basically you like the iPhone so much that as long as the exclusivity agreement's in place, you'll put up with any amount of AT&amp;T's crap and paying them anyway.
So presumably if the iPhone moves exclusively to another network, you'll go with *them* too.
Therefore, AT&amp;T and/or other networks have no reason to care about or pay attention to your complaints or threats, only to ensure that they have (and continue to have) the iPhone exclusivity agreement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311253</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1244833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth. Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet. (With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this, but it's so expensive.) With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.</p><p>In the USA;<br>If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.<br>If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.</p></div></blockquote><p>Be careful. I know of a case where somebody did something like that. While the actual pr0n was going through his local connection, all his DNS look-ups were still going over the company's DNS server, and somebody was watching and wondering why the inDUHvidual in question was looking up "www.chickswithdonkeys.com" and "www.highheelsandenemas.com".</p><p>The person got in a bit of hot water over this.</p><p>Besides, it doesn't matter whether you were using your work PC or network or not: you were at work, you were doing this, if somebody catches you they can sue your employer for "creating or allowing a hostile workplace", and they will be in trouble, and you WILL be fired.</p><p>You want to visit pr0n sites - best to do it at home.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth .
Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet .
( With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this , but it 's so expensive .
) With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.In the USA ; If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection , work can be held libel.If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect , it is less likely that work can be held libel.Be careful .
I know of a case where somebody did something like that .
While the actual pr0n was going through his local connection , all his DNS look-ups were still going over the company 's DNS server , and somebody was watching and wondering why the inDUHvidual in question was looking up " www.chickswithdonkeys.com " and " www.highheelsandenemas.com " .The person got in a bit of hot water over this.Besides , it does n't matter whether you were using your work PC or network or not : you were at work , you were doing this , if somebody catches you they can sue your employer for " creating or allowing a hostile workplace " , and they will be in trouble , and you WILL be fired.You want to visit pr0n sites - best to do it at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth.
Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet.
(With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this, but it's so expensive.
) With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.In the USA;If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.Be careful.
I know of a case where somebody did something like that.
While the actual pr0n was going through his local connection, all his DNS look-ups were still going over the company's DNS server, and somebody was watching and wondering why the inDUHvidual in question was looking up "www.chickswithdonkeys.com" and "www.highheelsandenemas.com".The person got in a bit of hot water over this.Besides, it doesn't matter whether you were using your work PC or network or not: you were at work, you were doing this, if somebody catches you they can sue your employer for "creating or allowing a hostile workplace", and they will be in trouble, and you WILL be fired.You want to visit pr0n sites - best to do it at home.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314133</id>
	<title>Re:No MMS?</title>
	<author>slapout</author>
	<datestamp>1244801280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I think AT&amp;T simply doesn't have the capacity."</p><p>I think you're right.  AT&amp;T has had years to up the capacity and have not. Now its coming back to haunt them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think AT&amp;T simply does n't have the capacity .
" I think you 're right .
AT&amp;T has had years to up the capacity and have not .
Now its coming back to haunt them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think AT&amp;T simply doesn't have the capacity.
"I think you're right.
AT&amp;T has had years to up the capacity and have not.
Now its coming back to haunt them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310813</id>
	<title>Re:Favorite Quote</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1244831880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh?  How exactly is this?  Can no other wireless carriers compete on the same turf?  Oh!  They can now!</p><p>AT&amp;T had a stranglehold on landlines at the time, and that's how they managed to hold back 'innovation'.  They do not have the market on wireless phones cornered, nor are they close.</p><p>If you don't like them, don't sign up for their service!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh ?
How exactly is this ?
Can no other wireless carriers compete on the same turf ?
Oh ! They can now ! AT&amp;T had a stranglehold on landlines at the time , and that 's how they managed to hold back 'innovation' .
They do not have the market on wireless phones cornered , nor are they close.If you do n't like them , do n't sign up for their service !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh?
How exactly is this?
Can no other wireless carriers compete on the same turf?
Oh!  They can now!AT&amp;T had a stranglehold on landlines at the time, and that's how they managed to hold back 'innovation'.
They do not have the market on wireless phones cornered, nor are they close.If you don't like them, don't sign up for their service!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310883</id>
	<title>Re:Favorite Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A small point, but the company that sells you cellular service under the name "AT&amp;T Mobility" is actually a company that was known up until two years ago as "Cingular Wireless," which is basically the old SBC.  I had actual AT&amp;T wireless from the real AT&amp;T in the 90s and here in LA, on CDMA, it was great and the customer service was perfectly fine.  It all went downhill when SBC/Cingular bought them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A small point , but the company that sells you cellular service under the name " AT&amp;T Mobility " is actually a company that was known up until two years ago as " Cingular Wireless , " which is basically the old SBC .
I had actual AT&amp;T wireless from the real AT&amp;T in the 90s and here in LA , on CDMA , it was great and the customer service was perfectly fine .
It all went downhill when SBC/Cingular bought them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A small point, but the company that sells you cellular service under the name "AT&amp;T Mobility" is actually a company that was known up until two years ago as "Cingular Wireless," which is basically the old SBC.
I had actual AT&amp;T wireless from the real AT&amp;T in the 90s and here in LA, on CDMA, it was great and the customer service was perfectly fine.
It all went downhill when SBC/Cingular bought them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316701</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T...</title>
	<author>pvito</author>
	<datestamp>1244819760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can kiss my ass!</htmltext>
<tokenext>can kiss my ass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can kiss my ass!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311513</id>
	<title>Re:Not just AT&amp;T, folks</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1244834520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>The difference is "unlimited" vs unlimited.<br><br>If you read through the "unlimited" for home use is "*unlimited based on our internal estimation of how much a home user should use per month".<br><br>The corporate unlimited is truly unlimited.<br><br>Not a stupid tax, but just as deceptive. </tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is " unlimited " vs unlimited.If you read through the " unlimited " for home use is " * unlimited based on our internal estimation of how much a home user should use per month " .The corporate unlimited is truly unlimited.Not a stupid tax , but just as deceptive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is "unlimited" vs unlimited.If you read through the "unlimited" for home use is "*unlimited based on our internal estimation of how much a home user should use per month".The corporate unlimited is truly unlimited.Not a stupid tax, but just as deceptive. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314211</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244801640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check contracts. We use the iPhone, but my understanding is that it is on Sprint's network. AT&amp;T was cited as the original reason we couldn't get them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check contracts .
We use the iPhone , but my understanding is that it is on Sprint 's network .
AT&amp;T was cited as the original reason we could n't get them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check contracts.
We use the iPhone, but my understanding is that it is on Sprint's network.
AT&amp;T was cited as the original reason we couldn't get them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28319033</id>
	<title>Re:Then don't buy it!</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1244898960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Skype is available for the 2G iPod Touch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skype is available for the 2G iPod Touch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skype is available for the 2G iPod Touch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310973</id>
	<title>Re:Do people actually think VZW will be any better</title>
	<author>rpmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where I live, the best coverage is provided by AT&amp;T and VZW. I dropped AT&amp;T after years with them because their customer service is atrocious. They will never get any of my money again if I can help it.</p><p>My phone died with 5 months left on my contract. I went to the AT&amp;T store to try to get a new phone. This was during the ATT -&gt; Cingular merger. They couldn't sell me an "AT&amp;T" phone because there were no AT&amp;T plans available, and I couldn't replace the phone on my existing plan. OK, how about a "Cingular" phone then? "We can do that, but you would have to pay the early termination penalty on your AT&amp;T plan."  I said piss off and went home to call AT&amp;T customer service directly, and proceeded to get the same story.</p><p>I don't understand why companies feel the need to shoot themselves in the foot like this. I was more than willing to pay for a new phone and sign a new contract, but because they were pricks, I switched companies and will <em>never</em> deal with them again. Oh well, just traded one greedy corporation for another, but at least the new one hasn't tried to screw me over... yet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I live , the best coverage is provided by AT&amp;T and VZW .
I dropped AT&amp;T after years with them because their customer service is atrocious .
They will never get any of my money again if I can help it.My phone died with 5 months left on my contract .
I went to the AT&amp;T store to try to get a new phone .
This was during the ATT - &gt; Cingular merger .
They could n't sell me an " AT&amp;T " phone because there were no AT&amp;T plans available , and I could n't replace the phone on my existing plan .
OK , how about a " Cingular " phone then ?
" We can do that , but you would have to pay the early termination penalty on your AT&amp;T plan .
" I said piss off and went home to call AT&amp;T customer service directly , and proceeded to get the same story.I do n't understand why companies feel the need to shoot themselves in the foot like this .
I was more than willing to pay for a new phone and sign a new contract , but because they were pricks , I switched companies and will never deal with them again .
Oh well , just traded one greedy corporation for another , but at least the new one has n't tried to screw me over... yet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I live, the best coverage is provided by AT&amp;T and VZW.
I dropped AT&amp;T after years with them because their customer service is atrocious.
They will never get any of my money again if I can help it.My phone died with 5 months left on my contract.
I went to the AT&amp;T store to try to get a new phone.
This was during the ATT -&gt; Cingular merger.
They couldn't sell me an "AT&amp;T" phone because there were no AT&amp;T plans available, and I couldn't replace the phone on my existing plan.
OK, how about a "Cingular" phone then?
"We can do that, but you would have to pay the early termination penalty on your AT&amp;T plan.
"  I said piss off and went home to call AT&amp;T customer service directly, and proceeded to get the same story.I don't understand why companies feel the need to shoot themselves in the foot like this.
I was more than willing to pay for a new phone and sign a new contract, but because they were pricks, I switched companies and will never deal with them again.
Oh well, just traded one greedy corporation for another, but at least the new one hasn't tried to screw me over... yet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312235</id>
	<title>Yes, they will</title>
	<author>Potent</author>
	<datestamp>1244837220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tethering and MMS cost extra on every other device that AT&amp;T provides service for.  What makes this one any different?</p><p>Like some other posters on this thread, I find it sad that the iPhone is just now getting around to supporting these features.</p><p>I recently purchased a Blackberry 9000 (Bold) through AT&amp;T and it does both.  I can share my phone's data plan with other devices via USB or Bluetooth.  Piece of cake.  It does, however, cost an extra $30/mo for the ability to tether it.  Sucks, but that is half the cost of a standalone data card.</p><p>Also, the author of the story missed the reason that Verizon and the iPhone didn't happen.  Verizon is a CDMA carrier, whereas AT&amp;T is GSM.  There is no such thing as a CDMA iPhone.  Everyone may bitch about AT&amp;T, but they are the only carrier other than T-Mobile in the United States that CAN support the iPhone.  AT&amp;T's 3G coverage leaves much to be desired, but it is a hell of a lot better than T-Mobile's.  To make things worse, T-Mobile also has no plan that allows tethering of its devices.  It is prohibited in the TOS.</p><p>Don't get your hopes up for a CDMA version any time soon.  The problem with CDMA and the iPhone is that CDMA radios are larger and consume far more power than GSM radios.  Think of the battery life that you have with your current iPhone, and cut it in half.</p><p>The Motorola RAZR is a prime example of a device that was nice on GSM, but the CDMA versions should have never made it out the door.  Once I asked a friend how long the battery lasted in her Verizon RAZR v3.  She said "Oh, usually till lunch time".  haha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tethering and MMS cost extra on every other device that AT&amp;T provides service for .
What makes this one any different ? Like some other posters on this thread , I find it sad that the iPhone is just now getting around to supporting these features.I recently purchased a Blackberry 9000 ( Bold ) through AT&amp;T and it does both .
I can share my phone 's data plan with other devices via USB or Bluetooth .
Piece of cake .
It does , however , cost an extra $ 30/mo for the ability to tether it .
Sucks , but that is half the cost of a standalone data card.Also , the author of the story missed the reason that Verizon and the iPhone did n't happen .
Verizon is a CDMA carrier , whereas AT&amp;T is GSM .
There is no such thing as a CDMA iPhone .
Everyone may bitch about AT&amp;T , but they are the only carrier other than T-Mobile in the United States that CAN support the iPhone .
AT&amp;T 's 3G coverage leaves much to be desired , but it is a hell of a lot better than T-Mobile 's .
To make things worse , T-Mobile also has no plan that allows tethering of its devices .
It is prohibited in the TOS.Do n't get your hopes up for a CDMA version any time soon .
The problem with CDMA and the iPhone is that CDMA radios are larger and consume far more power than GSM radios .
Think of the battery life that you have with your current iPhone , and cut it in half.The Motorola RAZR is a prime example of a device that was nice on GSM , but the CDMA versions should have never made it out the door .
Once I asked a friend how long the battery lasted in her Verizon RAZR v3 .
She said " Oh , usually till lunch time " .
haha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tethering and MMS cost extra on every other device that AT&amp;T provides service for.
What makes this one any different?Like some other posters on this thread, I find it sad that the iPhone is just now getting around to supporting these features.I recently purchased a Blackberry 9000 (Bold) through AT&amp;T and it does both.
I can share my phone's data plan with other devices via USB or Bluetooth.
Piece of cake.
It does, however, cost an extra $30/mo for the ability to tether it.
Sucks, but that is half the cost of a standalone data card.Also, the author of the story missed the reason that Verizon and the iPhone didn't happen.
Verizon is a CDMA carrier, whereas AT&amp;T is GSM.
There is no such thing as a CDMA iPhone.
Everyone may bitch about AT&amp;T, but they are the only carrier other than T-Mobile in the United States that CAN support the iPhone.
AT&amp;T's 3G coverage leaves much to be desired, but it is a hell of a lot better than T-Mobile's.
To make things worse, T-Mobile also has no plan that allows tethering of its devices.
It is prohibited in the TOS.Don't get your hopes up for a CDMA version any time soon.
The problem with CDMA and the iPhone is that CDMA radios are larger and consume far more power than GSM radios.
Think of the battery life that you have with your current iPhone, and cut it in half.The Motorola RAZR is a prime example of a device that was nice on GSM, but the CDMA versions should have never made it out the door.
Once I asked a friend how long the battery lasted in her Verizon RAZR v3.
She said "Oh, usually till lunch time".
haha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310939</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But who would you go to? Let's say the exclusivity contract with AT&amp;T ended right now. Who would you switch to?</p><p>Verizon? Uses a protocol that's incompatible with the iPhone.<br>T-Mobile? Horrible coverage.<br>Sprint? Counting the days until they're part of Verizon.</p><p>Anyone else in the US? Reselling the service of one of those four previously mentioned companies.</p><p>And we owe our lack of choice to the US Government! Thanks to regulations on cell companies, no competitors are allowed to exist. Yay regulation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who would you go to ?
Let 's say the exclusivity contract with AT&amp;T ended right now .
Who would you switch to ? Verizon ?
Uses a protocol that 's incompatible with the iPhone.T-Mobile ?
Horrible coverage.Sprint ?
Counting the days until they 're part of Verizon.Anyone else in the US ?
Reselling the service of one of those four previously mentioned companies.And we owe our lack of choice to the US Government !
Thanks to regulations on cell companies , no competitors are allowed to exist .
Yay regulation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who would you go to?
Let's say the exclusivity contract with AT&amp;T ended right now.
Who would you switch to?Verizon?
Uses a protocol that's incompatible with the iPhone.T-Mobile?
Horrible coverage.Sprint?
Counting the days until they're part of Verizon.Anyone else in the US?
Reselling the service of one of those four previously mentioned companies.And we owe our lack of choice to the US Government!
Thanks to regulations on cell companies, no competitors are allowed to exist.
Yay regulation!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315231</id>
	<title>Re:No MMS?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244807340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being able to tether your phone used to cost you practically another plan and special phones</p></div><p>What "special phones"? I've been doing that with every phone I have owned for the last 5 years or so. None of them were smartphones either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being able to tether your phone used to cost you practically another plan and special phonesWhat " special phones " ?
I 've been doing that with every phone I have owned for the last 5 years or so .
None of them were smartphones either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being able to tether your phone used to cost you practically another plan and special phonesWhat "special phones"?
I've been doing that with every phone I have owned for the last 5 years or so.
None of them were smartphones either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312925</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1244839500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, the word is liable.</p><p>Second, it's clear from your examples that you have no idea what you're talking about.  What would the company be liable FOR?  Viewing porn is not a crime.  Sexual harassment is, but if the network policy prohibits using company assets for non-work related tasks (as it probably does), then the company is covered, period.  For the company to be liable, it would have to be aware of the behavior, ignore it, AND ignore complaints about it.</p><p>And from a technical perspective, the iPhone brings nothing new to the corporate security table with tethering.  If the network settings are locked down, then the iPhone won't get around that.  If they're not locked down, then employees can already do whatever they want, including tethering, using a wifi network, etc.  Aside from that, tunneling around filters is already possible and trivial without changing a single setting on the desktop.</p><p>Technical limits are fine and dandy for discouraging violation of policy, but it always comes down to policy, and if an employee is violating that policy, then reprimand or fire him and carry on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the word is liable.Second , it 's clear from your examples that you have no idea what you 're talking about .
What would the company be liable FOR ?
Viewing porn is not a crime .
Sexual harassment is , but if the network policy prohibits using company assets for non-work related tasks ( as it probably does ) , then the company is covered , period .
For the company to be liable , it would have to be aware of the behavior , ignore it , AND ignore complaints about it.And from a technical perspective , the iPhone brings nothing new to the corporate security table with tethering .
If the network settings are locked down , then the iPhone wo n't get around that .
If they 're not locked down , then employees can already do whatever they want , including tethering , using a wifi network , etc .
Aside from that , tunneling around filters is already possible and trivial without changing a single setting on the desktop.Technical limits are fine and dandy for discouraging violation of policy , but it always comes down to policy , and if an employee is violating that policy , then reprimand or fire him and carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the word is liable.Second, it's clear from your examples that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What would the company be liable FOR?
Viewing porn is not a crime.
Sexual harassment is, but if the network policy prohibits using company assets for non-work related tasks (as it probably does), then the company is covered, period.
For the company to be liable, it would have to be aware of the behavior, ignore it, AND ignore complaints about it.And from a technical perspective, the iPhone brings nothing new to the corporate security table with tethering.
If the network settings are locked down, then the iPhone won't get around that.
If they're not locked down, then employees can already do whatever they want, including tethering, using a wifi network, etc.
Aside from that, tunneling around filters is already possible and trivial without changing a single setting on the desktop.Technical limits are fine and dandy for discouraging violation of policy, but it always comes down to policy, and if an employee is violating that policy, then reprimand or fire him and carry on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311729</id>
	<title>Hint:   They don't care</title>
	<author>tacokill</author>
	<datestamp>1244835360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T does not care if you "drop their ass".
<br>
<br>
Do you not think they know what they are doing?   They know this very well.   But they also know they are not in a competitive industry so they can do whatever they want.
<br>
<br>
And therein lies the rub.  While they aren't a monopoly in technical or legal terms, they are a monopoly in practical terms.   Until we reconcile that, the only thing certain is that AT&amp;T will continue to try to fuck customers as much as they can.    You would too if you had a business model like they do and a regulatory environment that allows it.
<br>
<br>
As they say....common sense isn't so common.   We <b>all</b> know it isn't right.   But nothing is being done to correct it.   After 30+ years, I am not holding my breath for positive progress in this area.  In other words, the beatings will continue until morale improves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T does not care if you " drop their ass " .
Do you not think they know what they are doing ?
They know this very well .
But they also know they are not in a competitive industry so they can do whatever they want .
And therein lies the rub .
While they are n't a monopoly in technical or legal terms , they are a monopoly in practical terms .
Until we reconcile that , the only thing certain is that AT&amp;T will continue to try to fuck customers as much as they can .
You would too if you had a business model like they do and a regulatory environment that allows it .
As they say....common sense is n't so common .
We all know it is n't right .
But nothing is being done to correct it .
After 30 + years , I am not holding my breath for positive progress in this area .
In other words , the beatings will continue until morale improves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T does not care if you "drop their ass".
Do you not think they know what they are doing?
They know this very well.
But they also know they are not in a competitive industry so they can do whatever they want.
And therein lies the rub.
While they aren't a monopoly in technical or legal terms, they are a monopoly in practical terms.
Until we reconcile that, the only thing certain is that AT&amp;T will continue to try to fuck customers as much as they can.
You would too if you had a business model like they do and a regulatory environment that allows it.
As they say....common sense isn't so common.
We all know it isn't right.
But nothing is being done to correct it.
After 30+ years, I am not holding my breath for positive progress in this area.
In other words, the beatings will continue until morale improves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313259</id>
	<title>O2 are charging for tethering in the UK</title>
	<author>hao3</author>
	<datestamp>1244797560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>O2 are charging &pound;14.68 a month for tethering, with a 3GB cap or &pound;29.36 for 10GB. It's not available on Pay &amp; Go. <a href="http://shop.o2.co.uk/update/internet.html" title="o2.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://shop.o2.co.uk/update/internet.html</a> [o2.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>O2 are charging   14.68 a month for tethering , with a 3GB cap or   29.36 for 10GB .
It 's not available on Pay &amp; Go .
http : //shop.o2.co.uk/update/internet.html [ o2.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O2 are charging £14.68 a month for tethering, with a 3GB cap or £29.36 for 10GB.
It's not available on Pay &amp; Go.
http://shop.o2.co.uk/update/internet.html [o2.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311795</id>
	<title>Re:Favorite Quote</title>
	<author>GaratNW</author>
	<datestamp>1244835540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent quote to call out, and very apt. What I found funny was the actual headline. It could much more cleanly read:<br>"Will a corporation charge their customers more if they think they can get away with it, even if there is no technical merit or cost basis behind the decision?"</p><p>There would be no need for further conversation. The thread could then be summed up with: "Uhm... duh?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent quote to call out , and very apt .
What I found funny was the actual headline .
It could much more cleanly read : " Will a corporation charge their customers more if they think they can get away with it , even if there is no technical merit or cost basis behind the decision ?
" There would be no need for further conversation .
The thread could then be summed up with : " Uhm.. .
duh ? "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent quote to call out, and very apt.
What I found funny was the actual headline.
It could much more cleanly read:"Will a corporation charge their customers more if they think they can get away with it, even if there is no technical merit or cost basis behind the decision?
"There would be no need for further conversation.
The thread could then be summed up with: "Uhm...
duh?"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311327</id>
	<title>Re:Leverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[AT&amp;T] are gambling that pressure will grow on Apple to do something about it.</p></div><p>Like what exactly is Apple supposed to do?  Public pressure won't make Apple suddenly give back it's cut of the handset subsidy, which I imagine is the biggest bone of contention.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves</p></div><p>If that's their strategy they're already far behind; they should have had someone up-front at WWDC putting their spin on it.  Apple's had the opportunity now to demonstrate the new iPhone features, and show that they work everywhere but under AT&amp;T.  All media reports have done exactly what Apple wanted; they revealed the new features, but have been careful to note that many new features are not available <em>with AT&amp;T</em>.  AT&amp;T has been basically silent this whole time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ AT&amp;T ] are gambling that pressure will grow on Apple to do something about it.Like what exactly is Apple supposed to do ?
Public pressure wo n't make Apple suddenly give back it 's cut of the handset subsidy , which I imagine is the biggest bone of contention.AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselvesIf that 's their strategy they 're already far behind ; they should have had someone up-front at WWDC putting their spin on it .
Apple 's had the opportunity now to demonstrate the new iPhone features , and show that they work everywhere but under AT&amp;T .
All media reports have done exactly what Apple wanted ; they revealed the new features , but have been careful to note that many new features are not available with AT&amp;T .
AT&amp;T has been basically silent this whole time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[AT&amp;T] are gambling that pressure will grow on Apple to do something about it.Like what exactly is Apple supposed to do?
Public pressure won't make Apple suddenly give back it's cut of the handset subsidy, which I imagine is the biggest bone of contention.AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselvesIf that's their strategy they're already far behind; they should have had someone up-front at WWDC putting their spin on it.
Apple's had the opportunity now to demonstrate the new iPhone features, and show that they work everywhere but under AT&amp;T.
All media reports have done exactly what Apple wanted; they revealed the new features, but have been careful to note that many new features are not available with AT&amp;T.
AT&amp;T has been basically silent this whole time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315105</id>
	<title>Re:I thought...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244806620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paying extra <b>to Apple</b> for <b>Apple</b> stuff is considered a feature by Apple users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paying extra to Apple for Apple stuff is considered a feature by Apple users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paying extra to Apple for Apple stuff is considered a feature by Apple users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310729</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T "backpeddling furiously"</title>
	<author>bugeaterr</author>
	<datestamp>1244831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they didn't trip? They must be on sure footing.<br>I'm putting out a "buy" signal on AT&amp;T shares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they did n't trip ?
They must be on sure footing.I 'm putting out a " buy " signal on AT&amp;T shares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they didn't trip?
They must be on sure footing.I'm putting out a "buy" signal on AT&amp;T shares.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312533</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>EtherMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244838180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&amp;T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.  We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.</p></div><p>And do what?  You'll go to Verizon and have exactly the same problems.  Or you'll go to Sprint and have mostly the same problems with less signal coverage.  Or you'll go to T-Mobile and get mostly the same problems and shit-poor coverage.  </p><p>Unless the FCC or FTC gets involved and puts an end to this BS practice of bait-and-switch pricing it will only get worse.  Just look at airline ticket pricing.  You can buy a ticket for $25 one way but it will cost you another $80 in fees, surcharges and taxes before you can get to your destination with your clothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts , but listen up AT&amp;T , you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass .
We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.And do what ?
You 'll go to Verizon and have exactly the same problems .
Or you 'll go to Sprint and have mostly the same problems with less signal coverage .
Or you 'll go to T-Mobile and get mostly the same problems and shit-poor coverage .
Unless the FCC or FTC gets involved and puts an end to this BS practice of bait-and-switch pricing it will only get worse .
Just look at airline ticket pricing .
You can buy a ticket for $ 25 one way but it will cost you another $ 80 in fees , surcharges and taxes before you can get to your destination with your clothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&amp;T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.
We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.And do what?
You'll go to Verizon and have exactly the same problems.
Or you'll go to Sprint and have mostly the same problems with less signal coverage.
Or you'll go to T-Mobile and get mostly the same problems and shit-poor coverage.
Unless the FCC or FTC gets involved and puts an end to this BS practice of bait-and-switch pricing it will only get worse.
Just look at airline ticket pricing.
You can buy a ticket for $25 one way but it will cost you another $80 in fees, surcharges and taxes before you can get to your destination with your clothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310715</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering</title>
	<author>Fahrvergnuugen</author>
	<datestamp>1244831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ditto for MMS. What would be special about iPhone MMS, other than that all of a sudden millions of iPhone users are suddenly going to start using the service. Here's to hoping its simply a capacity problem and not a "how can we rape our customers even more" problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto for MMS .
What would be special about iPhone MMS , other than that all of a sudden millions of iPhone users are suddenly going to start using the service .
Here 's to hoping its simply a capacity problem and not a " how can we rape our customers even more " problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto for MMS.
What would be special about iPhone MMS, other than that all of a sudden millions of iPhone users are suddenly going to start using the service.
Here's to hoping its simply a capacity problem and not a "how can we rape our customers even more" problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313517</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1244798460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually if you take active measures to circumvent filters, firewalls, and other anti-porn software at work, I'd expect no less than for you to be shitcanned.  After all, if they're willing to take such extreme measures to look at porn, they're willing to risk the safety and security of the company so they can look at some porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually if you take active measures to circumvent filters , firewalls , and other anti-porn software at work , I 'd expect no less than for you to be shitcanned .
After all , if they 're willing to take such extreme measures to look at porn , they 're willing to risk the safety and security of the company so they can look at some porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually if you take active measures to circumvent filters, firewalls, and other anti-porn software at work, I'd expect no less than for you to be shitcanned.
After all, if they're willing to take such extreme measures to look at porn, they're willing to risk the safety and security of the company so they can look at some porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541</id>
	<title>Do people actually think VZW will be any better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244830860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VZW is notorious for charging for everything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. people put up with it due to verizon has outstanding voice quality and good speed for data. As much as you all want LTE it's at least 2 years away to have adequate coverage so Apple needs to either suck it up and make a short term CDMA based iPhone or wait and make a LTE based with CDMA backband so you have coverage anywhere outside of major metro areas. Not to mention you think carriers are going to roll out faster networks and reduce data prices? Bandwidth and buildout cost money - where does this mindset that this should all be as lost cost as possible? Another thread I read on this (as there are hundreds at this point) is you have a group of people that think and react to this from the point of being a computer user and not a cellphone user. To the pc users this pricing is just not something they feel is fair, while the cellphone crowd has been used to it. I'm in the middle - seeing I don't pay a dime for mobile devices or service being a mobile professional I would never pay upwards to $100 a month. My iPhone is sim free and I only use WiFi. My Bold is on at&amp;t and tethering is $10-12 a month last I checked for a user so they are not about to give services other devices charge for free to iPhone users. Apple should just cut ties with everyone - sell the iPhone for cost and force carriers to offer attractive plans to a growing iPhone user base - I doubt it would work or see the sales volume with $500+ devices but then it's a set price and users are free to change devices everytime Apple trots out a new model yearly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VZW is notorious for charging for everything .. people put up with it due to verizon has outstanding voice quality and good speed for data .
As much as you all want LTE it 's at least 2 years away to have adequate coverage so Apple needs to either suck it up and make a short term CDMA based iPhone or wait and make a LTE based with CDMA backband so you have coverage anywhere outside of major metro areas .
Not to mention you think carriers are going to roll out faster networks and reduce data prices ?
Bandwidth and buildout cost money - where does this mindset that this should all be as lost cost as possible ?
Another thread I read on this ( as there are hundreds at this point ) is you have a group of people that think and react to this from the point of being a computer user and not a cellphone user .
To the pc users this pricing is just not something they feel is fair , while the cellphone crowd has been used to it .
I 'm in the middle - seeing I do n't pay a dime for mobile devices or service being a mobile professional I would never pay upwards to $ 100 a month .
My iPhone is sim free and I only use WiFi .
My Bold is on at&amp;t and tethering is $ 10-12 a month last I checked for a user so they are not about to give services other devices charge for free to iPhone users .
Apple should just cut ties with everyone - sell the iPhone for cost and force carriers to offer attractive plans to a growing iPhone user base - I doubt it would work or see the sales volume with $ 500 + devices but then it 's a set price and users are free to change devices everytime Apple trots out a new model yearly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VZW is notorious for charging for everything .. people put up with it due to verizon has outstanding voice quality and good speed for data.
As much as you all want LTE it's at least 2 years away to have adequate coverage so Apple needs to either suck it up and make a short term CDMA based iPhone or wait and make a LTE based with CDMA backband so you have coverage anywhere outside of major metro areas.
Not to mention you think carriers are going to roll out faster networks and reduce data prices?
Bandwidth and buildout cost money - where does this mindset that this should all be as lost cost as possible?
Another thread I read on this (as there are hundreds at this point) is you have a group of people that think and react to this from the point of being a computer user and not a cellphone user.
To the pc users this pricing is just not something they feel is fair, while the cellphone crowd has been used to it.
I'm in the middle - seeing I don't pay a dime for mobile devices or service being a mobile professional I would never pay upwards to $100 a month.
My iPhone is sim free and I only use WiFi.
My Bold is on at&amp;t and tethering is $10-12 a month last I checked for a user so they are not about to give services other devices charge for free to iPhone users.
Apple should just cut ties with everyone - sell the iPhone for cost and force carriers to offer attractive plans to a growing iPhone user base - I doubt it would work or see the sales volume with $500+ devices but then it's a set price and users are free to change devices everytime Apple trots out a new model yearly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316841</id>
	<title>How can they charge you extra for that?</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1244820900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you pay for unlimited Internet access already.  How can they charge you extra for using their sanctioned device's built-in functionality?</p><p>That seems an awful lot like double-dipping.</p><p>I can already tether with my G1, but what's the point when T-mobile's 3g coverage is like Swiss cheese.  Slow Swiss cheese.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you pay for unlimited Internet access already .
How can they charge you extra for using their sanctioned device 's built-in functionality ? That seems an awful lot like double-dipping.I can already tether with my G1 , but what 's the point when T-mobile 's 3g coverage is like Swiss cheese .
Slow Swiss cheese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you pay for unlimited Internet access already.
How can they charge you extra for using their sanctioned device's built-in functionality?That seems an awful lot like double-dipping.I can already tether with my G1, but what's the point when T-mobile's 3g coverage is like Swiss cheese.
Slow Swiss cheese.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313571</id>
	<title>Re:Not just AT&amp;T, folks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a Verizon customer. They have HORRID billing practices (throw in lots of ambiguous "fees"</p></div><p>That's another little problem that I'm sure we're all familiar with: all the "taxes" and "fees" on your cell phone bill.  Why are they allowed to do that?</p><p>If I were running a store and I advertised an item for $50, but when you came in to buy it I said, "Well, it's $50, plus sales tax, plus another $10 to cover various taxes associated with running my store, plus another $5 in fees," what would happen?  I would guess I'd get in trouble for false advertising.  Yet my $40 cell phone bill always comes out $60.  Every single month.</p><p>Personally, I've always thought it was kind of silly that advertised prices don't already include sales tax, but cell phone plans definitely take it too far.</p></div><p>Ever bought a new car at a dealership?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Verizon customer .
They have HORRID billing practices ( throw in lots of ambiguous " fees " That 's another little problem that I 'm sure we 're all familiar with : all the " taxes " and " fees " on your cell phone bill .
Why are they allowed to do that ? If I were running a store and I advertised an item for $ 50 , but when you came in to buy it I said , " Well , it 's $ 50 , plus sales tax , plus another $ 10 to cover various taxes associated with running my store , plus another $ 5 in fees , " what would happen ?
I would guess I 'd get in trouble for false advertising .
Yet my $ 40 cell phone bill always comes out $ 60 .
Every single month.Personally , I 've always thought it was kind of silly that advertised prices do n't already include sales tax , but cell phone plans definitely take it too far.Ever bought a new car at a dealership ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Verizon customer.
They have HORRID billing practices (throw in lots of ambiguous "fees"That's another little problem that I'm sure we're all familiar with: all the "taxes" and "fees" on your cell phone bill.
Why are they allowed to do that?If I were running a store and I advertised an item for $50, but when you came in to buy it I said, "Well, it's $50, plus sales tax, plus another $10 to cover various taxes associated with running my store, plus another $5 in fees," what would happen?
I would guess I'd get in trouble for false advertising.
Yet my $40 cell phone bill always comes out $60.
Every single month.Personally, I've always thought it was kind of silly that advertised prices don't already include sales tax, but cell phone plans definitely take it too far.Ever bought a new car at a dealership?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312791</id>
	<title>easy question</title>
	<author>MadPhatTim</author>
	<datestamp>1244839080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q: Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra For [...]?<br>A: Yes.</p><p>Next question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra For [ ... ] ? A : Yes.Next question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra For [...]?A: Yes.Next question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310589</id>
	<title>I thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...paying extra for stuff was considered a feature by Apple users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...paying extra for stuff was considered a feature by Apple users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...paying extra for stuff was considered a feature by Apple users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575</id>
	<title>Favorite Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244830920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Just as the old AT&amp;T stifled landline innovation in the 20th century, the new AT&amp;T is stifling wireless innovation in the 21st."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Just as the old AT&amp;T stifled landline innovation in the 20th century , the new AT&amp;T is stifling wireless innovation in the 21st .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Just as the old AT&amp;T stifled landline innovation in the 20th century, the new AT&amp;T is stifling wireless innovation in the 21st.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499</id>
	<title>By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244830680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The iPhone, with it&#226;(TM)s global reach and marketing may be the first phone that makes it obvious just how far the US is behind other parts of the world in wireless technology.  I hope this opens the eyes of many people.

Most people have no idea how we compare to the rest of the world, due to the AT&amp;T and Verizon stranglehold.  Those two companies buying up all the regional carriers, as well as having incompatible technologies, has lowered functionality and disrupted normal market forces.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone , with it   ( TM ) s global reach and marketing may be the first phone that makes it obvious just how far the US is behind other parts of the world in wireless technology .
I hope this opens the eyes of many people .
Most people have no idea how we compare to the rest of the world , due to the AT&amp;T and Verizon stranglehold .
Those two companies buying up all the regional carriers , as well as having incompatible technologies , has lowered functionality and disrupted normal market forces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone, with itâ(TM)s global reach and marketing may be the first phone that makes it obvious just how far the US is behind other parts of the world in wireless technology.
I hope this opens the eyes of many people.
Most people have no idea how we compare to the rest of the world, due to the AT&amp;T and Verizon stranglehold.
Those two companies buying up all the regional carriers, as well as having incompatible technologies, has lowered functionality and disrupted normal market forces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312599</id>
	<title>Re:Leverage</title>
	<author>bnenning</author>
	<datestamp>1244838360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves and that they will get concessions from Apple that will make them the most attractive iPhone carrier even after they lose exclusivity.</i></p><p>If true, that's profoundly stupid of AT&amp;T. (Which doesn't mean it's not true). As a classic blunder, "don't get into a PR battle with Apple" ranks only slightly below "never get involved in a land war in Asia".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves and that they will get concessions from Apple that will make them the most attractive iPhone carrier even after they lose exclusivity.If true , that 's profoundly stupid of AT&amp;T .
( Which does n't mean it 's not true ) .
As a classic blunder , " do n't get into a PR battle with Apple " ranks only slightly below " never get involved in a land war in Asia " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves and that they will get concessions from Apple that will make them the most attractive iPhone carrier even after they lose exclusivity.If true, that's profoundly stupid of AT&amp;T.
(Which doesn't mean it's not true).
As a classic blunder, "don't get into a PR battle with Apple" ranks only slightly below "never get involved in a land war in Asia".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311707</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1244835300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>they'd dump AT&amp;T if they had an alternative. None of them like AT&amp;T at all.</i></p><p>Can you tell me why?  I just switched from vzw, and am much happier with ATT.  They have a cheaper plan, and it seems like better coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'd dump AT&amp;T if they had an alternative .
None of them like AT&amp;T at all.Can you tell me why ?
I just switched from vzw , and am much happier with ATT .
They have a cheaper plan , and it seems like better coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'd dump AT&amp;T if they had an alternative.
None of them like AT&amp;T at all.Can you tell me why?
I just switched from vzw, and am much happier with ATT.
They have a cheaper plan, and it seems like better coverage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312337</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T and Apple: Time for roast goose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess they must think they have enough golden eggs and feel like a feast. Enjoy that goose! Once eaten, it's gone for good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess they must think they have enough golden eggs and feel like a feast .
Enjoy that goose !
Once eaten , it 's gone for good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess they must think they have enough golden eggs and feel like a feast.
Enjoy that goose!
Once eaten, it's gone for good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314167</id>
	<title>Re:Leverage</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1244801460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard to see where AT&amp;T has any bargaining chips at all, since Apple has always had the ability to pull the pin on the exclusivity grenade and make the iPhone available to other carriers.  All AT&amp;T has to do is get a little too cute with Apple directly or with their rate structure for the iPhone users and Apple can open the floodgates to carrier transitions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to see where AT&amp;T has any bargaining chips at all , since Apple has always had the ability to pull the pin on the exclusivity grenade and make the iPhone available to other carriers .
All AT&amp;T has to do is get a little too cute with Apple directly or with their rate structure for the iPhone users and Apple can open the floodgates to carrier transitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to see where AT&amp;T has any bargaining chips at all, since Apple has always had the ability to pull the pin on the exclusivity grenade and make the iPhone available to other carriers.
All AT&amp;T has to do is get a little too cute with Apple directly or with their rate structure for the iPhone users and Apple can open the floodgates to carrier transitions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310767</id>
	<title>Do dogs lick themselves???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they are going to try to reap a monetary gain off of this.  I remember there was an app on the app store that helped users tether a couple of years ago that got removed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they are going to try to reap a monetary gain off of this .
I remember there was an app on the app store that helped users tether a couple of years ago that got removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they are going to try to reap a monetary gain off of this.
I remember there was an app on the app store that helped users tether a couple of years ago that got removed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311195</id>
	<title>The only thing to speculate about is how much</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1244833320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will AT&amp;T charge extra?</p><p>Will the sun come up tomorrow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will AT&amp;T charge extra ? Will the sun come up tomorrow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will AT&amp;T charge extra?Will the sun come up tomorrow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311839</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1244835780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd mod you up if I could.</p><p>The fragmented phone protocols in the US definitely helps keep the populace using the same brand, in general.  Well, for those that want GSM, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd mod you up if I could.The fragmented phone protocols in the US definitely helps keep the populace using the same brand , in general .
Well , for those that want GSM , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd mod you up if I could.The fragmented phone protocols in the US definitely helps keep the populace using the same brand, in general.
Well, for those that want GSM, at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316759</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>DannyO152</author>
	<datestamp>1244820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the telcos don't believe that brand loyalty is really achievable, so they won't spend a penny on it. Contract ended, fine, same rates, more profit for us, and any way if you didn't leave you will soon when you need a new phone.</p><p>Perhaps I'm naive, but when you become affiliated with a brand-religious RDF clientele such as the Apple folks I think you have to step up in some way. Maybe the costs of delivering insanely great is exorbitant, but I don't see as how cold fish slaps would be a particularly effective Plan B.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the telcos do n't believe that brand loyalty is really achievable , so they wo n't spend a penny on it .
Contract ended , fine , same rates , more profit for us , and any way if you did n't leave you will soon when you need a new phone.Perhaps I 'm naive , but when you become affiliated with a brand-religious RDF clientele such as the Apple folks I think you have to step up in some way .
Maybe the costs of delivering insanely great is exorbitant , but I do n't see as how cold fish slaps would be a particularly effective Plan B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the telcos don't believe that brand loyalty is really achievable, so they won't spend a penny on it.
Contract ended, fine, same rates, more profit for us, and any way if you didn't leave you will soon when you need a new phone.Perhaps I'm naive, but when you become affiliated with a brand-religious RDF clientele such as the Apple folks I think you have to step up in some way.
Maybe the costs of delivering insanely great is exorbitant, but I don't see as how cold fish slaps would be a particularly effective Plan B.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311227</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>liable = accountable<br>libel = written slander</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>liable = accountablelibel = written slander</tokentext>
<sentencetext>liable = accountablelibel = written slander</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310911</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>CaptSaltyJack</author>
	<datestamp>1244832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hear hear! AT&amp;T is garbage, and the iPhone is the only reason I'm with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear hear !
AT&amp;T is garbage , and the iPhone is the only reason I 'm with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear hear!
AT&amp;T is garbage, and the iPhone is the only reason I'm with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312447</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering</title>
	<author>bnenning</author>
	<datestamp>1244838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a conspiracy, it's just a monopolistic provider not responding to customer desires, which is exactly what you'd expect. As far as the iPhone is concerned, AT&amp;T is the <a href="http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76aphonecompany.phtml" title="jt.org">phone company</a> [jt.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a conspiracy , it 's just a monopolistic provider not responding to customer desires , which is exactly what you 'd expect .
As far as the iPhone is concerned , AT&amp;T is the phone company [ jt.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a conspiracy, it's just a monopolistic provider not responding to customer desires, which is exactly what you'd expect.
As far as the iPhone is concerned, AT&amp;T is the phone company [jt.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312433</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1244837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&amp;T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass. We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.</i></p><p>I would like to have an iPhone on the Verizon network, but I doubt Verizon would ever let the device on because they can't lock it down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts , but listen up AT&amp;T , you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass .
We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.I would like to have an iPhone on the Verizon network , but I doubt Verizon would ever let the device on because they ca n't lock it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&amp;T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.
We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.I would like to have an iPhone on the Verizon network, but I doubt Verizon would ever let the device on because they can't lock it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311237</id>
	<title>Re:Favorite Quote</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1244833440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am honestly not sure how ATT stifled innovation in land lines.  For most of the history, they did a good job innovating.  The technological advances needed to get a phone into every home is not trivial.  They did a good job with basic communication, and business communication.
<p>
What is true is that ATT was very expensive.  What is true is that ATT had little motivation to add features beyond basic communications.  What is true is that ATT had no motivation in innovate the handset.  What is true that if ATT was not broken up 25 years ago, there would have been no BBS and no internet because the average user would not be able to put a cheap modem on the phone line.  If the ATT monopoly had be allowed to stand, ATT would likely have continued it's policy of relatively expensive and limited phone service, would have wanted to rent us modems for $20 a month, and charged an extra $15 for thier use, in addition to existed added line charges.
</p><p>
But this does not mean that ATT stifled innovation.  When ATT was broken up, the phone system was already very mature, and all that happened after that was some incremental development.  The features were gee whiz, not time saving like touch tone dialing.  In any case, ATT is not a monopoly at this point and cannot control the market.  They have to compete with Verizon, Cricket, and Sprint.  The lack of tethering is not an issue limited to ATT.  ATT charged more for G3 by eliminating the included text messagesz(despite the complaint about tethering, text messages are the real rip off, and as far as I know most companies use this rip off).  They will charge extra for tethering.
</p><p>
Honestly, I think this tethering is a bad idea.  I can imagine the complaints on the boards.  Tethering made my batteries die!  Tethering  is too slow!  It is a customer service nightmare.  I think most laptops come with cell service now, and I wish apply would do the same with the powerbooks.  What sucks is that in the US the service is tied to Verizon or Sprint, both of which ARE stifiling innovation by charging exhorbant fees, often double of competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am honestly not sure how ATT stifled innovation in land lines .
For most of the history , they did a good job innovating .
The technological advances needed to get a phone into every home is not trivial .
They did a good job with basic communication , and business communication .
What is true is that ATT was very expensive .
What is true is that ATT had little motivation to add features beyond basic communications .
What is true is that ATT had no motivation in innovate the handset .
What is true that if ATT was not broken up 25 years ago , there would have been no BBS and no internet because the average user would not be able to put a cheap modem on the phone line .
If the ATT monopoly had be allowed to stand , ATT would likely have continued it 's policy of relatively expensive and limited phone service , would have wanted to rent us modems for $ 20 a month , and charged an extra $ 15 for thier use , in addition to existed added line charges .
But this does not mean that ATT stifled innovation .
When ATT was broken up , the phone system was already very mature , and all that happened after that was some incremental development .
The features were gee whiz , not time saving like touch tone dialing .
In any case , ATT is not a monopoly at this point and can not control the market .
They have to compete with Verizon , Cricket , and Sprint .
The lack of tethering is not an issue limited to ATT .
ATT charged more for G3 by eliminating the included text messagesz ( despite the complaint about tethering , text messages are the real rip off , and as far as I know most companies use this rip off ) .
They will charge extra for tethering .
Honestly , I think this tethering is a bad idea .
I can imagine the complaints on the boards .
Tethering made my batteries die !
Tethering is too slow !
It is a customer service nightmare .
I think most laptops come with cell service now , and I wish apply would do the same with the powerbooks .
What sucks is that in the US the service is tied to Verizon or Sprint , both of which ARE stifiling innovation by charging exhorbant fees , often double of competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am honestly not sure how ATT stifled innovation in land lines.
For most of the history, they did a good job innovating.
The technological advances needed to get a phone into every home is not trivial.
They did a good job with basic communication, and business communication.
What is true is that ATT was very expensive.
What is true is that ATT had little motivation to add features beyond basic communications.
What is true is that ATT had no motivation in innovate the handset.
What is true that if ATT was not broken up 25 years ago, there would have been no BBS and no internet because the average user would not be able to put a cheap modem on the phone line.
If the ATT monopoly had be allowed to stand, ATT would likely have continued it's policy of relatively expensive and limited phone service, would have wanted to rent us modems for $20 a month, and charged an extra $15 for thier use, in addition to existed added line charges.
But this does not mean that ATT stifled innovation.
When ATT was broken up, the phone system was already very mature, and all that happened after that was some incremental development.
The features were gee whiz, not time saving like touch tone dialing.
In any case, ATT is not a monopoly at this point and cannot control the market.
They have to compete with Verizon, Cricket, and Sprint.
The lack of tethering is not an issue limited to ATT.
ATT charged more for G3 by eliminating the included text messagesz(despite the complaint about tethering, text messages are the real rip off, and as far as I know most companies use this rip off).
They will charge extra for tethering.
Honestly, I think this tethering is a bad idea.
I can imagine the complaints on the boards.
Tethering made my batteries die!
Tethering  is too slow!
It is a customer service nightmare.
I think most laptops come with cell service now, and I wish apply would do the same with the powerbooks.
What sucks is that in the US the service is tied to Verizon or Sprint, both of which ARE stifiling innovation by charging exhorbant fees, often double of competitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311453</id>
	<title>Re:Not just AT&amp;T, folks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T has the same 'stupid tax'</p><p><a href="http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/iPhone3G/index.jsp" title="att.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/iPhone3G/index.jsp</a> [att.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T has the same 'stupid tax'http : //www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/iPhone3G/index.jsp [ att.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T has the same 'stupid tax'http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/iPhone3G/index.jsp [att.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314429</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244802600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.</p></div><p>If you don't get a phone upgrade every time you're eligible, you're paying for at least part of the phone and getting nothing. If you do get a phone upgrade every time you're eligible, you're still paying too much for the phone (even if you pay $0 when you get it, you've paid it all year) but at least you get a phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In effect , the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one , you dont get a reduced rate.If you do n't get a phone upgrade every time you 're eligible , you 're paying for at least part of the phone and getting nothing .
If you do get a phone upgrade every time you 're eligible , you 're still paying too much for the phone ( even if you pay $ 0 when you get it , you 've paid it all year ) but at least you get a phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.If you don't get a phone upgrade every time you're eligible, you're paying for at least part of the phone and getting nothing.
If you do get a phone upgrade every time you're eligible, you're still paying too much for the phone (even if you pay $0 when you get it, you've paid it all year) but at least you get a phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313949</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>bendodge</author>
	<datestamp>1244800200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But imagine TWO networks could carry the iPhone at the same time with the same deal from Apple: instant cutthroat competition for people like this! Apple should wake up and do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But imagine TWO networks could carry the iPhone at the same time with the same deal from Apple : instant cutthroat competition for people like this !
Apple should wake up and do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But imagine TWO networks could carry the iPhone at the same time with the same deal from Apple: instant cutthroat competition for people like this!
Apple should wake up and do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311337</id>
	<title>This just in...</title>
	<author>rwalker429</author>
	<datestamp>1244833800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Telecos are still an evil forced on us by lack of choice.  They still have a stranglehold on our wallets.  This sort of thing is far from surprising and, let's be realistic here, it's another opportunity to squeeze money out of a popular market.  People like to throw stones at the agitated Iphone crowd "If you don't like it don't buy it." "It sucks that you can't upgrade. Welcome to the world of cell phones..har har har" but shouldn't we look at this as a chance to bring the increasingly shitty business practices in this market to light?  Few things cause more publicity than the public outrage that ensues when mainstream users of a wildly popular new gadget are being bent over and given the sandpaper rectal treatment.  Hell, when RIM has an outage it's all over the news. Yeah, we all have to deal with shitastic contracts and abusive price gouging by cellular companies.  Everyone knows it.  However the opportunity to have a whole lot of people come together and go "enough is enough" doesn't come around all that often.   I read about increasingly shady practices from ISPs and Telcos on a regular basis (especially on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.)  Maybe we should be helping to turn Iphone whiners into a rallying cry that we're tired of being pushed around as consumers.   Just my thoughts on the whole thing.  Before it comes up... No I don't have an Iphone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telecos are still an evil forced on us by lack of choice .
They still have a stranglehold on our wallets .
This sort of thing is far from surprising and , let 's be realistic here , it 's another opportunity to squeeze money out of a popular market .
People like to throw stones at the agitated Iphone crowd " If you do n't like it do n't buy it .
" " It sucks that you ca n't upgrade .
Welcome to the world of cell phones..har har har " but should n't we look at this as a chance to bring the increasingly shitty business practices in this market to light ?
Few things cause more publicity than the public outrage that ensues when mainstream users of a wildly popular new gadget are being bent over and given the sandpaper rectal treatment .
Hell , when RIM has an outage it 's all over the news .
Yeah , we all have to deal with shitastic contracts and abusive price gouging by cellular companies .
Everyone knows it .
However the opportunity to have a whole lot of people come together and go " enough is enough " does n't come around all that often .
I read about increasingly shady practices from ISPs and Telcos on a regular basis ( especially on / .
) Maybe we should be helping to turn Iphone whiners into a rallying cry that we 're tired of being pushed around as consumers .
Just my thoughts on the whole thing .
Before it comes up... No I do n't have an Iphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telecos are still an evil forced on us by lack of choice.
They still have a stranglehold on our wallets.
This sort of thing is far from surprising and, let's be realistic here, it's another opportunity to squeeze money out of a popular market.
People like to throw stones at the agitated Iphone crowd "If you don't like it don't buy it.
" "It sucks that you can't upgrade.
Welcome to the world of cell phones..har har har" but shouldn't we look at this as a chance to bring the increasingly shitty business practices in this market to light?
Few things cause more publicity than the public outrage that ensues when mainstream users of a wildly popular new gadget are being bent over and given the sandpaper rectal treatment.
Hell, when RIM has an outage it's all over the news.
Yeah, we all have to deal with shitastic contracts and abusive price gouging by cellular companies.
Everyone knows it.
However the opportunity to have a whole lot of people come together and go "enough is enough" doesn't come around all that often.
I read about increasingly shady practices from ISPs and Telcos on a regular basis (especially on /.
)  Maybe we should be helping to turn Iphone whiners into a rallying cry that we're tired of being pushed around as consumers.
Just my thoughts on the whole thing.
Before it comes up... No I don't have an Iphone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28321049</id>
	<title>Re:I thought...</title>
	<author>AppleJoshua</author>
	<datestamp>1244918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're an idiot.  Majority of people of whom dog on Apple are those who haven't actually sat down to use a Mac.  You see something different and freak out on it.  You DO realize that the Mac OS was the first consumer GUI driven OS on the market released back in 1984, right?  That Bill Gates himself said it's one of the best user experiences around.  Computers are too pricey?  One of my old computers is a 6 year old Powerbook G4 running OS X 10.5.7(the latest update) with NO ISSUES and very little lag.  Lets see a 6 year old PC run Vista.  Not gonna happen.  With the UNIX kernal that OS X is based off of(like Linux) it takes very little resources to run the OS.  So that brand new $1699 Macbook Pro that someone has purchased, can last YEARS more than a PC.  Especially with the new battery that has a life span of over 1000 cycle counts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're an idiot .
Majority of people of whom dog on Apple are those who have n't actually sat down to use a Mac .
You see something different and freak out on it .
You DO realize that the Mac OS was the first consumer GUI driven OS on the market released back in 1984 , right ?
That Bill Gates himself said it 's one of the best user experiences around .
Computers are too pricey ?
One of my old computers is a 6 year old Powerbook G4 running OS X 10.5.7 ( the latest update ) with NO ISSUES and very little lag .
Lets see a 6 year old PC run Vista .
Not gon na happen .
With the UNIX kernal that OS X is based off of ( like Linux ) it takes very little resources to run the OS .
So that brand new $ 1699 Macbook Pro that someone has purchased , can last YEARS more than a PC .
Especially with the new battery that has a life span of over 1000 cycle counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're an idiot.
Majority of people of whom dog on Apple are those who haven't actually sat down to use a Mac.
You see something different and freak out on it.
You DO realize that the Mac OS was the first consumer GUI driven OS on the market released back in 1984, right?
That Bill Gates himself said it's one of the best user experiences around.
Computers are too pricey?
One of my old computers is a 6 year old Powerbook G4 running OS X 10.5.7(the latest update) with NO ISSUES and very little lag.
Lets see a 6 year old PC run Vista.
Not gonna happen.
With the UNIX kernal that OS X is based off of(like Linux) it takes very little resources to run the OS.
So that brand new $1699 Macbook Pro that someone has purchased, can last YEARS more than a PC.
Especially with the new battery that has a life span of over 1000 cycle counts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310625</id>
	<title>"Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, proof there IS such a thing as a dumb question! Congratulations! Was this one of the Millennium Problems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , proof there IS such a thing as a dumb question !
Congratulations ! Was this one of the Millennium Problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, proof there IS such a thing as a dumb question!
Congratulations! Was this one of the Millennium Problems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</id>
	<title>Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>ACMENEWSLLC</author>
	<datestamp>1244831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once this is out, Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth.  Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet.   (With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this, but it's so expensive.)</p><p>Most companies do URL filtering at the gateway.  With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.</p><p>In the USA;<br>If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.<br>If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.</p><p>But what if I provide my own wireless Internet connection and bypass the filters work has in place?</p><p>I speak as one who does the filtering, not one who is trying to bypass them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once this is out , Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth .
Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet .
( With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this , but it 's so expensive .
) Most companies do URL filtering at the gateway .
With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.In the USA ; If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection , work can be held libel.If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect , it is less likely that work can be held libel.But what if I provide my own wireless Internet connection and bypass the filters work has in place ? I speak as one who does the filtering , not one who is trying to bypass them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once this is out, Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth.
Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet.
(With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this, but it's so expensive.
)Most companies do URL filtering at the gateway.
With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.In the USA;If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.But what if I provide my own wireless Internet connection and bypass the filters work has in place?I speak as one who does the filtering, not one who is trying to bypass them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316267</id>
	<title>Monday</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244815500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tuesday's launch of the new iPhone at WWDC</p></div><p>Actually, that was Monday.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tuesday 's launch of the new iPhone at WWDCActually , that was Monday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tuesday's launch of the new iPhone at WWDCActually, that was Monday.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315835</id>
	<title>Re:My Own Personal Experience</title>
	<author>Christophotron</author>
	<datestamp>1244811780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Btw, not only are unlocked phones nicer to have in case of travelling/switching providers, you also aren't stuck with the customized provider firmware that they slap onto the phone. From past experiences I've found that the branded firmware often limits advanced functionality.</p></div><p>You aren't stuck with it.  Just re-flash the phone to the OEM firmware.  At least with HTC phones, its very simple to do.  Can't imagine it's that much harder to do to a Nokia.  Good story though.  Didn't know ATT would help you use an unlocked phone on their network like that.  It's refreshing compared to the crap that Verizon pulls.  However, I think your story hinges on the fact that you already were an ATT customer with a $15/month data plan.  If you didn't already have that, you would have been reamed like everyone else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Btw , not only are unlocked phones nicer to have in case of travelling/switching providers , you also are n't stuck with the customized provider firmware that they slap onto the phone .
From past experiences I 've found that the branded firmware often limits advanced functionality.You are n't stuck with it .
Just re-flash the phone to the OEM firmware .
At least with HTC phones , its very simple to do .
Ca n't imagine it 's that much harder to do to a Nokia .
Good story though .
Did n't know ATT would help you use an unlocked phone on their network like that .
It 's refreshing compared to the crap that Verizon pulls .
However , I think your story hinges on the fact that you already were an ATT customer with a $ 15/month data plan .
If you did n't already have that , you would have been reamed like everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Btw, not only are unlocked phones nicer to have in case of travelling/switching providers, you also aren't stuck with the customized provider firmware that they slap onto the phone.
From past experiences I've found that the branded firmware often limits advanced functionality.You aren't stuck with it.
Just re-flash the phone to the OEM firmware.
At least with HTC phones, its very simple to do.
Can't imagine it's that much harder to do to a Nokia.
Good story though.
Didn't know ATT would help you use an unlocked phone on their network like that.
It's refreshing compared to the crap that Verizon pulls.
However, I think your story hinges on the fact that you already were an ATT customer with a $15/month data plan.
If you didn't already have that, you would have been reamed like everyone else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312037</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>Matt Perry</author>
	<datestamp>1244836500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you provide some specific examples of how the US lags behind other countries in wireless features?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you provide some specific examples of how the US lags behind other countries in wireless features ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you provide some specific examples of how the US lags behind other countries in wireless features?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316763</id>
	<title>Re:"Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra?"</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1244820180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No kidding. Is this the first time this guy has heard of AT&amp;T or what?   I think it was pretty clear in the WWDC keynote that at least the presenters have some distaste for AT&amp;T.  Both Phil and Scott made some subtle remarks about AT&amp;T.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
Is this the first time this guy has heard of AT&amp;T or what ?
I think it was pretty clear in the WWDC keynote that at least the presenters have some distaste for AT&amp;T .
Both Phil and Scott made some subtle remarks about AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
Is this the first time this guy has heard of AT&amp;T or what?
I think it was pretty clear in the WWDC keynote that at least the presenters have some distaste for AT&amp;T.
Both Phil and Scott made some subtle remarks about AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312965</id>
	<title>Re:Do people actually think This Would Be Better ?</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1244839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The easiest solution for consumers is to realize that you really can live without an iPhone in your life.</p></div><p>That's like saying dealing with the TSA is such a headache that it's easier for travelers to realize they can really live without flying. Yes, it's technically true, but it's a silly philosophy to live by. Pretty much everything has a downside, an annoyance, etc. The trick is to find the things that have the better mix of upsides and downsides.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The easiest solution for consumers is to realize that you really can live without an iPhone in your life.That 's like saying dealing with the TSA is such a headache that it 's easier for travelers to realize they can really live without flying .
Yes , it 's technically true , but it 's a silly philosophy to live by .
Pretty much everything has a downside , an annoyance , etc .
The trick is to find the things that have the better mix of upsides and downsides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The easiest solution for consumers is to realize that you really can live without an iPhone in your life.That's like saying dealing with the TSA is such a headache that it's easier for travelers to realize they can really live without flying.
Yes, it's technically true, but it's a silly philosophy to live by.
Pretty much everything has a downside, an annoyance, etc.
The trick is to find the things that have the better mix of upsides and downsides.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310711</id>
	<title>Then don't buy it!</title>
	<author>Alzheimers</author>
	<datestamp>1244831580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sheesh, if you don't like AT&amp;T's terms, then don't buy an iPhone.  It's not like there aren't alternatives out there that provide nearly the same functionality.</p><p>Want to play their games?  Use their apps?  Get the iPod touch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheesh , if you do n't like AT&amp;T 's terms , then do n't buy an iPhone .
It 's not like there are n't alternatives out there that provide nearly the same functionality.Want to play their games ?
Use their apps ?
Get the iPod touch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheesh, if you don't like AT&amp;T's terms, then don't buy an iPhone.
It's not like there aren't alternatives out there that provide nearly the same functionality.Want to play their games?
Use their apps?
Get the iPod touch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312567</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T will be the death of the iphone in the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and it will be all Apple's fault for not opening the iphone up to other vendors. Apple needs to take a lesson from companies whose technologies died because they didn't open up the tech for all to play. IBM and - oh, wait, Apple - have both done stuff like this and suffered in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and it will be all Apple 's fault for not opening the iphone up to other vendors .
Apple needs to take a lesson from companies whose technologies died because they did n't open up the tech for all to play .
IBM and - oh , wait , Apple - have both done stuff like this and suffered in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and it will be all Apple's fault for not opening the iphone up to other vendors.
Apple needs to take a lesson from companies whose technologies died because they didn't open up the tech for all to play.
IBM and - oh, wait, Apple - have both done stuff like this and suffered in the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28317131</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I speak as one who does the filtering, not one who is trying to bypass them.</p></div><p>Sure... There's counseling for porn addiction. I think you should check into it..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I speak as one who does the filtering , not one who is trying to bypass them.Sure... There 's counseling for porn addiction .
I think you should check into it.. : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I speak as one who does the filtering, not one who is trying to bypass them.Sure... There's counseling for porn addiction.
I think you should check into it.. :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311071</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1244832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this how US works? Two parties for everything. Give more options and Joe's head starts to hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this how US works ?
Two parties for everything .
Give more options and Joe 's head starts to hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this how US works?
Two parties for everything.
Give more options and Joe's head starts to hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience with both, and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source. Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract. In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.</p><p>The entire business model for the mobile telecoms revolves around contract pricing to subsidize reduced price phones, giving them extraordinary power over mobile handset manufacturers. In my mind, this tying arrangement is horrible for consumers because in effect, the handset manufacturers serve the telecoms, not the end users. The telecoms deem which features are allowed on their network and disallow any features that would conflict with their own profitable value-add services(such as uploading ringtones to a phone).</p><p>The FTC should have stepped in 10 years ago and realized there is no real competition among handset producers-the telecoms decide who the winners and losers are. If you want REAL competition among handset producers leading to technological advancement, you have to end the tying of phone purchases to cell contracts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with both , and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source .
Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract .
In effect , the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one , you dont get a reduced rate.The entire business model for the mobile telecoms revolves around contract pricing to subsidize reduced price phones , giving them extraordinary power over mobile handset manufacturers .
In my mind , this tying arrangement is horrible for consumers because in effect , the handset manufacturers serve the telecoms , not the end users .
The telecoms deem which features are allowed on their network and disallow any features that would conflict with their own profitable value-add services ( such as uploading ringtones to a phone ) .The FTC should have stepped in 10 years ago and realized there is no real competition among handset producers-the telecoms decide who the winners and losers are .
If you want REAL competition among handset producers leading to technological advancement , you have to end the tying of phone purchases to cell contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with both, and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source.
Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract.
In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.The entire business model for the mobile telecoms revolves around contract pricing to subsidize reduced price phones, giving them extraordinary power over mobile handset manufacturers.
In my mind, this tying arrangement is horrible for consumers because in effect, the handset manufacturers serve the telecoms, not the end users.
The telecoms deem which features are allowed on their network and disallow any features that would conflict with their own profitable value-add services(such as uploading ringtones to a phone).The FTC should have stepped in 10 years ago and realized there is no real competition among handset producers-the telecoms decide who the winners and losers are.
If you want REAL competition among handset producers leading to technological advancement, you have to end the tying of phone purchases to cell contracts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310801</id>
	<title>One of the rumors floating around at WWDC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the rumors floating around at WWDC is that the problem actually lies with AT&amp;Ts customer database and that iPhone accounts are hardcoded to not allow MMS or tethering right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the rumors floating around at WWDC is that the problem actually lies with AT&amp;Ts customer database and that iPhone accounts are hardcoded to not allow MMS or tethering right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the rumors floating around at WWDC is that the problem actually lies with AT&amp;Ts customer database and that iPhone accounts are hardcoded to not allow MMS or tethering right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312461</id>
	<title>Re:My Own Personal Experience</title>
	<author>Glendale2x</author>
	<datestamp>1244838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've changed out several phones on Sprint just by doing an ESN swap - no change to the "plan" needed at all. The end result is a never ending $10/mo data + tethering for my PDA phones and no contract. Resigning contracts with absurdly high fees to get a new phone is silly, but people rarely go through the effort to do the math so they think they're getting a great deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've changed out several phones on Sprint just by doing an ESN swap - no change to the " plan " needed at all .
The end result is a never ending $ 10/mo data + tethering for my PDA phones and no contract .
Resigning contracts with absurdly high fees to get a new phone is silly , but people rarely go through the effort to do the math so they think they 're getting a great deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've changed out several phones on Sprint just by doing an ESN swap - no change to the "plan" needed at all.
The end result is a never ending $10/mo data + tethering for my PDA phones and no contract.
Resigning contracts with absurdly high fees to get a new phone is silly, but people rarely go through the effort to do the math so they think they're getting a great deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310975</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1244832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but even with more cell phone carriers it wasn't any better.  Our (U.S.) carriers lock us into their plans and the phones they want to sell and the features they are willing to let us have. Only recently have we been able to even keep our phone numbers when we change carriers.  It's an awful tyranny and it does hurt the sales of all smartphones.
</p><p>
I'm only now willing to throw in the towel and buy an iPhone 3Gs.  I've resisted until now because I hate AT&amp;T, but this new model is too compelling for me to resist.  I know a couple of guys who are lusting after the Pre but they won't buy it because they hate Sprint.  To Apple's credit, the broke much of the carrier's ability to dictate what hardware features you can use on your phone, but this MMS and tethering thing show that not enough has been done.
</p><p>
All my iPhone using friends are very happy with their devices, but they'd dump AT&amp;T if they had an alternative. None of them like AT&amp;T at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but even with more cell phone carriers it was n't any better .
Our ( U.S. ) carriers lock us into their plans and the phones they want to sell and the features they are willing to let us have .
Only recently have we been able to even keep our phone numbers when we change carriers .
It 's an awful tyranny and it does hurt the sales of all smartphones .
I 'm only now willing to throw in the towel and buy an iPhone 3Gs .
I 've resisted until now because I hate AT&amp;T , but this new model is too compelling for me to resist .
I know a couple of guys who are lusting after the Pre but they wo n't buy it because they hate Sprint .
To Apple 's credit , the broke much of the carrier 's ability to dictate what hardware features you can use on your phone , but this MMS and tethering thing show that not enough has been done .
All my iPhone using friends are very happy with their devices , but they 'd dump AT&amp;T if they had an alternative .
None of them like AT&amp;T at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but even with more cell phone carriers it wasn't any better.
Our (U.S.) carriers lock us into their plans and the phones they want to sell and the features they are willing to let us have.
Only recently have we been able to even keep our phone numbers when we change carriers.
It's an awful tyranny and it does hurt the sales of all smartphones.
I'm only now willing to throw in the towel and buy an iPhone 3Gs.
I've resisted until now because I hate AT&amp;T, but this new model is too compelling for me to resist.
I know a couple of guys who are lusting after the Pre but they won't buy it because they hate Sprint.
To Apple's credit, the broke much of the carrier's ability to dictate what hardware features you can use on your phone, but this MMS and tethering thing show that not enough has been done.
All my iPhone using friends are very happy with their devices, but they'd dump AT&amp;T if they had an alternative.
None of them like AT&amp;T at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313887</id>
	<title>Was this a rhetorical question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244799960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra f..."</p><p>YES</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra f... " YES</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra f..."YES</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311435</id>
	<title>This Just In...</title>
	<author>ChefInnocent</author>
	<datestamp>1244834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Large corporation with near monopoly power is bad for the consumer.  Film at 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Large corporation with near monopoly power is bad for the consumer .
Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Large corporation with near monopoly power is bad for the consumer.
Film at 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312401</id>
	<title>Re:Then don't buy it!</title>
	<author>thesolo</author>
	<datestamp>1244837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't like their terms, so I'm not buying an iPhone.  Not that Verizon is great by any means, but through them I have unlimited voice, data, and 1000 texts per month for about $65, after taxes &amp; fees.  The same deal with the iPhone would cost me about double that per month.  I'll keep my crappy WM phone for the time being.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like their terms , so I 'm not buying an iPhone .
Not that Verizon is great by any means , but through them I have unlimited voice , data , and 1000 texts per month for about $ 65 , after taxes &amp; fees .
The same deal with the iPhone would cost me about double that per month .
I 'll keep my crappy WM phone for the time being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like their terms, so I'm not buying an iPhone.
Not that Verizon is great by any means, but through them I have unlimited voice, data, and 1000 texts per month for about $65, after taxes &amp; fees.
The same deal with the iPhone would cost me about double that per month.
I'll keep my crappy WM phone for the time being.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311261</id>
	<title>Re:No MMS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have said, its just MMS on iPhone.  I have a different phone on ATT and it supports MMS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have said , its just MMS on iPhone .
I have a different phone on ATT and it supports MMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have said, its just MMS on iPhone.
I have a different phone on ATT and it supports MMS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311389</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they charge for tethering?</title>
	<author>PalmAddict</author>
	<datestamp>1244833980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it is no different surfing the net with the iphone displaying the data or your laptop displaying the data.  AT&amp;T is nothing more than a provider of the conduit.  They want to charge you more because you want to use a different device to display the data?  That would be like the cable or satellite companies charging you more for plugging the video output of your cable box up to you computer instead of your TV.  It's just unethical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is no different surfing the net with the iphone displaying the data or your laptop displaying the data .
AT&amp;T is nothing more than a provider of the conduit .
They want to charge you more because you want to use a different device to display the data ?
That would be like the cable or satellite companies charging you more for plugging the video output of your cable box up to you computer instead of your TV .
It 's just unethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is no different surfing the net with the iphone displaying the data or your laptop displaying the data.
AT&amp;T is nothing more than a provider of the conduit.
They want to charge you more because you want to use a different device to display the data?
That would be like the cable or satellite companies charging you more for plugging the video output of your cable box up to you computer instead of your TV.
It's just unethical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314179</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>EtherMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244801520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, I assume you mean <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liable" title="merriam-webster.com">liable</a> [merriam-webster.com] and not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel" title="merriam-webster.com">libel</a> [merriam-webster.com].</p><p>Second, what are the liability risks? Sexual Harassment comes to mind, but this would be primarily focused at the individual who accessed the adult content, unless the company elected to not take action to stop the harassment once reported.  Negligence or "fostering an environment" are the most likely risks.</p><p>Third, how do you mitigate these risks?  The primary method is to enact a company policy prohibiting employees from accessing (or possessing, distributing, or creating) adult materials in the workplace or using company resources, and then require each employee to sign a letter of acceptance of this policy as a condition of employment.</p><p>What else is required beyond the policy to mitigate liability?  Enforcement.  Not filtering, but appropriate and consistent disciplinary response to each infraction.  Failing this opens a company up to liability for failing to protect its employees from sexual harassment.

</p><p>Filtering is an added factor that demonstrates a company's commitment to enforcing its sexual harassment policies.  But, as we well know, filtering is not difficult to bypass.  Just because an employee can find a way to circumvent the filtering does not mean the policy forbidding this activity is no longer in effect.  It is the policy itself, and consistent disciplinary action for offenders, that mitigates the risk of liability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I assume you mean liable [ merriam-webster.com ] and not libel [ merriam-webster.com ] .Second , what are the liability risks ?
Sexual Harassment comes to mind , but this would be primarily focused at the individual who accessed the adult content , unless the company elected to not take action to stop the harassment once reported .
Negligence or " fostering an environment " are the most likely risks.Third , how do you mitigate these risks ?
The primary method is to enact a company policy prohibiting employees from accessing ( or possessing , distributing , or creating ) adult materials in the workplace or using company resources , and then require each employee to sign a letter of acceptance of this policy as a condition of employment.What else is required beyond the policy to mitigate liability ?
Enforcement. Not filtering , but appropriate and consistent disciplinary response to each infraction .
Failing this opens a company up to liability for failing to protect its employees from sexual harassment .
Filtering is an added factor that demonstrates a company 's commitment to enforcing its sexual harassment policies .
But , as we well know , filtering is not difficult to bypass .
Just because an employee can find a way to circumvent the filtering does not mean the policy forbidding this activity is no longer in effect .
It is the policy itself , and consistent disciplinary action for offenders , that mitigates the risk of liability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I assume you mean liable [merriam-webster.com] and not libel [merriam-webster.com].Second, what are the liability risks?
Sexual Harassment comes to mind, but this would be primarily focused at the individual who accessed the adult content, unless the company elected to not take action to stop the harassment once reported.
Negligence or "fostering an environment" are the most likely risks.Third, how do you mitigate these risks?
The primary method is to enact a company policy prohibiting employees from accessing (or possessing, distributing, or creating) adult materials in the workplace or using company resources, and then require each employee to sign a letter of acceptance of this policy as a condition of employment.What else is required beyond the policy to mitigate liability?
Enforcement.  Not filtering, but appropriate and consistent disciplinary response to each infraction.
Failing this opens a company up to liability for failing to protect its employees from sexual harassment.
Filtering is an added factor that demonstrates a company's commitment to enforcing its sexual harassment policies.
But, as we well know, filtering is not difficult to bypass.
Just because an employee can find a way to circumvent the filtering does not mean the policy forbidding this activity is no longer in effect.
It is the policy itself, and consistent disciplinary action for offenders, that mitigates the risk of liability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310687</id>
	<title>No MMS?</title>
	<author>the\_arrow</author>
	<datestamp>1244831460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, AT&amp;T doesn't support MMS? Wow, the US truly have fallen behind!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , AT&amp;T does n't support MMS ?
Wow , the US truly have fallen behind !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, AT&amp;T doesn't support MMS?
Wow, the US truly have fallen behind!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315473</id>
	<title>Heres the word:</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1244809140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isnt final yet- but the iphone data plan will go down in price, and tethering will be an option if you add tethering to it. It will increase the total price back to either what it is now, or slightly higher. <br> <br>
Yes, I do work for at&amp;t, but no, I wont be able to provide any further information, or confirmation, this is just what they've been discussing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This isnt final yet- but the iphone data plan will go down in price , and tethering will be an option if you add tethering to it .
It will increase the total price back to either what it is now , or slightly higher .
Yes , I do work for at&amp;t , but no , I wont be able to provide any further information , or confirmation , this is just what they 've been discussing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isnt final yet- but the iphone data plan will go down in price, and tethering will be an option if you add tethering to it.
It will increase the total price back to either what it is now, or slightly higher.
Yes, I do work for at&amp;t, but no, I wont be able to provide any further information, or confirmation, this is just what they've been discussing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311135</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering</title>
	<author>spleck</author>
	<datestamp>1244833080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree its probably about capacity.  iPhone users already use more data than the average data plan subscriber, so they probably estimate iPhone tetherers will also use a lot more data.<br>AT&amp;T has been consistent lately about pricing the iPhone plans just like any other phone plans--I don't see why they wouldn't offer a 5GB capped tether plan for an additional $30.</p><p>Another possibility is that they're having trouble distinguishing tethering from normal use--possibly if they enable tethering then it might work even when not paying for the tethering plan.  That would be a deal breaker for them.</p><p>All of it smells to me like Apple is trying to make their issues with AT&amp;T obvious.  It's very possible that Apple has a CDMA iPhone in the pipeline for 2010, with or without LTE.  Consider that it took 2 years for the new graphics chip to reach market after the supply deals were made and that last year Apple was headhunting CDMA2000/EV-DO engineers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree its probably about capacity .
iPhone users already use more data than the average data plan subscriber , so they probably estimate iPhone tetherers will also use a lot more data.AT&amp;T has been consistent lately about pricing the iPhone plans just like any other phone plans--I do n't see why they would n't offer a 5GB capped tether plan for an additional $ 30.Another possibility is that they 're having trouble distinguishing tethering from normal use--possibly if they enable tethering then it might work even when not paying for the tethering plan .
That would be a deal breaker for them.All of it smells to me like Apple is trying to make their issues with AT&amp;T obvious .
It 's very possible that Apple has a CDMA iPhone in the pipeline for 2010 , with or without LTE .
Consider that it took 2 years for the new graphics chip to reach market after the supply deals were made and that last year Apple was headhunting CDMA2000/EV-DO engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree its probably about capacity.
iPhone users already use more data than the average data plan subscriber, so they probably estimate iPhone tetherers will also use a lot more data.AT&amp;T has been consistent lately about pricing the iPhone plans just like any other phone plans--I don't see why they wouldn't offer a 5GB capped tether plan for an additional $30.Another possibility is that they're having trouble distinguishing tethering from normal use--possibly if they enable tethering then it might work even when not paying for the tethering plan.
That would be a deal breaker for them.All of it smells to me like Apple is trying to make their issues with AT&amp;T obvious.
It's very possible that Apple has a CDMA iPhone in the pipeline for 2010, with or without LTE.
Consider that it took 2 years for the new graphics chip to reach market after the supply deals were made and that last year Apple was headhunting CDMA2000/EV-DO engineers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311891</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T should be appeasing Apple...</title>
	<author>pjludlow</author>
	<datestamp>1244835960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly AT&amp;T are making some poor decisions right now. Whatever your opinion on the iPhone it has changed the game with cell phones, and has been a huge win for AT&amp;T. I have no idea how many new customers the iPhone has given AT&amp;T, but I am one, and most of the iPhone owners I know also switched networks so it must be a pretty substantial amount. The thing is, iPhone users have no loyalty to AT&amp;T so when the exclusivity contract is over a huge number will jump ship. I would have thought that AT&amp;T would be jumping through hoops to appease Apple so that when it's time to renegotiate the contract things go well for them, but as I see it now, Apple would make much more money opening the iPhone to Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and AT&amp;T when they are able. I would love to see the iPhone on all the networks because they we could have some competition on plans/pricing.<br>
<br>
AT&amp;T just screws us over whenever they can. I'm still on the first gen iPhone and to upgrade to the latest I will have to pay at least $15 more a month to get the most basic plan ($10 more for the 3g data, and $5 for the 200 text that were included in the original plan). I'm not really one to have government step in and mess with businesses, but something should be done with the wireless providers because I'm tired of being screwed over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly AT&amp;T are making some poor decisions right now .
Whatever your opinion on the iPhone it has changed the game with cell phones , and has been a huge win for AT&amp;T .
I have no idea how many new customers the iPhone has given AT&amp;T , but I am one , and most of the iPhone owners I know also switched networks so it must be a pretty substantial amount .
The thing is , iPhone users have no loyalty to AT&amp;T so when the exclusivity contract is over a huge number will jump ship .
I would have thought that AT&amp;T would be jumping through hoops to appease Apple so that when it 's time to renegotiate the contract things go well for them , but as I see it now , Apple would make much more money opening the iPhone to Verizon , T-Mobile , Sprint and AT&amp;T when they are able .
I would love to see the iPhone on all the networks because they we could have some competition on plans/pricing .
AT&amp;T just screws us over whenever they can .
I 'm still on the first gen iPhone and to upgrade to the latest I will have to pay at least $ 15 more a month to get the most basic plan ( $ 10 more for the 3g data , and $ 5 for the 200 text that were included in the original plan ) .
I 'm not really one to have government step in and mess with businesses , but something should be done with the wireless providers because I 'm tired of being screwed over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly AT&amp;T are making some poor decisions right now.
Whatever your opinion on the iPhone it has changed the game with cell phones, and has been a huge win for AT&amp;T.
I have no idea how many new customers the iPhone has given AT&amp;T, but I am one, and most of the iPhone owners I know also switched networks so it must be a pretty substantial amount.
The thing is, iPhone users have no loyalty to AT&amp;T so when the exclusivity contract is over a huge number will jump ship.
I would have thought that AT&amp;T would be jumping through hoops to appease Apple so that when it's time to renegotiate the contract things go well for them, but as I see it now, Apple would make much more money opening the iPhone to Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and AT&amp;T when they are able.
I would love to see the iPhone on all the networks because they we could have some competition on plans/pricing.
AT&amp;T just screws us over whenever they can.
I'm still on the first gen iPhone and to upgrade to the latest I will have to pay at least $15 more a month to get the most basic plan ($10 more for the 3g data, and $5 for the 200 text that were included in the original plan).
I'm not really one to have government step in and mess with businesses, but something should be done with the wireless providers because I'm tired of being screwed over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311693</id>
	<title>Re:Do people actually think This Would Be Better ?</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244835240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apple should just cut ties with everyone - sell the iPhone for cost</p></div></blockquote><p>
This would be a net loss to Apple since they believe that anyone who wants the iPhone bad enough will switch to AT&amp;T to get it, and Apple makes far more than the sales cost of the phone due to the "exclusivity cut" of the monthly fees that they receive from AT&amp;T at the moment.  In an open market no carrier would be cutting Apple in on their profits and Apple would not only have the App Store as their only other source of ongoing revenue, but the additional problems and headaches of each individual cell phone company wanting to block different apps from "their" phones.
<br> <br>
The easiest solution for consumers is to realize that you really can live without an iPhone in your life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple should just cut ties with everyone - sell the iPhone for cost This would be a net loss to Apple since they believe that anyone who wants the iPhone bad enough will switch to AT&amp;T to get it , and Apple makes far more than the sales cost of the phone due to the " exclusivity cut " of the monthly fees that they receive from AT&amp;T at the moment .
In an open market no carrier would be cutting Apple in on their profits and Apple would not only have the App Store as their only other source of ongoing revenue , but the additional problems and headaches of each individual cell phone company wanting to block different apps from " their " phones .
The easiest solution for consumers is to realize that you really can live without an iPhone in your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple should just cut ties with everyone - sell the iPhone for cost
This would be a net loss to Apple since they believe that anyone who wants the iPhone bad enough will switch to AT&amp;T to get it, and Apple makes far more than the sales cost of the phone due to the "exclusivity cut" of the monthly fees that they receive from AT&amp;T at the moment.
In an open market no carrier would be cutting Apple in on their profits and Apple would not only have the App Store as their only other source of ongoing revenue, but the additional problems and headaches of each individual cell phone company wanting to block different apps from "their" phones.
The easiest solution for consumers is to realize that you really can live without an iPhone in your life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311849</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering</title>
	<author>drseamus</author>
	<datestamp>1244835780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've known it's coming for a while.  They can't use the "we aren't ready" excuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've known it 's coming for a while .
They ca n't use the " we are n't ready " excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've known it's coming for a while.
They can't use the "we aren't ready" excuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28317033</id>
	<title>Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1244823120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"My experience with both, and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source. Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract. In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.

The entire business model for the mobile telecoms revolves around contract pricing to subsidize reduced price phones, giving them extraordinary power over mobile handset manufacturers."</i> <p>
ON the other hand, this probably also led to the quick uptake of cell phones by the general populace in the US...with 'cheap' phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" My experience with both , and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source .
Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract .
In effect , the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one , you dont get a reduced rate .
The entire business model for the mobile telecoms revolves around contract pricing to subsidize reduced price phones , giving them extraordinary power over mobile handset manufacturers .
" ON the other hand , this probably also led to the quick uptake of cell phones by the general populace in the US...with 'cheap ' phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My experience with both, and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source.
Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract.
In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.
The entire business model for the mobile telecoms revolves around contract pricing to subsidize reduced price phones, giving them extraordinary power over mobile handset manufacturers.
" 
ON the other hand, this probably also led to the quick uptake of cell phones by the general populace in the US...with 'cheap' phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311041</id>
	<title>Re:Then don't buy it!</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1244832720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't mean people shouldn't or can't complain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't mean people should n't or ca n't complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't mean people shouldn't or can't complain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310921</id>
	<title>Why wouldn't they charge for tethering?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alright, I understand charging extra for MMS when you have a text plan would be stupid of them, but why shouldn't they charge for tethering?  They charge every other phone user extra.  Since they started subsidizing the iPhone, the data plans have been the same as every other smartphone plan so why would people think its going to included on the iPhone when it's not for the other phones?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , I understand charging extra for MMS when you have a text plan would be stupid of them , but why should n't they charge for tethering ?
They charge every other phone user extra .
Since they started subsidizing the iPhone , the data plans have been the same as every other smartphone plan so why would people think its going to included on the iPhone when it 's not for the other phones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, I understand charging extra for MMS when you have a text plan would be stupid of them, but why shouldn't they charge for tethering?
They charge every other phone user extra.
Since they started subsidizing the iPhone, the data plans have been the same as every other smartphone plan so why would people think its going to included on the iPhone when it's not for the other phones?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311645</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is T-Mobile more expensive? I have a T-Mobile G1 (a.k.a. the Google Phone). Using PDANet I'm able to tether my work laptop to my G1 (via USB) and surf the net. It uses my current data plan which is cheaper than the iPhone's data plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is T-Mobile more expensive ?
I have a T-Mobile G1 ( a.k.a .
the Google Phone ) .
Using PDANet I 'm able to tether my work laptop to my G1 ( via USB ) and surf the net .
It uses my current data plan which is cheaper than the iPhone 's data plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is T-Mobile more expensive?
I have a T-Mobile G1 (a.k.a.
the Google Phone).
Using PDANet I'm able to tether my work laptop to my G1 (via USB) and surf the net.
It uses my current data plan which is cheaper than the iPhone's data plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311463</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>steve6534</author>
	<datestamp>1244834280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what do you do when you need to get to company resources on the corporate network ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what do you do when you need to get to company resources on the corporate network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what do you do when you need to get to company resources on the corporate network ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310691</id>
	<title>I want more money!</title>
	<author>fandingo</author>
	<datestamp>1244831460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have an iphone (original model), so the rate increase might affect me.

The iPhone has been tremendously successful for AT&amp;T. I can't remember the exact statistics, but something like over half of new subscribers have an iphone and they are getting 2-3x as many new subscribers as any other network. $3-5/month for MMS will not deter many people, so it will probably translate to increased profits.
Iphone users are use significantly more bandwidth than other customers, so AT&amp;T is probably going to offset some of the increased network costs. However, it's a common situation where costs for the provider go up a certain amount, x, but the costs increases by 1.5x, 2x or maybe even more.

It certainly sucks for consumers, but there is certainly rationale to it.

It reminds me of an intro Economics class I took. Consumer Surplus is the difference between how much the consumer values a good and how much the supplier is willing to sell it for. In this example, I would argue that most iphone customers are getting a consumer surplus, which means that AT&amp;T could charge more and still have happy consumers (they still think the transaction is better than holding onto their money). Err, I'll qualify that statement; they will have consumers that are still happy but certainly not as happy.

I don't pretend to defend AT&amp;T or even like them, but this is a pretty straightforward business decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an iphone ( original model ) , so the rate increase might affect me .
The iPhone has been tremendously successful for AT&amp;T .
I ca n't remember the exact statistics , but something like over half of new subscribers have an iphone and they are getting 2-3x as many new subscribers as any other network .
$ 3-5/month for MMS will not deter many people , so it will probably translate to increased profits .
Iphone users are use significantly more bandwidth than other customers , so AT&amp;T is probably going to offset some of the increased network costs .
However , it 's a common situation where costs for the provider go up a certain amount , x , but the costs increases by 1.5x , 2x or maybe even more .
It certainly sucks for consumers , but there is certainly rationale to it .
It reminds me of an intro Economics class I took .
Consumer Surplus is the difference between how much the consumer values a good and how much the supplier is willing to sell it for .
In this example , I would argue that most iphone customers are getting a consumer surplus , which means that AT&amp;T could charge more and still have happy consumers ( they still think the transaction is better than holding onto their money ) .
Err , I 'll qualify that statement ; they will have consumers that are still happy but certainly not as happy .
I do n't pretend to defend AT&amp;T or even like them , but this is a pretty straightforward business decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an iphone (original model), so the rate increase might affect me.
The iPhone has been tremendously successful for AT&amp;T.
I can't remember the exact statistics, but something like over half of new subscribers have an iphone and they are getting 2-3x as many new subscribers as any other network.
$3-5/month for MMS will not deter many people, so it will probably translate to increased profits.
Iphone users are use significantly more bandwidth than other customers, so AT&amp;T is probably going to offset some of the increased network costs.
However, it's a common situation where costs for the provider go up a certain amount, x, but the costs increases by 1.5x, 2x or maybe even more.
It certainly sucks for consumers, but there is certainly rationale to it.
It reminds me of an intro Economics class I took.
Consumer Surplus is the difference between how much the consumer values a good and how much the supplier is willing to sell it for.
In this example, I would argue that most iphone customers are getting a consumer surplus, which means that AT&amp;T could charge more and still have happy consumers (they still think the transaction is better than holding onto their money).
Err, I'll qualify that statement; they will have consumers that are still happy but certainly not as happy.
I don't pretend to defend AT&amp;T or even like them, but this is a pretty straightforward business decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311945</id>
	<title>More government regulation required?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1244836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I am not a fan of seeing laws written for every little thing out there, but it is clear that in capitalist society, that "taking advantage of opportunities to make more money" is actually part of the game and quite often results not in providing more value to customers, but taking unfair advantage of consumers.</p><p>AT&amp;T is a communications service provider.  They provide the link service connecting their wireless device to a larger global network.  They also sell handsets and other gear to their wireless service customers.  Both of these things are "okay with me."  But what I am not okay with is their attempting to control how a handset or other gear is used and charging more for people who use their equipment to the fullest extent of its capability.  I think it is just about time that some regulating agency step in to tell the wireless people what they can and cannot charge for.  SMS texting is certainly one thing they shouldn't be able to charge more for.  Others include tethering and MMS.  If they have a "data plan" then they have paid for the right to use the data plan in any way that is suitable.  SMS is an inherent feature of most mobile phone technologies protocols.  Using that built-in aspect of the protocol should not represent an additional cost since that is technically a part of the service.  They sure as hell can't (or won't) allow blocking the service.</p><p>Such regulations presently exist for POTS service providers and it has not proven terribly detrimental to the operability or profitability of the businesses.  Wireless providers would similarly not suffer under such regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I am not a fan of seeing laws written for every little thing out there , but it is clear that in capitalist society , that " taking advantage of opportunities to make more money " is actually part of the game and quite often results not in providing more value to customers , but taking unfair advantage of consumers.AT&amp;T is a communications service provider .
They provide the link service connecting their wireless device to a larger global network .
They also sell handsets and other gear to their wireless service customers .
Both of these things are " okay with me .
" But what I am not okay with is their attempting to control how a handset or other gear is used and charging more for people who use their equipment to the fullest extent of its capability .
I think it is just about time that some regulating agency step in to tell the wireless people what they can and can not charge for .
SMS texting is certainly one thing they should n't be able to charge more for .
Others include tethering and MMS .
If they have a " data plan " then they have paid for the right to use the data plan in any way that is suitable .
SMS is an inherent feature of most mobile phone technologies protocols .
Using that built-in aspect of the protocol should not represent an additional cost since that is technically a part of the service .
They sure as hell ca n't ( or wo n't ) allow blocking the service.Such regulations presently exist for POTS service providers and it has not proven terribly detrimental to the operability or profitability of the businesses .
Wireless providers would similarly not suffer under such regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I am not a fan of seeing laws written for every little thing out there, but it is clear that in capitalist society, that "taking advantage of opportunities to make more money" is actually part of the game and quite often results not in providing more value to customers, but taking unfair advantage of consumers.AT&amp;T is a communications service provider.
They provide the link service connecting their wireless device to a larger global network.
They also sell handsets and other gear to their wireless service customers.
Both of these things are "okay with me.
"  But what I am not okay with is their attempting to control how a handset or other gear is used and charging more for people who use their equipment to the fullest extent of its capability.
I think it is just about time that some regulating agency step in to tell the wireless people what they can and cannot charge for.
SMS texting is certainly one thing they shouldn't be able to charge more for.
Others include tethering and MMS.
If they have a "data plan" then they have paid for the right to use the data plan in any way that is suitable.
SMS is an inherent feature of most mobile phone technologies protocols.
Using that built-in aspect of the protocol should not represent an additional cost since that is technically a part of the service.
They sure as hell can't (or won't) allow blocking the service.Such regulations presently exist for POTS service providers and it has not proven terribly detrimental to the operability or profitability of the businesses.
Wireless providers would similarly not suffer under such regulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316377</id>
	<title>Re:Not just AT&amp;T, folks</title>
	<author>POTSandPANS</author>
	<datestamp>1244816640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a data plan for a wireless broadband card and it also had an extra $10 for a corporate plan. The extra $10 was for a static IP. Another provider had a different price for their corporate package as well. This time, for the extra $10 you would be able to use your device with a blackberry enterprise server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a data plan for a wireless broadband card and it also had an extra $ 10 for a corporate plan .
The extra $ 10 was for a static IP .
Another provider had a different price for their corporate package as well .
This time , for the extra $ 10 you would be able to use your device with a blackberry enterprise server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a data plan for a wireless broadband card and it also had an extra $10 for a corporate plan.
The extra $10 was for a static IP.
Another provider had a different price for their corporate package as well.
This time, for the extra $10 you would be able to use your device with a blackberry enterprise server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310955</id>
	<title>Re:Do people actually think VZW will be any better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, tethering is an extra $30 over your normal plan.  If you're getting it for $10-12, then that's some legacy rate and not available for new customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , tethering is an extra $ 30 over your normal plan .
If you 're getting it for $ 10-12 , then that 's some legacy rate and not available for new customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, tethering is an extra $30 over your normal plan.
If you're getting it for $10-12, then that's some legacy rate and not available for new customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311075</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto...good riddance to AT&amp;T's service the moment I can leave with my iPhone in hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto...good riddance to AT&amp;T 's service the moment I can leave with my iPhone in hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto...good riddance to AT&amp;T's service the moment I can leave with my iPhone in hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28327699</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245006420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your work is still liable.  It's called sexual harassment.  Like it or not, that is how it goes.  It even happens in PORN company offices!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your work is still liable .
It 's called sexual harassment .
Like it or not , that is how it goes .
It even happens in PORN company offices !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your work is still liable.
It's called sexual harassment.
Like it or not, that is how it goes.
It even happens in PORN company offices!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28334149</id>
	<title>o2 Tethering Charges</title>
	<author>gnuchu</author>
	<datestamp>1245075060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the UK, o2 are charging 4 regular text messages for every MMS and the absolutely ridiculous fee of a minimum of &#194;&pound;14.95 for tethering with a 3 Gig allowance. What if I want to tether occasionally on the rare occasion I don't have WiFi?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK , o2 are charging 4 regular text messages for every MMS and the absolutely ridiculous fee of a minimum of     14.95 for tethering with a 3 Gig allowance .
What if I want to tether occasionally on the rare occasion I do n't have WiFi ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK, o2 are charging 4 regular text messages for every MMS and the absolutely ridiculous fee of a minimum of Â£14.95 for tethering with a 3 Gig allowance.
What if I want to tether occasionally on the rare occasion I don't have WiFi?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311333</id>
	<title>My Own Personal Experience</title>
	<author>darthservo</author>
	<datestamp>1244833800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My experience with both, and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source. Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract. In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.</p></div><p>Really?  Here's my recent experience:<br> <br>I was recently looking to upgrade my phone.  My last phone was from ATT with a two year contract, and I wanted something more updated and faster.  When I signed the contract, I was able to get unlimited data added for $15/mo. (they no longer offer this plan)  So I looked around for a while and debated between the subsidized Nokia E71x, or an unlocked Nokia model.  Now the ATT subsidized Nokia was only $99 after rebate, with of course another two year contract.  An unlocked Nokia E75 was $399 after $50 rebate.<br> <br>However, the subsidized E71x required their PDA/Smartphone data package which is $30/mo - that seemed pretty ridiculous because I was currently getting unlimited data at $15/mo.  After talking with an ATT rep, I found that if I bought an unlocked phone I could either grandfather in my old plan and leave it be with the data at $15/mo, or I could upgrade my plan to a current package and tack on unlimited data for only $10/mo!  The reason is that ATT cannot force an unsubsidized phone to use their "special" data plans tailored for their subsidized models (please - $30/mo just because the phone has a QWERTY?)<br> <br>You can do the math.  Needless to say, although I've spent more money upfront on a phone, I can recover the cost before two years.  If the phone lasts/stays with me longer than two years, I'll be saving even more from it.<br> <br>Btw, not only are unlocked phones nicer to have in case of travelling/switching providers, you also aren't stuck with the customized provider firmware that they slap onto the phone.  From past experiences I've found that the branded firmware often limits advanced functionality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with both , and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source .
Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract .
In effect , the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one , you dont get a reduced rate.Really ?
Here 's my recent experience : I was recently looking to upgrade my phone .
My last phone was from ATT with a two year contract , and I wanted something more updated and faster .
When I signed the contract , I was able to get unlimited data added for $ 15/mo .
( they no longer offer this plan ) So I looked around for a while and debated between the subsidized Nokia E71x , or an unlocked Nokia model .
Now the ATT subsidized Nokia was only $ 99 after rebate , with of course another two year contract .
An unlocked Nokia E75 was $ 399 after $ 50 rebate .
However , the subsidized E71x required their PDA/Smartphone data package which is $ 30/mo - that seemed pretty ridiculous because I was currently getting unlimited data at $ 15/mo .
After talking with an ATT rep , I found that if I bought an unlocked phone I could either grandfather in my old plan and leave it be with the data at $ 15/mo , or I could upgrade my plan to a current package and tack on unlimited data for only $ 10/mo !
The reason is that ATT can not force an unsubsidized phone to use their " special " data plans tailored for their subsidized models ( please - $ 30/mo just because the phone has a QWERTY ?
) You can do the math .
Needless to say , although I 've spent more money upfront on a phone , I can recover the cost before two years .
If the phone lasts/stays with me longer than two years , I 'll be saving even more from it .
Btw , not only are unlocked phones nicer to have in case of travelling/switching providers , you also are n't stuck with the customized provider firmware that they slap onto the phone .
From past experiences I 've found that the branded firmware often limits advanced functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with both, and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source.
Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract.
In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.Really?
Here's my recent experience: I was recently looking to upgrade my phone.
My last phone was from ATT with a two year contract, and I wanted something more updated and faster.
When I signed the contract, I was able to get unlimited data added for $15/mo.
(they no longer offer this plan)  So I looked around for a while and debated between the subsidized Nokia E71x, or an unlocked Nokia model.
Now the ATT subsidized Nokia was only $99 after rebate, with of course another two year contract.
An unlocked Nokia E75 was $399 after $50 rebate.
However, the subsidized E71x required their PDA/Smartphone data package which is $30/mo - that seemed pretty ridiculous because I was currently getting unlimited data at $15/mo.
After talking with an ATT rep, I found that if I bought an unlocked phone I could either grandfather in my old plan and leave it be with the data at $15/mo, or I could upgrade my plan to a current package and tack on unlimited data for only $10/mo!
The reason is that ATT cannot force an unsubsidized phone to use their "special" data plans tailored for their subsidized models (please - $30/mo just because the phone has a QWERTY?
) You can do the math.
Needless to say, although I've spent more money upfront on a phone, I can recover the cost before two years.
If the phone lasts/stays with me longer than two years, I'll be saving even more from it.
Btw, not only are unlocked phones nicer to have in case of travelling/switching providers, you also aren't stuck with the customized provider firmware that they slap onto the phone.
From past experiences I've found that the branded firmware often limits advanced functionality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311391</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering</title>
	<author>sl0ppy</author>
	<datestamp>1244834040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ditto for MMS. What would be special about iPhone MMS, other than that all of a sudden millions of iPhone users are suddenly going to start using the service. Here's to hoping its simply a capacity problem and not a "how can we rape our customers even more" problem.</p></div></blockquote><p>if it were a capacity problem, wouldn't we have already have seen it for the razr?  it supported MMS from day one, and there were plenty more of those than iphones out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto for MMS .
What would be special about iPhone MMS , other than that all of a sudden millions of iPhone users are suddenly going to start using the service .
Here 's to hoping its simply a capacity problem and not a " how can we rape our customers even more " problem.if it were a capacity problem , would n't we have already have seen it for the razr ?
it supported MMS from day one , and there were plenty more of those than iphones out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto for MMS.
What would be special about iPhone MMS, other than that all of a sudden millions of iPhone users are suddenly going to start using the service.
Here's to hoping its simply a capacity problem and not a "how can we rape our customers even more" problem.if it were a capacity problem, wouldn't we have already have seen it for the razr?
it supported MMS from day one, and there were plenty more of those than iphones out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311017</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T should charge more</title>
	<author>frovingslosh</author>
	<datestamp>1244832600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for M&amp;Ms. Besides, I haven't bought them since they banished Tan and brought in that gay Blue one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for M&amp;Ms .
Besides , I have n't bought them since they banished Tan and brought in that gay Blue one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for M&amp;Ms.
Besides, I haven't bought them since they banished Tan and brought in that gay Blue one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312407</id>
	<title>Laptop users use lot more bandwidth</title>
	<author>puhuri</author>
	<datestamp>1244837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With unlimited dataplans the laptop use dominates traffic volume. I do not remember now exact figures, but in one European network more than 95\% of traffic volume is from laptops. The network has unlimited dataplans starting from 9.95&euro;</p><p>It is funny to see US carriers to cripple phones to save their business model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With unlimited dataplans the laptop use dominates traffic volume .
I do not remember now exact figures , but in one European network more than 95 \ % of traffic volume is from laptops .
The network has unlimited dataplans starting from 9.95    It is funny to see US carriers to cripple phones to save their business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With unlimited dataplans the laptop use dominates traffic volume.
I do not remember now exact figures, but in one European network more than 95\% of traffic volume is from laptops.
The network has unlimited dataplans starting from 9.95€It is funny to see US carriers to cripple phones to save their business model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311357</id>
	<title>Sorry, Apple, AT&amp;T wasn't a good choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the iPhone.  It's a beautiful and functional work of art.  It does everything I want a webpad to do, especially now that peripherals are going to be possible.  It's incredible in every way.  I drool over the thought of the iPhone 3GS.</p><p>I won't pay $90/month for the privilege of having it not turn into a brick.  I won't even pay $60/month.  I use about 5 minutes of talk time every month, burn through 150 texts per month and might use some data on the go, but typically would be close to a WiFi hotspot if I didn't have a computer with me.  If it weren't for the texts, an iPod Touch would be exactly what I want.  As is, it seems as though Apple wants me to have my cell phone for texting and emergency calls and an iPod Touch for geeking out.  Maybe that's fine, but I already have the phone -- the Touch will wait.</p><p>If I could buy an iPhone outright, unsubsidized, and then go to any carrier I wanted, who would then offer a "$0.40/minute voice, 200 texts, unlimited data" for $40/month, I'd do it.  Strangely, <a href="http://www.mycricket.com/broadband/" title="mycricket.com" rel="nofollow">Cricket</a> [mycricket.com] has the data for 3G for $40/month, then I'd have to pick up the 200 texts for maybe $5/month.  So, I'm almost there.  But... AT&amp;T wants to charge me more than twice that.  No deal.  Of course, <a href="http://www.mycricket.com/cricketplans/" title="mycricket.com" rel="nofollow">Cricket</a> [mycricket.com] would love to set me up with unlimited voice, long distance and texting for $40/month, which would knock $5 off the data plan, putting it at $85 for what AT&amp;T would like $150 for an iPhone plan with those features.</p><p>I'm not unreasonable.  I understand that AT&amp;T needs to make some money here, but I don't want much service.  Their lowest plan has 5000 night &amp; weekend minutes -- 4999 more than I'd use -- and 450 anytime minutes.  Just find a way to cut all the fat out and they'll get my money.  Nickeling and diming for MMS (whatever that is, I don't even care) or tethering (I can't imagine that's more than a few people) isn't going to win a lot of customers and just scares away people like me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the iPhone .
It 's a beautiful and functional work of art .
It does everything I want a webpad to do , especially now that peripherals are going to be possible .
It 's incredible in every way .
I drool over the thought of the iPhone 3GS.I wo n't pay $ 90/month for the privilege of having it not turn into a brick .
I wo n't even pay $ 60/month .
I use about 5 minutes of talk time every month , burn through 150 texts per month and might use some data on the go , but typically would be close to a WiFi hotspot if I did n't have a computer with me .
If it were n't for the texts , an iPod Touch would be exactly what I want .
As is , it seems as though Apple wants me to have my cell phone for texting and emergency calls and an iPod Touch for geeking out .
Maybe that 's fine , but I already have the phone -- the Touch will wait.If I could buy an iPhone outright , unsubsidized , and then go to any carrier I wanted , who would then offer a " $ 0.40/minute voice , 200 texts , unlimited data " for $ 40/month , I 'd do it .
Strangely , Cricket [ mycricket.com ] has the data for 3G for $ 40/month , then I 'd have to pick up the 200 texts for maybe $ 5/month .
So , I 'm almost there .
But... AT&amp;T wants to charge me more than twice that .
No deal .
Of course , Cricket [ mycricket.com ] would love to set me up with unlimited voice , long distance and texting for $ 40/month , which would knock $ 5 off the data plan , putting it at $ 85 for what AT&amp;T would like $ 150 for an iPhone plan with those features.I 'm not unreasonable .
I understand that AT&amp;T needs to make some money here , but I do n't want much service .
Their lowest plan has 5000 night &amp; weekend minutes -- 4999 more than I 'd use -- and 450 anytime minutes .
Just find a way to cut all the fat out and they 'll get my money .
Nickeling and diming for MMS ( whatever that is , I do n't even care ) or tethering ( I ca n't imagine that 's more than a few people ) is n't going to win a lot of customers and just scares away people like me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the iPhone.
It's a beautiful and functional work of art.
It does everything I want a webpad to do, especially now that peripherals are going to be possible.
It's incredible in every way.
I drool over the thought of the iPhone 3GS.I won't pay $90/month for the privilege of having it not turn into a brick.
I won't even pay $60/month.
I use about 5 minutes of talk time every month, burn through 150 texts per month and might use some data on the go, but typically would be close to a WiFi hotspot if I didn't have a computer with me.
If it weren't for the texts, an iPod Touch would be exactly what I want.
As is, it seems as though Apple wants me to have my cell phone for texting and emergency calls and an iPod Touch for geeking out.
Maybe that's fine, but I already have the phone -- the Touch will wait.If I could buy an iPhone outright, unsubsidized, and then go to any carrier I wanted, who would then offer a "$0.40/minute voice, 200 texts, unlimited data" for $40/month, I'd do it.
Strangely, Cricket [mycricket.com] has the data for 3G for $40/month, then I'd have to pick up the 200 texts for maybe $5/month.
So, I'm almost there.
But... AT&amp;T wants to charge me more than twice that.
No deal.
Of course, Cricket [mycricket.com] would love to set me up with unlimited voice, long distance and texting for $40/month, which would knock $5 off the data plan, putting it at $85 for what AT&amp;T would like $150 for an iPhone plan with those features.I'm not unreasonable.
I understand that AT&amp;T needs to make some money here, but I don't want much service.
Their lowest plan has 5000 night &amp; weekend minutes -- 4999 more than I'd use -- and 450 anytime minutes.
Just find a way to cut all the fat out and they'll get my money.
Nickeling and diming for MMS (whatever that is, I don't even care) or tethering (I can't imagine that's more than a few people) isn't going to win a lot of customers and just scares away people like me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311573</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You also speak as one who cannot spell "liable," leading me to guess that you're not really an expert on the law, or on corporate policies... .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You also speak as one who can not spell " liable , " leading me to guess that you 're not really an expert on the law , or on corporate policies... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also speak as one who cannot spell "liable," leading me to guess that you're not really an expert on the law, or on corporate policies... .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312033</id>
	<title>Re:Leverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't make much sense.  Everyone knows the hold-up is on AT&amp;T's end, since other carriers will support the features.  The only pressure this creates is for Apple to drop AT&amp;T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't make much sense .
Everyone knows the hold-up is on AT&amp;T 's end , since other carriers will support the features .
The only pressure this creates is for Apple to drop AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't make much sense.
Everyone knows the hold-up is on AT&amp;T's end, since other carriers will support the features.
The only pressure this creates is for Apple to drop AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311241</id>
	<title>LTE G4, will intresting</title>
	<author>Publikwerks</author>
	<datestamp>1244833440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Verizon Wireless is going to start rolling out LTE tomorrow for testing( or at least so I've heard). ATT and Verizon both have rights to the spectrum that broadcast tv is leaving tonight, and VZW wants to get moving on it asap. They should have LTE G4 by earlier next year. ATT probably a little afterwards. Intrestingly enouhg, Apple's contract ends next year. You  think they will have a LTE G4 phone ready for both ATT and VZW?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon Wireless is going to start rolling out LTE tomorrow for testing ( or at least so I 've heard ) .
ATT and Verizon both have rights to the spectrum that broadcast tv is leaving tonight , and VZW wants to get moving on it asap .
They should have LTE G4 by earlier next year .
ATT probably a little afterwards .
Intrestingly enouhg , Apple 's contract ends next year .
You think they will have a LTE G4 phone ready for both ATT and VZW ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon Wireless is going to start rolling out LTE tomorrow for testing( or at least so I've heard).
ATT and Verizon both have rights to the spectrum that broadcast tv is leaving tonight, and VZW wants to get moving on it asap.
They should have LTE G4 by earlier next year.
ATT probably a little afterwards.
Intrestingly enouhg, Apple's contract ends next year.
You  think they will have a LTE G4 phone ready for both ATT and VZW?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311411</id>
	<title>Re:"Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra?"</title>
	<author>hurfy</author>
	<datestamp>1244834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure seems like a lot of answers here for a rhetorical question.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure seems like a lot of answers here for a rhetorical question.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure seems like a lot of answers here for a rhetorical question.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311583</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>pyite</author>
	<datestamp>1244834760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.<br>If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.</i></p><p>I think you mean <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liable" title="wiktionary.org">liable</a> [wiktionary.org]. <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libel" title="wiktionary.org">Libel</a> [wiktionary.org] is something different entirely.</p><p>In any event, it's easy for corporations to disable USB and Bluetooth use. Having a phone with tethering capability is a non-issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection , work can be held libel.If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect , it is less likely that work can be held libel.I think you mean liable [ wiktionary.org ] .
Libel [ wiktionary.org ] is something different entirely.In any event , it 's easy for corporations to disable USB and Bluetooth use .
Having a phone with tethering capability is a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.I think you mean liable [wiktionary.org].
Libel [wiktionary.org] is something different entirely.In any event, it's easy for corporations to disable USB and Bluetooth use.
Having a phone with tethering capability is a non-issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310961</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1244832420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe it's not a conspiracy to deprive you.</i></p><p>Yeah, its public knowledge on the minutes from the last shareholder meeting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's not a conspiracy to deprive you.Yeah , its public knowledge on the minutes from the last shareholder meeting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's not a conspiracy to deprive you.Yeah, its public knowledge on the minutes from the last shareholder meeting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312339</id>
	<title>What's stopping Apple from becoming a carrier?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I imagine it's fantastically expensive to get started with the cell tower infrastructure. And yes, as soon as they become a network, Apple won't have too many mobile partners anymore.</p><p>On the other hand, Apple loves selling the whole widget. And they certainly wouldn't mind the margins on SMS. And they have a big pile of money in the bank. And they must have some decent infrastructure to handle selling the music and apps.</p><p>
I'm completely ignorant on the details, but I wonder if the expiration of the AT&amp;T exclusivity doesn't mean doesn't mean they hop to Verizon, but try to do it themselves. In theory, they could even make the iPhone 8 Xtreme hop to 802.11(x) networks. Imagine if all those Apple Base Stations got turned into microcells in a software update. </p><p>
So are these crazy ramblings? Well, yes.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) But tell me why they might be true or false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I imagine it 's fantastically expensive to get started with the cell tower infrastructure .
And yes , as soon as they become a network , Apple wo n't have too many mobile partners anymore.On the other hand , Apple loves selling the whole widget .
And they certainly would n't mind the margins on SMS .
And they have a big pile of money in the bank .
And they must have some decent infrastructure to handle selling the music and apps .
I 'm completely ignorant on the details , but I wonder if the expiration of the AT&amp;T exclusivity does n't mean does n't mean they hop to Verizon , but try to do it themselves .
In theory , they could even make the iPhone 8 Xtreme hop to 802.11 ( x ) networks .
Imagine if all those Apple Base Stations got turned into microcells in a software update .
So are these crazy ramblings ?
Well , yes .
; ) But tell me why they might be true or false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I imagine it's fantastically expensive to get started with the cell tower infrastructure.
And yes, as soon as they become a network, Apple won't have too many mobile partners anymore.On the other hand, Apple loves selling the whole widget.
And they certainly wouldn't mind the margins on SMS.
And they have a big pile of money in the bank.
And they must have some decent infrastructure to handle selling the music and apps.
I'm completely ignorant on the details, but I wonder if the expiration of the AT&amp;T exclusivity doesn't mean doesn't mean they hop to Verizon, but try to do it themselves.
In theory, they could even make the iPhone 8 Xtreme hop to 802.11(x) networks.
Imagine if all those Apple Base Stations got turned into microcells in a software update.
So are these crazy ramblings?
Well, yes.
;) But tell me why they might be true or false.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903</id>
	<title>Not just AT&amp;T, folks</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1244832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Verizon customer. They have HORRID billing practices (throw in lots of ambiguous "fees" and then wait for you to call and bitch about this $20 and that $16 charge before removing them) and downright deceptive marketing.</p><p>I have a WinMo smartphone (The HTC Mogul, and it's a pretty cool phone, feels to be about Win'95 as far as its O/S) and (of course) need a data plan. Vzw has two dataplans, the $30 "consumer" plan, and the $45 "corporate" plan. I asked what the difference is, since they both have unlimited data usage, since I didn't want to pay $15/mo more for a feature that I didn't need.</p><p>I was explained that the corporate account is designed for people who access company email and intranet applications, while the cheaper plan is for home users. I asked if they actually block connections with the $30 plan, and was assured that they did not. I went with the cheaper plan, and have had no trouble at all connecting to my corporate mail server.</p><p>In other words, <b>Verizon wireless charges a $15/mo 'stupid tax' for anybody who wants to use a smart phone for business</b> since their consumer plan offers the same actual functionality. I wonder just how many people are paying this $180/year 'stupid tax'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Verizon customer .
They have HORRID billing practices ( throw in lots of ambiguous " fees " and then wait for you to call and bitch about this $ 20 and that $ 16 charge before removing them ) and downright deceptive marketing.I have a WinMo smartphone ( The HTC Mogul , and it 's a pretty cool phone , feels to be about Win'95 as far as its O/S ) and ( of course ) need a data plan .
Vzw has two dataplans , the $ 30 " consumer " plan , and the $ 45 " corporate " plan .
I asked what the difference is , since they both have unlimited data usage , since I did n't want to pay $ 15/mo more for a feature that I did n't need.I was explained that the corporate account is designed for people who access company email and intranet applications , while the cheaper plan is for home users .
I asked if they actually block connections with the $ 30 plan , and was assured that they did not .
I went with the cheaper plan , and have had no trouble at all connecting to my corporate mail server.In other words , Verizon wireless charges a $ 15/mo 'stupid tax ' for anybody who wants to use a smart phone for business since their consumer plan offers the same actual functionality .
I wonder just how many people are paying this $ 180/year 'stupid tax ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Verizon customer.
They have HORRID billing practices (throw in lots of ambiguous "fees" and then wait for you to call and bitch about this $20 and that $16 charge before removing them) and downright deceptive marketing.I have a WinMo smartphone (The HTC Mogul, and it's a pretty cool phone, feels to be about Win'95 as far as its O/S) and (of course) need a data plan.
Vzw has two dataplans, the $30 "consumer" plan, and the $45 "corporate" plan.
I asked what the difference is, since they both have unlimited data usage, since I didn't want to pay $15/mo more for a feature that I didn't need.I was explained that the corporate account is designed for people who access company email and intranet applications, while the cheaper plan is for home users.
I asked if they actually block connections with the $30 plan, and was assured that they did not.
I went with the cheaper plan, and have had no trouble at all connecting to my corporate mail server.In other words, Verizon wireless charges a $15/mo 'stupid tax' for anybody who wants to use a smart phone for business since their consumer plan offers the same actual functionality.
I wonder just how many people are paying this $180/year 'stupid tax'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314841</id>
	<title>Telecommunications Ass Rape&#226;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244804760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Telecommunications Ass Rape&#226; in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Telecommunications Ass Rape   in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Telecommunications Ass Rapeâ in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312881</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1244839380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Main reasons for an acceptable use policy:</p><p>* Security and accountability<br>
* Successful sexual harassment suits have been brought because a female employee happened to see porn on a co-workers screen.<br>
* To keep you working while at work instead of goofing off.</p><p>Reasons manangement won't care who's pipe you are using to browse "adult stuff"</p><p>
* See above</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Main reasons for an acceptable use policy : * Security and accountability * Successful sexual harassment suits have been brought because a female employee happened to see porn on a co-workers screen .
* To keep you working while at work instead of goofing off.Reasons manangement wo n't care who 's pipe you are using to browse " adult stuff " * See above</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Main reasons for an acceptable use policy:* Security and accountability
* Successful sexual harassment suits have been brought because a female employee happened to see porn on a co-workers screen.
* To keep you working while at work instead of goofing off.Reasons manangement won't care who's pipe you are using to browse "adult stuff"
* See above</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311421</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T is shady...</title>
	<author>tehsideshow</author>
	<datestamp>1244834160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a flat out lie that AT&amp;T is claiming their network does not support these features and even after the update we will have to wait a few months for them to implement them. I had a phone about a year and a half ago that was able to sent MMS. My coworkers black berry sends video, picture messages and hooks up to his laptop to provide internet. AT&amp;T is flat out lying when they say their network is not cable of supporting these features yet. I'm getting sick and tired of their BS and I think if Apple offers this phone on another network I would be likely to jump ship because of their shenanigans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a flat out lie that AT&amp;T is claiming their network does not support these features and even after the update we will have to wait a few months for them to implement them .
I had a phone about a year and a half ago that was able to sent MMS .
My coworkers black berry sends video , picture messages and hooks up to his laptop to provide internet .
AT&amp;T is flat out lying when they say their network is not cable of supporting these features yet .
I 'm getting sick and tired of their BS and I think if Apple offers this phone on another network I would be likely to jump ship because of their shenanigans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a flat out lie that AT&amp;T is claiming their network does not support these features and even after the update we will have to wait a few months for them to implement them.
I had a phone about a year and a half ago that was able to sent MMS.
My coworkers black berry sends video, picture messages and hooks up to his laptop to provide internet.
AT&amp;T is flat out lying when they say their network is not cable of supporting these features yet.
I'm getting sick and tired of their BS and I think if Apple offers this phone on another network I would be likely to jump ship because of their shenanigans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316815</id>
	<title>Re: "is-a-bear-Catholic dept"</title>
	<author>CNPOS</author>
	<datestamp>1244820660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to admit this made me chuckle, however I still prefer my play on it: "Does the Pope shit in the woods?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to admit this made me chuckle , however I still prefer my play on it : " Does the Pope shit in the woods ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to admit this made me chuckle, however I still prefer my play on it: "Does the Pope shit in the woods?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310775</id>
	<title>"Will AT&amp;T Charge Extra?"</title>
	<author>Enuratique</author>
	<datestamp>1244831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the space pope reptilian and does he shit in the woods?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the space pope reptilian and does he shit in the woods ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the space pope reptilian and does he shit in the woods?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312833</id>
	<title>Re:Do people actually think VZW will be any better</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1244839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>VZW is notorious for charging for everything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></div><p>Sometimes they even charge you an additional 99 cents for each penny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VZW is notorious for charging for everything ..Sometimes they even charge you an additional 99 cents for each penny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VZW is notorious for charging for everything ..Sometimes they even charge you an additional 99 cents for each penny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310991</id>
	<title>Re:No MMS?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1244832480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think AT&amp;T simply doesn't have the capacity. The iPhone is the best selling smartphone in the US and is selling like hot cakes simply because we don't have anything like it in the market (except maybe the Android, but it's still far behind as far as functionality and only on T-Mobile which doesn't have decent coverage in many areas in the countries). This has already put a large strain on AT&amp;T and MMS support and tethering is going to add to that. Being able to tether your phone used to cost you practically another plan and special phones (although my Nokia can technically do it, it doesn't have the software capabilities). But the iPhone is not controlled by AT&amp;T so AT&amp;T can't control who's tethering since it's going to look like you're just using your iPhone. If they block it, users will just download another providers' firmware or unlock it.</p><p>I believe that AT&amp;T thought in the beginning: whatever, another smartphone for that niche group of Mac fans, no big deal but it has really changed the market and AT&amp;T wasn't prepared. Since the iPhone everybody wants to surf the internet, their e-mails, cheap music downloads, now movie, in-app game and e-book downloads as well and they never had the capacity to begin with and many other vendors have followed with their own take on iPhone-knockoffs. We're supposed to have 3G on AT&amp;T but in many areas this means less than 100 kbit/s which is only slightly faster than dial up simply because they only wired in about 1 Mbps (carrying compressed voice and GSM control) on your average pole . Now we want 7 Mbps HDSPA - you expect them to wire in something akin to Ethernet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think AT&amp;T simply does n't have the capacity .
The iPhone is the best selling smartphone in the US and is selling like hot cakes simply because we do n't have anything like it in the market ( except maybe the Android , but it 's still far behind as far as functionality and only on T-Mobile which does n't have decent coverage in many areas in the countries ) .
This has already put a large strain on AT&amp;T and MMS support and tethering is going to add to that .
Being able to tether your phone used to cost you practically another plan and special phones ( although my Nokia can technically do it , it does n't have the software capabilities ) .
But the iPhone is not controlled by AT&amp;T so AT&amp;T ca n't control who 's tethering since it 's going to look like you 're just using your iPhone .
If they block it , users will just download another providers ' firmware or unlock it.I believe that AT&amp;T thought in the beginning : whatever , another smartphone for that niche group of Mac fans , no big deal but it has really changed the market and AT&amp;T was n't prepared .
Since the iPhone everybody wants to surf the internet , their e-mails , cheap music downloads , now movie , in-app game and e-book downloads as well and they never had the capacity to begin with and many other vendors have followed with their own take on iPhone-knockoffs .
We 're supposed to have 3G on AT&amp;T but in many areas this means less than 100 kbit/s which is only slightly faster than dial up simply because they only wired in about 1 Mbps ( carrying compressed voice and GSM control ) on your average pole .
Now we want 7 Mbps HDSPA - you expect them to wire in something akin to Ethernet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think AT&amp;T simply doesn't have the capacity.
The iPhone is the best selling smartphone in the US and is selling like hot cakes simply because we don't have anything like it in the market (except maybe the Android, but it's still far behind as far as functionality and only on T-Mobile which doesn't have decent coverage in many areas in the countries).
This has already put a large strain on AT&amp;T and MMS support and tethering is going to add to that.
Being able to tether your phone used to cost you practically another plan and special phones (although my Nokia can technically do it, it doesn't have the software capabilities).
But the iPhone is not controlled by AT&amp;T so AT&amp;T can't control who's tethering since it's going to look like you're just using your iPhone.
If they block it, users will just download another providers' firmware or unlock it.I believe that AT&amp;T thought in the beginning: whatever, another smartphone for that niche group of Mac fans, no big deal but it has really changed the market and AT&amp;T wasn't prepared.
Since the iPhone everybody wants to surf the internet, their e-mails, cheap music downloads, now movie, in-app game and e-book downloads as well and they never had the capacity to begin with and many other vendors have followed with their own take on iPhone-knockoffs.
We're supposed to have 3G on AT&amp;T but in many areas this means less than 100 kbit/s which is only slightly faster than dial up simply because they only wired in about 1 Mbps (carrying compressed voice and GSM control) on your average pole .
Now we want 7 Mbps HDSPA - you expect them to wire in something akin to Ethernet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311479</id>
	<title>Re:Not just AT&amp;T, folks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a Verizon customer. They have HORRID billing practices (throw in lots of ambiguous "fees"</p></div><p>That's another little problem that I'm sure we're all familiar with: all the "taxes" and "fees" on your cell phone bill.  Why are they allowed to do that?
</p><p>If I were running a store and I advertised an item for $50, but when you came in to buy it I said, "Well, it's $50, plus sales tax, plus another $10 to cover various taxes associated with running my store, plus another $5 in fees," what would happen?  I would guess I'd get in trouble for false advertising.  Yet my $40 cell phone bill always comes out $60.  Every single month.
</p><p>Personally, I've always thought it was kind of silly that advertised prices don't already include sales tax, but cell phone plans definitely take it too far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Verizon customer .
They have HORRID billing practices ( throw in lots of ambiguous " fees " That 's another little problem that I 'm sure we 're all familiar with : all the " taxes " and " fees " on your cell phone bill .
Why are they allowed to do that ?
If I were running a store and I advertised an item for $ 50 , but when you came in to buy it I said , " Well , it 's $ 50 , plus sales tax , plus another $ 10 to cover various taxes associated with running my store , plus another $ 5 in fees , " what would happen ?
I would guess I 'd get in trouble for false advertising .
Yet my $ 40 cell phone bill always comes out $ 60 .
Every single month .
Personally , I 've always thought it was kind of silly that advertised prices do n't already include sales tax , but cell phone plans definitely take it too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Verizon customer.
They have HORRID billing practices (throw in lots of ambiguous "fees"That's another little problem that I'm sure we're all familiar with: all the "taxes" and "fees" on your cell phone bill.
Why are they allowed to do that?
If I were running a store and I advertised an item for $50, but when you came in to buy it I said, "Well, it's $50, plus sales tax, plus another $10 to cover various taxes associated with running my store, plus another $5 in fees," what would happen?
I would guess I'd get in trouble for false advertising.
Yet my $40 cell phone bill always comes out $60.
Every single month.
Personally, I've always thought it was kind of silly that advertised prices don't already include sales tax, but cell phone plans definitely take it too far.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857</id>
	<title>Leverage</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1244832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is AT&amp;T trying to get back some leverage in their relationship with Apple.</p><p>Right now:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * If you are on AT&amp;T already, either you have an iPhone or you want one.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * If you aren't on AT&amp;T, the only reason to switch to it is to get the iPhone.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The iPhone is still a great device without AT&amp;T, but AT&amp;T is not great without the iPhone.</p><p>By withholding tethering and MMS and not having a 7.2Mbps network in place, AT&amp;T will try to make Apple look bad. AT&amp;T will miss the "late-summer" "deadline" and they are gambling that pressure will grow on Apple to do something about it. Apple can't do anything about it and AT&amp;T will use this in 2010 contract negotiations as a bargaining chip.</p><p>AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves and that they will get concessions from Apple that will make them the most attractive iPhone carrier even after they lose exclusivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is AT&amp;T trying to get back some leverage in their relationship with Apple.Right now :         * If you are on AT&amp;T already , either you have an iPhone or you want one .
        * If you are n't on AT&amp;T , the only reason to switch to it is to get the iPhone .
        * The iPhone is still a great device without AT&amp;T , but AT&amp;T is not great without the iPhone.By withholding tethering and MMS and not having a 7.2Mbps network in place , AT&amp;T will try to make Apple look bad .
AT&amp;T will miss the " late-summer " " deadline " and they are gambling that pressure will grow on Apple to do something about it .
Apple ca n't do anything about it and AT&amp;T will use this in 2010 contract negotiations as a bargaining chip.AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves and that they will get concessions from Apple that will make them the most attractive iPhone carrier even after they lose exclusivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is AT&amp;T trying to get back some leverage in their relationship with Apple.Right now:
        * If you are on AT&amp;T already, either you have an iPhone or you want one.
        * If you aren't on AT&amp;T, the only reason to switch to it is to get the iPhone.
        * The iPhone is still a great device without AT&amp;T, but AT&amp;T is not great without the iPhone.By withholding tethering and MMS and not having a 7.2Mbps network in place, AT&amp;T will try to make Apple look bad.
AT&amp;T will miss the "late-summer" "deadline" and they are gambling that pressure will grow on Apple to do something about it.
Apple can't do anything about it and AT&amp;T will use this in 2010 contract negotiations as a bargaining chip.AT&amp;T is wagering the backlash against Apple will be worse than the backlash against themselves and that they will get concessions from Apple that will make them the most attractive iPhone carrier even after they lose exclusivity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312947</id>
	<title>Re:Not just AT&amp;T, folks</title>
	<author>Sylver Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1244839620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've never bought a new car I take it?  The sticker price is about the same level of scam.  The dealership is going to tack on tax (of course), documentation fee, licensing fess, and any other fee they think they can get away with.  Granted, since a car purchase is still seen as negotiable, those fees are also negotiable (at least who pays them is) so it's a bit easier to deal with.  However, what the phone companies are doing isn't all that new.<br>
<br>
But hey, at least we are no longer paying a tax to support the Spanish American War.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've never bought a new car I take it ?
The sticker price is about the same level of scam .
The dealership is going to tack on tax ( of course ) , documentation fee , licensing fess , and any other fee they think they can get away with .
Granted , since a car purchase is still seen as negotiable , those fees are also negotiable ( at least who pays them is ) so it 's a bit easier to deal with .
However , what the phone companies are doing is n't all that new .
But hey , at least we are no longer paying a tax to support the Spanish American War .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've never bought a new car I take it?
The sticker price is about the same level of scam.
The dealership is going to tack on tax (of course), documentation fee, licensing fess, and any other fee they think they can get away with.
Granted, since a car purchase is still seen as negotiable, those fees are also negotiable (at least who pays them is) so it's a bit easier to deal with.
However, what the phone companies are doing isn't all that new.
But hey, at least we are no longer paying a tax to support the Spanish American War.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314033</id>
	<title>Re:Not just AT&amp;T, folks</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1244800620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need that plan in order to use tethering on the phone. Granted nearly everyone here is smart enough to enable tethering without paying their tax, but 99\% of businesses won't do this and will gladly write it off as an extra expense.

If you try and add tethering on a standard data plan you will be greeted with a 30$ charge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need that plan in order to use tethering on the phone .
Granted nearly everyone here is smart enough to enable tethering without paying their tax , but 99 \ % of businesses wo n't do this and will gladly write it off as an extra expense .
If you try and add tethering on a standard data plan you will be greeted with a 30 $ charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need that plan in order to use tethering on the phone.
Granted nearly everyone here is smart enough to enable tethering without paying their tax, but 99\% of businesses won't do this and will gladly write it off as an extra expense.
If you try and add tethering on a standard data plan you will be greeted with a 30$ charge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311105</id>
	<title>Void contract?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand charging for tethering, that's to be expected.  I'm curious about how they're going to handle MMS.  Will they just include it in the cost of the $15 I'm already paying for 1500 text messages?  If I understand the contract correctly, if they raise that fee it means I can opt out of my contract with no penalty because there has been a material change in the fees being charged.  I don't see AT&amp;T opening themselves up to droves of users ditching their contract in that manner.  Nor do I see them having a separate "MMS Plan" for iPhone users, as that would piss off *everyone*.  So, with any luck, we'll only see a new fee for tethering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand charging for tethering , that 's to be expected .
I 'm curious about how they 're going to handle MMS .
Will they just include it in the cost of the $ 15 I 'm already paying for 1500 text messages ?
If I understand the contract correctly , if they raise that fee it means I can opt out of my contract with no penalty because there has been a material change in the fees being charged .
I do n't see AT&amp;T opening themselves up to droves of users ditching their contract in that manner .
Nor do I see them having a separate " MMS Plan " for iPhone users , as that would piss off * everyone * .
So , with any luck , we 'll only see a new fee for tethering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand charging for tethering, that's to be expected.
I'm curious about how they're going to handle MMS.
Will they just include it in the cost of the $15 I'm already paying for 1500 text messages?
If I understand the contract correctly, if they raise that fee it means I can opt out of my contract with no penalty because there has been a material change in the fees being charged.
I don't see AT&amp;T opening themselves up to droves of users ditching their contract in that manner.
Nor do I see them having a separate "MMS Plan" for iPhone users, as that would piss off *everyone*.
So, with any luck, we'll only see a new fee for tethering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310669</id>
	<title>Doesn't really matter in the short term.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T has Apple by the balls, and Apple has its fanbois by the balls.  All of this complaining is just a smoke screen; they will gladly pay the extortionist prices because they are Apple fanbois and are used to it.  In the short term AT&amp;T will rake it in.  In the long term, who knows?  Businesses today aren't really concerned with the long term anyway.  With any luck AT&amp;T HQ will be attacked by Godzilla.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T has Apple by the balls , and Apple has its fanbois by the balls .
All of this complaining is just a smoke screen ; they will gladly pay the extortionist prices because they are Apple fanbois and are used to it .
In the short term AT&amp;T will rake it in .
In the long term , who knows ?
Businesses today are n't really concerned with the long term anyway .
With any luck AT&amp;T HQ will be attacked by Godzilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T has Apple by the balls, and Apple has its fanbois by the balls.
All of this complaining is just a smoke screen; they will gladly pay the extortionist prices because they are Apple fanbois and are used to it.
In the short term AT&amp;T will rake it in.
In the long term, who knows?
Businesses today aren't really concerned with the long term anyway.
With any luck AT&amp;T HQ will be attacked by Godzilla.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310587</id>
	<title>We're talking about AT&amp;T right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this question really have to be asked?</p><p>Of course they are charging extra for teathering, they always have with other phones. MMS will likely be "included" in the fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this question really have to be asked ? Of course they are charging extra for teathering , they always have with other phones .
MMS will likely be " included " in the fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this question really have to be asked?Of course they are charging extra for teathering, they always have with other phones.
MMS will likely be "included" in the fee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312503</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T allows both tethering and MMS</title>
	<author>klaun</author>
	<datestamp>1244838120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So just to take a dispassionate look at this.</p><p>First, AT&amp;T's network supports MMS and tethering just fine.  I use connection share on my Windows Mobile smart phone via Bluetooth all the time.  No problems.  I send MMS on the AT&amp;T network all the time as well.  So I'm not sure why there are so many stories that suggest the AT&amp;T network is incapable of doing this.  I'm not sure about the HSDPA, but for GPRS... there really isn't any effective way for AT&amp;T to prevent you from using connection sharing.  And you can put any GSM phone on their network.</p><p>Second, how many iPhones are on AT&amp;T's network?  Three and a half million, maybe?  With over 75 million subscribers the idea that 4\% are going to overload the MMS or GPRS infrastructure is crazy.  That stuff is so over-built at AT&amp;T that they hardly sweat.  Now, RF capacity might be a different story... but I rarely see any articles even mention that.  And its hardly an iPhone specific problem.</p><p>AT&amp;T definitely benefits from its deal with Apple.  AT&amp;T definitely wants to maintain an exclusive deal.  So how could they be dictating to Apple?  To me it looks like Apple is the ones who either want rules changed for their benefit or some other concession.  You build a phone to the GSMA spec, AT&amp;T can't stop you from allowing people to share the GPRS connection.  You can definitely turn MMS service on and off per MSISDN... but it has nothing to do with the device.  Why do it?</p><p>None of it makes economic sense.  Generally, mobile providers are selling phones at a loss or at cost if you don't sign up for a contract.  I don't see how AT&amp;T has an interest in crippling Apple phones.  All they want is the subscribers.  The more people who think an iPhone is good to by... the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So just to take a dispassionate look at this.First , AT&amp;T 's network supports MMS and tethering just fine .
I use connection share on my Windows Mobile smart phone via Bluetooth all the time .
No problems .
I send MMS on the AT&amp;T network all the time as well .
So I 'm not sure why there are so many stories that suggest the AT&amp;T network is incapable of doing this .
I 'm not sure about the HSDPA , but for GPRS... there really is n't any effective way for AT&amp;T to prevent you from using connection sharing .
And you can put any GSM phone on their network.Second , how many iPhones are on AT&amp;T 's network ?
Three and a half million , maybe ?
With over 75 million subscribers the idea that 4 \ % are going to overload the MMS or GPRS infrastructure is crazy .
That stuff is so over-built at AT&amp;T that they hardly sweat .
Now , RF capacity might be a different story... but I rarely see any articles even mention that .
And its hardly an iPhone specific problem.AT&amp;T definitely benefits from its deal with Apple .
AT&amp;T definitely wants to maintain an exclusive deal .
So how could they be dictating to Apple ?
To me it looks like Apple is the ones who either want rules changed for their benefit or some other concession .
You build a phone to the GSMA spec , AT&amp;T ca n't stop you from allowing people to share the GPRS connection .
You can definitely turn MMS service on and off per MSISDN... but it has nothing to do with the device .
Why do it ? None of it makes economic sense .
Generally , mobile providers are selling phones at a loss or at cost if you do n't sign up for a contract .
I do n't see how AT&amp;T has an interest in crippling Apple phones .
All they want is the subscribers .
The more people who think an iPhone is good to by... the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So just to take a dispassionate look at this.First, AT&amp;T's network supports MMS and tethering just fine.
I use connection share on my Windows Mobile smart phone via Bluetooth all the time.
No problems.
I send MMS on the AT&amp;T network all the time as well.
So I'm not sure why there are so many stories that suggest the AT&amp;T network is incapable of doing this.
I'm not sure about the HSDPA, but for GPRS... there really isn't any effective way for AT&amp;T to prevent you from using connection sharing.
And you can put any GSM phone on their network.Second, how many iPhones are on AT&amp;T's network?
Three and a half million, maybe?
With over 75 million subscribers the idea that 4\% are going to overload the MMS or GPRS infrastructure is crazy.
That stuff is so over-built at AT&amp;T that they hardly sweat.
Now, RF capacity might be a different story... but I rarely see any articles even mention that.
And its hardly an iPhone specific problem.AT&amp;T definitely benefits from its deal with Apple.
AT&amp;T definitely wants to maintain an exclusive deal.
So how could they be dictating to Apple?
To me it looks like Apple is the ones who either want rules changed for their benefit or some other concession.
You build a phone to the GSMA spec, AT&amp;T can't stop you from allowing people to share the GPRS connection.
You can definitely turn MMS service on and off per MSISDN... but it has nothing to do with the device.
Why do it?None of it makes economic sense.
Generally, mobile providers are selling phones at a loss or at cost if you don't sign up for a contract.
I don't see how AT&amp;T has an interest in crippling Apple phones.
All they want is the subscribers.
The more people who think an iPhone is good to by... the better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311307</id>
	<title>They have the ability to support tethering now!</title>
	<author>PalmAddict</author>
	<datestamp>1244833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am an AT&amp;T wireless customer in California and currently have the ability to tether through my cell phone for internet access (but for disclosure sake, I did not buy the phone from them).  I don't see how this is a technological issue, but more an accounting issue.  This is a matter of AT&amp;T making time to find the right dollar amount to add to the bill for this service that they feel is above and beyond the call of what a wireless company should offer, unless they have sold you a separate piece of hardware for this particular function.

The wireless industry in the US needs much tighter regulation by the US government.  I am normally against government involvement in business, but the communication companies of the US have proven time and time again that they can not be trusted to charge a fair price to the public for service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an AT&amp;T wireless customer in California and currently have the ability to tether through my cell phone for internet access ( but for disclosure sake , I did not buy the phone from them ) .
I do n't see how this is a technological issue , but more an accounting issue .
This is a matter of AT&amp;T making time to find the right dollar amount to add to the bill for this service that they feel is above and beyond the call of what a wireless company should offer , unless they have sold you a separate piece of hardware for this particular function .
The wireless industry in the US needs much tighter regulation by the US government .
I am normally against government involvement in business , but the communication companies of the US have proven time and time again that they can not be trusted to charge a fair price to the public for service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an AT&amp;T wireless customer in California and currently have the ability to tether through my cell phone for internet access (but for disclosure sake, I did not buy the phone from them).
I don't see how this is a technological issue, but more an accounting issue.
This is a matter of AT&amp;T making time to find the right dollar amount to add to the bill for this service that they feel is above and beyond the call of what a wireless company should offer, unless they have sold you a separate piece of hardware for this particular function.
The wireless industry in the US needs much tighter regulation by the US government.
I am normally against government involvement in business, but the communication companies of the US have proven time and time again that they can not be trusted to charge a fair price to the public for service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311827</id>
	<title>Re:I want more money!</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1244835720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>$3-5/month for MMS will not deter many people, so it will probably translate to increased profits.</p></div></blockquote><p>I am an iPhone customer, and <b>I already pay for MMS</b> - the messaging plan on the account includes unlimited MMS and SMS.  AT&amp;T actually blocks iPhone lines from accessing the MMS server, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 3-5/month for MMS will not deter many people , so it will probably translate to increased profits.I am an iPhone customer , and I already pay for MMS - the messaging plan on the account includes unlimited MMS and SMS .
AT&amp;T actually blocks iPhone lines from accessing the MMS server , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$3-5/month for MMS will not deter many people, so it will probably translate to increased profits.I am an iPhone customer, and I already pay for MMS - the messaging plan on the account includes unlimited MMS and SMS.
AT&amp;T actually blocks iPhone lines from accessing the MMS server, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312077</id>
	<title>Re:My Own Personal Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is that the cheaper up front phone has higher monthly costs?  Hmmm, I wonder what they mean by subsidized?</p><p>Congratulations, you just stated what the phone company's business model is - lots of money up front, or a little more every month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that the cheaper up front phone has higher monthly costs ?
Hmmm , I wonder what they mean by subsidized ? Congratulations , you just stated what the phone company 's business model is - lots of money up front , or a little more every month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that the cheaper up front phone has higher monthly costs?
Hmmm, I wonder what they mean by subsidized?Congratulations, you just stated what the phone company's business model is - lots of money up front, or a little more every month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311627</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they charge for tethering?</title>
	<author>admcd</author>
	<datestamp>1244834940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Because it is no different surfing the net with the iphone displaying the data or your laptop displaying the data."</p><p>I'm not sure I fully agree with that statement. Your behaviour is likely to differ between iPhone usage and what you do on your laptop. e.g. on your laptop you're more likely to exchange large documents via e-mail, download Windows updates, etc.</p><p>There will be some concept of what an "average" user does and their current tariffs will be priced accordingly. Changing the device being used is likely to change the assumptions.</p><p>Controversial suggestion: maybe what you want is a capped usage tariff that can be shared between iPhone and tethered devices, rather the current "all you can eat"....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because it is no different surfing the net with the iphone displaying the data or your laptop displaying the data .
" I 'm not sure I fully agree with that statement .
Your behaviour is likely to differ between iPhone usage and what you do on your laptop .
e.g. on your laptop you 're more likely to exchange large documents via e-mail , download Windows updates , etc.There will be some concept of what an " average " user does and their current tariffs will be priced accordingly .
Changing the device being used is likely to change the assumptions.Controversial suggestion : maybe what you want is a capped usage tariff that can be shared between iPhone and tethered devices , rather the current " all you can eat " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because it is no different surfing the net with the iphone displaying the data or your laptop displaying the data.
"I'm not sure I fully agree with that statement.
Your behaviour is likely to differ between iPhone usage and what you do on your laptop.
e.g. on your laptop you're more likely to exchange large documents via e-mail, download Windows updates, etc.There will be some concept of what an "average" user does and their current tariffs will be priced accordingly.
Changing the device being used is likely to change the assumptions.Controversial suggestion: maybe what you want is a capped usage tariff that can be shared between iPhone and tethered devices, rather the current "all you can eat"....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T sucks balls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an IT person at an organization that uses iPhones for both phone service and Exchange support, I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&amp;T we would do so.  They SUCK.<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&amp;T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.  We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an IT person at an organization that uses iPhones for both phone service and Exchange support , I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&amp;T we would do so .
They SUCK .
Do n't get me wrong , we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts , but listen up AT&amp;T , you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass .
We and everyone else is fed up with your BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an IT person at an organization that uses iPhones for both phone service and Exchange support, I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&amp;T we would do so.
They SUCK.
Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&amp;T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&amp;T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.
We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311295</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing corporate restrictions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Liable.</p><p>Liable.</p><p>Liable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Liable.Liable.Liable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liable.Liable.Liable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310771</id>
	<title>Why ask a question you already know the answer to</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1244831760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, tethering is charged for all over the U.S. cell space.  Of course it will be extra.</p><p>The only real question is MMS, the rumors are that may be free but I am dubious.  Since I think MMS is an ancient technology that should die, I'll continue to send images (and soon video) via email just as I do today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , tethering is charged for all over the U.S. cell space .
Of course it will be extra.The only real question is MMS , the rumors are that may be free but I am dubious .
Since I think MMS is an ancient technology that should die , I 'll continue to send images ( and soon video ) via email just as I do today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, tethering is charged for all over the U.S. cell space.
Of course it will be extra.The only real question is MMS, the rumors are that may be free but I am dubious.
Since I think MMS is an ancient technology that should die, I'll continue to send images (and soon video) via email just as I do today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311541</id>
	<title>Re:Then don't buy it!</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1244834640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did, and it's awesome.<br>I have a 2nd G  Touch for all my calendering/smartphone type stuff and a cheap pay as you go cell for actually talking.. the touch is so thin I don't mind carying two devices, and I pay about $8 a moth for phone service.<br>Sure, the GPS, Camera, and data plan would be nice, but not $700 a year nice, as I work from home and am rarely away from wifi..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did , and it 's awesome.I have a 2nd G Touch for all my calendering/smartphone type stuff and a cheap pay as you go cell for actually talking.. the touch is so thin I do n't mind carying two devices , and I pay about $ 8 a moth for phone service.Sure , the GPS , Camera , and data plan would be nice , but not $ 700 a year nice , as I work from home and am rarely away from wifi. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did, and it's awesome.I have a 2nd G  Touch for all my calendering/smartphone type stuff and a cheap pay as you go cell for actually talking.. the touch is so thin I don't mind carying two devices, and I pay about $8 a moth for phone service.Sure, the GPS, Camera, and data plan would be nice, but not $700 a year nice, as I work from home and am rarely away from wifi..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311395</id>
	<title>Why Don't They Charge Me?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244834040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an original Samsung Blackjack (i607).<br>It's a Windows Mobile phone (5, and Samsung put out a new image with 6 for free).</p><p>My unlimited 3G data plan is $25 / month.</p><p>I can tether my phone to my PC/Laptop/whatever and use it as a modem.</p><p>This is a feature of the phone, and not the wireless carrier.  The wireless carrier has no idea what's going on.  My phone gets data as it would regardless of whether or not I'm tethering.  My phone then sends that over USB to my device (my phone doesn't have WiFi).</p><p>I'll never be "upgrading" my contract with AT&amp;T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an original Samsung Blackjack ( i607 ) .It 's a Windows Mobile phone ( 5 , and Samsung put out a new image with 6 for free ) .My unlimited 3G data plan is $ 25 / month.I can tether my phone to my PC/Laptop/whatever and use it as a modem.This is a feature of the phone , and not the wireless carrier .
The wireless carrier has no idea what 's going on .
My phone gets data as it would regardless of whether or not I 'm tethering .
My phone then sends that over USB to my device ( my phone does n't have WiFi ) .I 'll never be " upgrading " my contract with AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an original Samsung Blackjack (i607).It's a Windows Mobile phone (5, and Samsung put out a new image with 6 for free).My unlimited 3G data plan is $25 / month.I can tether my phone to my PC/Laptop/whatever and use it as a modem.This is a feature of the phone, and not the wireless carrier.
The wireless carrier has no idea what's going on.
My phone gets data as it would regardless of whether or not I'm tethering.
My phone then sends that over USB to my device (my phone doesn't have WiFi).I'll never be "upgrading" my contract with AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28321049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28317131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28319033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28317033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1543250_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28327699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311479
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312947
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28319033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28317033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311333
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315835
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28321049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28315231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28316763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28314179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28313517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28317131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28327699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1543250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28311693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28312965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1543250.28310973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
