<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_1928236</id>
	<title>Palm Pre Does Not Get US Tethering Either</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245139860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>fermion writes <i>"The Register is reporting that <a href="http://predev.wikidot.com/tethering">Palm has sent a note to the Pre Dev Wiki</a> asking it to <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/15/pre\_tethering/">stop discussing tethering</a>. Palm is worried that its US carrier partner, Sprint, is none too eager to have users tether the game-changing tetherable smart phone. While the communication was informal, not legal, the development forum is evidently eager to avoid any possibility of lawsuits, so has rapidly agreed. Perhaps, like the iPhone, the Pre is going have a <a href="http://www.palmprehacks.net/">vigorous underground</a>.  What is interesting is that the Pre, like the iPhone (allegedly), can be tethered outside of the US; but even those customers are being denied apparently lawful information to satisfy the US exclusive agents."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>fermion writes " The Register is reporting that Palm has sent a note to the Pre Dev Wiki asking it to stop discussing tethering .
Palm is worried that its US carrier partner , Sprint , is none too eager to have users tether the game-changing tetherable smart phone .
While the communication was informal , not legal , the development forum is evidently eager to avoid any possibility of lawsuits , so has rapidly agreed .
Perhaps , like the iPhone , the Pre is going have a vigorous underground .
What is interesting is that the Pre , like the iPhone ( allegedly ) , can be tethered outside of the US ; but even those customers are being denied apparently lawful information to satisfy the US exclusive agents .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fermion writes "The Register is reporting that Palm has sent a note to the Pre Dev Wiki asking it to stop discussing tethering.
Palm is worried that its US carrier partner, Sprint, is none too eager to have users tether the game-changing tetherable smart phone.
While the communication was informal, not legal, the development forum is evidently eager to avoid any possibility of lawsuits, so has rapidly agreed.
Perhaps, like the iPhone, the Pre is going have a vigorous underground.
What is interesting is that the Pre, like the iPhone (allegedly), can be tethered outside of the US; but even those customers are being denied apparently lawful information to satisfy the US exclusive agents.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355193</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news: Reverse engineering legal in US</title>
	<author>cortesoft</author>
	<datestamp>1245154920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well then it is a good thing that they never made any legal threats... if you RTFS, you will see that the law was never invoked.  I am struggling to see how your post has any bearing on this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then it is a good thing that they never made any legal threats... if you RTFS , you will see that the law was never invoked .
I am struggling to see how your post has any bearing on this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then it is a good thing that they never made any legal threats... if you RTFS, you will see that the law was never invoked.
I am struggling to see how your post has any bearing on this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353209</id>
	<title>Application-level proxy softare?</title>
	<author>Outland Traveller</author>
	<datestamp>1245145140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is to stop someone from installing proxy or NAT software onto their (perhaps jailbroken) smartphone? Can cell providers really prevent this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is to stop someone from installing proxy or NAT software onto their ( perhaps jailbroken ) smartphone ?
Can cell providers really prevent this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is to stop someone from installing proxy or NAT software onto their (perhaps jailbroken) smartphone?
Can cell providers really prevent this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356615</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245163800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My 5 year old Motorola V980 supports tethering out of the box. It Just Works.</p><p>Though I admit, it doesn't have the <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/12/0450237" title="slashdot.org">iPhone-like fluidity</a> [slashdot.org]. If I drop it in water, it just sinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 5 year old Motorola V980 supports tethering out of the box .
It Just Works.Though I admit , it does n't have the iPhone-like fluidity [ slashdot.org ] .
If I drop it in water , it just sinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 5 year old Motorola V980 supports tethering out of the box.
It Just Works.Though I admit, it doesn't have the iPhone-like fluidity [slashdot.org].
If I drop it in water, it just sinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356011</id>
	<title>Re:Tethering on a G1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245159540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats exactly what they want.  You want tethering, pay for it.  Downloading on a phone is fairly limiting, downloading through the phone to a laptop can be many orders of magnitude more load.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats exactly what they want .
You want tethering , pay for it .
Downloading on a phone is fairly limiting , downloading through the phone to a laptop can be many orders of magnitude more load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats exactly what they want.
You want tethering, pay for it.
Downloading on a phone is fairly limiting, downloading through the phone to a laptop can be many orders of magnitude more load.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353281</id>
	<title>How about PdaNet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245145380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PdaNet already supports some Palm phones: <a href="http://www.junefabrics.com/palmnet/" title="junefabrics.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.junefabrics.com/palmnet/</a> [junefabrics.com]. And, I heard <a href="http://forums.precentral.net/webos-apps-software/180996-pdanet-pre.html#post1617929" title="precentral.net" rel="nofollow">somewhere</a> [precentral.net] that they are planning on porting their app to the Pre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PdaNet already supports some Palm phones : http : //www.junefabrics.com/palmnet/ [ junefabrics.com ] .
And , I heard somewhere [ precentral.net ] that they are planning on porting their app to the Pre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PdaNet already supports some Palm phones: http://www.junefabrics.com/palmnet/ [junefabrics.com].
And, I heard somewhere [precentral.net] that they are planning on porting their app to the Pre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353681</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon = more tethering, less lameness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245146880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Verizon lets you tether at an additional cost. EVERYTHING with them is additional cost. I got the unlimited data plan for my blackberry. However, that is only good for the blackberry. I have to pay an extra $15/month IF and only if I have the unlimited data plan. It costs more without the unlimited data plan. Oh, and they limit the "unlimited" plan to 5gb/month and charge extra for anything over that. </p><p>They are they same company that won't let you use the built in GPS without paying for their VZ navigator program for yet another monthly charge. Even though the blackberry could easily use the GPS and google maps instead. They FINALLY just let us use the Blackberry maps app with the built in GPS. Before that, they would let you install the maps app, but they required you to use an external GPS bluetooth puck with it! I can't say I'm happy with ANY service provider at this point...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Verizon lets you tether at an additional cost .
EVERYTHING with them is additional cost .
I got the unlimited data plan for my blackberry .
However , that is only good for the blackberry .
I have to pay an extra $ 15/month IF and only if I have the unlimited data plan .
It costs more without the unlimited data plan .
Oh , and they limit the " unlimited " plan to 5gb/month and charge extra for anything over that .
They are they same company that wo n't let you use the built in GPS without paying for their VZ navigator program for yet another monthly charge .
Even though the blackberry could easily use the GPS and google maps instead .
They FINALLY just let us use the Blackberry maps app with the built in GPS .
Before that , they would let you install the maps app , but they required you to use an external GPS bluetooth puck with it !
I ca n't say I 'm happy with ANY service provider at this point.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Verizon lets you tether at an additional cost.
EVERYTHING with them is additional cost.
I got the unlimited data plan for my blackberry.
However, that is only good for the blackberry.
I have to pay an extra $15/month IF and only if I have the unlimited data plan.
It costs more without the unlimited data plan.
Oh, and they limit the "unlimited" plan to 5gb/month and charge extra for anything over that.
They are they same company that won't let you use the built in GPS without paying for their VZ navigator program for yet another monthly charge.
Even though the blackberry could easily use the GPS and google maps instead.
They FINALLY just let us use the Blackberry maps app with the built in GPS.
Before that, they would let you install the maps app, but they required you to use an external GPS bluetooth puck with it!
I can't say I'm happy with ANY service provider at this point...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353371</id>
	<title>not officially....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245145680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*cough*  <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5291473/how-to-enable-palm-pre-tethering" title="gizmodo.com" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5291473/how-to-enable-palm-pre-tethering</a> [gizmodo.com] *cough*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* cough * http : //gizmodo.com/5291473/how-to-enable-palm-pre-tethering [ gizmodo.com ] * cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*cough*  http://gizmodo.com/5291473/how-to-enable-palm-pre-tethering [gizmodo.com] *cough*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352991</id>
	<title>Wht's "gme-changing"...</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1245144300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in the summary?
<p>
All these smartphones can tether.  It's the carriers that prevent it, not the hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the summary ?
All these smartphones can tether .
It 's the carriers that prevent it , not the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the summary?
All these smartphones can tether.
It's the carriers that prevent it, not the hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354501</id>
	<title>Re:Application-level proxy softare?</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1245150900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  Or they can add a routine to their firmware that looks for this type of connection and, when detected, cripple the phone.  I grabbed a 3G iphone the week they were jailbroke and ran one of the socks proxy programs that was available.  The iphone would not charge when data was being passed through the socks proxy.  I could have the data connection active and do all the streaming audio I wanted on the phone through Pandora (hours and hours and hours) and it charged fine.  But, as soon as I started putting data through the socks proxy, the phone stopped taking external power.  Tried a number of socks proxys (all that were available at the time) and the behavior was the same.  Data passing to/from the phone = battery charges.  Data passing THROUGH the phone = no charging.  Just having a telnet session open was enough to disable charging.  So active tethering sessions were limited to a few hours.  That may not sound like a big deal but it really kills the phone.  A couple hours of tethered access and the battery's almost dead and you can't swap it out even if you were willing to schlep around extra batteries.</p><p>This is much more devious than making such use outright impossible.  Since most people don't know what the heck they're doing, they won't be able to troubleshoot and isolate the problem.  Maybe they'll think tethering just takes too much power and that's why it's not supported.  [cough]bullshit[/cough]  AT&amp;T and Apple get to keep their revenue stream while the customer gets conditioned to avoid the behavior AT&amp;T dislikes.  The customer give up on tethering or only use it as a last resort.</p><p>I took the phone back after a few days of testing my charging theory.  Currently using a Blackjack 2 which had to be mildly hacked to restore band selection and a couple other options.  Tethered 8-10 hours a day as a method of external access testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Or they can add a routine to their firmware that looks for this type of connection and , when detected , cripple the phone .
I grabbed a 3G iphone the week they were jailbroke and ran one of the socks proxy programs that was available .
The iphone would not charge when data was being passed through the socks proxy .
I could have the data connection active and do all the streaming audio I wanted on the phone through Pandora ( hours and hours and hours ) and it charged fine .
But , as soon as I started putting data through the socks proxy , the phone stopped taking external power .
Tried a number of socks proxys ( all that were available at the time ) and the behavior was the same .
Data passing to/from the phone = battery charges .
Data passing THROUGH the phone = no charging .
Just having a telnet session open was enough to disable charging .
So active tethering sessions were limited to a few hours .
That may not sound like a big deal but it really kills the phone .
A couple hours of tethered access and the battery 's almost dead and you ca n't swap it out even if you were willing to schlep around extra batteries.This is much more devious than making such use outright impossible .
Since most people do n't know what the heck they 're doing , they wo n't be able to troubleshoot and isolate the problem .
Maybe they 'll think tethering just takes too much power and that 's why it 's not supported .
[ cough ] bullshit [ /cough ] AT&amp;T and Apple get to keep their revenue stream while the customer gets conditioned to avoid the behavior AT&amp;T dislikes .
The customer give up on tethering or only use it as a last resort.I took the phone back after a few days of testing my charging theory .
Currently using a Blackjack 2 which had to be mildly hacked to restore band selection and a couple other options .
Tethered 8-10 hours a day as a method of external access testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Or they can add a routine to their firmware that looks for this type of connection and, when detected, cripple the phone.
I grabbed a 3G iphone the week they were jailbroke and ran one of the socks proxy programs that was available.
The iphone would not charge when data was being passed through the socks proxy.
I could have the data connection active and do all the streaming audio I wanted on the phone through Pandora (hours and hours and hours) and it charged fine.
But, as soon as I started putting data through the socks proxy, the phone stopped taking external power.
Tried a number of socks proxys (all that were available at the time) and the behavior was the same.
Data passing to/from the phone = battery charges.
Data passing THROUGH the phone = no charging.
Just having a telnet session open was enough to disable charging.
So active tethering sessions were limited to a few hours.
That may not sound like a big deal but it really kills the phone.
A couple hours of tethered access and the battery's almost dead and you can't swap it out even if you were willing to schlep around extra batteries.This is much more devious than making such use outright impossible.
Since most people don't know what the heck they're doing, they won't be able to troubleshoot and isolate the problem.
Maybe they'll think tethering just takes too much power and that's why it's not supported.
[cough]bullshit[/cough]  AT&amp;T and Apple get to keep their revenue stream while the customer gets conditioned to avoid the behavior AT&amp;T dislikes.
The customer give up on tethering or only use it as a last resort.I took the phone back after a few days of testing my charging theory.
Currently using a Blackjack 2 which had to be mildly hacked to restore band selection and a couple other options.
Tethered 8-10 hours a day as a method of external access testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353429</id>
	<title>Returning my Palm Pre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245145920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just another example of Sprint ruining the Pre release.</p><p>My wife and I bought two at launch (we were at the sprint store at 7 AM) and were initially absolutely thrilled with the device. We are still thrilled with the device itself, but Sprint's service is absolutely terrible. The Pre insists on using an extremely weak Sprint signal over the MUCH stronger Verizon or US Cellular signal that it can also detect, which means that I am dropping several calls a day unless I intentionally put the phone somewhere where the Sprint signal is blocked and thereby force the Pre to roam.</p><p>As a result, I will be returning both Pres, the two touchstone docks, two leather cases, and a Sprint Airave we bought to provide decent service to our house. Overall, we invested more than a thousand dollars in the phones and related equipment because we really wanted them to live up to the hype. The phone itself is amazing and *does* live up to the hype, but sadly Sprint's network is simply pathetic in my area and makes the phone all but useless.</p><p>When the Pre is released for Verizon in January, we will be first in line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another example of Sprint ruining the Pre release.My wife and I bought two at launch ( we were at the sprint store at 7 AM ) and were initially absolutely thrilled with the device .
We are still thrilled with the device itself , but Sprint 's service is absolutely terrible .
The Pre insists on using an extremely weak Sprint signal over the MUCH stronger Verizon or US Cellular signal that it can also detect , which means that I am dropping several calls a day unless I intentionally put the phone somewhere where the Sprint signal is blocked and thereby force the Pre to roam.As a result , I will be returning both Pres , the two touchstone docks , two leather cases , and a Sprint Airave we bought to provide decent service to our house .
Overall , we invested more than a thousand dollars in the phones and related equipment because we really wanted them to live up to the hype .
The phone itself is amazing and * does * live up to the hype , but sadly Sprint 's network is simply pathetic in my area and makes the phone all but useless.When the Pre is released for Verizon in January , we will be first in line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another example of Sprint ruining the Pre release.My wife and I bought two at launch (we were at the sprint store at 7 AM) and were initially absolutely thrilled with the device.
We are still thrilled with the device itself, but Sprint's service is absolutely terrible.
The Pre insists on using an extremely weak Sprint signal over the MUCH stronger Verizon or US Cellular signal that it can also detect, which means that I am dropping several calls a day unless I intentionally put the phone somewhere where the Sprint signal is blocked and thereby force the Pre to roam.As a result, I will be returning both Pres, the two touchstone docks, two leather cases, and a Sprint Airave we bought to provide decent service to our house.
Overall, we invested more than a thousand dollars in the phones and related equipment because we really wanted them to live up to the hype.
The phone itself is amazing and *does* live up to the hype, but sadly Sprint's network is simply pathetic in my area and makes the phone all but useless.When the Pre is released for Verizon in January, we will be first in line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28359229</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>BlackCreek</author>
	<datestamp>1245235080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>My G1 tethers just fine</i>...but not by default.<br>Unless you got an app I haven't seen, you had to get root, right?</p></div><p>You don't actually need root <a href="http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/</a> [google.com]</p><p>Honestly this is actually \_\_much\_\_ better than tethering through wifi because the root+wifi option EATS the phone battery in no time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My G1 tethers just fine...but not by default.Unless you got an app I have n't seen , you had to get root , right ? You do n't actually need root http : //code.google.com/p/proxoid/ [ google.com ] Honestly this is actually \ _ \ _much \ _ \ _ better than tethering through wifi because the root + wifi option EATS the phone battery in no time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> My G1 tethers just fine...but not by default.Unless you got an app I haven't seen, you had to get root, right?You don't actually need root http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/ [google.com]Honestly this is actually \_\_much\_\_ better than tethering through wifi because the root+wifi option EATS the phone battery in no time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353051</id>
	<title>Re:My VZW Blackberry can tether, what's the proble</title>
	<author>Captain Kirk</author>
	<datestamp>1245144480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want a captive audience.  Advertisers love a captive audience.  Shareholders love a captive audience.  Its us poor slobs in the audience who object with our irrational desire for freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want a captive audience .
Advertisers love a captive audience .
Shareholders love a captive audience .
Its us poor slobs in the audience who object with our irrational desire for freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want a captive audience.
Advertisers love a captive audience.
Shareholders love a captive audience.
Its us poor slobs in the audience who object with our irrational desire for freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353119</id>
	<title>Who's Next?</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245144660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Palm has sent a note to the Pre Dev Wiki asking it to stop discussing tethering.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Can Slashdot be far behind?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm has sent a note to the Pre Dev Wiki asking it to stop discussing tethering .
Can Slashdot be far behind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm has sent a note to the Pre Dev Wiki asking it to stop discussing tethering.
Can Slashdot be far behind?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355803</id>
	<title>worth reading this AC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sprint, AT&amp;T and all the Wireless carriers are looking a couple moves ahead and a couple moves behind.  How many of you still use land lines at home?  30\%?  Tethering will eventually kill the cable/dsl market in the same way.  Sure 100kb/s and bad latency will keep these lines in place for now, land line operators thought the same thing in 1995, but the service will improve.  In 15 years, the cell phone connections will be 10 Mbit+ and 50\% of users who don't download ultrabluerayHD movies will be able to replace their 49.99 cable/dsl subscriptions with them.</p><p>Sprint and AT&amp;T see this coming and don't want to give it away for free and kill their acceptable price point for their inevitable slaughter of the cable/dsl providers.  They want to charge you 69.99 for a cell/home data plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint , AT&amp;T and all the Wireless carriers are looking a couple moves ahead and a couple moves behind .
How many of you still use land lines at home ?
30 \ % ? Tethering will eventually kill the cable/dsl market in the same way .
Sure 100kb/s and bad latency will keep these lines in place for now , land line operators thought the same thing in 1995 , but the service will improve .
In 15 years , the cell phone connections will be 10 Mbit + and 50 \ % of users who do n't download ultrabluerayHD movies will be able to replace their 49.99 cable/dsl subscriptions with them.Sprint and AT&amp;T see this coming and do n't want to give it away for free and kill their acceptable price point for their inevitable slaughter of the cable/dsl providers .
They want to charge you 69.99 for a cell/home data plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint, AT&amp;T and all the Wireless carriers are looking a couple moves ahead and a couple moves behind.
How many of you still use land lines at home?
30\%?  Tethering will eventually kill the cable/dsl market in the same way.
Sure 100kb/s and bad latency will keep these lines in place for now, land line operators thought the same thing in 1995, but the service will improve.
In 15 years, the cell phone connections will be 10 Mbit+ and 50\% of users who don't download ultrabluerayHD movies will be able to replace their 49.99 cable/dsl subscriptions with them.Sprint and AT&amp;T see this coming and don't want to give it away for free and kill their acceptable price point for their inevitable slaughter of the cable/dsl providers.
They want to charge you 69.99 for a cell/home data plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353141</id>
	<title>Re:My VZW Blackberry can tether, what's the proble</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1245144720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are several Sprint phones that are able to have tethering too. I really don't understand phone companies lately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several Sprint phones that are able to have tethering too .
I really do n't understand phone companies lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several Sprint phones that are able to have tethering too.
I really don't understand phone companies lately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355425</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245156060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sprint does support tethering with the "phone as modem" option. Otherwise, yeah, the vision data plans are supposed to be just for the phone itself. Although why they (Palm? Sprint?) would exclude one phone from the tethering while allowing the rest of the lineup is a mystery to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint does support tethering with the " phone as modem " option .
Otherwise , yeah , the vision data plans are supposed to be just for the phone itself .
Although why they ( Palm ?
Sprint ? ) would exclude one phone from the tethering while allowing the rest of the lineup is a mystery to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint does support tethering with the "phone as modem" option.
Otherwise, yeah, the vision data plans are supposed to be just for the phone itself.
Although why they (Palm?
Sprint?) would exclude one phone from the tethering while allowing the rest of the lineup is a mystery to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356701</id>
	<title>Re:I love how it is left unsaid</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1245164400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For those that don't know, tethering is when you tie your phone to your computer and hit it around the computer several times, until the phone brakes your computer screen.
</p></div><p>This is useful, as one wants to slow down the screen as it flies out the window in a fit of anger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those that do n't know , tethering is when you tie your phone to your computer and hit it around the computer several times , until the phone brakes your computer screen .
This is useful , as one wants to slow down the screen as it flies out the window in a fit of anger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those that don't know, tethering is when you tie your phone to your computer and hit it around the computer several times, until the phone brakes your computer screen.
This is useful, as one wants to slow down the screen as it flies out the window in a fit of anger.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358801</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>BlackCreek</author>
	<datestamp>1245229680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A stock unmodified G1 can install applications from different places other than the Android Market.</p><p>The application to do tethering on a stock un-rooted Android can be obtained here: <a href="http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A stock unmodified G1 can install applications from different places other than the Android Market.The application to do tethering on a stock un-rooted Android can be obtained here : http : //code.google.com/p/proxoid/ [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A stock unmodified G1 can install applications from different places other than the Android Market.The application to do tethering on a stock un-rooted Android can be obtained here: http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/ [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353769</id>
	<title>The best solution</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1245147300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is to allow phones to pick up services a-la-carte.<br>Let my data come from one provider,<br>Let my voice, voice mail, and caller ID service come from another,</p><p>This whole idea that the carrier gets all of your a-la-carte services is, quite literally, retarded. Once we can split our services among carriers we'll see real competition again. Don't like Sprint's data policies or rates? Get it from Verizon instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is to allow phones to pick up services a-la-carte.Let my data come from one provider,Let my voice , voice mail , and caller ID service come from another,This whole idea that the carrier gets all of your a-la-carte services is , quite literally , retarded .
Once we can split our services among carriers we 'll see real competition again .
Do n't like Sprint 's data policies or rates ?
Get it from Verizon instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is to allow phones to pick up services a-la-carte.Let my data come from one provider,Let my voice, voice mail, and caller ID service come from another,This whole idea that the carrier gets all of your a-la-carte services is, quite literally, retarded.
Once we can split our services among carriers we'll see real competition again.
Don't like Sprint's data policies or rates?
Get it from Verizon instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907</id>
	<title>My VZW Blackberry can tether, what's the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I missed most of the argument here, but my Blackberry storm, from Verizon, can tether if I pay $15 per month. I did that for a while until I could convince my phone company to provide DSL to my area. Why are other phone companies against tethering, or am I completely misunderstanding something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I missed most of the argument here , but my Blackberry storm , from Verizon , can tether if I pay $ 15 per month .
I did that for a while until I could convince my phone company to provide DSL to my area .
Why are other phone companies against tethering , or am I completely misunderstanding something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I missed most of the argument here, but my Blackberry storm, from Verizon, can tether if I pay $15 per month.
I did that for a while until I could convince my phone company to provide DSL to my area.
Why are other phone companies against tethering, or am I completely misunderstanding something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807</id>
	<title>Tethering on a G1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245147480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile.  The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone, including the G1.</p><p>I mean, they had Google pull a tethering app from the Android app store because using it constituted a violation of the user agreement.</p><p>Are things different in Dallas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , the G1 is only available through T-Mobile .
The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone , including the G1.I mean , they had Google pull a tethering app from the Android app store because using it constituted a violation of the user agreement.Are things different in Dallas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile.
The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone, including the G1.I mean, they had Google pull a tethering app from the Android app store because using it constituted a violation of the user agreement.Are things different in Dallas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354085</id>
	<title>Re:Well maybe.</title>
	<author>QuantumPion</author>
	<datestamp>1245148680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure all the major US carriers offer tethering, however it is usually to the tune of $60/month in addition to your phone+data plan, and you only get 5 GB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure all the major US carriers offer tethering , however it is usually to the tune of $ 60/month in addition to your phone + data plan , and you only get 5 GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure all the major US carriers offer tethering, however it is usually to the tune of $60/month in addition to your phone+data plan, and you only get 5 GB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352789</id>
	<title>Well that doesn't surprise me one bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245143580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know who else was adamantly against tethering?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know who else was adamantly against tethering ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know who else was adamantly against tethering?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364903</id>
	<title>Re:Howabout a new cellular network geared for data</title>
	<author>Zds</author>
	<datestamp>1245269700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So called 3G (3rd Generation) mobile networks were designed just for that. You do not need 2Mbit/s connection for phone calls..</p><p>That's why it's also dead easy to get a USB modem that operates on mobile network, and unlimited data plan for it, if you happen to live in Europe.</p><p>20 euros to start with and then 10e/month is the usual rate. Because that's what the 3G was designed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So called 3G ( 3rd Generation ) mobile networks were designed just for that .
You do not need 2Mbit/s connection for phone calls..That 's why it 's also dead easy to get a USB modem that operates on mobile network , and unlimited data plan for it , if you happen to live in Europe.20 euros to start with and then 10e/month is the usual rate .
Because that 's what the 3G was designed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So called 3G (3rd Generation) mobile networks were designed just for that.
You do not need 2Mbit/s connection for phone calls..That's why it's also dead easy to get a USB modem that operates on mobile network, and unlimited data plan for it, if you happen to live in Europe.20 euros to start with and then 10e/month is the usual rate.
Because that's what the 3G was designed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352953</id>
	<title>look at me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting this story above a post about MS is just unfair. People are still busy commenting on the MS thread and will ignore Pre, um i mean this story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting this story above a post about MS is just unfair .
People are still busy commenting on the MS thread and will ignore Pre , um i mean this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting this story above a post about MS is just unfair.
People are still busy commenting on the MS thread and will ignore Pre, um i mean this story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353893</id>
	<title>Yes actually, you are missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245147840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know someone who doesn't want cable or a landline, so she pays for unlimited data and tethers her laptop.</p><p>There is NOTHING available for her that can compete with the speed and pricepoint.</p><p>Your argument sucks, and your "two use cases" aren't indicative of reality, but rather your overwhelming ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know someone who does n't want cable or a landline , so she pays for unlimited data and tethers her laptop.There is NOTHING available for her that can compete with the speed and pricepoint.Your argument sucks , and your " two use cases " are n't indicative of reality , but rather your overwhelming ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know someone who doesn't want cable or a landline, so she pays for unlimited data and tethers her laptop.There is NOTHING available for her that can compete with the speed and pricepoint.Your argument sucks, and your "two use cases" aren't indicative of reality, but rather your overwhelming ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355043</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245154020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume that's just a list of <em>current</em> phones that support tethering.  My samsung m500 also tethers.  Although I'm too cheap to buy the software so I'm stuck with bluetooth.  Sigh.  Fastest speed is EV-DO anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume that 's just a list of current phones that support tethering .
My samsung m500 also tethers .
Although I 'm too cheap to buy the software so I 'm stuck with bluetooth .
Sigh. Fastest speed is EV-DO anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume that's just a list of current phones that support tethering.
My samsung m500 also tethers.
Although I'm too cheap to buy the software so I'm stuck with bluetooth.
Sigh.  Fastest speed is EV-DO anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28357727</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>mobets</author>
	<datestamp>1245174420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did getting online through a phone become "tethering"?  I have been doing this off and on for at least 6 years and all the carriers used to use this as a selling point on their better phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did getting online through a phone become " tethering " ?
I have been doing this off and on for at least 6 years and all the carriers used to use this as a selling point on their better phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did getting online through a phone become "tethering"?
I have been doing this off and on for at least 6 years and all the carriers used to use this as a selling point on their better phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353841</id>
	<title>I did not know what it was.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1245147540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did not know what tethering was.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethering" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethering</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not know what tethering was.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethering [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not know what tethering was.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethering [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353427</id>
	<title>Re:Well maybe.</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1245145920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know of any US provider that offers tethering. You could probably pull it off with an unlocked GSM phone on AT&amp;T or maybe TMobile but I don't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked.</p></div><p>They all offer tethering, they just charge extra for it. ATT charges $35/mo for their PDA Personal data plan, or $65 if you want to add tethering. What they don't offer is a cheap unlimited plan which allows tethering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know of any US provider that offers tethering .
You could probably pull it off with an unlocked GSM phone on AT&amp;T or maybe TMobile but I do n't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked.They all offer tethering , they just charge extra for it .
ATT charges $ 35/mo for their PDA Personal data plan , or $ 65 if you want to add tethering .
What they do n't offer is a cheap unlimited plan which allows tethering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know of any US provider that offers tethering.
You could probably pull it off with an unlocked GSM phone on AT&amp;T or maybe TMobile but I don't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked.They all offer tethering, they just charge extra for it.
ATT charges $35/mo for their PDA Personal data plan, or $65 if you want to add tethering.
What they don't offer is a cheap unlimited plan which allows tethering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354405</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>ahoehn</author>
	<datestamp>1245150360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, the summary does a pretty awful job of getting to the real story.  I've been following the development thread and chat since the rooting of the Pre was first announced.   The motivation for the development forum's choice to stop talking about tethering wasn't eagerness to avoid lawsuits, it was appreciation for the way that Palm engineers have been interacting with the "underground" community.</p><p>Palm engineers have been involved in the unofficial dev forum threads and chat, dropping hints, giving the "hackers" knowledge that might have otherwise taken weeks or months for them to discover unaided.</p><p>The big stories here are:<br>1) Palm DIDN'T send a cease and desist.  They nicely said, "Hey, if you want us to keep helping you out here, stop talking about tethering."</p><p>2) The Pre Dev community is doing some amazing things, thanks to the fact that the Pre is essentially a little Linux box with a nifty GUI.</p><p>3) It doesn't really matter that the affected wiki and forum aren't discussing tethering, since solutions have already been released elsewhere.</p><p>Want to get involved yourself?  Head over to the most active <a href="http://forums.precentral.net/web-os-development/184378-ok-rom-comes.html" title="precentral.net">dev thread at Precentral.net</a> [precentral.net], contribute to <a href="http://predev.wikidot.com/" title="wikidot.com">the Wiki</a> [wikidot.com], or join the chat at #webos-internals on FreeNode (irc.freenode.net).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , the summary does a pretty awful job of getting to the real story .
I 've been following the development thread and chat since the rooting of the Pre was first announced .
The motivation for the development forum 's choice to stop talking about tethering was n't eagerness to avoid lawsuits , it was appreciation for the way that Palm engineers have been interacting with the " underground " community.Palm engineers have been involved in the unofficial dev forum threads and chat , dropping hints , giving the " hackers " knowledge that might have otherwise taken weeks or months for them to discover unaided.The big stories here are : 1 ) Palm DID N'T send a cease and desist .
They nicely said , " Hey , if you want us to keep helping you out here , stop talking about tethering .
" 2 ) The Pre Dev community is doing some amazing things , thanks to the fact that the Pre is essentially a little Linux box with a nifty GUI.3 ) It does n't really matter that the affected wiki and forum are n't discussing tethering , since solutions have already been released elsewhere.Want to get involved yourself ?
Head over to the most active dev thread at Precentral.net [ precentral.net ] , contribute to the Wiki [ wikidot.com ] , or join the chat at # webos-internals on FreeNode ( irc.freenode.net ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, the summary does a pretty awful job of getting to the real story.
I've been following the development thread and chat since the rooting of the Pre was first announced.
The motivation for the development forum's choice to stop talking about tethering wasn't eagerness to avoid lawsuits, it was appreciation for the way that Palm engineers have been interacting with the "underground" community.Palm engineers have been involved in the unofficial dev forum threads and chat, dropping hints, giving the "hackers" knowledge that might have otherwise taken weeks or months for them to discover unaided.The big stories here are:1) Palm DIDN'T send a cease and desist.
They nicely said, "Hey, if you want us to keep helping you out here, stop talking about tethering.
"2) The Pre Dev community is doing some amazing things, thanks to the fact that the Pre is essentially a little Linux box with a nifty GUI.3) It doesn't really matter that the affected wiki and forum aren't discussing tethering, since solutions have already been released elsewhere.Want to get involved yourself?
Head over to the most active dev thread at Precentral.net [precentral.net], contribute to the Wiki [wikidot.com], or join the chat at #webos-internals on FreeNode (irc.freenode.net).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352877</id>
	<title>I love how it is left unsaid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245143940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So many times people discuss tethering without actually describing what it means.
<p>For those that don't know, tethering is when you tie your phone to your computer and hit it around the computer several times, until the phone brakes your computer screen.
</p><p>Tethering is legal in all states, but some phone companies seem to object to it, so they contractually prevent you from doing this.
</p><p>Now that I have an unlimited data plan, if I could just figure out a way to use my telephone as a modem for my computer, because hey, it's my property and fair use laws means I have the legal right to view it on any sized screen I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many times people discuss tethering without actually describing what it means .
For those that do n't know , tethering is when you tie your phone to your computer and hit it around the computer several times , until the phone brakes your computer screen .
Tethering is legal in all states , but some phone companies seem to object to it , so they contractually prevent you from doing this .
Now that I have an unlimited data plan , if I could just figure out a way to use my telephone as a modem for my computer , because hey , it 's my property and fair use laws means I have the legal right to view it on any sized screen I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many times people discuss tethering without actually describing what it means.
For those that don't know, tethering is when you tie your phone to your computer and hit it around the computer several times, until the phone brakes your computer screen.
Tethering is legal in all states, but some phone companies seem to object to it, so they contractually prevent you from doing this.
Now that I have an unlimited data plan, if I could just figure out a way to use my telephone as a modem for my computer, because hey, it's my property and fair use laws means I have the legal right to view it on any sized screen I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358393</id>
	<title>Re:Well maybe.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245181920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course you can. Here's how in one easy step:<br>1. Order a 3g phone from the civilized world.</p><p>That's it! Simple, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course you can .
Here 's how in one easy step : 1 .
Order a 3g phone from the civilized world.That 's it !
Simple , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course you can.
Here's how in one easy step:1.
Order a 3g phone from the civilized world.That's it!
Simple, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171</id>
	<title>Howabout a new cellular network geared for data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is especially irritating because I was just starting to look around for an iPhone alternative that would allow tethering, background apps and no restrictive app store policies, etc. etc.  all the reasons why the iPhone is essentially a nerfed technology demonstrator.</p><p>Here is a great case of the technology being far ahead of the networks that support it.   I think some of the major device providers should get together and form a network that is designed from the ground up to support data first and voice second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is especially irritating because I was just starting to look around for an iPhone alternative that would allow tethering , background apps and no restrictive app store policies , etc .
etc. all the reasons why the iPhone is essentially a nerfed technology demonstrator.Here is a great case of the technology being far ahead of the networks that support it .
I think some of the major device providers should get together and form a network that is designed from the ground up to support data first and voice second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is especially irritating because I was just starting to look around for an iPhone alternative that would allow tethering, background apps and no restrictive app store policies, etc.
etc.  all the reasons why the iPhone is essentially a nerfed technology demonstrator.Here is a great case of the technology being far ahead of the networks that support it.
I think some of the major device providers should get together and form a network that is designed from the ground up to support data first and voice second.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356311</id>
	<title>Err, what legal agreements?</title>
	<author>LionMage</author>
	<datestamp>1245161820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Pre Dev Wiki link provides some truly puzzling prose.  First they repeatedly tell us that they were not threatened, and were not contacted by lawyers, then they tell us there's no secret agreement with Palm, and <em>then</em> they feed us this line of horseshit:</p><blockquote><div><p>This development group has simply decided to take a stand and do things the right way instead of violating legal agreements.</p></div></blockquote><p>Erm, what legal agreements are we talking about?  Between whom?  If lawyers weren't involved in this discussion, and if Palm didn't threaten these developers, what gives?  If the legal agreements are between Palm and Sprint, so what?  An independent group of developers isn't beholden to legal agreements between Palm and Sprint unless they signed something (a contract, say) agreeing to be bound by an agreement between other parties.</p><blockquote><div><p>Note that Sprint does not have a plan available for use with the Pre which allows tethering under the Terms Of Service.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, because Sprint removed all mention from tethering from their Pre web pages.</p><p>On a separate but related note, I found the Register article pretty cringe-worthy, especially how they kept referring to AJAX as a platform for the Pre as well as the early iPhone.  (AJAX is a programming style, not a "platform," and the Pre's software development platform is HTML 5 + JavaScript, with the HTML 5 engine providing a SQLite database for local storage.)  The mention of native apps on the Pre was tantalizing, though all the Register would say is that such apps would be limited to Palm partners.</p><p>Suddenly, the iPhone development model doesn't look so locked-down and controlling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pre Dev Wiki link provides some truly puzzling prose .
First they repeatedly tell us that they were not threatened , and were not contacted by lawyers , then they tell us there 's no secret agreement with Palm , and then they feed us this line of horseshit : This development group has simply decided to take a stand and do things the right way instead of violating legal agreements.Erm , what legal agreements are we talking about ?
Between whom ?
If lawyers were n't involved in this discussion , and if Palm did n't threaten these developers , what gives ?
If the legal agreements are between Palm and Sprint , so what ?
An independent group of developers is n't beholden to legal agreements between Palm and Sprint unless they signed something ( a contract , say ) agreeing to be bound by an agreement between other parties.Note that Sprint does not have a plan available for use with the Pre which allows tethering under the Terms Of Service.Yeah , because Sprint removed all mention from tethering from their Pre web pages.On a separate but related note , I found the Register article pretty cringe-worthy , especially how they kept referring to AJAX as a platform for the Pre as well as the early iPhone .
( AJAX is a programming style , not a " platform , " and the Pre 's software development platform is HTML 5 + JavaScript , with the HTML 5 engine providing a SQLite database for local storage .
) The mention of native apps on the Pre was tantalizing , though all the Register would say is that such apps would be limited to Palm partners.Suddenly , the iPhone development model does n't look so locked-down and controlling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pre Dev Wiki link provides some truly puzzling prose.
First they repeatedly tell us that they were not threatened, and were not contacted by lawyers, then they tell us there's no secret agreement with Palm, and then they feed us this line of horseshit:This development group has simply decided to take a stand and do things the right way instead of violating legal agreements.Erm, what legal agreements are we talking about?
Between whom?
If lawyers weren't involved in this discussion, and if Palm didn't threaten these developers, what gives?
If the legal agreements are between Palm and Sprint, so what?
An independent group of developers isn't beholden to legal agreements between Palm and Sprint unless they signed something (a contract, say) agreeing to be bound by an agreement between other parties.Note that Sprint does not have a plan available for use with the Pre which allows tethering under the Terms Of Service.Yeah, because Sprint removed all mention from tethering from their Pre web pages.On a separate but related note, I found the Register article pretty cringe-worthy, especially how they kept referring to AJAX as a platform for the Pre as well as the early iPhone.
(AJAX is a programming style, not a "platform," and the Pre's software development platform is HTML 5 + JavaScript, with the HTML 5 engine providing a SQLite database for local storage.
)  The mention of native apps on the Pre was tantalizing, though all the Register would say is that such apps would be limited to Palm partners.Suddenly, the iPhone development model doesn't look so locked-down and controlling.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355703</id>
	<title>Re:Well maybe.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>T-Mobile will unlock your phone if you ask them to and if you've had it for more than 90 days.</p><p>Also, they don't seem to give a rat's ass if you tether your phone or if you use their unlimited internet access in an unlimited way.</p><p>Their unlimited data plan is in fact unlimited in every way.  Now, if only it were easy to get a 3g phone that's compatible with their wacky 3g, I'd be happy.  As it is, I'm still happy with my E51.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile will unlock your phone if you ask them to and if you 've had it for more than 90 days.Also , they do n't seem to give a rat 's ass if you tether your phone or if you use their unlimited internet access in an unlimited way.Their unlimited data plan is in fact unlimited in every way .
Now , if only it were easy to get a 3g phone that 's compatible with their wacky 3g , I 'd be happy .
As it is , I 'm still happy with my E51 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>T-Mobile will unlock your phone if you ask them to and if you've had it for more than 90 days.Also, they don't seem to give a rat's ass if you tether your phone or if you use their unlimited internet access in an unlimited way.Their unlimited data plan is in fact unlimited in every way.
Now, if only it were easy to get a 3g phone that's compatible with their wacky 3g, I'd be happy.
As it is, I'm still happy with my E51.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353673</id>
	<title>But the important question is...</title>
	<author>Suzuran</author>
	<datestamp>1245146820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most important question is "How is this Apple's fault?"
I'm sure there's a reason!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most important question is " How is this Apple 's fault ?
" I 'm sure there 's a reason !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most important question is "How is this Apple's fault?
"
I'm sure there's a reason!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354657</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>OpenGLFan</author>
	<datestamp>1245151740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>My G1 tethers just fine</i>...but not by default.<br>Unless you got an app I haven't seen, you had to get root, right?  Start with an old image, flash to a new JF image to get the upgrades but keep root, and get the bluetooth connection working?</p><p>I actually have nothing against barriers; I miss the days of "you must be at least THIS smart to use the Internet".  The 98\% of the users who can't figure out how to tether can subsidize my bandwidth that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My G1 tethers just fine...but not by default.Unless you got an app I have n't seen , you had to get root , right ?
Start with an old image , flash to a new JF image to get the upgrades but keep root , and get the bluetooth connection working ? I actually have nothing against barriers ; I miss the days of " you must be at least THIS smart to use the Internet " .
The 98 \ % of the users who ca n't figure out how to tether can subsidize my bandwidth that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My G1 tethers just fine...but not by default.Unless you got an app I haven't seen, you had to get root, right?
Start with an old image, flash to a new JF image to get the upgrades but keep root, and get the bluetooth connection working?I actually have nothing against barriers; I miss the days of "you must be at least THIS smart to use the Internet".
The 98\% of the users who can't figure out how to tether can subsidize my bandwidth that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355893</id>
	<title>Tethering, AT&amp;T, and Windows Mobile</title>
	<author>DavidD\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1245158820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It shocks me how tethering is still a taboo subject for carriers and certain phones.</p><p>For the last three years, I've been able to tether quite easily whenever I want, with unlimited transfer, at 2G/3G speeds, using my AT&amp;T data plan and a Windows Mobile phone.</p><p>I did it when I had the HTC 8120, then the Tilt, and now the Fuze.  And for each one, I just plug it in via USB and wait about 10 seconds, then off I go.  Right now I'm in a hotel, not paying $10/day for their wireless.</p><p>I pay AT&amp;T a data plan fee, with tethering, which is about $50/mo.  It's unlimited, and includes data on the phone (for browsing plus Exchange sync, etc).  For an extra $10/mo, I also get unlimited SMS and MMS (texting and photo transfers).</p><p>The speed depends on where I am.  It's never been slower than about 120k, and been as fast as about 700k.  Unless I'm in the middle of no where, then I'm lucky to even get a signal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It shocks me how tethering is still a taboo subject for carriers and certain phones.For the last three years , I 've been able to tether quite easily whenever I want , with unlimited transfer , at 2G/3G speeds , using my AT&amp;T data plan and a Windows Mobile phone.I did it when I had the HTC 8120 , then the Tilt , and now the Fuze .
And for each one , I just plug it in via USB and wait about 10 seconds , then off I go .
Right now I 'm in a hotel , not paying $ 10/day for their wireless.I pay AT&amp;T a data plan fee , with tethering , which is about $ 50/mo .
It 's unlimited , and includes data on the phone ( for browsing plus Exchange sync , etc ) .
For an extra $ 10/mo , I also get unlimited SMS and MMS ( texting and photo transfers ) .The speed depends on where I am .
It 's never been slower than about 120k , and been as fast as about 700k .
Unless I 'm in the middle of no where , then I 'm lucky to even get a signal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It shocks me how tethering is still a taboo subject for carriers and certain phones.For the last three years, I've been able to tether quite easily whenever I want, with unlimited transfer, at 2G/3G speeds, using my AT&amp;T data plan and a Windows Mobile phone.I did it when I had the HTC 8120, then the Tilt, and now the Fuze.
And for each one, I just plug it in via USB and wait about 10 seconds, then off I go.
Right now I'm in a hotel, not paying $10/day for their wireless.I pay AT&amp;T a data plan fee, with tethering, which is about $50/mo.
It's unlimited, and includes data on the phone (for browsing plus Exchange sync, etc).
For an extra $10/mo, I also get unlimited SMS and MMS (texting and photo transfers).The speed depends on where I am.
It's never been slower than about 120k, and been as fast as about 700k.
Unless I'm in the middle of no where, then I'm lucky to even get a signal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354121</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon = more tethering, less lameness</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1245148860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My brother worked for TMobile before it was TMobile.  I think he was bluetooth tethering his nokia phone (not a smartphone, just a basic nokia) in something like 2001 or 2002.  It was awesome.  He got to test new equipment, didn't have to pay the bill.

Its so sad to see that still, all these years later, things they have been doing around the world are still not being implemented in the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My brother worked for TMobile before it was TMobile .
I think he was bluetooth tethering his nokia phone ( not a smartphone , just a basic nokia ) in something like 2001 or 2002 .
It was awesome .
He got to test new equipment , did n't have to pay the bill .
Its so sad to see that still , all these years later , things they have been doing around the world are still not being implemented in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brother worked for TMobile before it was TMobile.
I think he was bluetooth tethering his nokia phone (not a smartphone, just a basic nokia) in something like 2001 or 2002.
It was awesome.
He got to test new equipment, didn't have to pay the bill.
Its so sad to see that still, all these years later, things they have been doing around the world are still not being implemented in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28363259</id>
	<title>Re:Tethering on a G1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this T-Mobile tethering prohibition of which you speak? I've been able to tether with T-Mobile's "blessing" for about 5 years now (first with a bland Motorola v360 cell phone, secondly with my Blackberry Pearl, and now with my Blackberry Curve).</p><p>Granted, the Motorola seemed to tether the best and easiest between any of the three phones I've used (so far), and I've never had limited gigabytes of access (other than what the Edge network itself is capable of transmitting to a computer via USB connections).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this T-Mobile tethering prohibition of which you speak ?
I 've been able to tether with T-Mobile 's " blessing " for about 5 years now ( first with a bland Motorola v360 cell phone , secondly with my Blackberry Pearl , and now with my Blackberry Curve ) .Granted , the Motorola seemed to tether the best and easiest between any of the three phones I 've used ( so far ) , and I 've never had limited gigabytes of access ( other than what the Edge network itself is capable of transmitting to a computer via USB connections ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this T-Mobile tethering prohibition of which you speak?
I've been able to tether with T-Mobile's "blessing" for about 5 years now (first with a bland Motorola v360 cell phone, secondly with my Blackberry Pearl, and now with my Blackberry Curve).Granted, the Motorola seemed to tether the best and easiest between any of the three phones I've used (so far), and I've never had limited gigabytes of access (other than what the Edge network itself is capable of transmitting to a computer via USB connections).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355815</id>
	<title>The solution is simple</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1245158340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a data card costs 30 bucks a month with 5GB of data, the carrier should allow people to tether and pay that same 30 bucks a month for the same 5GB of tethered data. Simple and means people dont have to carry a data card AND a phone around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a data card costs 30 bucks a month with 5GB of data , the carrier should allow people to tether and pay that same 30 bucks a month for the same 5GB of tethered data .
Simple and means people dont have to carry a data card AND a phone around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a data card costs 30 bucks a month with 5GB of data, the carrier should allow people to tether and pay that same 30 bucks a month for the same 5GB of tethered data.
Simple and means people dont have to carry a data card AND a phone around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356435</id>
	<title>Re:My VZW Blackberry can tether, what's the proble</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1245162660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ATT charges $30/month.  Definitely not worth the cost for me.  Shame, as it would come in handy every now and then while not near an AP.  But I'm not paying some $360 a year for something I may use maybe 2-3x.  It'd be nice if they had a plan that included tethering at no cost, and simply charged, up to that $30 if you go over a certain byte count in a month or something.</p><p>Is anybody here using ATT's plan?  I've been able to get my linux laptop to see the phone as a modem over bluetooth.  AT commands work, etc.  When trying any number of options for connecting using the various howtos, the negotiation starts, but then ATT disconnects.  Is this normal since I am not on the plan yet?  I'd hate to spend that $30/month only to find out I still can't connect to the #!@#$!@$ network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ATT charges $ 30/month .
Definitely not worth the cost for me .
Shame , as it would come in handy every now and then while not near an AP .
But I 'm not paying some $ 360 a year for something I may use maybe 2-3x .
It 'd be nice if they had a plan that included tethering at no cost , and simply charged , up to that $ 30 if you go over a certain byte count in a month or something.Is anybody here using ATT 's plan ?
I 've been able to get my linux laptop to see the phone as a modem over bluetooth .
AT commands work , etc .
When trying any number of options for connecting using the various howtos , the negotiation starts , but then ATT disconnects .
Is this normal since I am not on the plan yet ?
I 'd hate to spend that $ 30/month only to find out I still ca n't connect to the # ! @ # $ !
@ $ network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATT charges $30/month.
Definitely not worth the cost for me.
Shame, as it would come in handy every now and then while not near an AP.
But I'm not paying some $360 a year for something I may use maybe 2-3x.
It'd be nice if they had a plan that included tethering at no cost, and simply charged, up to that $30 if you go over a certain byte count in a month or something.Is anybody here using ATT's plan?
I've been able to get my linux laptop to see the phone as a modem over bluetooth.
AT commands work, etc.
When trying any number of options for connecting using the various howtos, the negotiation starts, but then ATT disconnects.
Is this normal since I am not on the plan yet?
I'd hate to spend that $30/month only to find out I still can't connect to the #!@#$!
@$ network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354433</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Tethers</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1245150480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been tethering for many years with my Sony Ericsson P910 &amp; P990 phones on T-Mobile.</p><p>But I guess technically T-Mobile is an EU company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been tethering for many years with my Sony Ericsson P910 &amp; P990 phones on T-Mobile.But I guess technically T-Mobile is an EU company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been tethering for many years with my Sony Ericsson P910 &amp; P990 phones on T-Mobile.But I guess technically T-Mobile is an EU company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358467</id>
	<title>Re:Just as a point of reference to Japan</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1245268980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>HDSPA tethering in Japan on Docomo's network costs $8 as a base fee, and then $50 up to 50MB of data. Then it goes up from there to a cap of $100 for 100MB. After 100MB, the charge does not increase. This is for up to 7.2Mbps</p></div></blockquote><p>

Is that USD or JPY.<br> <br>

Here in Australia I can get 1 GB of data for A$20 with Three (Hutchinson, just began merging with Vodafone) if I have a A$30 p/m cap with Three. This is for 3Mbps HSDPA.<br> <br>

The Australian Telco regulator has stated that Three have no say in how I use my data limit, they are only a provider.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDSPA tethering in Japan on Docomo 's network costs $ 8 as a base fee , and then $ 50 up to 50MB of data .
Then it goes up from there to a cap of $ 100 for 100MB .
After 100MB , the charge does not increase .
This is for up to 7.2Mbps Is that USD or JPY .
Here in Australia I can get 1 GB of data for A $ 20 with Three ( Hutchinson , just began merging with Vodafone ) if I have a A $ 30 p/m cap with Three .
This is for 3Mbps HSDPA .
The Australian Telco regulator has stated that Three have no say in how I use my data limit , they are only a provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDSPA tethering in Japan on Docomo's network costs $8 as a base fee, and then $50 up to 50MB of data.
Then it goes up from there to a cap of $100 for 100MB.
After 100MB, the charge does not increase.
This is for up to 7.2Mbps

Is that USD or JPY.
Here in Australia I can get 1 GB of data for A$20 with Three (Hutchinson, just began merging with Vodafone) if I have a A$30 p/m cap with Three.
This is for 3Mbps HSDPA.
The Australian Telco regulator has stated that Three have no say in how I use my data limit, they are only a provider.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354093</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1245148680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tether on Sprint with my Samsung m610.  Sprint does not support this, but they do sell an unlimited data plan, to which I subscribe.  Yes, "unlimited".  The terms of service address do address tethering, along the lines of: "The phone cannot be used to tether to a laptop."  If it said "may not", you may have a point, but as it is, it's simply a false statement in the contract, not a prohibition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tether on Sprint with my Samsung m610 .
Sprint does not support this , but they do sell an unlimited data plan , to which I subscribe .
Yes , " unlimited " .
The terms of service address do address tethering , along the lines of : " The phone can not be used to tether to a laptop .
" If it said " may not " , you may have a point , but as it is , it 's simply a false statement in the contract , not a prohibition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tether on Sprint with my Samsung m610.
Sprint does not support this, but they do sell an unlimited data plan, to which I subscribe.
Yes, "unlimited".
The terms of service address do address tethering, along the lines of: "The phone cannot be used to tether to a laptop.
"  If it said "may not", you may have a point, but as it is, it's simply a false statement in the contract, not a prohibition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353739</id>
	<title>Sprint: Kill your business.</title>
	<author>ghetto2ivy</author>
	<datestamp>1245147120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sprint is writing a book: how to kill your business. You have an underutilized network, and are shedding customers so what do you do -- you don't allow yourself to have a huge competitive advantage.
<p>Here's an idea: allow tethering. Limit it to 50 megs a day. Charge a $1 more is you want to get unlimited tethering that day. Simple. Your casual user isn't going to get a card. Your business user isn't going to tether all the time when corp headquarters can get a laptop wwan built in. Plus aren't you supposed to be pushing XOHM wimax sometime soon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint is writing a book : how to kill your business .
You have an underutilized network , and are shedding customers so what do you do -- you do n't allow yourself to have a huge competitive advantage .
Here 's an idea : allow tethering .
Limit it to 50 megs a day .
Charge a $ 1 more is you want to get unlimited tethering that day .
Simple. Your casual user is n't going to get a card .
Your business user is n't going to tether all the time when corp headquarters can get a laptop wwan built in .
Plus are n't you supposed to be pushing XOHM wimax sometime soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint is writing a book: how to kill your business.
You have an underutilized network, and are shedding customers so what do you do -- you don't allow yourself to have a huge competitive advantage.
Here's an idea: allow tethering.
Limit it to 50 megs a day.
Charge a $1 more is you want to get unlimited tethering that day.
Simple. Your casual user isn't going to get a card.
Your business user isn't going to tether all the time when corp headquarters can get a laptop wwan built in.
Plus aren't you supposed to be pushing XOHM wimax sometime soon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28363687</id>
	<title>Re:Just as a point of reference to Japan</title>
	<author>pimpimpim</author>
	<datestamp>1245263940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm, in Germany I pay 20 euro for a 10 GB HDSPA connection. After 10 GB you will get isdn speeds until the next month. Granted, this is with a dedicated usb stick, not for tethering, but basically, it's the same sim-card anyway. I am thinking of getting an Android phone and use it as both a modem and a smartphone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , in Germany I pay 20 euro for a 10 GB HDSPA connection .
After 10 GB you will get isdn speeds until the next month .
Granted , this is with a dedicated usb stick , not for tethering , but basically , it 's the same sim-card anyway .
I am thinking of getting an Android phone and use it as both a modem and a smartphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, in Germany I pay 20 euro for a 10 GB HDSPA connection.
After 10 GB you will get isdn speeds until the next month.
Granted, this is with a dedicated usb stick, not for tethering, but basically, it's the same sim-card anyway.
I am thinking of getting an Android phone and use it as both a modem and a smartphone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353251</id>
	<title>Re:Well maybe.</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1245145260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>I don't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked.</em></p><p>That's the advantage of GSM - you don't need to get a "TMobile phone"; just get any old unlocked GSM phone, and put a TMobile SIM in it.</p><p>I have an unlocked GSM phone (which I bought in the UK, where it's pretty common for phones to be unlocked, even when they come free with a contract to a particular carrier), which I use with an AT&amp;T SIM, and I can indeed tether it, although to actually do so would be a violation of my contract with AT&amp;T - and I don't have an unlimited data plan, so, given their ludicrous 1c per Kb data rates, actually using it for any length of time would be absurdly expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked.That 's the advantage of GSM - you do n't need to get a " TMobile phone " ; just get any old unlocked GSM phone , and put a TMobile SIM in it.I have an unlocked GSM phone ( which I bought in the UK , where it 's pretty common for phones to be unlocked , even when they come free with a contract to a particular carrier ) , which I use with an AT&amp;T SIM , and I can indeed tether it , although to actually do so would be a violation of my contract with AT&amp;T - and I do n't have an unlimited data plan , so , given their ludicrous 1c per Kb data rates , actually using it for any length of time would be absurdly expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked.That's the advantage of GSM - you don't need to get a "TMobile phone"; just get any old unlocked GSM phone, and put a TMobile SIM in it.I have an unlocked GSM phone (which I bought in the UK, where it's pretty common for phones to be unlocked, even when they come free with a contract to a particular carrier), which I use with an AT&amp;T SIM, and I can indeed tether it, although to actually do so would be a violation of my contract with AT&amp;T - and I don't have an unlimited data plan, so, given their ludicrous 1c per Kb data rates, actually using it for any length of time would be absurdly expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352905</id>
	<title>we've known about this for awhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sprint removed it <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/19/palm-pre-no-longer-features-data-tethering-on-sprint-website/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">from their website</a> [engadget.com] back in February.</p><p>Did you really think that an industry that charges 15 cents for 50 bytes of text (IM) that could easily be stuffed into the header overhead of routine handset-to-tower comms would give you tethering for free? really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint removed it from their website [ engadget.com ] back in February.Did you really think that an industry that charges 15 cents for 50 bytes of text ( IM ) that could easily be stuffed into the header overhead of routine handset-to-tower comms would give you tethering for free ?
really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint removed it from their website [engadget.com] back in February.Did you really think that an industry that charges 15 cents for 50 bytes of text (IM) that could easily be stuffed into the header overhead of routine handset-to-tower comms would give you tethering for free?
really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354315</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>Steve Newall</author>
	<datestamp>1245149940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Canada I use Rogers as my Palm Treo and iPhone service provider, and as Rogers IS a greedy phone company I didn't expect them to allow tethering (so I use PDAnet on my iPhone), but now that the 3GS iPhone is out, Rogers seem to be quite open about allowing it.
<p>
From Rogers <a href="http://rogers.com/web/content/wireless-products/iphone\_faqs?cm\_mmc=Redirects-\_-Consumer\_Wireless\_Eng-\_-Iphone\%203G\%20S-\_-iphone3gs" title="rogers.com" rel="nofollow">FAQ</a> [rogers.com]  about the iPhone:- (scroll down to Tethering FAQs)
</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Can I tether on my iPhone?</b> <br>
To use tethering or wireless modem functionality you require the new iPhone 3G S, or an iPhone 3G that has been upgraded with the new iPhone OS 3.0 software. Until December 31, 2009, if you have subscribed to a data plan which includes at least 1GB of data you may use tethering as part of the volume of data included in your plan at no additional charge. Tethering cannot be used with data plans of less then 1GB.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Canada I use Rogers as my Palm Treo and iPhone service provider , and as Rogers IS a greedy phone company I did n't expect them to allow tethering ( so I use PDAnet on my iPhone ) , but now that the 3GS iPhone is out , Rogers seem to be quite open about allowing it .
From Rogers FAQ [ rogers.com ] about the iPhone : - ( scroll down to Tethering FAQs ) Can I tether on my iPhone ?
To use tethering or wireless modem functionality you require the new iPhone 3G S , or an iPhone 3G that has been upgraded with the new iPhone OS 3.0 software .
Until December 31 , 2009 , if you have subscribed to a data plan which includes at least 1GB of data you may use tethering as part of the volume of data included in your plan at no additional charge .
Tethering can not be used with data plans of less then 1GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Canada I use Rogers as my Palm Treo and iPhone service provider, and as Rogers IS a greedy phone company I didn't expect them to allow tethering (so I use PDAnet on my iPhone), but now that the 3GS iPhone is out, Rogers seem to be quite open about allowing it.
From Rogers FAQ [rogers.com]  about the iPhone:- (scroll down to Tethering FAQs)
 Can I tether on my iPhone?
To use tethering or wireless modem functionality you require the new iPhone 3G S, or an iPhone 3G that has been upgraded with the new iPhone OS 3.0 software.
Until December 31, 2009, if you have subscribed to a data plan which includes at least 1GB of data you may use tethering as part of the volume of data included in your plan at no additional charge.
Tethering cannot be used with data plans of less then 1GB.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353729</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>Wrath0fb0b</author>
	<datestamp>1245147060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?</p> </div><p>Was anyone really expecting unlimited mobile internet to include tethering?</p><p>Does anyone really think that unlimited data for your phone and unlimited data for your laptop are really the same (or so similar) as products?</p><p>Did people with these expectations bother to <b>ask</b> the salespeople to clarify or, failing that, to <b>read</b> their service agreement?</p><p>Do people on slashdot always <b>have</b> to ask annoyingly rhetorical questions instead of simply stating what they think in declarative sentences?</p><p>Did I just answer my own question?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering ?
Was anyone really expecting unlimited mobile internet to include tethering ? Does anyone really think that unlimited data for your phone and unlimited data for your laptop are really the same ( or so similar ) as products ? Did people with these expectations bother to ask the salespeople to clarify or , failing that , to read their service agreement ? Do people on slashdot always have to ask annoyingly rhetorical questions instead of simply stating what they think in declarative sentences ? Did I just answer my own question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?
Was anyone really expecting unlimited mobile internet to include tethering?Does anyone really think that unlimited data for your phone and unlimited data for your laptop are really the same (or so similar) as products?Did people with these expectations bother to ask the salespeople to clarify or, failing that, to read their service agreement?Do people on slashdot always have to ask annoyingly rhetorical questions instead of simply stating what they think in declarative sentences?Did I just answer my own question?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361507</id>
	<title>Re:Well that doesn't surprise me one bit</title>
	<author>Galois2</author>
	<datestamp>1245253620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps I'm too late to post this, but, uh, guys, tethering has already been hacked, and works:

<a href="http://www.isyougeekedup.com/palm-pre-how-to-guide-to-enable-tethering/" title="isyougeekedup.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.isyougeekedup.com/palm-pre-how-to-guide-to-enable-tethering/</a> [isyougeekedup.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm too late to post this , but , uh , guys , tethering has already been hacked , and works : http : //www.isyougeekedup.com/palm-pre-how-to-guide-to-enable-tethering/ [ isyougeekedup.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm too late to post this, but, uh, guys, tethering has already been hacked, and works:

http://www.isyougeekedup.com/palm-pre-how-to-guide-to-enable-tethering/ [isyougeekedup.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356801</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing the point?</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1245165180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
First, you describe as a dichotomy something that is really a continuum.  There are other points on that continuum that make more sense.
</p><p>
Second, imagine someone that works or commutes where there is no internet connection, WiFi or otherwise.  That person uses the phone as a modem many hours a day every day.  When he is not sitting down with his computer, or is not at work, then he uses the smart phone capabilities.
</p><p>
Basically, the point that the carriers are worried about is close to, but not quite, your number 2.  It is people that will have a netbook or laptop handy a lot, but not most, of the time.  And there are more people there than you might think.
</p><p>
Another possibility that occurs to me is that someone may use it as a primary home internet connection, which then is not needed when the person leaves home.  And then that person will want the smart phone capabilities when not at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you describe as a dichotomy something that is really a continuum .
There are other points on that continuum that make more sense .
Second , imagine someone that works or commutes where there is no internet connection , WiFi or otherwise .
That person uses the phone as a modem many hours a day every day .
When he is not sitting down with his computer , or is not at work , then he uses the smart phone capabilities .
Basically , the point that the carriers are worried about is close to , but not quite , your number 2 .
It is people that will have a netbook or laptop handy a lot , but not most , of the time .
And there are more people there than you might think .
Another possibility that occurs to me is that someone may use it as a primary home internet connection , which then is not needed when the person leaves home .
And then that person will want the smart phone capabilities when not at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
First, you describe as a dichotomy something that is really a continuum.
There are other points on that continuum that make more sense.
Second, imagine someone that works or commutes where there is no internet connection, WiFi or otherwise.
That person uses the phone as a modem many hours a day every day.
When he is not sitting down with his computer, or is not at work, then he uses the smart phone capabilities.
Basically, the point that the carriers are worried about is close to, but not quite, your number 2.
It is people that will have a netbook or laptop handy a lot, but not most, of the time.
And there are more people there than you might think.
Another possibility that occurs to me is that someone may use it as a primary home internet connection, which then is not needed when the person leaves home.
And then that person will want the smart phone capabilities when not at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352951</id>
	<title>Game-changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Palm is worried that its US carrier partner, Sprint, is none too eager to have users tether the game-changing tetherable smart phone.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
"This phone is a game-changer.  But don't talk about changing the game.  The guy who owns the field will kick us all out if we do anything actually innovative.  We're the players, you're the audience.  We want our money from your tickets, and neither we, nor the guy who owns the field, cares if you actually see a <em>good</em> game.  As long as the stadium's sold out, we really don't care if we forfeit the game before the coin toss."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm is worried that its US carrier partner , Sprint , is none too eager to have users tether the game-changing tetherable smart phone .
" This phone is a game-changer .
But do n't talk about changing the game .
The guy who owns the field will kick us all out if we do anything actually innovative .
We 're the players , you 're the audience .
We want our money from your tickets , and neither we , nor the guy who owns the field , cares if you actually see a good game .
As long as the stadium 's sold out , we really do n't care if we forfeit the game before the coin toss .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm is worried that its US carrier partner, Sprint, is none too eager to have users tether the game-changing tetherable smart phone.
"This phone is a game-changer.
But don't talk about changing the game.
The guy who owns the field will kick us all out if we do anything actually innovative.
We're the players, you're the audience.
We want our money from your tickets, and neither we, nor the guy who owns the field, cares if you actually see a good game.
As long as the stadium's sold out, we really don't care if we forfeit the game before the coin toss.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354867</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1245153120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a legal contract, not a logic puzzle.  They mean it cannot use tethering while complying with the contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a legal contract , not a logic puzzle .
They mean it can not use tethering while complying with the contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a legal contract, not a logic puzzle.
They mean it cannot use tethering while complying with the contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354203</id>
	<title>Telecomunnication services ~= prostitution</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245149280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers?</p></div><p>No, prostitutes are clitheads with very full asses who make money by screwing customers.</p><p>The difference is, when you pay money and subsequently get screwed, with the prostitutes at least you get what you pay for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers ? No , prostitutes are clitheads with very full asses who make money by screwing customers.The difference is , when you pay money and subsequently get screwed , with the prostitutes at least you get what you pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers?No, prostitutes are clitheads with very full asses who make money by screwing customers.The difference is, when you pay money and subsequently get screwed, with the prostitutes at least you get what you pay for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358731</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a good area for some "capitalism"</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1245272040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If what you say is true, then certainly a bright young man could make a fortune offering the exact services you describe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If what you say is true , then certainly a bright young man could make a fortune offering the exact services you describe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If what you say is true, then certainly a bright young man could make a fortune offering the exact services you describe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354107</id>
	<title>network design philosophy</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245148740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think some of the major device providers should get together and form a network that is designed from the ground up to support data first and voice second.</p></div><p>I think people should build a network designed from the ground up to support data storage and forwarding first and... well, voice is a kind of data.</p><p>Maybe if different networks arise, they could <b>inter</b>con<b>ne</b>c<b>t</b> and come to traffic swap agreements.</p><p>Someone for the love of spaghetti, please, embed telephony into the internet and sell us portable internet devices which does web browsing, email, IRC, instant messaging, games, voice chat (i.e. telephony), data transfer, the pocket calculator app, alarm clocks, a frigging NTP client (hello, phone makers and network operators... it's called a network.  You use it to exchange data.  Then the user can do less work.  Hello?  He-llooo?)</p><p>Phones suck.  The telephony network sucks.  Telecoms suck.  The internet doesn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think some of the major device providers should get together and form a network that is designed from the ground up to support data first and voice second.I think people should build a network designed from the ground up to support data storage and forwarding first and... well , voice is a kind of data.Maybe if different networks arise , they could interconnect and come to traffic swap agreements.Someone for the love of spaghetti , please , embed telephony into the internet and sell us portable internet devices which does web browsing , email , IRC , instant messaging , games , voice chat ( i.e .
telephony ) , data transfer , the pocket calculator app , alarm clocks , a frigging NTP client ( hello , phone makers and network operators... it 's called a network .
You use it to exchange data .
Then the user can do less work .
Hello ? He-llooo ?
) Phones suck .
The telephony network sucks .
Telecoms suck .
The internet does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think some of the major device providers should get together and form a network that is designed from the ground up to support data first and voice second.I think people should build a network designed from the ground up to support data storage and forwarding first and... well, voice is a kind of data.Maybe if different networks arise, they could interconnect and come to traffic swap agreements.Someone for the love of spaghetti, please, embed telephony into the internet and sell us portable internet devices which does web browsing, email, IRC, instant messaging, games, voice chat (i.e.
telephony), data transfer, the pocket calculator app, alarm clocks, a frigging NTP client (hello, phone makers and network operators... it's called a network.
You use it to exchange data.
Then the user can do less work.
Hello?  He-llooo?
)Phones suck.
The telephony network sucks.
Telecoms suck.
The internet doesn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355159</id>
	<title>Re:Tethering on a G1</title>
	<author>paziek</author>
	<datestamp>1245154680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile.</p></div><p>Old news.<br>
<a href="http://www.era.pl/pl/indywidualni/telefony/erag1" title="www.era.pl" rel="nofollow">http://www.era.pl/pl/indywidualni/telefony/erag1</a> [www.era.pl] <br>
And it even doesn't have simlock, so I'm using it with carrier that actually sells its mobile internet with PC modems in addition to letting people use it in phones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , the G1 is only available through T-Mobile.Old news .
http : //www.era.pl/pl/indywidualni/telefony/erag1 [ www.era.pl ] And it even does n't have simlock , so I 'm using it with carrier that actually sells its mobile internet with PC modems in addition to letting people use it in phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile.Old news.
http://www.era.pl/pl/indywidualni/telefony/erag1 [www.era.pl] 
And it even doesn't have simlock, so I'm using it with carrier that actually sells its mobile internet with PC modems in addition to letting people use it in phones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28357945</id>
	<title>Re:Well maybe.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TMobile. Free unlimited tethering. There, now you know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TMobile .
Free unlimited tethering .
There , now you know : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TMobile.
Free unlimited tethering.
There, now you know :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358821</id>
	<title>like the iPhone (allegedly)</title>
	<author>n2art2</author>
	<datestamp>1245229860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple's website states this:<br> <br>

Surf the web from practically anywhere. Now you can share the 3G connection on your iPhone with your Mac notebook or PC laptop.
Tethering is not currently offered in the U.S. and some other countries. See your carrier for availability.

<br> <br>So by allegedly, they really mean. . .  for real.<br> <br>

"See your carrier for availability."  means:<br> <br>

The phone has the functionality, but if our exclusive carrier has a hissy fit, that functionality is disabled, because if the carrier wants to charge you more money for that we won't stop them.  We think different on everything except that.<br> <br>

***Current iPhone 3G owner.  Love the phone, not a fan of AT&amp;T, but yes I was willing to deal with AT&amp;T's less then stellar service in order to get the phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's website states this : Surf the web from practically anywhere .
Now you can share the 3G connection on your iPhone with your Mac notebook or PC laptop .
Tethering is not currently offered in the U.S. and some other countries .
See your carrier for availability .
So by allegedly , they really mean .
. .
for real .
" See your carrier for availability .
" means : The phone has the functionality , but if our exclusive carrier has a hissy fit , that functionality is disabled , because if the carrier wants to charge you more money for that we wo n't stop them .
We think different on everything except that .
* * * Current iPhone 3G owner .
Love the phone , not a fan of AT&amp;T , but yes I was willing to deal with AT&amp;T 's less then stellar service in order to get the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's website states this: 

Surf the web from practically anywhere.
Now you can share the 3G connection on your iPhone with your Mac notebook or PC laptop.
Tethering is not currently offered in the U.S. and some other countries.
See your carrier for availability.
So by allegedly, they really mean.
. .
for real.
"See your carrier for availability.
"  means: 

The phone has the functionality, but if our exclusive carrier has a hissy fit, that functionality is disabled, because if the carrier wants to charge you more money for that we won't stop them.
We think different on everything except that.
***Current iPhone 3G owner.
Love the phone, not a fan of AT&amp;T, but yes I was willing to deal with AT&amp;T's less then stellar service in order to get the phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353377</id>
	<title>my sprint phone tethers free</title>
	<author>jupiterssj4</author>
	<datestamp>1245145740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My sprint phone, the motorola q9c tethers for free. My last phone, the samsung a900 would not tether for free. I have an unlimited data plan so the tethering gets used whenever my home connection is down</htmltext>
<tokenext>My sprint phone , the motorola q9c tethers for free .
My last phone , the samsung a900 would not tether for free .
I have an unlimited data plan so the tethering gets used whenever my home connection is down</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My sprint phone, the motorola q9c tethers for free.
My last phone, the samsung a900 would not tether for free.
I have an unlimited data plan so the tethering gets used whenever my home connection is down</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354973</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb</title>
	<author>Joe Snipe</author>
	<datestamp>1245153720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact sprint does not "allow those phones to tether".  Rather the phones happen to have that ability (usually through hacks or add-on software) and sprint overlooks it untill bandwidth pulls become a problem (on a plan by plan basis).</p><p>To say that they allow it is disingenious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact sprint does not " allow those phones to tether " .
Rather the phones happen to have that ability ( usually through hacks or add-on software ) and sprint overlooks it untill bandwidth pulls become a problem ( on a plan by plan basis ) .To say that they allow it is disingenious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact sprint does not "allow those phones to tether".
Rather the phones happen to have that ability (usually through hacks or add-on software) and sprint overlooks it untill bandwidth pulls become a problem (on a plan by plan basis).To say that they allow it is disingenious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353555</id>
	<title>Re:Application-level proxy softare?</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1245146400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly.  According to Engadget, the Pre will have mandatory firmware upgrades.  You can defer it for up to a week, and then you get a 10-minute notice that it's going to start downloading whether you like it or not.  There may be a way of disabling such proxy software in the firmware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly .
According to Engadget , the Pre will have mandatory firmware upgrades .
You can defer it for up to a week , and then you get a 10-minute notice that it 's going to start downloading whether you like it or not .
There may be a way of disabling such proxy software in the firmware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly.
According to Engadget, the Pre will have mandatory firmware upgrades.
You can defer it for up to a week, and then you get a 10-minute notice that it's going to start downloading whether you like it or not.
There may be a way of disabling such proxy software in the firmware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353353</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb</title>
	<author>m3rck</author>
	<datestamp>1245145620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
BTW, this has nothing to do with the Pre. They just want to support existing customers, so they don't go to Verizon or AT&amp;T. And want new customers to pay more by having them buy cellular modem.
</p><p>It's all greed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , this has nothing to do with the Pre .
They just want to support existing customers , so they do n't go to Verizon or AT&amp;T .
And want new customers to pay more by having them buy cellular modem .
It 's all greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
BTW, this has nothing to do with the Pre.
They just want to support existing customers, so they don't go to Verizon or AT&amp;T.
And want new customers to pay more by having them buy cellular modem.
It's all greed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353289</id>
	<title>Grr</title>
	<author>dedazo</author>
	<datestamp>1245145440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another device crippled by another half-baked service scheme that oozed off the completely broken US communications ecosystem.</p><p>I am in complete awe of how backwards the US is compared to Europe and Asia in this regard. It's just weird.</p><p>Before I get excited about things like these (and I do want to) or even consider buying one (and I do want to), they need to fix the basic problems, not just make better gadgets and hope everyone stays ignorant as to how bad they have it compared with the rest of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another device crippled by another half-baked service scheme that oozed off the completely broken US communications ecosystem.I am in complete awe of how backwards the US is compared to Europe and Asia in this regard .
It 's just weird.Before I get excited about things like these ( and I do want to ) or even consider buying one ( and I do want to ) , they need to fix the basic problems , not just make better gadgets and hope everyone stays ignorant as to how bad they have it compared with the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another device crippled by another half-baked service scheme that oozed off the completely broken US communications ecosystem.I am in complete awe of how backwards the US is compared to Europe and Asia in this regard.
It's just weird.Before I get excited about things like these (and I do want to) or even consider buying one (and I do want to), they need to fix the basic problems, not just make better gadgets and hope everyone stays ignorant as to how bad they have it compared with the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358251</id>
	<title>Re:Well that doesn't surprise me one bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245180600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my penis?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my penis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my penis?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355051</id>
	<title>Re:subvert the dominant paradigm!</title>
	<author>meta-monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245154080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the carriers have a legitimate concern about the network capacity, especially when you're looking at a very popular smartphone like the iPhone.  The iPhone is the first smartphone many consumers have owned, and there's some 17 million iPhone users.  They're talking about HDSPA service now, so that's megabit range.  The way most people use their internet connections (surfing the web, email, etc), that's plenty.  My parents are happy with their 256k DSL service.  So if now millions of people decide to start using their "unlimited" tethered cellphone internet access as their primary ISP...yeah I can see how that could cause serious traffic problems.
<br> <br>
Which is why I'd like to see AT&amp;T just include (or for a small additional fee sell) limited tethering service for iPhones.  I do not want to use my iPhone as my primary ISP.  However, once a month or so I'm on a business trip with my iPhone and my laptop and don't have access to WiFi.  Boy, it would be great if during those times I could plug my phone into my laptop and transfer a few Mb doing my emailing and web surfing on the laptop instead of the phone.  I don't need "unlimited" service so I can stream porn for 8 hours a day over my phone.
<br> <br>
AT&amp;T doesn't need to provide unlimited tethering access.  They need to provide limited tethered service, so most people can get what they want and the carrier doesn't have to worry about getting swamped with traffic they can't handle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the carriers have a legitimate concern about the network capacity , especially when you 're looking at a very popular smartphone like the iPhone .
The iPhone is the first smartphone many consumers have owned , and there 's some 17 million iPhone users .
They 're talking about HDSPA service now , so that 's megabit range .
The way most people use their internet connections ( surfing the web , email , etc ) , that 's plenty .
My parents are happy with their 256k DSL service .
So if now millions of people decide to start using their " unlimited " tethered cellphone internet access as their primary ISP...yeah I can see how that could cause serious traffic problems .
Which is why I 'd like to see AT&amp;T just include ( or for a small additional fee sell ) limited tethering service for iPhones .
I do not want to use my iPhone as my primary ISP .
However , once a month or so I 'm on a business trip with my iPhone and my laptop and do n't have access to WiFi .
Boy , it would be great if during those times I could plug my phone into my laptop and transfer a few Mb doing my emailing and web surfing on the laptop instead of the phone .
I do n't need " unlimited " service so I can stream porn for 8 hours a day over my phone .
AT&amp;T does n't need to provide unlimited tethering access .
They need to provide limited tethered service , so most people can get what they want and the carrier does n't have to worry about getting swamped with traffic they ca n't handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the carriers have a legitimate concern about the network capacity, especially when you're looking at a very popular smartphone like the iPhone.
The iPhone is the first smartphone many consumers have owned, and there's some 17 million iPhone users.
They're talking about HDSPA service now, so that's megabit range.
The way most people use their internet connections (surfing the web, email, etc), that's plenty.
My parents are happy with their 256k DSL service.
So if now millions of people decide to start using their "unlimited" tethered cellphone internet access as their primary ISP...yeah I can see how that could cause serious traffic problems.
Which is why I'd like to see AT&amp;T just include (or for a small additional fee sell) limited tethering service for iPhones.
I do not want to use my iPhone as my primary ISP.
However, once a month or so I'm on a business trip with my iPhone and my laptop and don't have access to WiFi.
Boy, it would be great if during those times I could plug my phone into my laptop and transfer a few Mb doing my emailing and web surfing on the laptop instead of the phone.
I don't need "unlimited" service so I can stream porn for 8 hours a day over my phone.
AT&amp;T doesn't need to provide unlimited tethering access.
They need to provide limited tethered service, so most people can get what they want and the carrier doesn't have to worry about getting swamped with traffic they can't handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354081</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing the point?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245148680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to do a lot of on site consulting where I need to be able to dial into a server to adjust something on that end.   Especially if the customer lacks wifi on site.  And often times these are small businesses where someone else set up the wireless password and they have no idea what it is.   In a pinch, I can use my iPhone, but we had to get an Air Card for the office because sometimes it took a laptop to make it work well.</p><p>If I can tether with iPhone 3.0, even at a monthly premium, I'd do it and ditch the air card.  It's $70 a month for 5GB of data transfer.  And I already pay for my iPhone's data plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to do a lot of on site consulting where I need to be able to dial into a server to adjust something on that end .
Especially if the customer lacks wifi on site .
And often times these are small businesses where someone else set up the wireless password and they have no idea what it is .
In a pinch , I can use my iPhone , but we had to get an Air Card for the office because sometimes it took a laptop to make it work well.If I can tether with iPhone 3.0 , even at a monthly premium , I 'd do it and ditch the air card .
It 's $ 70 a month for 5GB of data transfer .
And I already pay for my iPhone 's data plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to do a lot of on site consulting where I need to be able to dial into a server to adjust something on that end.
Especially if the customer lacks wifi on site.
And often times these are small businesses where someone else set up the wireless password and they have no idea what it is.
In a pinch, I can use my iPhone, but we had to get an Air Card for the office because sometimes it took a laptop to make it work well.If I can tether with iPhone 3.0, even at a monthly premium, I'd do it and ditch the air card.
It's $70 a month for 5GB of data transfer.
And I already pay for my iPhone's data plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353911</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon = more tethering, less lameness</title>
	<author>Achromatic1978</author>
	<datestamp>1245147960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apropos of anything else, that sounds horrid. I just pair my Nokia N95 to my Mac, create a modem connection with a phone number of *99#, and I get 3G tethering over BT via the native connectivity options.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apropos of anything else , that sounds horrid .
I just pair my Nokia N95 to my Mac , create a modem connection with a phone number of * 99 # , and I get 3G tethering over BT via the native connectivity options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apropos of anything else, that sounds horrid.
I just pair my Nokia N95 to my Mac, create a modem connection with a phone number of *99#, and I get 3G tethering over BT via the native connectivity options.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353925</id>
	<title>Re:Tethering on a G1</title>
	<author>WarlockD</author>
	<datestamp>1245148080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile.  The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone, including the G1.</p><p>I mean, they had Google pull a tethering app from the Android app store because using it constituted a violation of the user agreement.</p><p>Are things different in Dallas?</p></div><p>Yea, we got root access here.  Also allot of heat.  Can't have one without the other I'm afraid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , the G1 is only available through T-Mobile .
The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone , including the G1.I mean , they had Google pull a tethering app from the Android app store because using it constituted a violation of the user agreement.Are things different in Dallas ? Yea , we got root access here .
Also allot of heat .
Ca n't have one without the other I 'm afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile.
The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone, including the G1.I mean, they had Google pull a tethering app from the Android app store because using it constituted a violation of the user agreement.Are things different in Dallas?Yea, we got root access here.
Also allot of heat.
Can't have one without the other I'm afraid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353703</id>
	<title>Re:Well maybe.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1245146940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>T-Mobile uses UMTS for it's 3g network AT&amp;T uses HSDPA and I think they are upgrading to yet a faster standard.<br>Plus you have the issues with frequencies. Since TMobile is the smallest of the big three finding unlocked phones that support it's flavor of 3G GSM is a little more difficult I hear.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile uses UMTS for it 's 3g network AT&amp;T uses HSDPA and I think they are upgrading to yet a faster standard.Plus you have the issues with frequencies .
Since TMobile is the smallest of the big three finding unlocked phones that support it 's flavor of 3G GSM is a little more difficult I hear .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>T-Mobile uses UMTS for it's 3g network AT&amp;T uses HSDPA and I think they are upgrading to yet a faster standard.Plus you have the issues with frequencies.
Since TMobile is the smallest of the big three finding unlocked phones that support it's flavor of 3G GSM is a little more difficult I hear.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353861</id>
	<title>Re:Well that doesn't surprise me one bit</title>
	<author>genmax</author>
	<datestamp>1245147660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cows ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cows ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</id>
	<title>Ok...and?</title>
	<author>XPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1245143760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?</p><p>You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering ? You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353901</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245147900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your stock, unmodified G1 does no such thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your stock , unmodified G1 does no such thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your stock, unmodified G1 does no such thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353657</id>
	<title>Re:Howabout a new cellular network geared for data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245146760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"iPhone alternative that would allow tethering, background apps and no restrictive app store policies"</p><p>thats when you get an android</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" iPhone alternative that would allow tethering , background apps and no restrictive app store policies " thats when you get an android</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"iPhone alternative that would allow tethering, background apps and no restrictive app store policies"thats when you get an android</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356095</id>
	<title>Re:we've known about this for awhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sprint removed it <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/19/palm-pre-no-longer-features-data-tethering-on-sprint-website/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">from their website</a> [engadget.com] back in February.</p><p>Did you really think that an industry that charges 15 cents for 50 bytes of text (IM) that could easily be stuffed into the header overhead of routine handset-to-tower comms...</p></div><p>     Not "could be stuffed into the header overhead", *is*.  SMS messages are carried using spare capacity on the control channel (which is used to tell your phone an incoming call's coming in otherwise, and for telling it if it should change to another channel or cell site...  in the other direction, the phone uses it to initiate outgoing calls.)  Now, they do have it popular enough now that the control channel fills up, and they have to install a second control channel...so the cost isn't really 0 in those areas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint removed it from their website [ engadget.com ] back in February.Did you really think that an industry that charges 15 cents for 50 bytes of text ( IM ) that could easily be stuffed into the header overhead of routine handset-to-tower comms... Not " could be stuffed into the header overhead " , * is * .
SMS messages are carried using spare capacity on the control channel ( which is used to tell your phone an incoming call 's coming in otherwise , and for telling it if it should change to another channel or cell site... in the other direction , the phone uses it to initiate outgoing calls .
) Now , they do have it popular enough now that the control channel fills up , and they have to install a second control channel...so the cost is n't really 0 in those areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint removed it from their website [engadget.com] back in February.Did you really think that an industry that charges 15 cents for 50 bytes of text (IM) that could easily be stuffed into the header overhead of routine handset-to-tower comms...     Not "could be stuffed into the header overhead", *is*.
SMS messages are carried using spare capacity on the control channel (which is used to tell your phone an incoming call's coming in otherwise, and for telling it if it should change to another channel or cell site...  in the other direction, the phone uses it to initiate outgoing calls.
)  Now, they do have it popular enough now that the control channel fills up, and they have to install a second control channel...so the cost isn't really 0 in those areas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354105</id>
	<title>Re:Tethering on a G1</title>
	<author>Obfuscant</author>
	<datestamp>1245148740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile. The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone, including the G1.</i><p>That's funny. When I got my W490 T-Mobile was quite happy to try to sell me an internet package which would allow me to use bluetooth from my laptop to my phone to access the Internet. Maybe that's not called "tethering", but that would seem to fit the definition I've seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , the G1 is only available through T-Mobile .
The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone , including the G1.That 's funny .
When I got my W490 T-Mobile was quite happy to try to sell me an internet package which would allow me to use bluetooth from my laptop to my phone to access the Internet .
Maybe that 's not called " tethering " , but that would seem to fit the definition I 've seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile.
The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone, including the G1.That's funny.
When I got my W490 T-Mobile was quite happy to try to sell me an internet package which would allow me to use bluetooth from my laptop to my phone to access the Internet.
Maybe that's not called "tethering", but that would seem to fit the definition I've seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28363139</id>
	<title>Same bits!</title>
	<author>cjb110</author>
	<datestamp>1245261540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get is that the unlimited internet, is anything but unlimited, its 1/3gb fair use.  What f**king difference does it make how I use it?<br>If I go over because I used my phone as a modem, the carrier/operator is going to charge me more (at stupidly high rates) or disconnect me.</p><p>The only plausiable explanation is that even the 'fair use' cap that all the carriers is actually more than they can handle (or their infrastructure is so innefficent that its too expensive for them).  So without tethering no-one is likely to hit the 'fair use' cap, cause only the machosist would squint at a phone screen for that long!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is that the unlimited internet , is anything but unlimited , its 1/3gb fair use .
What f * * king difference does it make how I use it ? If I go over because I used my phone as a modem , the carrier/operator is going to charge me more ( at stupidly high rates ) or disconnect me.The only plausiable explanation is that even the 'fair use ' cap that all the carriers is actually more than they can handle ( or their infrastructure is so innefficent that its too expensive for them ) .
So without tethering no-one is likely to hit the 'fair use ' cap , cause only the machosist would squint at a phone screen for that long !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is that the unlimited internet, is anything but unlimited, its 1/3gb fair use.
What f**king difference does it make how I use it?If I go over because I used my phone as a modem, the carrier/operator is going to charge me more (at stupidly high rates) or disconnect me.The only plausiable explanation is that even the 'fair use' cap that all the carriers is actually more than they can handle (or their infrastructure is so innefficent that its too expensive for them).
So without tethering no-one is likely to hit the 'fair use' cap, cause only the machosist would squint at a phone screen for that long!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353123</id>
	<title>subvert the dominant paradigm!</title>
	<author>PhantomHarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1245144660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So do the cel companies have a legitimate concern about their networks being overloaded by people running torrents over tethered devices, or is it just a 'we are sitting on our collective arses figuring out how much we can get away with charging for it' thing?</p><p>My feeling is that cel carriers in the US are discreetly colluding to keep tethering as an expensive, premium service.</p><p>I would like to see a carrier break ranks and include it as a standard unlimited data plan feature.   That would force all the other carriers down eventually.</p><p>This reminds me of internet access in Australia being metered long after it became flat rate in most parts of the world.   The companies have a cash cow and want to keep it that way.   However, I would like to think that the popularity of an inexpensive tethering service would make up for that in numbers, provided that the network can handle the traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So do the cel companies have a legitimate concern about their networks being overloaded by people running torrents over tethered devices , or is it just a 'we are sitting on our collective arses figuring out how much we can get away with charging for it ' thing ? My feeling is that cel carriers in the US are discreetly colluding to keep tethering as an expensive , premium service.I would like to see a carrier break ranks and include it as a standard unlimited data plan feature .
That would force all the other carriers down eventually.This reminds me of internet access in Australia being metered long after it became flat rate in most parts of the world .
The companies have a cash cow and want to keep it that way .
However , I would like to think that the popularity of an inexpensive tethering service would make up for that in numbers , provided that the network can handle the traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So do the cel companies have a legitimate concern about their networks being overloaded by people running torrents over tethered devices, or is it just a 'we are sitting on our collective arses figuring out how much we can get away with charging for it' thing?My feeling is that cel carriers in the US are discreetly colluding to keep tethering as an expensive, premium service.I would like to see a carrier break ranks and include it as a standard unlimited data plan feature.
That would force all the other carriers down eventually.This reminds me of internet access in Australia being metered long after it became flat rate in most parts of the world.
The companies have a cash cow and want to keep it that way.
However, I would like to think that the popularity of an inexpensive tethering service would make up for that in numbers, provided that the network can handle the traffic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353181</id>
	<title>Hey carriers!  I have a solution that pleases most</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245144900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a simple solution I offer to all carriers free of charge.</p><p>Write a custom tethering app for each phone, that starts a recording of the volume of data sent via tethering - give me a low price or free option for some smallish amount of data to be used via tethering, with some increasing tier thereafter.</p><p>This would satisfy 90\% of people that just want to occasionally tether a laptop at a sucky hotel or airport.</p><p>People who want to use it as a primary ISP would of course be forced to pay more, and that is fine.</p><p>Could people work around it easily?  Why yes they could, just as they can jailbreak these phones and get tethering for free.  Isn't some money better than no money?</p><p>Would it record phone data as part of the tethering data?  Yes it would but if you're tethering then you're mostly using a laptop, right?</p><p>Furthermore unreasonable tethering prices or locking down tethering will force a LOT more people to jailbreak phones (OK, not force, but greatly encourage).  Along with that come all the other network hogging behaviors in addition to tethering you never get to charge for again.</p><p>Give us 90\% of us a reasonable option for occasional tethering at low cost and everyone will be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a simple solution I offer to all carriers free of charge.Write a custom tethering app for each phone , that starts a recording of the volume of data sent via tethering - give me a low price or free option for some smallish amount of data to be used via tethering , with some increasing tier thereafter.This would satisfy 90 \ % of people that just want to occasionally tether a laptop at a sucky hotel or airport.People who want to use it as a primary ISP would of course be forced to pay more , and that is fine.Could people work around it easily ?
Why yes they could , just as they can jailbreak these phones and get tethering for free .
Is n't some money better than no money ? Would it record phone data as part of the tethering data ?
Yes it would but if you 're tethering then you 're mostly using a laptop , right ? Furthermore unreasonable tethering prices or locking down tethering will force a LOT more people to jailbreak phones ( OK , not force , but greatly encourage ) .
Along with that come all the other network hogging behaviors in addition to tethering you never get to charge for again.Give us 90 \ % of us a reasonable option for occasional tethering at low cost and everyone will be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a simple solution I offer to all carriers free of charge.Write a custom tethering app for each phone, that starts a recording of the volume of data sent via tethering - give me a low price or free option for some smallish amount of data to be used via tethering, with some increasing tier thereafter.This would satisfy 90\% of people that just want to occasionally tether a laptop at a sucky hotel or airport.People who want to use it as a primary ISP would of course be forced to pay more, and that is fine.Could people work around it easily?
Why yes they could, just as they can jailbreak these phones and get tethering for free.
Isn't some money better than no money?Would it record phone data as part of the tethering data?
Yes it would but if you're tethering then you're mostly using a laptop, right?Furthermore unreasonable tethering prices or locking down tethering will force a LOT more people to jailbreak phones (OK, not force, but greatly encourage).
Along with that come all the other network hogging behaviors in addition to tethering you never get to charge for again.Give us 90\% of us a reasonable option for occasional tethering at low cost and everyone will be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354803</id>
	<title>Cell phone data plans are not a good deal.</title>
	<author>fahrvergnugen</author>
	<datestamp>1245152760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look: If you are willing to buy a data access plan to a wireless network on the following terms:<br>-Higher per-month cost than access to traditional wired infrastructure at lower bandwidth;<br>-Access is sold on a per-device basis, meaning that if you own a laptop and a smartphone and want them both online, you must pay twice;<br>-Specific technically inconsequential data packets cost exponentially more than all other packets (txt messages);<br>-The device you connect to this network automatically prefers to use other wireless networks when possible (802.11);</p><p>Then you are a fool. Speaking as one such fool, I recognize that the market is so corrupt that there is no intelligent option for the buyer, but that does not make me any less a fool than the other 40 million people who also agreed to take part in this chicanery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look : If you are willing to buy a data access plan to a wireless network on the following terms : -Higher per-month cost than access to traditional wired infrastructure at lower bandwidth ; -Access is sold on a per-device basis , meaning that if you own a laptop and a smartphone and want them both online , you must pay twice ; -Specific technically inconsequential data packets cost exponentially more than all other packets ( txt messages ) ; -The device you connect to this network automatically prefers to use other wireless networks when possible ( 802.11 ) ; Then you are a fool .
Speaking as one such fool , I recognize that the market is so corrupt that there is no intelligent option for the buyer , but that does not make me any less a fool than the other 40 million people who also agreed to take part in this chicanery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look: If you are willing to buy a data access plan to a wireless network on the following terms:-Higher per-month cost than access to traditional wired infrastructure at lower bandwidth;-Access is sold on a per-device basis, meaning that if you own a laptop and a smartphone and want them both online, you must pay twice;-Specific technically inconsequential data packets cost exponentially more than all other packets (txt messages);-The device you connect to this network automatically prefers to use other wireless networks when possible (802.11);Then you are a fool.
Speaking as one such fool, I recognize that the market is so corrupt that there is no intelligent option for the buyer, but that does not make me any less a fool than the other 40 million people who also agreed to take part in this chicanery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353021</id>
	<title>Re:My VZW Blackberry can tether, what's the proble</title>
	<author>XPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1245144360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason tethering isn't widely adopted by the phone companies is because when you're tethering you're often passing more amounts of data than you would with just your phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason tethering is n't widely adopted by the phone companies is because when you 're tethering you 're often passing more amounts of data than you would with just your phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason tethering isn't widely adopted by the phone companies is because when you're tethering you're often passing more amounts of data than you would with just your phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413</id>
	<title>Here's a good area for some "socialism"</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1245145860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies aren't selling goods and services any more, they seem to sell permissions and licenses.  What these companies should be selling is a connection and that's it.  It should be completely separate from the hardware, and they should not be able to dictate what hardware is allowed on their service, or what you do with your hardware.  They should not be allowed to regulate what is transmitted on said line.</p><p>And there should be at least 40 of these companies, not four.</p><p>We need to block all these company mergers, and encourage more start ups to increase competition.  And we need to create regulations for the market to stop this nickle and dime shit these companies are allowed to get away with, separating the service from the hardware in order to increase innovation and competition and give rights back to the consumer.  These companies have too much power to dick over customers.  Whatever happened to treating the customer like a valued customer in this country?  Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies are n't selling goods and services any more , they seem to sell permissions and licenses .
What these companies should be selling is a connection and that 's it .
It should be completely separate from the hardware , and they should not be able to dictate what hardware is allowed on their service , or what you do with your hardware .
They should not be allowed to regulate what is transmitted on said line.And there should be at least 40 of these companies , not four.We need to block all these company mergers , and encourage more start ups to increase competition .
And we need to create regulations for the market to stop this nickle and dime shit these companies are allowed to get away with , separating the service from the hardware in order to increase innovation and competition and give rights back to the consumer .
These companies have too much power to dick over customers .
Whatever happened to treating the customer like a valued customer in this country ?
Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies aren't selling goods and services any more, they seem to sell permissions and licenses.
What these companies should be selling is a connection and that's it.
It should be completely separate from the hardware, and they should not be able to dictate what hardware is allowed on their service, or what you do with your hardware.
They should not be allowed to regulate what is transmitted on said line.And there should be at least 40 of these companies, not four.We need to block all these company mergers, and encourage more start ups to increase competition.
And we need to create regulations for the market to stop this nickle and dime shit these companies are allowed to get away with, separating the service from the hardware in order to increase innovation and competition and give rights back to the consumer.
These companies have too much power to dick over customers.
Whatever happened to treating the customer like a valued customer in this country?
Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245145200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My G1 tethers just fine.  3G in Dallas is phenomenal.  Then again I intentionally chose a phone that wouldn't limit my choices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My G1 tethers just fine .
3G in Dallas is phenomenal .
Then again I intentionally chose a phone that would n't limit my choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My G1 tethers just fine.
3G in Dallas is phenomenal.
Then again I intentionally chose a phone that wouldn't limit my choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356029</id>
	<title>No cable or DSL</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245159720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but if you're tethering then you're mostly using a laptop, right?</p></div><p>Unless you live in an area that can get EV-DO but can't get cable or DSL. Or is satellite Internet more cost effective?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but if you 're tethering then you 're mostly using a laptop , right ? Unless you live in an area that can get EV-DO but ca n't get cable or DSL .
Or is satellite Internet more cost effective ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but if you're tethering then you're mostly using a laptop, right?Unless you live in an area that can get EV-DO but can't get cable or DSL.
Or is satellite Internet more cost effective?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354897</id>
	<title>Re:How is Tethering Really Different From...</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1245153240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're making money because you're now paying for 2 data plans plus 1 tethering plan rather than one of each.  If you're geek enough to want tethering, you're also going to want data on your phone for those times when it's not worth the hassle of lugging a laptop.  So instead of adding the tethering option to your phone's data plan, you're adding the $50-60 plan for a cellular card/dongle.</p><p>Using AT&amp;T prices:</p><p>The cheapest phone/text/data/tethering plan runs around $105/month.  450 minutes, minimal text package, unlimited (5 gigs) data, tethering.</p><p>The cheapest phone/text/data plan runs around $60/month.  The DataConnect plan is $60/month.  That's a total of $120/month.</p><p>AT&amp;T gets an extra $15/month, $180/year, $360/contract.  It's not the cards that they care about.  It's the monthly bill.  The cards can't cost them much at all in the quantities that they purchase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're making money because you 're now paying for 2 data plans plus 1 tethering plan rather than one of each .
If you 're geek enough to want tethering , you 're also going to want data on your phone for those times when it 's not worth the hassle of lugging a laptop .
So instead of adding the tethering option to your phone 's data plan , you 're adding the $ 50-60 plan for a cellular card/dongle.Using AT&amp;T prices : The cheapest phone/text/data/tethering plan runs around $ 105/month .
450 minutes , minimal text package , unlimited ( 5 gigs ) data , tethering.The cheapest phone/text/data plan runs around $ 60/month .
The DataConnect plan is $ 60/month .
That 's a total of $ 120/month.AT&amp;T gets an extra $ 15/month , $ 180/year , $ 360/contract .
It 's not the cards that they care about .
It 's the monthly bill .
The cards ca n't cost them much at all in the quantities that they purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're making money because you're now paying for 2 data plans plus 1 tethering plan rather than one of each.
If you're geek enough to want tethering, you're also going to want data on your phone for those times when it's not worth the hassle of lugging a laptop.
So instead of adding the tethering option to your phone's data plan, you're adding the $50-60 plan for a cellular card/dongle.Using AT&amp;T prices:The cheapest phone/text/data/tethering plan runs around $105/month.
450 minutes, minimal text package, unlimited (5 gigs) data, tethering.The cheapest phone/text/data plan runs around $60/month.
The DataConnect plan is $60/month.
That's a total of $120/month.AT&amp;T gets an extra $15/month, $180/year, $360/contract.
It's not the cards that they care about.
It's the monthly bill.
The cards can't cost them much at all in the quantities that they purchase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352959</id>
	<title>So now it is clear....</title>
	<author>genghisjahn</author>
	<datestamp>1245144180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the US is so far behind the rest of the tech world when it comes to wireless technology, they cannot offer a tethering service because they don't have the infrastructure to do it.  It has affected all carriers.  If it was only poor planning on the part of one company, that would be understandable.  Even if it was poor planning on the part of many companies, one at least could offer this great feature (at a realisitc price) and make a killing.  But as it stands...no one can do it at anything close to a price that middle class Americans will pay.

Links to the contrary are welcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the US is so far behind the rest of the tech world when it comes to wireless technology , they can not offer a tethering service because they do n't have the infrastructure to do it .
It has affected all carriers .
If it was only poor planning on the part of one company , that would be understandable .
Even if it was poor planning on the part of many companies , one at least could offer this great feature ( at a realisitc price ) and make a killing .
But as it stands...no one can do it at anything close to a price that middle class Americans will pay .
Links to the contrary are welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the US is so far behind the rest of the tech world when it comes to wireless technology, they cannot offer a tethering service because they don't have the infrastructure to do it.
It has affected all carriers.
If it was only poor planning on the part of one company, that would be understandable.
Even if it was poor planning on the part of many companies, one at least could offer this great feature (at a realisitc price) and make a killing.
But as it stands...no one can do it at anything close to a price that middle class Americans will pay.
Links to the contrary are welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352921</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>oahazmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1245144120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.</p></div><p>Yeah, but if that were to happen you wouldn't be able to pirate only what you wanted, so I don't think it would work as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.Yeah , but if that were to happen you would n't be able to pirate only what you wanted , so I do n't think it would work as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.Yeah, but if that were to happen you wouldn't be able to pirate only what you wanted, so I don't think it would work as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358403</id>
	<title>Re:Howabout a new cellular network geared for data</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1245181980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is especially irritating because I was just starting to look around for an iPhone alternative that would allow <b>tethering, background apps and no restrictive app store policies,</b> etc. etc. all the reasons why the iPhone is essentially a nerfed technology demonstrator.</p></div></blockquote><p>

If that's your list of requirements the phone you want exists already, its called the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC\_Dream" title="wikipedia.org">HTC Dream</a> [wikipedia.org], may also be called the G1 in some countries, you might also look the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC\_Magic" title="wikipedia.org">HTC Magic</a> [wikipedia.org] if it's been released in your nation yet (OK, OK, Australia so rarely gets things before the States, permit me a little bit of scheudenfraude).<br> <br>

BTW, if you cant find it on the Android marketplace, <a href="http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/" title="google.com">here</a> [google.com] is the tethering app that doesn't require root access.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is especially irritating because I was just starting to look around for an iPhone alternative that would allow tethering , background apps and no restrictive app store policies , etc .
etc. all the reasons why the iPhone is essentially a nerfed technology demonstrator .
If that 's your list of requirements the phone you want exists already , its called theHTC Dream [ wikipedia.org ] , may also be called the G1 in some countries , you might also look the HTC Magic [ wikipedia.org ] if it 's been released in your nation yet ( OK , OK , Australia so rarely gets things before the States , permit me a little bit of scheudenfraude ) .
BTW , if you cant find it on the Android marketplace , here [ google.com ] is the tethering app that does n't require root access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is especially irritating because I was just starting to look around for an iPhone alternative that would allow tethering, background apps and no restrictive app store policies, etc.
etc. all the reasons why the iPhone is essentially a nerfed technology demonstrator.
If that's your list of requirements the phone you want exists already, its called theHTC Dream [wikipedia.org], may also be called the G1 in some countries, you might also look the HTC Magic [wikipedia.org] if it's been released in your nation yet (OK, OK, Australia so rarely gets things before the States, permit me a little bit of scheudenfraude).
BTW, if you cant find it on the Android marketplace, here [google.com] is the tethering app that doesn't require root access.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901</id>
	<title>Dumb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Sprint allows the these phones to tether:
</p><p>
Blackberry 8703e, Blackberry 8130, Blackberry 8330, Blackberry 8830, 1HTC Touch, 1HTC Mogul (6800), 1HTC Apache (6700), LG Fusic LX-500, LG Muziq, Motorola KRZR, Motorola RAZR V3c, Motorola, RAZR2, Motorola Q, Motorola Q9c, Palm Centro, Palm 700w, Palm 755p, Samsung A900, Samsung A900M. Samsung A920, Samsung ACE, Samsung i830, Samsung SPH-m520,Sanyo SCP-8400. Sanyo Katana, Sanyo Katana 2, Sanyo M
</p><p>
The Pre is nothing special, and Sprint has no idea what it is doning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint allows the these phones to tether : Blackberry 8703e , Blackberry 8130 , Blackberry 8330 , Blackberry 8830 , 1HTC Touch , 1HTC Mogul ( 6800 ) , 1HTC Apache ( 6700 ) , LG Fusic LX-500 , LG Muziq , Motorola KRZR , Motorola RAZR V3c , Motorola , RAZR2 , Motorola Q , Motorola Q9c , Palm Centro , Palm 700w , Palm 755p , Samsung A900 , Samsung A900M .
Samsung A920 , Samsung ACE , Samsung i830 , Samsung SPH-m520,Sanyo SCP-8400 .
Sanyo Katana , Sanyo Katana 2 , Sanyo M The Pre is nothing special , and Sprint has no idea what it is doning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sprint allows the these phones to tether:

Blackberry 8703e, Blackberry 8130, Blackberry 8330, Blackberry 8830, 1HTC Touch, 1HTC Mogul (6800), 1HTC Apache (6700), LG Fusic LX-500, LG Muziq, Motorola KRZR, Motorola RAZR V3c, Motorola, RAZR2, Motorola Q, Motorola Q9c, Palm Centro, Palm 700w, Palm 755p, Samsung A900, Samsung A900M.
Samsung A920, Samsung ACE, Samsung i830, Samsung SPH-m520,Sanyo SCP-8400.
Sanyo Katana, Sanyo Katana 2, Sanyo M

The Pre is nothing special, and Sprint has no idea what it is doning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353463</id>
	<title>So fuckin' what</title>
	<author>zeridon</author>
	<datestamp>1245146100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all i am not a layer<br>Second i work in exactly the telecom env<br>third i am not in the us but in Europe</p><p>so taking all that in mind i still got a suckin idiotik phone that is used only as a phone (it does it's job as a phone) as are most of the people in the telco business (excluding managers). In my personal opinion the moment you can use your phone as a regular Modem you are basically unstoppable. And you know using a modem to connect is nothing new revolutionizing or whatever.</p><p>Some people said you are going to draw more bw<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then why they are seling unlimited. If it is unlimited it means UNLIMITED. It does not mater that you are one of the measly 0.5\% that uses more than 2 TB a month because you know how and can make good use of it.</p><p>Also take in mind the following: As much as i despise the Iphone and similiar stuff for claiming being a phone they really are marketed as a multimedia computing platform<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so phone features are just a bonus not main driver (if you don't know/care/dare to use the other features<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well you need simpler "stick that can talk". Any Goddamn forsaken stupid app that can leach at tremendous rates even being deployed on a "phone" is not a wise move and they've called it upon themselvs so they've got to live with it</p><p>Everybody oversells, telcos oversell enormously and of course win enourmously.</p><p>End point of the topis is "If i can get to the modem i can and i will use it and nobody can prove otherwise"</p><p>PS: excuse my typing mistakes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's a bit late and i am up for about 60 hours already<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all i am not a layerSecond i work in exactly the telecom envthird i am not in the us but in Europeso taking all that in mind i still got a suckin idiotik phone that is used only as a phone ( it does it 's job as a phone ) as are most of the people in the telco business ( excluding managers ) .
In my personal opinion the moment you can use your phone as a regular Modem you are basically unstoppable .
And you know using a modem to connect is nothing new revolutionizing or whatever.Some people said you are going to draw more bw ... then why they are seling unlimited .
If it is unlimited it means UNLIMITED .
It does not mater that you are one of the measly 0.5 \ % that uses more than 2 TB a month because you know how and can make good use of it.Also take in mind the following : As much as i despise the Iphone and similiar stuff for claiming being a phone they really are marketed as a multimedia computing platform ... so phone features are just a bonus not main driver ( if you do n't know/care/dare to use the other features ... well you need simpler " stick that can talk " .
Any Goddamn forsaken stupid app that can leach at tremendous rates even being deployed on a " phone " is not a wise move and they 've called it upon themselvs so they 've got to live with itEverybody oversells , telcos oversell enormously and of course win enourmously.End point of the topis is " If i can get to the modem i can and i will use it and nobody can prove otherwise " PS : excuse my typing mistakes ... it 's a bit late and i am up for about 60 hours already .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all i am not a layerSecond i work in exactly the telecom envthird i am not in the us but in Europeso taking all that in mind i still got a suckin idiotik phone that is used only as a phone (it does it's job as a phone) as are most of the people in the telco business (excluding managers).
In my personal opinion the moment you can use your phone as a regular Modem you are basically unstoppable.
And you know using a modem to connect is nothing new revolutionizing or whatever.Some people said you are going to draw more bw ... then why they are seling unlimited.
If it is unlimited it means UNLIMITED.
It does not mater that you are one of the measly 0.5\% that uses more than 2 TB a month because you know how and can make good use of it.Also take in mind the following: As much as i despise the Iphone and similiar stuff for claiming being a phone they really are marketed as a multimedia computing platform ... so phone features are just a bonus not main driver (if you don't know/care/dare to use the other features ... well you need simpler "stick that can talk".
Any Goddamn forsaken stupid app that can leach at tremendous rates even being deployed on a "phone" is not a wise move and they've called it upon themselvs so they've got to live with itEverybody oversells, telcos oversell enormously and of course win enourmously.End point of the topis is "If i can get to the modem i can and i will use it and nobody can prove otherwise"PS: excuse my typing mistakes ... it's a bit late and i am up for about 60 hours already ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015</id>
	<title>Well maybe.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1245144360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now the Pre is US only so no right now you can not tether it if you are on a none US carrier since none of them carry it.<br>Tethering in the US seems to scar the daylights out of US carriers. Probably because the really want to sell you that data card with an extra line.<br>I don't know of any US provider that offers tethering. You could probably pull it off with an unlocked GSM phone on AT&amp;T or maybe TMobile but I don't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now the Pre is US only so no right now you can not tether it if you are on a none US carrier since none of them carry it.Tethering in the US seems to scar the daylights out of US carriers .
Probably because the really want to sell you that data card with an extra line.I do n't know of any US provider that offers tethering .
You could probably pull it off with an unlocked GSM phone on AT&amp;T or maybe TMobile but I do n't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now the Pre is US only so no right now you can not tether it if you are on a none US carrier since none of them carry it.Tethering in the US seems to scar the daylights out of US carriers.
Probably because the really want to sell you that data card with an extra line.I don't know of any US provider that offers tethering.
You could probably pull it off with an unlocked GSM phone on AT&amp;T or maybe TMobile but I don't know if you can get a 3g Tmobile phone unlocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352895</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>MoldySpore</author>
	<datestamp>1245144000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.</p></div><p>And having hot, sweaty sex to produce a start up company called "Skatch", which produces and markets wrist watches which can shoot lasers that turn objects into skittles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.And having hot , sweaty sex to produce a start up company called " Skatch " , which produces and markets wrist watches which can shoot lasers that turn objects into skittles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.And having hot, sweaty sex to produce a start up company called "Skatch", which produces and markets wrist watches which can shoot lasers that turn objects into skittles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361457</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1245253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The HTC Apache is an interesting creature.  It was apparently the last smartphone sold by Sprint that you could tether *without* a phone-as-modem plan.  Also, tethered over USB I could consistently get 1Mbps connections.  When in the middle of nowhere Kansas (which happens to be Sprint's backyard) untethered I could pull 2.5Mbps down no problem...and this was three and a half years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The HTC Apache is an interesting creature .
It was apparently the last smartphone sold by Sprint that you could tether * without * a phone-as-modem plan .
Also , tethered over USB I could consistently get 1Mbps connections .
When in the middle of nowhere Kansas ( which happens to be Sprint 's backyard ) untethered I could pull 2.5Mbps down no problem...and this was three and a half years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HTC Apache is an interesting creature.
It was apparently the last smartphone sold by Sprint that you could tether *without* a phone-as-modem plan.
Also, tethered over USB I could consistently get 1Mbps connections.
When in the middle of nowhere Kansas (which happens to be Sprint's backyard) untethered I could pull 2.5Mbps down no problem...and this was three and a half years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353795</id>
	<title>Maybe someone should explain what tethering is.</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245147420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tethering is connecting other devices like a laptop to the phone to use the phone's internet.</p><p>For some reason, I couldn't remember that and had a hell of a time attempting to figure it out since the raw definition of tether is a cord that anchors something movable to a stationary point. Tethering as used in the article is more or less a play on this idea as the phone is tethered to the device (laptop) but stationary is more or less relative and no necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tethering is connecting other devices like a laptop to the phone to use the phone 's internet.For some reason , I could n't remember that and had a hell of a time attempting to figure it out since the raw definition of tether is a cord that anchors something movable to a stationary point .
Tethering as used in the article is more or less a play on this idea as the phone is tethered to the device ( laptop ) but stationary is more or less relative and no necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tethering is connecting other devices like a laptop to the phone to use the phone's internet.For some reason, I couldn't remember that and had a hell of a time attempting to figure it out since the raw definition of tether is a cord that anchors something movable to a stationary point.
Tethering as used in the article is more or less a play on this idea as the phone is tethered to the device (laptop) but stationary is more or less relative and no necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364345</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a good area for some "socialism"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245267240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And there should be at least 40 of these companies, not four.</p><p>We need to block all these company mergers, and encourage more start ups to increase competition.</p></div><p>If you want to go this way, here are some hints:</p><p>1) Ban coupling phone device and subscription to use mobile phone network.</p><p>2) Mandate carriers/operators to transfer your old phone number to the new one, precisely as it is now, and mandate them to do the transfer swiftly and without any interruption in the service.</p><p>These two together mean if your carrier is not providing competitive service, you can switch anytime, and no one else than you will notice.</p><p>Both of these measures are utilized in Finland, resulting in very consumer-friendly prices for mobile calls and data. And very high mobile phone penetration and usage.</p><p>I would also not call it socialism, it's market economy that's forced to work for the benefit of the customers. There's actually <i>more</i> competition on the field in this model, with just handful of players out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there should be at least 40 of these companies , not four.We need to block all these company mergers , and encourage more start ups to increase competition.If you want to go this way , here are some hints : 1 ) Ban coupling phone device and subscription to use mobile phone network.2 ) Mandate carriers/operators to transfer your old phone number to the new one , precisely as it is now , and mandate them to do the transfer swiftly and without any interruption in the service.These two together mean if your carrier is not providing competitive service , you can switch anytime , and no one else than you will notice.Both of these measures are utilized in Finland , resulting in very consumer-friendly prices for mobile calls and data .
And very high mobile phone penetration and usage.I would also not call it socialism , it 's market economy that 's forced to work for the benefit of the customers .
There 's actually more competition on the field in this model , with just handful of players out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there should be at least 40 of these companies, not four.We need to block all these company mergers, and encourage more start ups to increase competition.If you want to go this way, here are some hints:1) Ban coupling phone device and subscription to use mobile phone network.2) Mandate carriers/operators to transfer your old phone number to the new one, precisely as it is now, and mandate them to do the transfer swiftly and without any interruption in the service.These two together mean if your carrier is not providing competitive service, you can switch anytime, and no one else than you will notice.Both of these measures are utilized in Finland, resulting in very consumer-friendly prices for mobile calls and data.
And very high mobile phone penetration and usage.I would also not call it socialism, it's market economy that's forced to work for the benefit of the customers.
There's actually more competition on the field in this model, with just handful of players out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358323</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1245181260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unless you got an app I haven't seen,</p></div></blockquote><p>

I don't know which app Tmobile blocked/asked removed but Proxoid does not require root (technically its proxying not tethering but the end result is the same). If you cant find it on the market get it from the source. <a href="http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you got an app I have n't seen , I do n't know which app Tmobile blocked/asked removed but Proxoid does not require root ( technically its proxying not tethering but the end result is the same ) .
If you cant find it on the market get it from the source .
http : //code.google.com/p/proxoid/ [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you got an app I haven't seen,

I don't know which app Tmobile blocked/asked removed but Proxoid does not require root (technically its proxying not tethering but the end result is the same).
If you cant find it on the market get it from the source.
http://code.google.com/p/proxoid/ [google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353257</id>
	<title>Re:My VZW Blackberry can tether, what's the proble</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1245145260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are other phone companies against tethering, or am I completely misunderstanding something?</p></div><p>Simply: they want you to pay for service, but they don't want you to really use it very much.  They want to charge you a hefty fee for data access, and justify the price by saying it's "unlimited", but they really don't want you to use the service very much, because lots of people using it means they have to spend money to expand their infrastructure.  If you can tether it to your computer, you'll probably use more bandwidth.  Obviously they'd much prefer that you paid for their most expensive data plan and then never used it at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are other phone companies against tethering , or am I completely misunderstanding something ? Simply : they want you to pay for service , but they do n't want you to really use it very much .
They want to charge you a hefty fee for data access , and justify the price by saying it 's " unlimited " , but they really do n't want you to use the service very much , because lots of people using it means they have to spend money to expand their infrastructure .
If you can tether it to your computer , you 'll probably use more bandwidth .
Obviously they 'd much prefer that you paid for their most expensive data plan and then never used it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are other phone companies against tethering, or am I completely misunderstanding something?Simply: they want you to pay for service, but they don't want you to really use it very much.
They want to charge you a hefty fee for data access, and justify the price by saying it's "unlimited", but they really don't want you to use the service very much, because lots of people using it means they have to spend money to expand their infrastructure.
If you can tether it to your computer, you'll probably use more bandwidth.
Obviously they'd much prefer that you paid for their most expensive data plan and then never used it at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617</id>
	<title>Am I missing the point?</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1245146640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm just missing the point.  But I see two use cases for tethering:</p><p>1.  Once in a while you need net and the only thing that can do it is your phone.  But most of the time WiFi does the trick.  I can see wanting to do this with a smartphone but the carriers shouldn't have a problem with light use of this sort.</p><p>2.  You are away from WiFi a lot, or want it as a primary connection.  If you have a netbook or laptop handy most of the time why did you get a smartphone?  If I were in that situation I'd want the smallest most phonelike phone I could get that supported bluetooth and tethering.</p><p>But AT&amp;T Sprint seems to fear large numbers of customers people want to spend serious coin for oversized premium smartphones so they can leave them in their pocket and bang away on a laptop, sucking up gigs of bandwidth they meter by the GB anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm just missing the point .
But I see two use cases for tethering : 1 .
Once in a while you need net and the only thing that can do it is your phone .
But most of the time WiFi does the trick .
I can see wanting to do this with a smartphone but the carriers should n't have a problem with light use of this sort.2 .
You are away from WiFi a lot , or want it as a primary connection .
If you have a netbook or laptop handy most of the time why did you get a smartphone ?
If I were in that situation I 'd want the smallest most phonelike phone I could get that supported bluetooth and tethering.But AT&amp;T Sprint seems to fear large numbers of customers people want to spend serious coin for oversized premium smartphones so they can leave them in their pocket and bang away on a laptop , sucking up gigs of bandwidth they meter by the GB anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm just missing the point.
But I see two use cases for tethering:1.
Once in a while you need net and the only thing that can do it is your phone.
But most of the time WiFi does the trick.
I can see wanting to do this with a smartphone but the carriers shouldn't have a problem with light use of this sort.2.
You are away from WiFi a lot, or want it as a primary connection.
If you have a netbook or laptop handy most of the time why did you get a smartphone?
If I were in that situation I'd want the smallest most phonelike phone I could get that supported bluetooth and tethering.But AT&amp;T Sprint seems to fear large numbers of customers people want to spend serious coin for oversized premium smartphones so they can leave them in their pocket and bang away on a laptop, sucking up gigs of bandwidth they meter by the GB anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353457</id>
	<title>Why CANT I</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245146040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why carriers want to prevent users from tethering. If I paid for X amount of bandwidth, then I am allowed to use X amount. How does it matter how I use it? Does tethering cost anymore to the carriers than say, pulling all your data onto the device itself? I guess some years from now, people would be laughing at how stupid the carriers were<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and perhaps even record this as one of the industry's greatest mistakes. Carriers just don't get it (or I should say I dont get them carriers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why carriers want to prevent users from tethering .
If I paid for X amount of bandwidth , then I am allowed to use X amount .
How does it matter how I use it ?
Does tethering cost anymore to the carriers than say , pulling all your data onto the device itself ?
I guess some years from now , people would be laughing at how stupid the carriers were .. and perhaps even record this as one of the industry 's greatest mistakes .
Carriers just do n't get it ( or I should say I dont get them carriers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why carriers want to prevent users from tethering.
If I paid for X amount of bandwidth, then I am allowed to use X amount.
How does it matter how I use it?
Does tethering cost anymore to the carriers than say, pulling all your data onto the device itself?
I guess some years from now, people would be laughing at how stupid the carriers were .. and perhaps even record this as one of the industry's greatest mistakes.
Carriers just don't get it (or I should say I dont get them carriers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353233</id>
	<title>How is Tethering Really Different From...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245145200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is tethering really any different than buying a wireless cellular modem for your laptop? Those devices are happily sold with data plans - tethering your cell phone just cuts out one additional device. Are they really making that big a profit on those plug-in wireless cards?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is tethering really any different than buying a wireless cellular modem for your laptop ?
Those devices are happily sold with data plans - tethering your cell phone just cuts out one additional device .
Are they really making that big a profit on those plug-in wireless cards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is tethering really any different than buying a wireless cellular modem for your laptop?
Those devices are happily sold with data plans - tethering your cell phone just cuts out one additional device.
Are they really making that big a profit on those plug-in wireless cards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353197</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1245145020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?</p></div><p>No, but it does mean that the iPhone doesn't have exclusivity on this lacking feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering ? No , but it does mean that the iPhone does n't have exclusivity on this lacking feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?No, but it does mean that the iPhone doesn't have exclusivity on this lacking feature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355073</id>
	<title>Re:Application-level proxy softare?</title>
	<author>changa</author>
	<datestamp>1245154200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>It is running busybox linux and getting in is trivial.<br><br>Tethering is not that hard they just don't want to talk about in the hacking from to keep sprint off their backs.<br><br>I am sshed into my pre right now and have full access to the os.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is running busybox linux and getting in is trivial.Tethering is not that hard they just do n't want to talk about in the hacking from to keep sprint off their backs.I am sshed into my pre right now and have full access to the os .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is running busybox linux and getting in is trivial.Tethering is not that hard they just don't want to talk about in the hacking from to keep sprint off their backs.I am sshed into my pre right now and have full access to the os.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356209</id>
	<title>Re:Well maybe.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't know of any US provider that offers tethering. "<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They ALL offer tethering, just not at the rates you want to pay.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, and US Cellular all have them for sure.  They have VERY suspiciously similar terms though, all are 5GB for $60 (sometimes they'll break this up, so it's "only $40 *"  "* -- if you already have a $20 on-phone data plan".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't know of any US provider that offers tethering .
"           They ALL offer tethering , just not at the rates you want to pay .
          AT&amp;T , T-Mobile , Sprint , Verizon , and US Cellular all have them for sure .
They have VERY suspiciously similar terms though , all are 5GB for $ 60 ( sometimes they 'll break this up , so it 's " only $ 40 * " " * -- if you already have a $ 20 on-phone data plan " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't know of any US provider that offers tethering.
"
          They ALL offer tethering, just not at the rates you want to pay.
          AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, and US Cellular all have them for sure.
They have VERY suspiciously similar terms though, all are 5GB for $60 (sometimes they'll break this up, so it's "only $40 *"  "* -- if you already have a $20 on-phone data plan".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354175</id>
	<title>Just as a point of reference to Japan</title>
	<author>FishTankX</author>
	<datestamp>1245149100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>HDSPA tethering in Japan on Docomo's network costs $8 as a base fee, and then $50 up to 50MB of data. Then it goes up from there to a cap of $100 for 100MB. After 100MB, the charge does not increase.

This is for up to 7.2Mbps</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDSPA tethering in Japan on Docomo 's network costs $ 8 as a base fee , and then $ 50 up to 50MB of data .
Then it goes up from there to a cap of $ 100 for 100MB .
After 100MB , the charge does not increase .
This is for up to 7.2Mbps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDSPA tethering in Japan on Docomo's network costs $8 as a base fee, and then $50 up to 50MB of data.
Then it goes up from there to a cap of $100 for 100MB.
After 100MB, the charge does not increase.
This is for up to 7.2Mbps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352943</id>
	<title>I "tethered" with your mom last night</title>
	<author>YourMissionForToday</author>
	<datestamp>1245144180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, as I said in the subject line, I tethered with your mom last night.  It was a hard-wired connection, however.  I avoided Palm Pre-mature ejaculation by thinking about CIDR notation.  It works every time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , as I said in the subject line , I tethered with your mom last night .
It was a hard-wired connection , however .
I avoided Palm Pre-mature ejaculation by thinking about CIDR notation .
It works every time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, as I said in the subject line, I tethered with your mom last night.
It was a hard-wired connection, however.
I avoided Palm Pre-mature ejaculation by thinking about CIDR notation.
It works every time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361039</id>
	<title>Re:Tethering on a G1</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1245251100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bluetooth is a bit poor for that, as its bandwidth is less than 3G or 3.5G.  Sharing over WiFi or USB2 is far better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bluetooth is a bit poor for that , as its bandwidth is less than 3G or 3.5G .
Sharing over WiFi or USB2 is far better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bluetooth is a bit poor for that, as its bandwidth is less than 3G or 3.5G.
Sharing over WiFi or USB2 is far better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353909</id>
	<title>technically smartPhone == laptopWanDevice</title>
	<author>mlksys</author>
	<datestamp>1245147960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T is simply being arrogant.</p><p>There is NO technical difference between using an iPhone as a USB or Bluetooth DUN gateway, and using an AT&amp;T sponsored USB cellular WAN device.</p><p>They allow the latter so they should allow the former.</p><p>Their concern should be the all-you-can-eat data plans that they offer for handheld computing vs notebook computing.  They should simply charge a FAIR and competitive rate to what they charge for the USB WAN devices.</p><p>If they think, which may be true, that smartphone users will consume even more bandwith than the laptop users would, then simply price the data plan appropriately to allow it while constraining usage as to not negatively affect their network.</p><p>I could and did tether my old motorola phones using Bluetooth DUN on the tmobile network, and although slow by today's standards it was nice when I needed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T is simply being arrogant.There is NO technical difference between using an iPhone as a USB or Bluetooth DUN gateway , and using an AT&amp;T sponsored USB cellular WAN device.They allow the latter so they should allow the former.Their concern should be the all-you-can-eat data plans that they offer for handheld computing vs notebook computing .
They should simply charge a FAIR and competitive rate to what they charge for the USB WAN devices.If they think , which may be true , that smartphone users will consume even more bandwith than the laptop users would , then simply price the data plan appropriately to allow it while constraining usage as to not negatively affect their network.I could and did tether my old motorola phones using Bluetooth DUN on the tmobile network , and although slow by today 's standards it was nice when I needed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T is simply being arrogant.There is NO technical difference between using an iPhone as a USB or Bluetooth DUN gateway, and using an AT&amp;T sponsored USB cellular WAN device.They allow the latter so they should allow the former.Their concern should be the all-you-can-eat data plans that they offer for handheld computing vs notebook computing.
They should simply charge a FAIR and competitive rate to what they charge for the USB WAN devices.If they think, which may be true, that smartphone users will consume even more bandwith than the laptop users would, then simply price the data plan appropriately to allow it while constraining usage as to not negatively affect their network.I could and did tether my old motorola phones using Bluetooth DUN on the tmobile network, and although slow by today's standards it was nice when I needed it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354009</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1245148440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>However, Sprint only has a 6month exclusive on the PRE, if I remember correctly.  I don't believe Verizon is as friendly with Tethering...</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , Sprint only has a 6month exclusive on the PRE , if I remember correctly .
I do n't believe Verizon is as friendly with Tethering.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, Sprint only has a 6month exclusive on the PRE, if I remember correctly.
I don't believe Verizon is as friendly with Tethering...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358555</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1245269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah.  You're allowed to tether.</p><p>After buying a separate $80/month data plan for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah .
You 're allowed to tether.After buying a separate $ 80/month data plan for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah.
You're allowed to tether.After buying a separate $80/month data plan for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353407</id>
	<title>Breaking news: Reverse engineering legal in US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245145860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is complete bullshit. Reverse engineering has always been legal in the US. Talking about in a public forum is likewise perfectly legal. No big media or telecom entity can do anything to stop it. If Palm doesn't like this they should have taken bigger steps to lock the phone down. The devs should proceed as normal and ignore the veiled threats from Palm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is complete bullshit .
Reverse engineering has always been legal in the US .
Talking about in a public forum is likewise perfectly legal .
No big media or telecom entity can do anything to stop it .
If Palm does n't like this they should have taken bigger steps to lock the phone down .
The devs should proceed as normal and ignore the veiled threats from Palm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is complete bullshit.
Reverse engineering has always been legal in the US.
Talking about in a public forum is likewise perfectly legal.
No big media or telecom entity can do anything to stop it.
If Palm doesn't like this they should have taken bigger steps to lock the phone down.
The devs should proceed as normal and ignore the veiled threats from Palm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352893</id>
	<title>Typical kdawson drivel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It still hasn't proven itself, not one bit. Don't call it "game-changing" yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It still has n't proven itself , not one bit .
Do n't call it " game-changing " yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still hasn't proven itself, not one bit.
Don't call it "game-changing" yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353065</id>
	<title>Verizon = more tethering, less lameness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got a Centro a little while back and *Verizon* is A-OK with tethering. A short while before that I got a dongle but I hardly ever use it now, because Bluetooth tethering is so convenient.</p><p>Verizon doesn't support its tethering software on Mac OS X, but, no worries, you can set Bluetooth dialing up yourself.</p><p>BTW The Mac OS X EVDO script is terrible and broken. There's a MUCH better one floating around (I forget exactly which but I think it's the "PCS Intel EV-DO Modem Script"). Also, OS X's pppd likes to hang the computer occasionally (requiring a power button reboot), and Bluetooth dialing in general is flaky. But that's not Verizon's fault!</p><p>Tethering really is a killer smartphone app. Too bad providers are so self-centered, unimaginative, and stuck in the past that they can't let owners use it.</p><p>So I'll keep using my Centro with all its warts and random reboots, until, however many years from now, Verizon offers a better option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a Centro a little while back and * Verizon * is A-OK with tethering .
A short while before that I got a dongle but I hardly ever use it now , because Bluetooth tethering is so convenient.Verizon does n't support its tethering software on Mac OS X , but , no worries , you can set Bluetooth dialing up yourself.BTW The Mac OS X EVDO script is terrible and broken .
There 's a MUCH better one floating around ( I forget exactly which but I think it 's the " PCS Intel EV-DO Modem Script " ) .
Also , OS X 's pppd likes to hang the computer occasionally ( requiring a power button reboot ) , and Bluetooth dialing in general is flaky .
But that 's not Verizon 's fault ! Tethering really is a killer smartphone app .
Too bad providers are so self-centered , unimaginative , and stuck in the past that they ca n't let owners use it.So I 'll keep using my Centro with all its warts and random reboots , until , however many years from now , Verizon offers a better option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a Centro a little while back and *Verizon* is A-OK with tethering.
A short while before that I got a dongle but I hardly ever use it now, because Bluetooth tethering is so convenient.Verizon doesn't support its tethering software on Mac OS X, but, no worries, you can set Bluetooth dialing up yourself.BTW The Mac OS X EVDO script is terrible and broken.
There's a MUCH better one floating around (I forget exactly which but I think it's the "PCS Intel EV-DO Modem Script").
Also, OS X's pppd likes to hang the computer occasionally (requiring a power button reboot), and Bluetooth dialing in general is flaky.
But that's not Verizon's fault!Tethering really is a killer smartphone app.
Too bad providers are so self-centered, unimaginative, and stuck in the past that they can't let owners use it.So I'll keep using my Centro with all its warts and random reboots, until, however many years from now, Verizon offers a better option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356059</id>
	<title>Not enough spectrum, I guess</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245159960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And there should be at least 40 of these companies, not four.</p></div><p>How do you recommend that we magically open up more RF spectrum for more companies?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there should be at least 40 of these companies , not four.How do you recommend that we magically open up more RF spectrum for more companies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there should be at least 40 of these companies, not four.How do you recommend that we magically open up more RF spectrum for more companies?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28362607</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most unlocked smart phones allow tethering; they just look like USB modems to the computer.  They work like a charm with Ubuntu 9.04.  You can get an unlocked Nokia E51 for less than $200.</p><p>Why is there this obsession with tethering on the iPhone and Pre, either on the part of carriers or on the part of users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most unlocked smart phones allow tethering ; they just look like USB modems to the computer .
They work like a charm with Ubuntu 9.04 .
You can get an unlocked Nokia E51 for less than $ 200.Why is there this obsession with tethering on the iPhone and Pre , either on the part of carriers or on the part of users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most unlocked smart phones allow tethering; they just look like USB modems to the computer.
They work like a charm with Ubuntu 9.04.
You can get an unlocked Nokia E51 for less than $200.Why is there this obsession with tethering on the iPhone and Pre, either on the part of carriers or on the part of users?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364249</id>
	<title>Re:Ok...and?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Was anyone really expecting unlimited mobile internet to include tethering?</p></div><p>As a sidenote: Living in Finland, I could get subscription to unlimited mobile data transfer with just 10 euros per month. So it's not against laws of the nature to have it, you just need carriers that aim to serve their customers. Having laws that force carriers to compete with each other also help.</p><p>Also, I would laugh at a "smartphone" that would not allow this kind of basic functionality that has existed in all my phones since 1996... in all ten of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was anyone really expecting unlimited mobile internet to include tethering ? As a sidenote : Living in Finland , I could get subscription to unlimited mobile data transfer with just 10 euros per month .
So it 's not against laws of the nature to have it , you just need carriers that aim to serve their customers .
Having laws that force carriers to compete with each other also help.Also , I would laugh at a " smartphone " that would not allow this kind of basic functionality that has existed in all my phones since 1996... in all ten of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was anyone really expecting unlimited mobile internet to include tethering?As a sidenote: Living in Finland, I could get subscription to unlimited mobile data transfer with just 10 euros per month.
So it's not against laws of the nature to have it, you just need carriers that aim to serve their customers.
Having laws that force carriers to compete with each other also help.Also, I would laugh at a "smartphone" that would not allow this kind of basic functionality that has existed in all my phones since 1996... in all ten of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356717</id>
	<title>Re:Hey carriers! I have a solution that pleases mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245164520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a much simpler solution: the phone companies should charge for the amount of data transferred.  Regardless of whether it's going to the phone or to something else.</p><p>There!  Now the phone company can take their nose out of my electronics, and concern themselves only with the interface between my stuff (phone, laptop, etc) and their stuff (the phone network).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a much simpler solution : the phone companies should charge for the amount of data transferred .
Regardless of whether it 's going to the phone or to something else.There !
Now the phone company can take their nose out of my electronics , and concern themselves only with the interface between my stuff ( phone , laptop , etc ) and their stuff ( the phone network ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a much simpler solution: the phone companies should charge for the amount of data transferred.
Regardless of whether it's going to the phone or to something else.There!
Now the phone company can take their nose out of my electronics, and concern themselves only with the interface between my stuff (phone, laptop, etc) and their stuff (the phone network).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353181</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28357727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28357945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28363687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28363259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28359229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1928236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28357945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28357727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354657
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358323
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28359229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353807
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355159
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353925
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354105
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28363259
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356011
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353901
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364249
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354093
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355425
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28364903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28361457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28355893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28358467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28363687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28354121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28353911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1928236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28352905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1928236.28356095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
