<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_12_2059238</id>
	<title>Verizon Doubles Early Termination Fee and More</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258018020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"If you buy a smartphone through Verizon, be prepared for an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue-email.html">increase in the early termination fee</a>.  Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350.  What's more, is that Verizon also actively charges customers for accidental data transmissions of as little as 0.02kb.  'They configure the phones to have multiple easily hit keystrokes to launch 'Get it now' or 'Mobile Web'&mdash;usually a single key like an arrow key. [...] The instant you call the function, they charge you the data fee. We cancel these unintended requests as fast as we can hit the End key, but it doesn't matter; they've told me that ANY data--even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB. The damage is done.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " If you buy a smartphone through Verizon , be prepared for an increase in the early termination fee .
Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $ 350 .
What 's more , is that Verizon also actively charges customers for accidental data transmissions of as little as 0.02kb .
'They configure the phones to have multiple easily hit keystrokes to launch 'Get it now ' or 'Mobile Web '    usually a single key like an arrow key .
[ ... ] The instant you call the function , they charge you the data fee .
We cancel these unintended requests as fast as we can hit the End key , but it does n't matter ; they 've told me that ANY data--even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB .
The damage is done .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "If you buy a smartphone through Verizon, be prepared for an increase in the early termination fee.
Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350.
What's more, is that Verizon also actively charges customers for accidental data transmissions of as little as 0.02kb.
'They configure the phones to have multiple easily hit keystrokes to launch 'Get it now' or 'Mobile Web'—usually a single key like an arrow key.
[...] The instant you call the function, they charge you the data fee.
We cancel these unintended requests as fast as we can hit the End key, but it doesn't matter; they've told me that ANY data--even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB.
The damage is done.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T?  If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".  It's not like international roaming is any more lenient.</p></div><p>I don't have a problem actually paying for data use.  If I fire up a web browser and surf around a bit, go ahead and bill me.</p><p>The problem I have is that on my phone the web browser is bound to the up direction on the circular directional wheel...  With the OK button in the middle.  I have frequently hit the up direction accidentally when I meant to press OK.  And that launches the web browser.  It doesn't ask for confirmation...  Just pops up the web browser and immediately starts loading a page.</p><p>Obviously I hit another button to cancel the web browser and go back to what I'm doing...  But Verizon rounds pretty much any data transfer up to the nearest MB.  So I'm billed for at least 1 MB even though I only actually transferred a couple K of data.</p><p>This was enough of a nuisance, not just for me but also my wife and son, that I had to block data entirely on our account.  It would be nice to have it available if I needed it, but that just isn't possible.  It's entirely too easy to wind up with a pile of little charges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T ?
If you use data , it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made " a mistake " .
It 's not like international roaming is any more lenient.I do n't have a problem actually paying for data use .
If I fire up a web browser and surf around a bit , go ahead and bill me.The problem I have is that on my phone the web browser is bound to the up direction on the circular directional wheel... With the OK button in the middle .
I have frequently hit the up direction accidentally when I meant to press OK. And that launches the web browser .
It does n't ask for confirmation... Just pops up the web browser and immediately starts loading a page.Obviously I hit another button to cancel the web browser and go back to what I 'm doing... But Verizon rounds pretty much any data transfer up to the nearest MB .
So I 'm billed for at least 1 MB even though I only actually transferred a couple K of data.This was enough of a nuisance , not just for me but also my wife and son , that I had to block data entirely on our account .
It would be nice to have it available if I needed it , but that just is n't possible .
It 's entirely too easy to wind up with a pile of little charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T?
If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".
It's not like international roaming is any more lenient.I don't have a problem actually paying for data use.
If I fire up a web browser and surf around a bit, go ahead and bill me.The problem I have is that on my phone the web browser is bound to the up direction on the circular directional wheel...  With the OK button in the middle.
I have frequently hit the up direction accidentally when I meant to press OK.  And that launches the web browser.
It doesn't ask for confirmation...  Just pops up the web browser and immediately starts loading a page.Obviously I hit another button to cancel the web browser and go back to what I'm doing...  But Verizon rounds pretty much any data transfer up to the nearest MB.
So I'm billed for at least 1 MB even though I only actually transferred a couple K of data.This was enough of a nuisance, not just for me but also my wife and son, that I had to block data entirely on our account.
It would be nice to have it available if I needed it, but that just isn't possible.
It's entirely too easy to wind up with a pile of little charges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080326</id>
	<title>They'll remove it if you ask</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1258025220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Happened to me a couple of times.  They try to hard to discourage you from using your data plan (twice the price for buying songs with the phone, rather than with the PC; piping IM into SMS so you need a text messaging plan to IM, etc etc etc).  So I cancelled mine, and told them they make it too difficult to actually use it.  The 0.2kb charges showed up afterwards, so I called them to bitch, and they removed the charges.  I also told them to put a data block on my account so my phone can never use the pay-as-you go data service.  Problem solved.  If everybody did it, it would cost them a lot of money handling the service requests, and they'd stop doing this.</p><p>The only reason this is a problem (for those of us who care) is because people pay their bills automatically and don't even know they are being charged for nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Happened to me a couple of times .
They try to hard to discourage you from using your data plan ( twice the price for buying songs with the phone , rather than with the PC ; piping IM into SMS so you need a text messaging plan to IM , etc etc etc ) .
So I cancelled mine , and told them they make it too difficult to actually use it .
The 0.2kb charges showed up afterwards , so I called them to bitch , and they removed the charges .
I also told them to put a data block on my account so my phone can never use the pay-as-you go data service .
Problem solved .
If everybody did it , it would cost them a lot of money handling the service requests , and they 'd stop doing this.The only reason this is a problem ( for those of us who care ) is because people pay their bills automatically and do n't even know they are being charged for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happened to me a couple of times.
They try to hard to discourage you from using your data plan (twice the price for buying songs with the phone, rather than with the PC; piping IM into SMS so you need a text messaging plan to IM, etc etc etc).
So I cancelled mine, and told them they make it too difficult to actually use it.
The 0.2kb charges showed up afterwards, so I called them to bitch, and they removed the charges.
I also told them to put a data block on my account so my phone can never use the pay-as-you go data service.
Problem solved.
If everybody did it, it would cost them a lot of money handling the service requests, and they'd stop doing this.The only reason this is a problem (for those of us who care) is because people pay their bills automatically and don't even know they are being charged for nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080626</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was an Alltel customer, which Verizon bought.  I did not chose Verizon, but when asked if I could be let out of my contract was told no.  All penalties applied.  What's worse is my service has gotten worse not better since Verizon became my provider - more dropped calls, lower signal strength.  I will be sitting on my couch and start a call with a full bar and drop the call due to "Signal Faded call Lost" without ever moving.  This never happened in 4 years with Alltel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was an Alltel customer , which Verizon bought .
I did not chose Verizon , but when asked if I could be let out of my contract was told no .
All penalties applied .
What 's worse is my service has gotten worse not better since Verizon became my provider - more dropped calls , lower signal strength .
I will be sitting on my couch and start a call with a full bar and drop the call due to " Signal Faded call Lost " without ever moving .
This never happened in 4 years with Alltel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was an Alltel customer, which Verizon bought.
I did not chose Verizon, but when asked if I could be let out of my contract was told no.
All penalties applied.
What's worse is my service has gotten worse not better since Verizon became my provider - more dropped calls, lower signal strength.
I will be sitting on my couch and start a call with a full bar and drop the call due to "Signal Faded call Lost" without ever moving.
This never happened in 4 years with Alltel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083312</id>
	<title>Also nick you for accidental web access</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1258044900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/verizon-how-much-do-you-charge-now/" title="nytimes.com"> David Pogue commentary </a> [nytimes.com] also discusses the $1.99 fee for hitting the incorrect button on the phone, where you accidentally request a web service, no matter how fast you cancel the request you get nicked $1.99.</htmltext>
<tokenext>David Pogue commentary [ nytimes.com ] also discusses the $ 1.99 fee for hitting the incorrect button on the phone , where you accidentally request a web service , no matter how fast you cancel the request you get nicked $ 1.99 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> David Pogue commentary  [nytimes.com] also discusses the $1.99 fee for hitting the incorrect button on the phone, where you accidentally request a web service, no matter how fast you cancel the request you get nicked $1.99.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079600</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even then they haven't made back all of it yet... minus all the overhead with running the company, etc. they probably really do need the full two years to break even.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even then they have n't made back all of it yet... minus all the overhead with running the company , etc .
they probably really do need the full two years to break even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even then they haven't made back all of it yet... minus all the overhead with running the company, etc.
they probably really do need the full two years to break even.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080258</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! If they can measure 0.2kb, then they can sure as hell charge for only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2kb as well, whatever that amounts too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
If they can measure 0.2kb , then they can sure as hell charge for only .2kb as well , whatever that amounts too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
If they can measure 0.2kb, then they can sure as hell charge for only .2kb as well, whatever that amounts too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084034</id>
	<title>Re:RUN AWAY FROM VERIZON WIRELESS!</title>
	<author>manyxcxi</author>
	<datestamp>1258053900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had T-Mobile for years and switched to Verizon for a few years as well. Now currently on AT&amp;T with the jesus phone, and for while (when I was w/ VZW) was lugging around an AT&amp;T BlackBerry for work. I can tell you that in my experience Verizon has beaten AT&amp;T with call quality, 3G speed, dropped calls, and coverage. If cell coverage could be had in Oregon, I was able to get it with Verizon- definitely not so with AT&amp;T.<br>
However, if you ever have a problem and need to get a hold of customer service for any reason, don't count on it being quick. Once you get someone on the line, service isn't so awful. Also, the ability to just go into the store, hand them my busted BlackBerry and walk out with a new one (4 different times) after getting through a queue (which can take a while) is a plus my Fiance has never been able to get with T-Mobile.<br>
All in all: as soon as a phone compelling enough to get me to switch back comes along I will. I have nothing good to say about AT&amp;T, other than they were smart enough to get my business by being the only ones in the US to offer me a phone that provides me the most utility and has forever brought entertainment/infinite reading material to the pooping stall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had T-Mobile for years and switched to Verizon for a few years as well .
Now currently on AT&amp;T with the jesus phone , and for while ( when I was w/ VZW ) was lugging around an AT&amp;T BlackBerry for work .
I can tell you that in my experience Verizon has beaten AT&amp;T with call quality , 3G speed , dropped calls , and coverage .
If cell coverage could be had in Oregon , I was able to get it with Verizon- definitely not so with AT&amp;T .
However , if you ever have a problem and need to get a hold of customer service for any reason , do n't count on it being quick .
Once you get someone on the line , service is n't so awful .
Also , the ability to just go into the store , hand them my busted BlackBerry and walk out with a new one ( 4 different times ) after getting through a queue ( which can take a while ) is a plus my Fiance has never been able to get with T-Mobile .
All in all : as soon as a phone compelling enough to get me to switch back comes along I will .
I have nothing good to say about AT&amp;T , other than they were smart enough to get my business by being the only ones in the US to offer me a phone that provides me the most utility and has forever brought entertainment/infinite reading material to the pooping stall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had T-Mobile for years and switched to Verizon for a few years as well.
Now currently on AT&amp;T with the jesus phone, and for while (when I was w/ VZW) was lugging around an AT&amp;T BlackBerry for work.
I can tell you that in my experience Verizon has beaten AT&amp;T with call quality, 3G speed, dropped calls, and coverage.
If cell coverage could be had in Oregon, I was able to get it with Verizon- definitely not so with AT&amp;T.
However, if you ever have a problem and need to get a hold of customer service for any reason, don't count on it being quick.
Once you get someone on the line, service isn't so awful.
Also, the ability to just go into the store, hand them my busted BlackBerry and walk out with a new one (4 different times) after getting through a queue (which can take a while) is a plus my Fiance has never been able to get with T-Mobile.
All in all: as soon as a phone compelling enough to get me to switch back comes along I will.
I have nothing good to say about AT&amp;T, other than they were smart enough to get my business by being the only ones in the US to offer me a phone that provides me the most utility and has forever brought entertainment/infinite reading material to the pooping stall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080140</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? You don't know what you're talking about? Yeah, I thought so.</p><p>First and foremost, cell phone companies offer ETF's so that people CAN leave their service behind. The catch is, they make the ETF into something profitable. They are out to make money, you don't think that applies to their ETF as well? Guess what - it does. It has little to do with "keeping your contract". Sure, they want to keep you, but for $350 it is profitable enough for them to easily let you go. If it wasn't, they wouldn't offer ETF's and would force people to stay on.</p><p>Secondly, the "average" Verizon plan is not $100 a month. I can promise that. Just because YOU have a $100/mo plan. Or because most of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd is likely to have a higher priced plan (for data and such), doesn't mean that the average Verizon customer pays anywhere near $100/mo. If I had to guess, and it's a sheer guess mind you, the average Verizon customer probably pays $45 - $60/mo. So $350 divide $60 is nearly 6 months of service, on a 24 month contract. That is 25\% of the total cost, which isn't as big of a deal if you're in month 1 of your contract. What about when you're in month 8 or 9 or 10 though? That blows. From what I read in the article, there was no talk of prorating the ETF.</p><p>Third, this is more than likely a way to scare users into staying with a service they may not even want. Verizon is entirely pissed off that they can't get in on the iPhone deal, which has stolen many users away. I'm not saying this is all due to the iPhone, but maybe it's due to situations like the iPhone problem. For $350 though, heck, let your customers switch and get an iPhone - because you just made a killing.</p><p>Fourth, it makes no sense to double the fee to further subsidize phones. They've been subsidizing phones for years at their $175 ETF rate, or cheaper. Suddenly they feel the need to double that? Really? Ok Verizon, I'll just trust that your subsidization's doubled in cost.</p><p>I am so happy I am not a Verizon customer. Sure, you might get service just about anywhere, but damn do you pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
You do n't know what you 're talking about ?
Yeah , I thought so.First and foremost , cell phone companies offer ETF 's so that people CAN leave their service behind .
The catch is , they make the ETF into something profitable .
They are out to make money , you do n't think that applies to their ETF as well ?
Guess what - it does .
It has little to do with " keeping your contract " .
Sure , they want to keep you , but for $ 350 it is profitable enough for them to easily let you go .
If it was n't , they would n't offer ETF 's and would force people to stay on.Secondly , the " average " Verizon plan is not $ 100 a month .
I can promise that .
Just because YOU have a $ 100/mo plan .
Or because most of the / .
crowd is likely to have a higher priced plan ( for data and such ) , does n't mean that the average Verizon customer pays anywhere near $ 100/mo .
If I had to guess , and it 's a sheer guess mind you , the average Verizon customer probably pays $ 45 - $ 60/mo .
So $ 350 divide $ 60 is nearly 6 months of service , on a 24 month contract .
That is 25 \ % of the total cost , which is n't as big of a deal if you 're in month 1 of your contract .
What about when you 're in month 8 or 9 or 10 though ?
That blows .
From what I read in the article , there was no talk of prorating the ETF.Third , this is more than likely a way to scare users into staying with a service they may not even want .
Verizon is entirely pissed off that they ca n't get in on the iPhone deal , which has stolen many users away .
I 'm not saying this is all due to the iPhone , but maybe it 's due to situations like the iPhone problem .
For $ 350 though , heck , let your customers switch and get an iPhone - because you just made a killing.Fourth , it makes no sense to double the fee to further subsidize phones .
They 've been subsidizing phones for years at their $ 175 ETF rate , or cheaper .
Suddenly they feel the need to double that ?
Really ? Ok Verizon , I 'll just trust that your subsidization 's doubled in cost.I am so happy I am not a Verizon customer .
Sure , you might get service just about anywhere , but damn do you pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
You don't know what you're talking about?
Yeah, I thought so.First and foremost, cell phone companies offer ETF's so that people CAN leave their service behind.
The catch is, they make the ETF into something profitable.
They are out to make money, you don't think that applies to their ETF as well?
Guess what - it does.
It has little to do with "keeping your contract".
Sure, they want to keep you, but for $350 it is profitable enough for them to easily let you go.
If it wasn't, they wouldn't offer ETF's and would force people to stay on.Secondly, the "average" Verizon plan is not $100 a month.
I can promise that.
Just because YOU have a $100/mo plan.
Or because most of the /.
crowd is likely to have a higher priced plan (for data and such), doesn't mean that the average Verizon customer pays anywhere near $100/mo.
If I had to guess, and it's a sheer guess mind you, the average Verizon customer probably pays $45 - $60/mo.
So $350 divide $60 is nearly 6 months of service, on a 24 month contract.
That is 25\% of the total cost, which isn't as big of a deal if you're in month 1 of your contract.
What about when you're in month 8 or 9 or 10 though?
That blows.
From what I read in the article, there was no talk of prorating the ETF.Third, this is more than likely a way to scare users into staying with a service they may not even want.
Verizon is entirely pissed off that they can't get in on the iPhone deal, which has stolen many users away.
I'm not saying this is all due to the iPhone, but maybe it's due to situations like the iPhone problem.
For $350 though, heck, let your customers switch and get an iPhone - because you just made a killing.Fourth, it makes no sense to double the fee to further subsidize phones.
They've been subsidizing phones for years at their $175 ETF rate, or cheaper.
Suddenly they feel the need to double that?
Really? Ok Verizon, I'll just trust that your subsidization's doubled in cost.I am so happy I am not a Verizon customer.
Sure, you might get service just about anywhere, but damn do you pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080590</id>
	<title>Re:The new termination fee is high, but justifiabl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a loop-hole to this.  I know because I'm currently fighting Verizon over it.</p><p>If you live in an area deemed as a "marginal service" area you can exit your contract with no charge.  To do this you have to contact Verizon about poor service at your billing address (the one gotcha, I assume this would work if you could find a post-office in an area with bad-service and change your address to a P.O. Box).  Once their techs determine that you live in a "marginal service" area you are free to leave your contract with no charge.  It only took about 1 hour for them to call me back and say it was a known trouble area.</p><p>The part that angers me is they have a repeater that they SELL for $250.  I refuse to pay to fix there service so I can continue to pay to use it.  Personally this article just highlights another reason why I am switching carriers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a loop-hole to this .
I know because I 'm currently fighting Verizon over it.If you live in an area deemed as a " marginal service " area you can exit your contract with no charge .
To do this you have to contact Verizon about poor service at your billing address ( the one gotcha , I assume this would work if you could find a post-office in an area with bad-service and change your address to a P.O .
Box ) . Once their techs determine that you live in a " marginal service " area you are free to leave your contract with no charge .
It only took about 1 hour for them to call me back and say it was a known trouble area.The part that angers me is they have a repeater that they SELL for $ 250 .
I refuse to pay to fix there service so I can continue to pay to use it .
Personally this article just highlights another reason why I am switching carriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a loop-hole to this.
I know because I'm currently fighting Verizon over it.If you live in an area deemed as a "marginal service" area you can exit your contract with no charge.
To do this you have to contact Verizon about poor service at your billing address (the one gotcha, I assume this would work if you could find a post-office in an area with bad-service and change your address to a P.O.
Box).  Once their techs determine that you live in a "marginal service" area you are free to leave your contract with no charge.
It only took about 1 hour for them to call me back and say it was a known trouble area.The part that angers me is they have a repeater that they SELL for $250.
I refuse to pay to fix there service so I can continue to pay to use it.
Personally this article just highlights another reason why I am switching carriers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080466</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What doesn't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in, I'm expected to pay the whole termination fee</p></div></blockquote><p>
I hate VZW as much as the next person, but that's flat out wrong. The ETF (at least the one I remember @ $175) is prorated per month you are in contract, and it goes down by $10 every month to a minimum of $60. It never goes away completely until you are on month-to-month, but you don't owe the entire fee if you cancel a month before your contract is up. You would owe $60 at that point. And if you gripe loud enough or just tell them you're moving to one of the few areas where they don't have coverage, chances are that $60 WILL be waived. All you have to do is be nice to the goon on the other end of the line and they will usually try to accomodate you if they can.
<br> <br>
That being said, I would hope this new fee only applies to NEW contracts, or extensions, as it's been a flat $175 for ALL phones for as long as I can remember. They can't up it if you're already under an existing contract. However, I SERIOUSLY doubt they will tell you anything about this if you go into a VZW store to purchase a new smartphone. They are notorious for telling you one thing and doing another. In fact, that's a LOT of what the people in customer service have to deal with. Granted, people should READ their receipts and bills, but the stores are horrible about putting things on there that they don't mention. A store will <strong>never</strong> tell you about the billing being a month in advance, so the people answering the phones get a ton of abuse about the first bill being around 2x what they thought it would be. VZW stores have also been known to call customer service themselves when a customer has a valid reason to get their account credited. Why? Because it costs nothing for a rep to credit the account, while if the store salesperson does it, it comes out of their commission.
<br> <br>
DISCLAIMER: Former Verizon Wireless Customer Care Rep. Posting anonymously because I flat out don't trust them as a company and I have friends who still work for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does n't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in , I 'm expected to pay the whole termination fee I hate VZW as much as the next person , but that 's flat out wrong .
The ETF ( at least the one I remember @ $ 175 ) is prorated per month you are in contract , and it goes down by $ 10 every month to a minimum of $ 60 .
It never goes away completely until you are on month-to-month , but you do n't owe the entire fee if you cancel a month before your contract is up .
You would owe $ 60 at that point .
And if you gripe loud enough or just tell them you 're moving to one of the few areas where they do n't have coverage , chances are that $ 60 WILL be waived .
All you have to do is be nice to the goon on the other end of the line and they will usually try to accomodate you if they can .
That being said , I would hope this new fee only applies to NEW contracts , or extensions , as it 's been a flat $ 175 for ALL phones for as long as I can remember .
They ca n't up it if you 're already under an existing contract .
However , I SERIOUSLY doubt they will tell you anything about this if you go into a VZW store to purchase a new smartphone .
They are notorious for telling you one thing and doing another .
In fact , that 's a LOT of what the people in customer service have to deal with .
Granted , people should READ their receipts and bills , but the stores are horrible about putting things on there that they do n't mention .
A store will never tell you about the billing being a month in advance , so the people answering the phones get a ton of abuse about the first bill being around 2x what they thought it would be .
VZW stores have also been known to call customer service themselves when a customer has a valid reason to get their account credited .
Why ? Because it costs nothing for a rep to credit the account , while if the store salesperson does it , it comes out of their commission .
DISCLAIMER : Former Verizon Wireless Customer Care Rep. Posting anonymously because I flat out do n't trust them as a company and I have friends who still work for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What doesn't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in, I'm expected to pay the whole termination fee
I hate VZW as much as the next person, but that's flat out wrong.
The ETF (at least the one I remember @ $175) is prorated per month you are in contract, and it goes down by $10 every month to a minimum of $60.
It never goes away completely until you are on month-to-month, but you don't owe the entire fee if you cancel a month before your contract is up.
You would owe $60 at that point.
And if you gripe loud enough or just tell them you're moving to one of the few areas where they don't have coverage, chances are that $60 WILL be waived.
All you have to do is be nice to the goon on the other end of the line and they will usually try to accomodate you if they can.
That being said, I would hope this new fee only applies to NEW contracts, or extensions, as it's been a flat $175 for ALL phones for as long as I can remember.
They can't up it if you're already under an existing contract.
However, I SERIOUSLY doubt they will tell you anything about this if you go into a VZW store to purchase a new smartphone.
They are notorious for telling you one thing and doing another.
In fact, that's a LOT of what the people in customer service have to deal with.
Granted, people should READ their receipts and bills, but the stores are horrible about putting things on there that they don't mention.
A store will never tell you about the billing being a month in advance, so the people answering the phones get a ton of abuse about the first bill being around 2x what they thought it would be.
VZW stores have also been known to call customer service themselves when a customer has a valid reason to get their account credited.
Why? Because it costs nothing for a rep to credit the account, while if the store salesperson does it, it comes out of their commission.
DISCLAIMER: Former Verizon Wireless Customer Care Rep. Posting anonymously because I flat out don't trust them as a company and I have friends who still work for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080712</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1258026720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that doesn't actually work in the case of an oligopoly, which is what the cell service market is (even more so now that Alltel was bought out by Verizon).</p><p>What actually ends up happening is that if AT&amp;T engages in outrageously ripping off their customers, and remotely gets away with it, Verizon and Sprint follow suit, because it's more profitable to rip off customers than it is to engage in actual competitive behavior (e.g. improving service or lowering prices).</p><p>In a more competitive market with a lower barrier to entry, another company would come in and offer lower prices and/or better service. But for a whole lot of reasons, that can't happen in the cell phone market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that does n't actually work in the case of an oligopoly , which is what the cell service market is ( even more so now that Alltel was bought out by Verizon ) .What actually ends up happening is that if AT&amp;T engages in outrageously ripping off their customers , and remotely gets away with it , Verizon and Sprint follow suit , because it 's more profitable to rip off customers than it is to engage in actual competitive behavior ( e.g .
improving service or lowering prices ) .In a more competitive market with a lower barrier to entry , another company would come in and offer lower prices and/or better service .
But for a whole lot of reasons , that ca n't happen in the cell phone market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that doesn't actually work in the case of an oligopoly, which is what the cell service market is (even more so now that Alltel was bought out by Verizon).What actually ends up happening is that if AT&amp;T engages in outrageously ripping off their customers, and remotely gets away with it, Verizon and Sprint follow suit, because it's more profitable to rip off customers than it is to engage in actual competitive behavior (e.g.
improving service or lowering prices).In a more competitive market with a lower barrier to entry, another company would come in and offer lower prices and/or better service.
But for a whole lot of reasons, that can't happen in the cell phone market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083808</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1258051260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also use T-Mobile for GSM, but the problem is that their network isn't very good here in the United States; at least not compared to Verizon. There is a reason why Verizon can drag their feet on smart phones, nickle and dime their customers to death, cripple phones, and generally be asshats; <b> <i>the network</i> </b>. Verizon has the largest network coverage in the United States, so many people are willing to put up with their bullshit to get access to it. Why does mobile service suck so hard here in the United States compared to Europe or Japan? Surely there must be reasons?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also use T-Mobile for GSM , but the problem is that their network is n't very good here in the United States ; at least not compared to Verizon .
There is a reason why Verizon can drag their feet on smart phones , nickle and dime their customers to death , cripple phones , and generally be asshats ; the network .
Verizon has the largest network coverage in the United States , so many people are willing to put up with their bullshit to get access to it .
Why does mobile service suck so hard here in the United States compared to Europe or Japan ?
Surely there must be reasons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also use T-Mobile for GSM, but the problem is that their network isn't very good here in the United States; at least not compared to Verizon.
There is a reason why Verizon can drag their feet on smart phones, nickle and dime their customers to death, cripple phones, and generally be asshats;  the network .
Verizon has the largest network coverage in the United States, so many people are willing to put up with their bullshit to get access to it.
Why does mobile service suck so hard here in the United States compared to Europe or Japan?
Surely there must be reasons?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082068</id>
	<title>Re:ORLY?</title>
	<author>zizzybaloobah</author>
	<datestamp>1258034160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree. I have 5 phones on my family plan. I changed the shortcuts assigned to the buttons on my phone, and forget that if I pick another phone on the plan and accidentally launch the crappy web browser. Have <b> <i>never</i> </b> received the minimum $1.99 charge on those phones. ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
I have 5 phones on my family plan .
I changed the shortcuts assigned to the buttons on my phone , and forget that if I pick another phone on the plan and accidentally launch the crappy web browser .
Have never received the minimum $ 1.99 charge on those phones .
ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
I have 5 phones on my family plan.
I changed the shortcuts assigned to the buttons on my phone, and forget that if I pick another phone on the plan and accidentally launch the crappy web browser.
Have  never  received the minimum $1.99 charge on those phones.
ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082508</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258037880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad Verizon forces you to pay about $80/month for specific phone models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad Verizon forces you to pay about $ 80/month for specific phone models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad Verizon forces you to pay about $80/month for specific phone models.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</id>
	<title>The new termination fee is high, but justifiable</title>
	<author>tommy</author>
	<datestamp>1258023120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using the DROID as an example:</p><p>The DROID with no contract is $560.</p><p>Math with the current termination fee:<br>$200 for the phone +<br>$175 to immediately break your contract =<br>$375 (You save $185 over the no-contract price)</p><p>Math with the new termination fee:<br>$200 for the phone +<br>$350 to immediately break your contract =<br>$550 (You save $10 over the no-contract price)</p><p>Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract.  The new fee is high, but I can understand their reasoning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the DROID as an example : The DROID with no contract is $ 560.Math with the current termination fee : $ 200 for the phone + $ 175 to immediately break your contract = $ 375 ( You save $ 185 over the no-contract price ) Math with the new termination fee : $ 200 for the phone + $ 350 to immediately break your contract = $ 550 ( You save $ 10 over the no-contract price ) Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract .
The new fee is high , but I can understand their reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the DROID as an example:The DROID with no contract is $560.Math with the current termination fee:$200 for the phone +$175 to immediately break your contract =$375 (You save $185 over the no-contract price)Math with the new termination fee:$200 for the phone +$350 to immediately break your contract =$550 (You save $10 over the no-contract price)Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract.
The new fee is high, but I can understand their reasoning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085848</id>
	<title>Two jokes in one week?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258122840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read, aside from the previous one talking about how the Droid forces you to have the data plan but limit you in data. (You get unlimited data with the phone, TETHERING is limited to 5gb)</p><p>I've had Verizon for years, and I spend alot of money with them every month. Why? They're better than any other cel company I have ever been with (Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&amp;T).</p><p>Whoever is spreading this info is getting their info from someone other than VZW Corporate, and this is getting ridiculous. I thought Slashdot prided themselves on the accuracy of their stories. WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read , aside from the previous one talking about how the Droid forces you to have the data plan but limit you in data .
( You get unlimited data with the phone , TETHERING is limited to 5gb ) I 've had Verizon for years , and I spend alot of money with them every month .
Why ? They 're better than any other cel company I have ever been with ( Sprint , T-Mobile , AT&amp;T ) .Whoever is spreading this info is getting their info from someone other than VZW Corporate , and this is getting ridiculous .
I thought Slashdot prided themselves on the accuracy of their stories .
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read, aside from the previous one talking about how the Droid forces you to have the data plan but limit you in data.
(You get unlimited data with the phone, TETHERING is limited to 5gb)I've had Verizon for years, and I spend alot of money with them every month.
Why? They're better than any other cel company I have ever been with (Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&amp;T).Whoever is spreading this info is getting their info from someone other than VZW Corporate, and this is getting ridiculous.
I thought Slashdot prided themselves on the accuracy of their stories.
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079720</id>
	<title>Cellphones are for the mentally challenged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to be mentally deficient to keep renewing contracts with those fucking cellphone carriers.

Landline or nothing for me. No fucking hidden costs, no surprises at the end of the month, no need to call them to fix your damn bills every month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to be mentally deficient to keep renewing contracts with those fucking cellphone carriers .
Landline or nothing for me .
No fucking hidden costs , no surprises at the end of the month , no need to call them to fix your damn bills every month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to be mentally deficient to keep renewing contracts with those fucking cellphone carriers.
Landline or nothing for me.
No fucking hidden costs, no surprises at the end of the month, no need to call them to fix your damn bills every month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081118</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get the phone obsession</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1258028580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me neither.  I've actually owned two mobile ("cell") phones in my entire life (I first got a phone when I turned 18 and I'm now 30).  One was a Philips C12 (also called Savvy) back when I was still in Uni many moons ago.  It never cost more than about &pound;10/month.  It phoned.  It texted.  It picked up a signal *everywhere*, even when all the expensive crap didn't.  It did what I needed at the time.  I only ditched it because it didn't have a standardised SIM and the carrier discontinued its service and you couldn't use any other with it.</p><p>The other is my current phone, a Nokia 6320 (I think - too many model numbers, and I don't care).  My wife bought it for me to replace the above, and she couldn't find anything more basic.  It cost a &pound;10/month contract for a year and then I could keep it (and instantly switched it to PAYG).  Bluetooth (I use about once a year to backup photos from my Dad's phone).  Camera (never really used).  FM Radio (never used).  GPRS (I use VERY, VERY rarely to check a webpage on the move... with Opera Mini and PAYG it costs me about &pound;0.10p a time).  MP3 playback and ringtones (Erm... tested it once I think - then set everything to just ring like a phone).  It plays Java apps, it reads SD cards, etc.etc.etc.  I don't really care.</p><p>But it picked up a signal and I took a phone call on the top of Mount Teide in the Canary Islands (I didn't know it was still switched on and the caller was my parents back in England) when nobody else's waiting on the mountain top could even *find* a carrier.  I've never found someone who can pick up a signal which that phone couldn't in my own country, and it often out-performs even the iPhone's etc. at that.  It has a keypad that's intuitive and easy to use and it suffers lots of stabbing and abuse and still works.</p><p>I'm the IT guy - everyone comes to me asking what to buy and in my back pocket (and which has been sat on, smashed into the ground, run over, etc. more than a few times) is an ancient Nokia that does everything I need and out-performs everyone else's flash new contract phones on all the basics (connectivity, sending a text, making a phone call, getting it to do something in only three or four clicks of a button).  When they start showing off and then try and blame the network because they can't send a simple text, I whip it out and show them the four-bar signal and send a text and get a reply in seconds.  If I send them a text at that point, even on the same carrier, they might get it when we come back into a populated area about an hour later or something.</p><p>It needs a new battery because I only get about an hour of talk time out of it now but that's hardly surprising.  I'll buy a new battery, it'll cost about what I pay in texts each month, rather than a new phone or contract.</p><p>And you know what?  I don't even notice.  Friends phone, I text a lot, I dial up vendors when I can't use the switchboard at work, I do everything on the damn thing and don't even notice the cost or technology involved.  I feel safe if I have it in my pocket because I know I can phone breakdown, or at least get a text to a friend.  That's how tech should be - seamless, fit for purpose, not life-changing.  I don't want to have to relearn my damn phone's features and menus ever year, I just want something that rings, phones and texts.  Everything else is a gimmick.  And if you think paying "Only &pound;50 a month" for 24 months is a good deal if they throw in a phone... you run off and do that.  Does it not occur to you that they *guarantee* themselves that they will recoup the cost of the phone from you, and more profit, in that time period?  Just because the "non-contract" version is even more expensive doesn't mean you're getting a good deal by signing a ludicrous contract.</p><p>Keep your gimmicky tat.  I'll have a phone that rings, thanks, and costs me next to nothing and ties me into nothing at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me neither .
I 've actually owned two mobile ( " cell " ) phones in my entire life ( I first got a phone when I turned 18 and I 'm now 30 ) .
One was a Philips C12 ( also called Savvy ) back when I was still in Uni many moons ago .
It never cost more than about   10/month .
It phoned .
It texted .
It picked up a signal * everywhere * , even when all the expensive crap did n't .
It did what I needed at the time .
I only ditched it because it did n't have a standardised SIM and the carrier discontinued its service and you could n't use any other with it.The other is my current phone , a Nokia 6320 ( I think - too many model numbers , and I do n't care ) .
My wife bought it for me to replace the above , and she could n't find anything more basic .
It cost a   10/month contract for a year and then I could keep it ( and instantly switched it to PAYG ) .
Bluetooth ( I use about once a year to backup photos from my Dad 's phone ) .
Camera ( never really used ) .
FM Radio ( never used ) .
GPRS ( I use VERY , VERY rarely to check a webpage on the move... with Opera Mini and PAYG it costs me about   0.10p a time ) .
MP3 playback and ringtones ( Erm... tested it once I think - then set everything to just ring like a phone ) .
It plays Java apps , it reads SD cards , etc.etc.etc .
I do n't really care.But it picked up a signal and I took a phone call on the top of Mount Teide in the Canary Islands ( I did n't know it was still switched on and the caller was my parents back in England ) when nobody else 's waiting on the mountain top could even * find * a carrier .
I 've never found someone who can pick up a signal which that phone could n't in my own country , and it often out-performs even the iPhone 's etc .
at that .
It has a keypad that 's intuitive and easy to use and it suffers lots of stabbing and abuse and still works.I 'm the IT guy - everyone comes to me asking what to buy and in my back pocket ( and which has been sat on , smashed into the ground , run over , etc .
more than a few times ) is an ancient Nokia that does everything I need and out-performs everyone else 's flash new contract phones on all the basics ( connectivity , sending a text , making a phone call , getting it to do something in only three or four clicks of a button ) .
When they start showing off and then try and blame the network because they ca n't send a simple text , I whip it out and show them the four-bar signal and send a text and get a reply in seconds .
If I send them a text at that point , even on the same carrier , they might get it when we come back into a populated area about an hour later or something.It needs a new battery because I only get about an hour of talk time out of it now but that 's hardly surprising .
I 'll buy a new battery , it 'll cost about what I pay in texts each month , rather than a new phone or contract.And you know what ?
I do n't even notice .
Friends phone , I text a lot , I dial up vendors when I ca n't use the switchboard at work , I do everything on the damn thing and do n't even notice the cost or technology involved .
I feel safe if I have it in my pocket because I know I can phone breakdown , or at least get a text to a friend .
That 's how tech should be - seamless , fit for purpose , not life-changing .
I do n't want to have to relearn my damn phone 's features and menus ever year , I just want something that rings , phones and texts .
Everything else is a gimmick .
And if you think paying " Only   50 a month " for 24 months is a good deal if they throw in a phone... you run off and do that .
Does it not occur to you that they * guarantee * themselves that they will recoup the cost of the phone from you , and more profit , in that time period ?
Just because the " non-contract " version is even more expensive does n't mean you 're getting a good deal by signing a ludicrous contract.Keep your gimmicky tat .
I 'll have a phone that rings , thanks , and costs me next to nothing and ties me into nothing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me neither.
I've actually owned two mobile ("cell") phones in my entire life (I first got a phone when I turned 18 and I'm now 30).
One was a Philips C12 (also called Savvy) back when I was still in Uni many moons ago.
It never cost more than about £10/month.
It phoned.
It texted.
It picked up a signal *everywhere*, even when all the expensive crap didn't.
It did what I needed at the time.
I only ditched it because it didn't have a standardised SIM and the carrier discontinued its service and you couldn't use any other with it.The other is my current phone, a Nokia 6320 (I think - too many model numbers, and I don't care).
My wife bought it for me to replace the above, and she couldn't find anything more basic.
It cost a £10/month contract for a year and then I could keep it (and instantly switched it to PAYG).
Bluetooth (I use about once a year to backup photos from my Dad's phone).
Camera (never really used).
FM Radio (never used).
GPRS (I use VERY, VERY rarely to check a webpage on the move... with Opera Mini and PAYG it costs me about £0.10p a time).
MP3 playback and ringtones (Erm... tested it once I think - then set everything to just ring like a phone).
It plays Java apps, it reads SD cards, etc.etc.etc.
I don't really care.But it picked up a signal and I took a phone call on the top of Mount Teide in the Canary Islands (I didn't know it was still switched on and the caller was my parents back in England) when nobody else's waiting on the mountain top could even *find* a carrier.
I've never found someone who can pick up a signal which that phone couldn't in my own country, and it often out-performs even the iPhone's etc.
at that.
It has a keypad that's intuitive and easy to use and it suffers lots of stabbing and abuse and still works.I'm the IT guy - everyone comes to me asking what to buy and in my back pocket (and which has been sat on, smashed into the ground, run over, etc.
more than a few times) is an ancient Nokia that does everything I need and out-performs everyone else's flash new contract phones on all the basics (connectivity, sending a text, making a phone call, getting it to do something in only three or four clicks of a button).
When they start showing off and then try and blame the network because they can't send a simple text, I whip it out and show them the four-bar signal and send a text and get a reply in seconds.
If I send them a text at that point, even on the same carrier, they might get it when we come back into a populated area about an hour later or something.It needs a new battery because I only get about an hour of talk time out of it now but that's hardly surprising.
I'll buy a new battery, it'll cost about what I pay in texts each month, rather than a new phone or contract.And you know what?
I don't even notice.
Friends phone, I text a lot, I dial up vendors when I can't use the switchboard at work, I do everything on the damn thing and don't even notice the cost or technology involved.
I feel safe if I have it in my pocket because I know I can phone breakdown, or at least get a text to a friend.
That's how tech should be - seamless, fit for purpose, not life-changing.
I don't want to have to relearn my damn phone's features and menus ever year, I just want something that rings, phones and texts.
Everything else is a gimmick.
And if you think paying "Only £50 a month" for 24 months is a good deal if they throw in a phone... you run off and do that.
Does it not occur to you that they *guarantee* themselves that they will recoup the cost of the phone from you, and more profit, in that time period?
Just because the "non-contract" version is even more expensive doesn't mean you're getting a good deal by signing a ludicrous contract.Keep your gimmicky tat.
I'll have a phone that rings, thanks, and costs me next to nothing and ties me into nothing at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30089682</id>
	<title>Re:ORLY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly true.  The first page doesn't charge you at all not even counted.  most people that get these charges are on family plans with 12 year olds with phones.  NEWS FLASH your kids can an DO access the net on their phones and yes they do lie to you about it!! yes when you listen to that sample ringtone before you buy it that does count as mb usage and you will be charged for it.  most common is people buy a feature phone designed for net usage ie env touch, voyager, etc and are suprised they get charged for using some of the features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly true .
The first page does n't charge you at all not even counted .
most people that get these charges are on family plans with 12 year olds with phones .
NEWS FLASH your kids can an DO access the net on their phones and yes they do lie to you about it ! !
yes when you listen to that sample ringtone before you buy it that does count as mb usage and you will be charged for it .
most common is people buy a feature phone designed for net usage ie env touch , voyager , etc and are suprised they get charged for using some of the features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly true.
The first page doesn't charge you at all not even counted.
most people that get these charges are on family plans with 12 year olds with phones.
NEWS FLASH your kids can an DO access the net on their phones and yes they do lie to you about it!!
yes when you listen to that sample ringtone before you buy it that does count as mb usage and you will be charged for it.
most common is people buy a feature phone designed for net usage ie env touch, voyager, etc and are suprised they get charged for using some of the features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079744</id>
	<title>Be Careful When You Leave</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1258023180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got sent a termination fee bill from Verizon when I left for AT&amp;T/iPhone even though I was past the two-year mark for my contract.</p><p>Plus side, Verizon was very good about tossing it out immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got sent a termination fee bill from Verizon when I left for AT&amp;T/iPhone even though I was past the two-year mark for my contract.Plus side , Verizon was very good about tossing it out immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got sent a termination fee bill from Verizon when I left for AT&amp;T/iPhone even though I was past the two-year mark for my contract.Plus side, Verizon was very good about tossing it out immediately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080396</id>
	<title>Cheaper than keeping it...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1258025460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paying $230 to break a 2-year contract after one year is far cheaper than keeping the phone for another year at $120+ per month...just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paying $ 230 to break a 2-year contract after one year is far cheaper than keeping the phone for another year at $ 120 + per month...just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paying $230 to break a 2-year contract after one year is far cheaper than keeping the phone for another year at $120+ per month...just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080274</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Want some whine while you wait for your whaaaambulance? We're talking about a phone geared up around a data plan. There's zero point in buying these smartphones unless you intended to use them online. Don't buy a smartphone if you only want a phone, durrrr.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want some whine while you wait for your whaaaambulance ?
We 're talking about a phone geared up around a data plan .
There 's zero point in buying these smartphones unless you intended to use them online .
Do n't buy a smartphone if you only want a phone , durrrr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want some whine while you wait for your whaaaambulance?
We're talking about a phone geared up around a data plan.
There's zero point in buying these smartphones unless you intended to use them online.
Don't buy a smartphone if you only want a phone, durrrr.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083548</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>smallshot</author>
	<datestamp>1258047660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a similar situation, actually 2...<ol>
<li>I bought a smartphone online with a 1 year contract. The website promised I could use the pay as you go data plan. I selected that plan. I got an email and paper receipt with that plan listed for $0/month. When I activated my phone, Verizon automatically began billing for the unlimited data plan. Customer service reluctantly switched me back to the pay as you go data plan (which is <b>$15.36 per MB</b> for a smartphone, BTW, or $1.99 per MB for a standard phone. Figure that one out!). Anyway, to make a long story even longer, I went online to block VCast and other crap I didn't want on the new Smartphone only to discover that I cannot change my plan features without selecting a $30/mo data plan. Had to call customer service AGAIN so they could block what I wanted without changing my data plan.</li><li>I blocked all data usage I could from their website, including VCast stuff, etc. I later added a phone to my plan (the smartphone from #1). A couple months later I accidentally hit the one-key get it now button. I hit end immediately and rapidly until it quit. They charged me $1.99 for 1MB of usage. I went online and looked at my features only to find they had re-enabled all the data usage on all my lines. Didn't bother with customer service, I knew they wouldn't admit to anything or refund my $1.99.</li></ol><p>
And just because I want to rant a little more... Verizon tells me I can get 2 new free phones. They send me emails and letters saying to go get my new phones right now. I go to the Verizon store. Verizon employee says I can get a $50 discount on ONE phone. I said I was told I could get 2 free phones? He said they only had one phone that would be free after a mail in rebate, and I'd have to pay for the second. I really needed 2 new phones, so $120 later, I have 2 "Free" phones.<br> <br>I have no intentions of ever extending my Verizon contract again. Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar situation , actually 2.. . I bought a smartphone online with a 1 year contract .
The website promised I could use the pay as you go data plan .
I selected that plan .
I got an email and paper receipt with that plan listed for $ 0/month .
When I activated my phone , Verizon automatically began billing for the unlimited data plan .
Customer service reluctantly switched me back to the pay as you go data plan ( which is $ 15.36 per MB for a smartphone , BTW , or $ 1.99 per MB for a standard phone .
Figure that one out ! ) .
Anyway , to make a long story even longer , I went online to block VCast and other crap I did n't want on the new Smartphone only to discover that I can not change my plan features without selecting a $ 30/mo data plan .
Had to call customer service AGAIN so they could block what I wanted without changing my data plan.I blocked all data usage I could from their website , including VCast stuff , etc .
I later added a phone to my plan ( the smartphone from # 1 ) .
A couple months later I accidentally hit the one-key get it now button .
I hit end immediately and rapidly until it quit .
They charged me $ 1.99 for 1MB of usage .
I went online and looked at my features only to find they had re-enabled all the data usage on all my lines .
Did n't bother with customer service , I knew they would n't admit to anything or refund my $ 1.99 .
And just because I want to rant a little more... Verizon tells me I can get 2 new free phones .
They send me emails and letters saying to go get my new phones right now .
I go to the Verizon store .
Verizon employee says I can get a $ 50 discount on ONE phone .
I said I was told I could get 2 free phones ?
He said they only had one phone that would be free after a mail in rebate , and I 'd have to pay for the second .
I really needed 2 new phones , so $ 120 later , I have 2 " Free " phones .
I have no intentions of ever extending my Verizon contract again .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar situation, actually 2...
I bought a smartphone online with a 1 year contract.
The website promised I could use the pay as you go data plan.
I selected that plan.
I got an email and paper receipt with that plan listed for $0/month.
When I activated my phone, Verizon automatically began billing for the unlimited data plan.
Customer service reluctantly switched me back to the pay as you go data plan (which is $15.36 per MB for a smartphone, BTW, or $1.99 per MB for a standard phone.
Figure that one out!).
Anyway, to make a long story even longer, I went online to block VCast and other crap I didn't want on the new Smartphone only to discover that I cannot change my plan features without selecting a $30/mo data plan.
Had to call customer service AGAIN so they could block what I wanted without changing my data plan.I blocked all data usage I could from their website, including VCast stuff, etc.
I later added a phone to my plan (the smartphone from #1).
A couple months later I accidentally hit the one-key get it now button.
I hit end immediately and rapidly until it quit.
They charged me $1.99 for 1MB of usage.
I went online and looked at my features only to find they had re-enabled all the data usage on all my lines.
Didn't bother with customer service, I knew they wouldn't admit to anything or refund my $1.99.
And just because I want to rant a little more... Verizon tells me I can get 2 new free phones.
They send me emails and letters saying to go get my new phones right now.
I go to the Verizon store.
Verizon employee says I can get a $50 discount on ONE phone.
I said I was told I could get 2 free phones?
He said they only had one phone that would be free after a mail in rebate, and I'd have to pay for the second.
I really needed 2 new phones, so $120 later, I have 2 "Free" phones.
I have no intentions of ever extending my Verizon contract again.
Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085936</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint</title>
	<author>goldmaneye</author>
	<datestamp>1258123440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also have Sprint, and my experience has been the same as yours, but <a href="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell\_phones/sprint\_pcs.htm" title="consumeraffairs.com" rel="nofollow">Sprint is not without its customer service problems.</a> [consumeraffairs.com] At one level or another, all of the major providers seem to be running plays from the same book of dirty tricks. Fortunately for us, we haven't yet had to deal with such things from Sprint, but while I have no complaints to date, I'm not going to hold my breath.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also have Sprint , and my experience has been the same as yours , but Sprint is not without its customer service problems .
[ consumeraffairs.com ] At one level or another , all of the major providers seem to be running plays from the same book of dirty tricks .
Fortunately for us , we have n't yet had to deal with such things from Sprint , but while I have no complaints to date , I 'm not going to hold my breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also have Sprint, and my experience has been the same as yours, but Sprint is not without its customer service problems.
[consumeraffairs.com] At one level or another, all of the major providers seem to be running plays from the same book of dirty tricks.
Fortunately for us, we haven't yet had to deal with such things from Sprint, but while I have no complaints to date, I'm not going to hold my breath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30090396</id>
	<title>I contacted Verizon and was told to drop dead</title>
	<author>theschles</author>
	<datestamp>1258143300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sent the following fax to Verizon yesterday.  A Verizon exec yesterday afternoon called me back who said that "it was a business decision to require a data plan for all smartphones."</p><p>They're willing to let this 10+ year customer go.  When my wife and I change carriers to something with a less pricey plan, I will send them pictures of us ex-Verizon customers enjoying our new smartphones.</p><p>Please send faxes to Verizon explaining that requiring a data plan is wrong.  Maybe they'll listen if more people complain.</p><p>Thank you for your assistance.</p><p>BEGIN FAX:</p><p>Lowell McAdam<br>President &amp; CEO<br>Verizon Wireless, Inc.<br>VIA FAX: 1-949-286-7570</p><p>Subject: why can I not get a Windows Mobile, Android, or Blackberry phone without a data plan?</p><p>Dear President and CEO  McAdam or To Whom It May Concern,</p><p>My name is [name redacted].  I have been a Verizon Wireless customer since Verizon bought AirTouch San Diego back in the late 1990's.</p><p>My wife and I both need cell phones for phone calls, SMS, and MMS.  My enV and my wife's VX8300 handle these functions well.</p><p>In addition to carrying our phones, we've both been also carrying around Palm Pilots.  Why?  Because our BREW-based don't offer -- and there are apparently no apps that offer:<br>- calendar applications that can display daily and weekly information well on the screen, as well as make it easy to set up appointments (the ones listed don't seem to cut it)<br>- a task manager<br>- the ability to back up the calendar and task manager data</p><p>Now I'm a software developer; I have both a Bachelors of Science and a Masters of Science in Information and Computer Science from UC Irvine.  So I don't think I'd have a problem writing BREW apps to handle those functions.  But there's a $400 entry fee to get BREW apps approved even though I only want to write programs for our personal phones.  I sent an email through your customer service page to you asking if there is some way to get around this ridiculous expense; so far, I have not heard back.</p><p>We recently went to our local store ([city redacted], CA).  We looked at the BREW-based phones; none of them offer the improved calendar that I'm seeking, a task manager, or the ability to back up the calendar and task manager data.</p><p>We poked at the Windows Mobile, Android, and Blackberry phones.  My wife likes the calendar on the Windows Mobile 6.1 phones and I'm going to try to find a Windows Mobile 6.5 phone for her to play with.  But all three of these types of phones require a $30 monthly data plan -- which would be $60 a month total -- on top of the $70 a month for our current phone plan.  We have cable Internet at home; both of us agree that we can do without Internet or email on our phones.</p><p>I emailed your customer service team (the reply came back with the code [code redacted]).  Basically, they told me nothing I didn't know.</p><p>So I am now faxing you, appealing to you to figure out a way for us to not have to purchase a monthly data plan.  We are truly considering moving to a different service as our 2 year contract is up at the end of this month.</p><p>Please let me know if there is anything you can do to help.  You can reach me on my Verizon Wireless cell phone at [number redacted].</p><p>Thank you,</p><p>[name redacted]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sent the following fax to Verizon yesterday .
A Verizon exec yesterday afternoon called me back who said that " it was a business decision to require a data plan for all smartphones .
" They 're willing to let this 10 + year customer go .
When my wife and I change carriers to something with a less pricey plan , I will send them pictures of us ex-Verizon customers enjoying our new smartphones.Please send faxes to Verizon explaining that requiring a data plan is wrong .
Maybe they 'll listen if more people complain.Thank you for your assistance.BEGIN FAX : Lowell McAdamPresident &amp; CEOVerizon Wireless , Inc.VIA FAX : 1-949-286-7570Subject : why can I not get a Windows Mobile , Android , or Blackberry phone without a data plan ? Dear President and CEO McAdam or To Whom It May Concern,My name is [ name redacted ] .
I have been a Verizon Wireless customer since Verizon bought AirTouch San Diego back in the late 1990 's.My wife and I both need cell phones for phone calls , SMS , and MMS .
My enV and my wife 's VX8300 handle these functions well.In addition to carrying our phones , we 've both been also carrying around Palm Pilots .
Why ? Because our BREW-based do n't offer -- and there are apparently no apps that offer : - calendar applications that can display daily and weekly information well on the screen , as well as make it easy to set up appointments ( the ones listed do n't seem to cut it ) - a task manager- the ability to back up the calendar and task manager dataNow I 'm a software developer ; I have both a Bachelors of Science and a Masters of Science in Information and Computer Science from UC Irvine .
So I do n't think I 'd have a problem writing BREW apps to handle those functions .
But there 's a $ 400 entry fee to get BREW apps approved even though I only want to write programs for our personal phones .
I sent an email through your customer service page to you asking if there is some way to get around this ridiculous expense ; so far , I have not heard back.We recently went to our local store ( [ city redacted ] , CA ) .
We looked at the BREW-based phones ; none of them offer the improved calendar that I 'm seeking , a task manager , or the ability to back up the calendar and task manager data.We poked at the Windows Mobile , Android , and Blackberry phones .
My wife likes the calendar on the Windows Mobile 6.1 phones and I 'm going to try to find a Windows Mobile 6.5 phone for her to play with .
But all three of these types of phones require a $ 30 monthly data plan -- which would be $ 60 a month total -- on top of the $ 70 a month for our current phone plan .
We have cable Internet at home ; both of us agree that we can do without Internet or email on our phones.I emailed your customer service team ( the reply came back with the code [ code redacted ] ) .
Basically , they told me nothing I did n't know.So I am now faxing you , appealing to you to figure out a way for us to not have to purchase a monthly data plan .
We are truly considering moving to a different service as our 2 year contract is up at the end of this month.Please let me know if there is anything you can do to help .
You can reach me on my Verizon Wireless cell phone at [ number redacted ] .Thank you , [ name redacted ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sent the following fax to Verizon yesterday.
A Verizon exec yesterday afternoon called me back who said that "it was a business decision to require a data plan for all smartphones.
"They're willing to let this 10+ year customer go.
When my wife and I change carriers to something with a less pricey plan, I will send them pictures of us ex-Verizon customers enjoying our new smartphones.Please send faxes to Verizon explaining that requiring a data plan is wrong.
Maybe they'll listen if more people complain.Thank you for your assistance.BEGIN FAX:Lowell McAdamPresident &amp; CEOVerizon Wireless, Inc.VIA FAX: 1-949-286-7570Subject: why can I not get a Windows Mobile, Android, or Blackberry phone without a data plan?Dear President and CEO  McAdam or To Whom It May Concern,My name is [name redacted].
I have been a Verizon Wireless customer since Verizon bought AirTouch San Diego back in the late 1990's.My wife and I both need cell phones for phone calls, SMS, and MMS.
My enV and my wife's VX8300 handle these functions well.In addition to carrying our phones, we've both been also carrying around Palm Pilots.
Why?  Because our BREW-based don't offer -- and there are apparently no apps that offer:- calendar applications that can display daily and weekly information well on the screen, as well as make it easy to set up appointments (the ones listed don't seem to cut it)- a task manager- the ability to back up the calendar and task manager dataNow I'm a software developer; I have both a Bachelors of Science and a Masters of Science in Information and Computer Science from UC Irvine.
So I don't think I'd have a problem writing BREW apps to handle those functions.
But there's a $400 entry fee to get BREW apps approved even though I only want to write programs for our personal phones.
I sent an email through your customer service page to you asking if there is some way to get around this ridiculous expense; so far, I have not heard back.We recently went to our local store ([city redacted], CA).
We looked at the BREW-based phones; none of them offer the improved calendar that I'm seeking, a task manager, or the ability to back up the calendar and task manager data.We poked at the Windows Mobile, Android, and Blackberry phones.
My wife likes the calendar on the Windows Mobile 6.1 phones and I'm going to try to find a Windows Mobile 6.5 phone for her to play with.
But all three of these types of phones require a $30 monthly data plan -- which would be $60 a month total -- on top of the $70 a month for our current phone plan.
We have cable Internet at home; both of us agree that we can do without Internet or email on our phones.I emailed your customer service team (the reply came back with the code [code redacted]).
Basically, they told me nothing I didn't know.So I am now faxing you, appealing to you to figure out a way for us to not have to purchase a monthly data plan.
We are truly considering moving to a different service as our 2 year contract is up at the end of this month.Please let me know if there is anything you can do to help.
You can reach me on my Verizon Wireless cell phone at [number redacted].Thank you,[name redacted]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081204</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258029060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>T-Mobile now offers a line of no-subsidy, no-contract, no-ETF plans exactly as you suggest, and the monthly rates for these plans (for individuals) are $10 - $20 less than the same plans with subsidy, contract and ETF.</p><p>On the whole I've found T-Mobile to be an easy company to deal with and quite non-evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile now offers a line of no-subsidy , no-contract , no-ETF plans exactly as you suggest , and the monthly rates for these plans ( for individuals ) are $ 10 - $ 20 less than the same plans with subsidy , contract and ETF.On the whole I 've found T-Mobile to be an easy company to deal with and quite non-evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>T-Mobile now offers a line of no-subsidy, no-contract, no-ETF plans exactly as you suggest, and the monthly rates for these plans (for individuals) are $10 - $20 less than the same plans with subsidy, contract and ETF.On the whole I've found T-Mobile to be an easy company to deal with and quite non-evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080640</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I have one too.. it's cheaper (unless you make all your calls in Verizon<br>'s network, are on the phone constantly or after 9 PM) and since I got a CDMA Tracfone it uses the Verizon network anyway.  (Avoid the GSM ones they are AT&amp;T and don't work anywhere outside of major cities.)</p><p>Best thing is that I don't have to deal with any Verizon reps anymore.  Everytime I ever did ANYTHING with those wanks they lied about what they were selling me.  They may have the best network but their business principles are so bad I'd do without rather than ever giving them another dime.</p><p>I suppose indirectly with TracFone I'm giving them some dimes, but it's still better than going direct with those thieves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I have one too.. it 's cheaper ( unless you make all your calls in Verizon 's network , are on the phone constantly or after 9 PM ) and since I got a CDMA Tracfone it uses the Verizon network anyway .
( Avoid the GSM ones they are AT&amp;T and do n't work anywhere outside of major cities .
) Best thing is that I do n't have to deal with any Verizon reps anymore .
Everytime I ever did ANYTHING with those wanks they lied about what they were selling me .
They may have the best network but their business principles are so bad I 'd do without rather than ever giving them another dime.I suppose indirectly with TracFone I 'm giving them some dimes , but it 's still better than going direct with those thieves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I have one too.. it's cheaper (unless you make all your calls in Verizon's network, are on the phone constantly or after 9 PM) and since I got a CDMA Tracfone it uses the Verizon network anyway.
(Avoid the GSM ones they are AT&amp;T and don't work anywhere outside of major cities.
)Best thing is that I don't have to deal with any Verizon reps anymore.
Everytime I ever did ANYTHING with those wanks they lied about what they were selling me.
They may have the best network but their business principles are so bad I'd do without rather than ever giving them another dime.I suppose indirectly with TracFone I'm giving them some dimes, but it's still better than going direct with those thieves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30091656</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint</title>
	<author>DigitalCrackPipe</author>
	<datestamp>1258106040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The carriers have different relative strengths in different areas.  Maybe Sprint is the winner in your area, but VZ may be much more reliable in other cities.  Consumerreports did a comparison of maybe 25 cities and found quite a bit of variation (but all of the carriers sucked to some degree).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The carriers have different relative strengths in different areas .
Maybe Sprint is the winner in your area , but VZ may be much more reliable in other cities .
Consumerreports did a comparison of maybe 25 cities and found quite a bit of variation ( but all of the carriers sucked to some degree ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The carriers have different relative strengths in different areas.
Maybe Sprint is the winner in your area, but VZ may be much more reliable in other cities.
Consumerreports did a comparison of maybe 25 cities and found quite a bit of variation (but all of the carriers sucked to some degree).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081270</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350..</title>
	<author>cpotoso</author>
	<datestamp>1258029420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I pay $100/year for t-mobile to go.  This is good for 1000 minutes (I usually use about 700/yr).  I have two of these accounts (one is an unlocked iphone the other is a cheap $20 nokia that I take to places where the iphone could get lost/damaged--e.g. river rafting).  I really do not see why anybody puts up to these crazy $100+/month charges.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I pay $ 100/year for t-mobile to go .
This is good for 1000 minutes ( I usually use about 700/yr ) .
I have two of these accounts ( one is an unlocked iphone the other is a cheap $ 20 nokia that I take to places where the iphone could get lost/damaged--e.g .
river rafting ) .
I really do not see why anybody puts up to these crazy $ 100 + /month charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I pay $100/year for t-mobile to go.
This is good for 1000 minutes (I usually use about 700/yr).
I have two of these accounts (one is an unlocked iphone the other is a cheap $20 nokia that I take to places where the iphone could get lost/damaged--e.g.
river rafting).
I really do not see why anybody puts up to these crazy $100+/month charges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330</id>
	<title>Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350...</title>
	<author>Anita Coney</author>
	<datestamp>1258021920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet people make fun of me for using a TracFone, for about only $9 per month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet people make fun of me for using a TracFone , for about only $ 9 per month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet people make fun of me for using a TracFone, for about only $9 per month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083998</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350..</title>
	<author>seanthenerd</author>
	<datestamp>1258053420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Virgin Mobile here in Canada is (i'm guessing) the same idea; they use other carriers' towers, you buy the phone at Wal-Mart.<br>
And seriously (not to be a shill) but their pre-paid service is <i>vastly</i> cheaper than any of the competition where I live (Saskatchewan).  I thought the prices were pretty comparable, then I realized the other providers add service and 911 fees on top of the prices they advertise, and charge that much again for call display or voicemail.  I pay $20 a month plus $0.10 a minute with unlimited texting, call display and voicemail; it doesn't get much better considering how little I talk.  Not sure about their data plans though.  I just can't see why people get 3-year phone plans... crazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virgin Mobile here in Canada is ( i 'm guessing ) the same idea ; they use other carriers ' towers , you buy the phone at Wal-Mart .
And seriously ( not to be a shill ) but their pre-paid service is vastly cheaper than any of the competition where I live ( Saskatchewan ) .
I thought the prices were pretty comparable , then I realized the other providers add service and 911 fees on top of the prices they advertise , and charge that much again for call display or voicemail .
I pay $ 20 a month plus $ 0.10 a minute with unlimited texting , call display and voicemail ; it does n't get much better considering how little I talk .
Not sure about their data plans though .
I just ca n't see why people get 3-year phone plans... crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virgin Mobile here in Canada is (i'm guessing) the same idea; they use other carriers' towers, you buy the phone at Wal-Mart.
And seriously (not to be a shill) but their pre-paid service is vastly cheaper than any of the competition where I live (Saskatchewan).
I thought the prices were pretty comparable, then I realized the other providers add service and 911 fees on top of the prices they advertise, and charge that much again for call display or voicemail.
I pay $20 a month plus $0.10 a minute with unlimited texting, call display and voicemail; it doesn't get much better considering how little I talk.
Not sure about their data plans though.
I just can't see why people get 3-year phone plans... crazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Zantac69</author>
	<datestamp>1258022160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny - I was thinking the same thing.  I wish the DROID would be available, unlocked, with a SIM card.  I have comtemplated going with Verizon.<br> <br>The flaw of DROID is locked to Verizon.<br>The flaw of the iPhone is locked to AT&amp;T (but at least you can jail break it).<br> <br>I guess I am sticking with my SonyEricsson w810i until the phone providers adopt the buisness model in Europe...which might be right about the time they are tossing snowballs in hell...or DukeNukem Forever is released.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny - I was thinking the same thing .
I wish the DROID would be available , unlocked , with a SIM card .
I have comtemplated going with Verizon .
The flaw of DROID is locked to Verizon.The flaw of the iPhone is locked to AT&amp;T ( but at least you can jail break it ) .
I guess I am sticking with my SonyEricsson w810i until the phone providers adopt the buisness model in Europe...which might be right about the time they are tossing snowballs in hell...or DukeNukem Forever is released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny - I was thinking the same thing.
I wish the DROID would be available, unlocked, with a SIM card.
I have comtemplated going with Verizon.
The flaw of DROID is locked to Verizon.The flaw of the iPhone is locked to AT&amp;T (but at least you can jail break it).
I guess I am sticking with my SonyEricsson w810i until the phone providers adopt the buisness model in Europe...which might be right about the time they are tossing snowballs in hell...or DukeNukem Forever is released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079878</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1258023540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got my Droid the other day and I didn't sign any contracts.  They just gave it to me.  I assume there is some agreement when I pay the bill, but I've signed no such contract.  Also T-mobile and the like have had a class action lawsuit over early termination fees and lost.  Early termination fees don't have a very good record in court.   I stiffed T-mobile my early termination when they tried to hit me with a "automatic-rollover" contract which once my two years time was done, I decided to opt out of service.  I didn't opt out during the proper window so they charged me $400.  They never got it, it has been 8 years now and they never collected or took me to court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got my Droid the other day and I did n't sign any contracts .
They just gave it to me .
I assume there is some agreement when I pay the bill , but I 've signed no such contract .
Also T-mobile and the like have had a class action lawsuit over early termination fees and lost .
Early termination fees do n't have a very good record in court .
I stiffed T-mobile my early termination when they tried to hit me with a " automatic-rollover " contract which once my two years time was done , I decided to opt out of service .
I did n't opt out during the proper window so they charged me $ 400 .
They never got it , it has been 8 years now and they never collected or took me to court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got my Droid the other day and I didn't sign any contracts.
They just gave it to me.
I assume there is some agreement when I pay the bill, but I've signed no such contract.
Also T-mobile and the like have had a class action lawsuit over early termination fees and lost.
Early termination fees don't have a very good record in court.
I stiffed T-mobile my early termination when they tried to hit me with a "automatic-rollover" contract which once my two years time was done, I decided to opt out of service.
I didn't opt out during the proper window so they charged me $400.
They never got it, it has been 8 years now and they never collected or took me to court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080674</id>
	<title>Good thing I'm canceling Blackberry Storm Service</title>
	<author>rrossman2</author>
	<datestamp>1258026540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a good thing too. It's not like this jacked up rate will apply to me since I purchased my phone quite a few months ago and I have a contract with Verizon... It's not like they can just suddenly change that on me (yeah right.. every company does that shit all the time)<br> <br>
I'm just sick of the fact ALL carriers advertise a plan for $45, data for $30, $15 for texting and then tack on (in my case) an extra $26 and some change as Verizon Fees... which if you read the fine print is used for "improving the network, off-setting tax imposed by government, and paying the fees to local phone system operators". I'm sorry, but shouldn't that be what the god damn plan pays for?!<br> <br>
Basically, Verizon is charging me for the plan, the data, the texting, and also having ME pay their taxes due to the GOVERNMENT. Fuck off Verizon<br> <br>
As a side note, there was a lawsuit against AT&amp;T about pro-rating the early term fee based on how long you've had the phone. Is Verizon going to implement this? You shouldn't be charged $350 at the 18th month to cancel the phone since the $350 is to cover what they subsidized on it. If you terminate at month 2, yes, but month 18? You only have another 4 months before you can do the new for two, and not get charged... so the fee should be reduced to ($350 / 24) * ((# months you had phone) - (may two months))</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good thing too .
It 's not like this jacked up rate will apply to me since I purchased my phone quite a few months ago and I have a contract with Verizon... It 's not like they can just suddenly change that on me ( yeah right.. every company does that shit all the time ) I 'm just sick of the fact ALL carriers advertise a plan for $ 45 , data for $ 30 , $ 15 for texting and then tack on ( in my case ) an extra $ 26 and some change as Verizon Fees... which if you read the fine print is used for " improving the network , off-setting tax imposed by government , and paying the fees to local phone system operators " .
I 'm sorry , but should n't that be what the god damn plan pays for ? !
Basically , Verizon is charging me for the plan , the data , the texting , and also having ME pay their taxes due to the GOVERNMENT .
Fuck off Verizon As a side note , there was a lawsuit against AT&amp;T about pro-rating the early term fee based on how long you 've had the phone .
Is Verizon going to implement this ?
You should n't be charged $ 350 at the 18th month to cancel the phone since the $ 350 is to cover what they subsidized on it .
If you terminate at month 2 , yes , but month 18 ?
You only have another 4 months before you can do the new for two , and not get charged... so the fee should be reduced to ( $ 350 / 24 ) * ( ( # months you had phone ) - ( may two months ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good thing too.
It's not like this jacked up rate will apply to me since I purchased my phone quite a few months ago and I have a contract with Verizon... It's not like they can just suddenly change that on me (yeah right.. every company does that shit all the time) 
I'm just sick of the fact ALL carriers advertise a plan for $45, data for $30, $15 for texting and then tack on (in my case) an extra $26 and some change as Verizon Fees... which if you read the fine print is used for "improving the network, off-setting tax imposed by government, and paying the fees to local phone system operators".
I'm sorry, but shouldn't that be what the god damn plan pays for?!
Basically, Verizon is charging me for the plan, the data, the texting, and also having ME pay their taxes due to the GOVERNMENT.
Fuck off Verizon 
As a side note, there was a lawsuit against AT&amp;T about pro-rating the early term fee based on how long you've had the phone.
Is Verizon going to implement this?
You shouldn't be charged $350 at the 18th month to cancel the phone since the $350 is to cover what they subsidized on it.
If you terminate at month 2, yes, but month 18?
You only have another 4 months before you can do the new for two, and not get charged... so the fee should be reduced to ($350 / 24) * ((# months you had phone) - (may two months))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082706</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1258039980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My razr allows me to set a security PIN and flag any menu entry to require the PIN for access. You hit one of those accidentally, you need to type a 4 digit PIN to continue.</p><p>That said, I have a provider who doesn't suck (T-mobile) and my Razr has vendor-neutral firmware (this thing is hardly under warranty at this point)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My razr allows me to set a security PIN and flag any menu entry to require the PIN for access .
You hit one of those accidentally , you need to type a 4 digit PIN to continue.That said , I have a provider who does n't suck ( T-mobile ) and my Razr has vendor-neutral firmware ( this thing is hardly under warranty at this point )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My razr allows me to set a security PIN and flag any menu entry to require the PIN for access.
You hit one of those accidentally, you need to type a 4 digit PIN to continue.That said, I have a provider who doesn't suck (T-mobile) and my Razr has vendor-neutral firmware (this thing is hardly under warranty at this point)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079808</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>todrules</author>
	<datestamp>1258023300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>T-Mobile does exactly that. You can either buy a subsidized phone and get a contract and a higher monthly fee. Or you can buy retail price and pay a lower monthly fee. If you want, you can pay the retail price in installments as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile does exactly that .
You can either buy a subsidized phone and get a contract and a higher monthly fee .
Or you can buy retail price and pay a lower monthly fee .
If you want , you can pay the retail price in installments as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>T-Mobile does exactly that.
You can either buy a subsidized phone and get a contract and a higher monthly fee.
Or you can buy retail price and pay a lower monthly fee.
If you want, you can pay the retail price in installments as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079594</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>EvilNTUser</author>
	<datestamp>1258022700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't you noticed?  Nowadays we don't vote with our wallets any more, we just dash to the lowest up front cost and then start bitching when we realize we can't act like children.  Then we do it again with the next company, because we now "hate" the first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't you noticed ?
Nowadays we do n't vote with our wallets any more , we just dash to the lowest up front cost and then start bitching when we realize we ca n't act like children .
Then we do it again with the next company , because we now " hate " the first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't you noticed?
Nowadays we don't vote with our wallets any more, we just dash to the lowest up front cost and then start bitching when we realize we can't act like children.
Then we do it again with the next company, because we now "hate" the first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080698</id>
	<title>Shopping isn't hard</title>
	<author>Chunky Kibbles</author>
	<datestamp>1258026720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you're shopping for a new thing, what you do is: You weigh up the pros and cons of each thing available, compare those against the list of your needs, then pick the most appropriate one.</p><p>If affordable early termination is one of your specific needs, then don't buy the phone you're looking at from the provider you're looking at where early termination is a big scam. You have to weigh up the pros and cons and pick what's best for you. There are lots of phone providers, and sure - they all suck. But you pick what best meets your needs.</p><p>- And this is why I still don't have a smartphone. Because the cons [such as monthly cost c.f. my current plan] don't add up to be sufficient to meet my needs [such as affordable]. The cons of Apple's iPhone douchebaggery far outweigh the pros of having a phone I could kinda-sorta develop for.</p><p>Another simple way to avoid the problem of accidentally hitting the web browser is to remap the web browser button to something else. Even my cheap phone can do that.</p><p>Gary (-;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're shopping for a new thing , what you do is : You weigh up the pros and cons of each thing available , compare those against the list of your needs , then pick the most appropriate one.If affordable early termination is one of your specific needs , then do n't buy the phone you 're looking at from the provider you 're looking at where early termination is a big scam .
You have to weigh up the pros and cons and pick what 's best for you .
There are lots of phone providers , and sure - they all suck .
But you pick what best meets your needs.- And this is why I still do n't have a smartphone .
Because the cons [ such as monthly cost c.f .
my current plan ] do n't add up to be sufficient to meet my needs [ such as affordable ] .
The cons of Apple 's iPhone douchebaggery far outweigh the pros of having a phone I could kinda-sorta develop for.Another simple way to avoid the problem of accidentally hitting the web browser is to remap the web browser button to something else .
Even my cheap phone can do that.Gary ( - ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're shopping for a new thing, what you do is: You weigh up the pros and cons of each thing available, compare those against the list of your needs, then pick the most appropriate one.If affordable early termination is one of your specific needs, then don't buy the phone you're looking at from the provider you're looking at where early termination is a big scam.
You have to weigh up the pros and cons and pick what's best for you.
There are lots of phone providers, and sure - they all suck.
But you pick what best meets your needs.- And this is why I still don't have a smartphone.
Because the cons [such as monthly cost c.f.
my current plan] don't add up to be sufficient to meet my needs [such as affordable].
The cons of Apple's iPhone douchebaggery far outweigh the pros of having a phone I could kinda-sorta develop for.Another simple way to avoid the problem of accidentally hitting the web browser is to remap the web browser button to something else.
Even my cheap phone can do that.Gary (-;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080490</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you are saying is good if it wasn't false.</p><p><a href="http://news.vzw.com/news/2008/09/pr2008-09-22b.html" title="vzw.com">No Contract Required -- New Month-To-Month Agreement Gives Verizon Wireless Customers Even More Freedom</a> [vzw.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>Verizon Wireless' new Month-to-Month agreement gives customers the freedom to purchase new devices at full-retail price, <b>or use their own CDMA devices</b> without the commitment of a one- or two-year contract. Additionally customers can terminate their agreement at the end of any month <b>without paying an Early Termination Fee.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>No, you don't get a plan discount, but I don't believe that the plan pricing has to do with the ETF or the subsidy anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are saying is good if it was n't false.No Contract Required -- New Month-To-Month Agreement Gives Verizon Wireless Customers Even More Freedom [ vzw.com ] Verizon Wireless ' new Month-to-Month agreement gives customers the freedom to purchase new devices at full-retail price , or use their own CDMA devices without the commitment of a one- or two-year contract .
Additionally customers can terminate their agreement at the end of any month without paying an Early Termination Fee .
No , you do n't get a plan discount , but I do n't believe that the plan pricing has to do with the ETF or the subsidy anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are saying is good if it wasn't false.No Contract Required -- New Month-To-Month Agreement Gives Verizon Wireless Customers Even More Freedom [vzw.com] Verizon Wireless' new Month-to-Month agreement gives customers the freedom to purchase new devices at full-retail price, or use their own CDMA devices without the commitment of a one- or two-year contract.
Additionally customers can terminate their agreement at the end of any month without paying an Early Termination Fee.
No, you don't get a plan discount, but I don't believe that the plan pricing has to do with the ETF or the subsidy anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079360</id>
	<title>Make money now ... pay FCC later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258021980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll make more now than the class-action will cost later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll make more now than the class-action will cost later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll make more now than the class-action will cost later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My three-year-old daughter is fascinated by my Verizon Razor phone.  Because of the way the menus are set up (which I haven't figured out how to change) it's almost guaranteed that she will trigger one of these data or software download functions very quickly, and there doesn't seem to be any way to turn it off.  So basically any time she gets ahold of my phone, I can expect a $1.14 charge on my bill.  I won't ever buy another Motorola phone, I assure you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My three-year-old daughter is fascinated by my Verizon Razor phone .
Because of the way the menus are set up ( which I have n't figured out how to change ) it 's almost guaranteed that she will trigger one of these data or software download functions very quickly , and there does n't seem to be any way to turn it off .
So basically any time she gets ahold of my phone , I can expect a $ 1.14 charge on my bill .
I wo n't ever buy another Motorola phone , I assure you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My three-year-old daughter is fascinated by my Verizon Razor phone.
Because of the way the menus are set up (which I haven't figured out how to change) it's almost guaranteed that she will trigger one of these data or software download functions very quickly, and there doesn't seem to be any way to turn it off.
So basically any time she gets ahold of my phone, I can expect a $1.14 charge on my bill.
I won't ever buy another Motorola phone, I assure you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30087590</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon: "there's a scam for that".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sprint charges you for reading an incoming text for an advertisement that they themselves sent out. Isn't that double dipping?</p><p>Verizon is horrible, except compared to how bad all the other majors are. And in my area and places I travel to see family, Verizon is the only one with reliable coverage (that is being able to get a signal at all). So much for choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint charges you for reading an incoming text for an advertisement that they themselves sent out .
Is n't that double dipping ? Verizon is horrible , except compared to how bad all the other majors are .
And in my area and places I travel to see family , Verizon is the only one with reliable coverage ( that is being able to get a signal at all ) .
So much for choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint charges you for reading an incoming text for an advertisement that they themselves sent out.
Isn't that double dipping?Verizon is horrible, except compared to how bad all the other majors are.
And in my area and places I travel to see family, Verizon is the only one with reliable coverage (that is being able to get a signal at all).
So much for choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079388</id>
	<title>Manage these features online.</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1258022040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I can bash Verizon for their gestapo-like moves in other areas, at least they've given us the tools to completely disable features like these through account management online.  I know this doesn't offer much of a solution for the casual user of these features, but at least it helps with certain users who intend to NEVER use the features.</p><p>As far as <b>purposely</b> designing these features on phones that make it VERY easy to accidentally activate and thus get charged for it no matter how quickly you try and shut it off, somehow the words "worthless greedy bloodsucking bastards" doesn't quite cover it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I can bash Verizon for their gestapo-like moves in other areas , at least they 've given us the tools to completely disable features like these through account management online .
I know this does n't offer much of a solution for the casual user of these features , but at least it helps with certain users who intend to NEVER use the features.As far as purposely designing these features on phones that make it VERY easy to accidentally activate and thus get charged for it no matter how quickly you try and shut it off , somehow the words " worthless greedy bloodsucking bastards " does n't quite cover it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I can bash Verizon for their gestapo-like moves in other areas, at least they've given us the tools to completely disable features like these through account management online.
I know this doesn't offer much of a solution for the casual user of these features, but at least it helps with certain users who intend to NEVER use the features.As far as purposely designing these features on phones that make it VERY easy to accidentally activate and thus get charged for it no matter how quickly you try and shut it off, somehow the words "worthless greedy bloodsucking bastards" doesn't quite cover it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080910</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1258027620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They write it so that when people just stop paying and stop using their phones, they don't have to rely upon getting a hefty judgement based upon calculating fair compensation for the breach of contract (which would be their margin - they may no longer be getting $100\mo from you, but they're also not having to provide you with service worth $X\mo - fighting over the value of X could end badly). They can just point the judge to the agreed-upon fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They write it so that when people just stop paying and stop using their phones , they do n't have to rely upon getting a hefty judgement based upon calculating fair compensation for the breach of contract ( which would be their margin - they may no longer be getting $ 100 \ mo from you , but they 're also not having to provide you with service worth $ X \ mo - fighting over the value of X could end badly ) .
They can just point the judge to the agreed-upon fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They write it so that when people just stop paying and stop using their phones, they don't have to rely upon getting a hefty judgement based upon calculating fair compensation for the breach of contract (which would be their margin - they may no longer be getting $100\mo from you, but they're also not having to provide you with service worth $X\mo - fighting over the value of X could end badly).
They can just point the judge to the agreed-upon fee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085662</id>
	<title>I'm an Alltel to Verizon victim</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had an unlimited tethering plan when I was an Alltel customer.  When Verizon took over they set me up on a plan with an 8MB limit.  My first bill from Verizon was $9905.  We are negotiating just exactly where they are going to stick these charges.  My lawyer is standing by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had an unlimited tethering plan when I was an Alltel customer .
When Verizon took over they set me up on a plan with an 8MB limit .
My first bill from Verizon was $ 9905 .
We are negotiating just exactly where they are going to stick these charges .
My lawyer is standing by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had an unlimited tethering plan when I was an Alltel customer.
When Verizon took over they set me up on a plan with an 8MB limit.
My first bill from Verizon was $9905.
We are negotiating just exactly where they are going to stick these charges.
My lawyer is standing by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080536</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1258026000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is somehow Motorola's fault? Verizon is the company that forces them to have the software set up in a way that makes it incredibly easy to trigger data charges, and is the company with the absurd billing practices that prop up the idiotic software.</p><p>I can't describe how thrilled I was when Apple originally announced that the iPhone <i>wasn't</i> on Verizon. Not that I like AT&amp;T, but they're more like bumbling idiots rather than the psychotic dictators that run Verizon Wireless. I'd still rather pay !Verizon for bad service than Verizon for good service if it was vastly better around here - which it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is somehow Motorola 's fault ?
Verizon is the company that forces them to have the software set up in a way that makes it incredibly easy to trigger data charges , and is the company with the absurd billing practices that prop up the idiotic software.I ca n't describe how thrilled I was when Apple originally announced that the iPhone was n't on Verizon .
Not that I like AT&amp;T , but they 're more like bumbling idiots rather than the psychotic dictators that run Verizon Wireless .
I 'd still rather pay ! Verizon for bad service than Verizon for good service if it was vastly better around here - which it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is somehow Motorola's fault?
Verizon is the company that forces them to have the software set up in a way that makes it incredibly easy to trigger data charges, and is the company with the absurd billing practices that prop up the idiotic software.I can't describe how thrilled I was when Apple originally announced that the iPhone wasn't on Verizon.
Not that I like AT&amp;T, but they're more like bumbling idiots rather than the psychotic dictators that run Verizon Wireless.
I'd still rather pay !Verizon for bad service than Verizon for good service if it was vastly better around here - which it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</id>
	<title>Termination Fees</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1258022040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand, on principle why they charge early termination fees.  $350 for a smartphone seems extreme, but taking the new Droid for example, the phone costs $550 without a plan and the customer gets it for $200 which is right in line.  What doesn't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in, I'm expected to pay the whole termination fee, despite the fact that Verizon has already made back $335 of it.  That's just abussive.  Termination fees should be proportional to the amount of the contract you are terminating and capped at the amount of subsidization on the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand , on principle why they charge early termination fees .
$ 350 for a smartphone seems extreme , but taking the new Droid for example , the phone costs $ 550 without a plan and the customer gets it for $ 200 which is right in line .
What does n't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in , I 'm expected to pay the whole termination fee , despite the fact that Verizon has already made back $ 335 of it .
That 's just abussive .
Termination fees should be proportional to the amount of the contract you are terminating and capped at the amount of subsidization on the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand, on principle why they charge early termination fees.
$350 for a smartphone seems extreme, but taking the new Droid for example, the phone costs $550 without a plan and the customer gets it for $200 which is right in line.
What doesn't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in, I'm expected to pay the whole termination fee, despite the fact that Verizon has already made back $335 of it.
That's just abussive.
Termination fees should be proportional to the amount of the contract you are terminating and capped at the amount of subsidization on the phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083400</id>
	<title>bullshit</title>
	<author>ClickWir</author>
	<datestamp>1258045680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"they've told me that ANY data--even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB. The damage is done."</p><p>It's bullshit like this that keeps me from getting one. They really need to stop nickel and dimeing people with data plans. They really are way over priced. I won't get one, I know what it costs to bring data to a user and they charge way too much for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" they 've told me that ANY data--even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB .
The damage is done .
" It 's bullshit like this that keeps me from getting one .
They really need to stop nickel and dimeing people with data plans .
They really are way over priced .
I wo n't get one , I know what it costs to bring data to a user and they charge way too much for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"they've told me that ANY data--even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB.
The damage is done.
"It's bullshit like this that keeps me from getting one.
They really need to stop nickel and dimeing people with data plans.
They really are way over priced.
I won't get one, I know what it costs to bring data to a user and they charge way too much for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080244</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1258024800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My EnV had a way to change that functionality.  It was Brew (if I recall) so just about all the other Vz branded smart phones should be the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My EnV had a way to change that functionality .
It was Brew ( if I recall ) so just about all the other Vz branded smart phones should be the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My EnV had a way to change that functionality.
It was Brew (if I recall) so just about all the other Vz branded smart phones should be the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30087066</id>
	<title>Sitting back &amp; smiling - I have SPRINT!!!</title>
	<author>Kazura</author>
	<datestamp>1258129260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I don't have an 'internet based' phone like the aforementioned (I'll add the Pre &amp; HTC to the list) - I do have a Palm Treo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I can do whatever I want on the internet at no extra charge - including 'tethering'.  Now - I can upgrade my $30/mo plan to $60/mo and use an 'internet based' phone as well.

My point here is that Verizon has extensive 3G coverage ONLY because it has a deal to USE Sprint's 3G network!  I have "Verizon's Coverage" without Verizon's prices - on Sprint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't have an 'internet based ' phone like the aforementioned ( I 'll add the Pre &amp; HTC to the list ) - I do have a Palm Treo ... I can do whatever I want on the internet at no extra charge - including 'tethering' .
Now - I can upgrade my $ 30/mo plan to $ 60/mo and use an 'internet based ' phone as well .
My point here is that Verizon has extensive 3G coverage ONLY because it has a deal to USE Sprint 's 3G network !
I have " Verizon 's Coverage " without Verizon 's prices - on Sprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't have an 'internet based' phone like the aforementioned (I'll add the Pre &amp; HTC to the list) - I do have a Palm Treo ... I can do whatever I want on the internet at no extra charge - including 'tethering'.
Now - I can upgrade my $30/mo plan to $60/mo and use an 'internet based' phone as well.
My point here is that Verizon has extensive 3G coverage ONLY because it has a deal to USE Sprint's 3G network!
I have "Verizon's Coverage" without Verizon's prices - on Sprint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084640</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1258107000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think that's bad. My wife has a slider phone and for the first month she had it, she didn't have the key lock enabled. This means the 'up' directional is going to be pressed - often - while in a pocket or purse. And it will happen randomly. And it will be costly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think that 's bad .
My wife has a slider phone and for the first month she had it , she did n't have the key lock enabled .
This means the 'up ' directional is going to be pressed - often - while in a pocket or purse .
And it will happen randomly .
And it will be costly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think that's bad.
My wife has a slider phone and for the first month she had it, she didn't have the key lock enabled.
This means the 'up' directional is going to be pressed - often - while in a pocket or purse.
And it will happen randomly.
And it will be costly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1258026060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't there a way to lock the keypad, or is she smart enough to figure out how to unlock it as well?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there a way to lock the keypad , or is she smart enough to figure out how to unlock it as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there a way to lock the keypad, or is she smart enough to figure out how to unlock it as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079928</id>
	<title>maybe nowyou can cancel w/o a fee</title>
	<author>will381796</author>
	<datestamp>1258023780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least with Sprint, if they change your terms of service, you have a set period of time to cancel your contract with them without an early termination fee.

As already stated, you and the company have a contract.  The company has changed their contract with you while the contract was still in effect.  So, you have the ability to cancel w/o any type of fee if you do not agree with the unilateral changes that they made to your TOS.  If you agree with the new TOS (or simply don't know that they changed), then they interpret your continuing to use their service as an acknowledgment of the changes they made to the contract and agreement to abide by the new requirements.

Many a Sprint customer has gotten out of a contract for free because of minor changes to the TOS.  Not sure if anything similar happens w/ Verizon or AT&amp;T.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least with Sprint , if they change your terms of service , you have a set period of time to cancel your contract with them without an early termination fee .
As already stated , you and the company have a contract .
The company has changed their contract with you while the contract was still in effect .
So , you have the ability to cancel w/o any type of fee if you do not agree with the unilateral changes that they made to your TOS .
If you agree with the new TOS ( or simply do n't know that they changed ) , then they interpret your continuing to use their service as an acknowledgment of the changes they made to the contract and agreement to abide by the new requirements .
Many a Sprint customer has gotten out of a contract for free because of minor changes to the TOS .
Not sure if anything similar happens w/ Verizon or AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least with Sprint, if they change your terms of service, you have a set period of time to cancel your contract with them without an early termination fee.
As already stated, you and the company have a contract.
The company has changed their contract with you while the contract was still in effect.
So, you have the ability to cancel w/o any type of fee if you do not agree with the unilateral changes that they made to your TOS.
If you agree with the new TOS (or simply don't know that they changed), then they interpret your continuing to use their service as an acknowledgment of the changes they made to the contract and agreement to abide by the new requirements.
Many a Sprint customer has gotten out of a contract for free because of minor changes to the TOS.
Not sure if anything similar happens w/ Verizon or AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083878</id>
	<title>I just don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258051980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coming from Russia, I just don't get it.<br>Slashdot and other sources from techie to mainstream are full of complaints on how carriers suck and blah blah blah. How did you end up with this stupid system in the first place? Why would a person in their right mind ever buy a locked phone?<br>At least when I was living in Russia 2 years ago (I am fairly confident that didn't change), phone lock-in was unheard of, and I have never known anyone who used phone locked to a carrier with termination fee. "Locked" in my mind was a characteristic of few phones delivered from abroad that needs to be removed.<br>Needless to say, the competition between carriers is good and prices very low; variety of phones is also great and they are mostly sold by companies separate from carriers. In Canada I only bought (and will continue to buy) phones from some Chinese guys on ebay, because every carrier outlets I visited have some 7 suboptimal phones, locked as a bonus...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming from Russia , I just do n't get it.Slashdot and other sources from techie to mainstream are full of complaints on how carriers suck and blah blah blah .
How did you end up with this stupid system in the first place ?
Why would a person in their right mind ever buy a locked phone ? At least when I was living in Russia 2 years ago ( I am fairly confident that did n't change ) , phone lock-in was unheard of , and I have never known anyone who used phone locked to a carrier with termination fee .
" Locked " in my mind was a characteristic of few phones delivered from abroad that needs to be removed.Needless to say , the competition between carriers is good and prices very low ; variety of phones is also great and they are mostly sold by companies separate from carriers .
In Canada I only bought ( and will continue to buy ) phones from some Chinese guys on ebay , because every carrier outlets I visited have some 7 suboptimal phones , locked as a bonus.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming from Russia, I just don't get it.Slashdot and other sources from techie to mainstream are full of complaints on how carriers suck and blah blah blah.
How did you end up with this stupid system in the first place?
Why would a person in their right mind ever buy a locked phone?At least when I was living in Russia 2 years ago (I am fairly confident that didn't change), phone lock-in was unheard of, and I have never known anyone who used phone locked to a carrier with termination fee.
"Locked" in my mind was a characteristic of few phones delivered from abroad that needs to be removed.Needless to say, the competition between carriers is good and prices very low; variety of phones is also great and they are mostly sold by companies separate from carriers.
In Canada I only bought (and will continue to buy) phones from some Chinese guys on ebay, because every carrier outlets I visited have some 7 suboptimal phones, locked as a bonus...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082328</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258036320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude...you're on crack.  I have both (one work, one personal).  Verizon has a HUNDRED times the server coverage area...period.  When it comes to data?  Don't even get me started.  Verizon is more expensive (service) but way the hell better.  My Sprint contract is up in Feb.  I'll not be renewing.  Not that Sprint is all that bad (way better than AT&amp;T last I had it), but Verizon smokes Sprint overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude...you 're on crack .
I have both ( one work , one personal ) .
Verizon has a HUNDRED times the server coverage area...period .
When it comes to data ?
Do n't even get me started .
Verizon is more expensive ( service ) but way the hell better .
My Sprint contract is up in Feb. I 'll not be renewing .
Not that Sprint is all that bad ( way better than AT&amp;T last I had it ) , but Verizon smokes Sprint overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude...you're on crack.
I have both (one work, one personal).
Verizon has a HUNDRED times the server coverage area...period.
When it comes to data?
Don't even get me started.
Verizon is more expensive (service) but way the hell better.
My Sprint contract is up in Feb.  I'll not be renewing.
Not that Sprint is all that bad (way better than AT&amp;T last I had it), but Verizon smokes Sprint overall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>SirBigSpur</author>
	<datestamp>1258021740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate Verizon even more now, I didn't think it was possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate Verizon even more now , I did n't think it was possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate Verizon even more now, I didn't think it was possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079620</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to go, Verizon. Get a cool phone like the Moto Droid, and then be as big a bastard as you can possibly be. I see bright things in your future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to go , Verizon .
Get a cool phone like the Moto Droid , and then be as big a bastard as you can possibly be .
I see bright things in your future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to go, Verizon.
Get a cool phone like the Moto Droid, and then be as big a bastard as you can possibly be.
I see bright things in your future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081160</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, a contract. I guess that's okay th-- no wai</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258028880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't like the terms of the contract, shop somewhere else? Certainly you have the right to be upset, but why would you give hundreds of dollars a year to a company you're upset with?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the terms of the contract , shop somewhere else ?
Certainly you have the right to be upset , but why would you give hundreds of dollars a year to a company you 're upset with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the terms of the contract, shop somewhere else?
Certainly you have the right to be upset, but why would you give hundreds of dollars a year to a company you're upset with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084684</id>
	<title>This could be your internet provider</title>
	<author>EricTheO</author>
	<datestamp>1258107420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's these sort of buiness practices that demonstrate best why we need net neutrality. The cell phone model is just what some ISP's would like to apply to your home internet connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's these sort of buiness practices that demonstrate best why we need net neutrality .
The cell phone model is just what some ISP 's would like to apply to your home internet connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's these sort of buiness practices that demonstrate best why we need net neutrality.
The cell phone model is just what some ISP's would like to apply to your home internet connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085982</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1258123740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation.</p></div><p>Very limited coverage area compared to competitors.  Sad international support.  oversubscribed infrastructure (yea, they all do it, but Sprint seems to take it to a new level).  I could keep going beyond two cents...
<br> <br>
However, after all that, they have acceptable customer service (for cell providers).
<br> <br>
If they work for you, then great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation.Very limited coverage area compared to competitors .
Sad international support .
oversubscribed infrastructure ( yea , they all do it , but Sprint seems to take it to a new level ) .
I could keep going beyond two cents.. . However , after all that , they have acceptable customer service ( for cell providers ) .
If they work for you , then great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation.Very limited coverage area compared to competitors.
Sad international support.
oversubscribed infrastructure (yea, they all do it, but Sprint seems to take it to a new level).
I could keep going beyond two cents...
 
However, after all that, they have acceptable customer service (for cell providers).
If they work for you, then great.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079730</id>
	<title>I don't get the phone obsession</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1258023120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Truly I don't.  I have a single cell phone provided by my company.

What posses people to waste their cash, signing up for obviously MORONIC contracts?  If your company won't pay for your phone, get something without this kind of CRAP from Verizon.

I mean really, do you truly need this junk?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truly I do n't .
I have a single cell phone provided by my company .
What posses people to waste their cash , signing up for obviously MORONIC contracts ?
If your company wo n't pay for your phone , get something without this kind of CRAP from Verizon .
I mean really , do you truly need this junk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truly I don't.
I have a single cell phone provided by my company.
What posses people to waste their cash, signing up for obviously MORONIC contracts?
If your company won't pay for your phone, get something without this kind of CRAP from Verizon.
I mean really, do you truly need this junk?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080180</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon Smartphones required to get data plan</title>
	<author>drpimp</author>
	<datestamp>1258024560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet the Verizon sodomy saga continues. REQUIRED data plans are IMHO, ridiculous<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... especially since a large \% of the time you \_could\_ possibly be connected wirelessly via your own access point, which translates to Verizon gaining roughly an additional 30-50\% markup to what your bill would be without.

1. Sell Smartphone
2. Require 2 year contract
3. Additional 30-50\% $$$ for REQUIRED data plan for that entire 2 year contract
4. PROFIT

Bottom line here to me is that the $350 ETF is far less of a factor to the customer feeling like their getting reamed compared to the 30-50\% additional cost they are having to pay for the duration of the contract itself just for having a "Smart" phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet the Verizon sodomy saga continues .
REQUIRED data plans are IMHO , ridiculous ... especially since a large \ % of the time you \ _could \ _ possibly be connected wirelessly via your own access point , which translates to Verizon gaining roughly an additional 30-50 \ % markup to what your bill would be without .
1. Sell Smartphone 2 .
Require 2 year contract 3 .
Additional 30-50 \ % $ $ $ for REQUIRED data plan for that entire 2 year contract 4 .
PROFIT Bottom line here to me is that the $ 350 ETF is far less of a factor to the customer feeling like their getting reamed compared to the 30-50 \ % additional cost they are having to pay for the duration of the contract itself just for having a " Smart " phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet the Verizon sodomy saga continues.
REQUIRED data plans are IMHO, ridiculous ... especially since a large \% of the time you \_could\_ possibly be connected wirelessly via your own access point, which translates to Verizon gaining roughly an additional 30-50\% markup to what your bill would be without.
1. Sell Smartphone
2.
Require 2 year contract
3.
Additional 30-50\% $$$ for REQUIRED data plan for that entire 2 year contract
4.
PROFIT

Bottom line here to me is that the $350 ETF is far less of a factor to the customer feeling like their getting reamed compared to the 30-50\% additional cost they are having to pay for the duration of the contract itself just for having a "Smart" phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079586</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>reginaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1258022700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that they round up to a minimum of a $1.99, regardless of usage.  That's a steep minimum.  A comparison would be rounding up 1 second of calltime to 17 minutes (1 sec to 1024 sec).<br> <br>

Also, even if you disable data services on your phone, they charge you $1.99 because it took bandwidth to send you the "You do not have this service" message.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that they round up to a minimum of a $ 1.99 , regardless of usage .
That 's a steep minimum .
A comparison would be rounding up 1 second of calltime to 17 minutes ( 1 sec to 1024 sec ) .
Also , even if you disable data services on your phone , they charge you $ 1.99 because it took bandwidth to send you the " You do not have this service " message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that they round up to a minimum of a $1.99, regardless of usage.
That's a steep minimum.
A comparison would be rounding up 1 second of calltime to 17 minutes (1 sec to 1024 sec).
Also, even if you disable data services on your phone, they charge you $1.99 because it took bandwidth to send you the "You do not have this service" message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080412</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon Smartphones required to get data plan</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1258025520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't require a data plan for the Centro. If you've been grandfathered on an old NA plan you can still get data charged against your minutes as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't require a data plan for the Centro .
If you 've been grandfathered on an old NA plan you can still get data charged against your minutes as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't require a data plan for the Centro.
If you've been grandfathered on an old NA plan you can still get data charged against your minutes as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080280</id>
	<title>Disable Data Access?</title>
	<author>Chupathingy</author>
	<datestamp>1258024980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently got a new phone with AT&amp;T (LG CF360 if anyone cares).  It has some buttons similar to the ones that people are complaining about here (one-touch access to an app that auto connects to the net).  On top of that, the some of the menu screens can't be modified, so that several apps that I'll never use because they require a data plan, are locked in on the menu.</p><p>When I told the AT&amp;T rep of my concerns about accidental data usage, he said they could just disable the data access.</p><p>I've hit those one-touch app buttons and accidentally selected "AT&amp;T GPS" or some other app that requires data access, but all I ever get is "Cannot connect to server" or some similar message.</p><p>I wonder if Verizon phones have a similar option for people who don't want anything to do with a data plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently got a new phone with AT&amp;T ( LG CF360 if anyone cares ) .
It has some buttons similar to the ones that people are complaining about here ( one-touch access to an app that auto connects to the net ) .
On top of that , the some of the menu screens ca n't be modified , so that several apps that I 'll never use because they require a data plan , are locked in on the menu.When I told the AT&amp;T rep of my concerns about accidental data usage , he said they could just disable the data access.I 've hit those one-touch app buttons and accidentally selected " AT&amp;T GPS " or some other app that requires data access , but all I ever get is " Can not connect to server " or some similar message.I wonder if Verizon phones have a similar option for people who do n't want anything to do with a data plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently got a new phone with AT&amp;T (LG CF360 if anyone cares).
It has some buttons similar to the ones that people are complaining about here (one-touch access to an app that auto connects to the net).
On top of that, the some of the menu screens can't be modified, so that several apps that I'll never use because they require a data plan, are locked in on the menu.When I told the AT&amp;T rep of my concerns about accidental data usage, he said they could just disable the data access.I've hit those one-touch app buttons and accidentally selected "AT&amp;T GPS" or some other app that requires data access, but all I ever get is "Cannot connect to server" or some similar message.I wonder if Verizon phones have a similar option for people who don't want anything to do with a data plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081294</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>cpotoso</author>
	<datestamp>1258029540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just:  a) don't buy the f... thing.  b) get a different carrier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just : a ) do n't buy the f... thing. b ) get a different carrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just:  a) don't buy the f... thing.  b) get a different carrier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088230</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1258134840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And pay $4.99 per line for the privilege.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And pay $ 4.99 per line for the privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And pay $4.99 per line for the privilege.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080294</id>
	<title>That seems unlikely...</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1258025040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One major problem: they explicitly refuse to disable data.</i></p><p>This seems really unlikely to me, I've not heard of a carrier that will not let you disable the data plan.   Although Verizon has a reputation, so perhaps they do... but I would like to see a link to that policy defined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One major problem : they explicitly refuse to disable data.This seems really unlikely to me , I 've not heard of a carrier that will not let you disable the data plan .
Although Verizon has a reputation , so perhaps they do... but I would like to see a link to that policy defined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One major problem: they explicitly refuse to disable data.This seems really unlikely to me, I've not heard of a carrier that will not let you disable the data plan.
Although Verizon has a reputation, so perhaps they do... but I would like to see a link to that policy defined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080374</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>elloGov</author>
	<datestamp>1258025400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You bring up a good point. The average costs is around $100 I'm sure, however, it's always advertised as 39.99 or 49.99 or 79.99 plans, but ends up being $10-30 more than stated for fees, taxes and BS like this. To me this is false advertising, I don't care how you legally justify this. If any of you are surprised by these revelations you need to wake up and reevaluate your expectations from such businesses. There is a contract frenzy in business and it's abusing the consumers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You bring up a good point .
The average costs is around $ 100 I 'm sure , however , it 's always advertised as 39.99 or 49.99 or 79.99 plans , but ends up being $ 10-30 more than stated for fees , taxes and BS like this .
To me this is false advertising , I do n't care how you legally justify this .
If any of you are surprised by these revelations you need to wake up and reevaluate your expectations from such businesses .
There is a contract frenzy in business and it 's abusing the consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bring up a good point.
The average costs is around $100 I'm sure, however, it's always advertised as 39.99 or 49.99 or 79.99 plans, but ends up being $10-30 more than stated for fees, taxes and BS like this.
To me this is false advertising, I don't care how you legally justify this.
If any of you are surprised by these revelations you need to wake up and reevaluate your expectations from such businesses.
There is a contract frenzy in business and it's abusing the consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079674</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The flaw of the iPhone is locked to AT&amp;T (but at least you can jail break it).</i></p><p>Say what you want about AT&amp;T, but the fact is, as an iPhone customer, you are at the top of their pecking order, and are treated well.  Once their network capacity catches up there will be few remaining reasons for smartphone customers to avoid them.</p><p>On the other hand, all these stories about people being nickel and dimed to death by Verizon give me the impression that Verizon is far too comfortable, even after being ambushed by the iPhone.  Evidently, if I buy a high-end phone that's tied to Verizon, I'll be treated no differently from someone who buys the cheapest model at the mall kiosk.   Every time I launch the phone's web browser, I'll have to wonder if Verizon is taking me to the cleaners.  Screw 'em, I'll put up with a few dropped calls on my iPhone now and then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flaw of the iPhone is locked to AT&amp;T ( but at least you can jail break it ) .Say what you want about AT&amp;T , but the fact is , as an iPhone customer , you are at the top of their pecking order , and are treated well .
Once their network capacity catches up there will be few remaining reasons for smartphone customers to avoid them.On the other hand , all these stories about people being nickel and dimed to death by Verizon give me the impression that Verizon is far too comfortable , even after being ambushed by the iPhone .
Evidently , if I buy a high-end phone that 's tied to Verizon , I 'll be treated no differently from someone who buys the cheapest model at the mall kiosk .
Every time I launch the phone 's web browser , I 'll have to wonder if Verizon is taking me to the cleaners .
Screw 'em , I 'll put up with a few dropped calls on my iPhone now and then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flaw of the iPhone is locked to AT&amp;T (but at least you can jail break it).Say what you want about AT&amp;T, but the fact is, as an iPhone customer, you are at the top of their pecking order, and are treated well.
Once their network capacity catches up there will be few remaining reasons for smartphone customers to avoid them.On the other hand, all these stories about people being nickel and dimed to death by Verizon give me the impression that Verizon is far too comfortable, even after being ambushed by the iPhone.
Evidently, if I buy a high-end phone that's tied to Verizon, I'll be treated no differently from someone who buys the cheapest model at the mall kiosk.
Every time I launch the phone's web browser, I'll have to wonder if Verizon is taking me to the cleaners.
Screw 'em, I'll put up with a few dropped calls on my iPhone now and then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080360</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was news last week.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and the NYT are a bit slow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was news last week .
/. and the NYT are a bit slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was news last week.
/. and the NYT are a bit slow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082868</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint</title>
	<author>tgetzoya</author>
	<datestamp>1258041240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation.</p></div><p>Have you had to call customer service yet?  I was once put on hold for 2 hours and 5 minutes. I was using my phone (Sanyo 8830) and my battery died before I got to a rep.  I'm sure the Verizon customer rep earlier in these posts can tell you, but vzw has a rule where the customer should be on hold for no more than 2 minutes.  Plus it didn't hurt that I knew a kind-of "back door" number that bypassed the stupid menu system altogether.

As for reception, I can't fault Sprint any more than Verizon.  In only one place have I not had reception with Sprint that I had with Verizon (sadly, that's my own home).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation.Have you had to call customer service yet ?
I was once put on hold for 2 hours and 5 minutes .
I was using my phone ( Sanyo 8830 ) and my battery died before I got to a rep. I 'm sure the Verizon customer rep earlier in these posts can tell you , but vzw has a rule where the customer should be on hold for no more than 2 minutes .
Plus it did n't hurt that I knew a kind-of " back door " number that bypassed the stupid menu system altogether .
As for reception , I ca n't fault Sprint any more than Verizon .
In only one place have I not had reception with Sprint that I had with Verizon ( sadly , that 's my own home ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation.Have you had to call customer service yet?
I was once put on hold for 2 hours and 5 minutes.
I was using my phone (Sanyo 8830) and my battery died before I got to a rep.  I'm sure the Verizon customer rep earlier in these posts can tell you, but vzw has a rule where the customer should be on hold for no more than 2 minutes.
Plus it didn't hurt that I knew a kind-of "back door" number that bypassed the stupid menu system altogether.
As for reception, I can't fault Sprint any more than Verizon.
In only one place have I not had reception with Sprint that I had with Verizon (sadly, that's my own home).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080660</id>
	<title>Verizon is not the only one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't ever have a Verizon Wireless phone again. Their billing was at best questionable. I never went over my minutes or used any other features (was in the bill that I did not) but the price of the bill was never the same each month. I am not talking a few bucks either more like 8 to 10 sometimes 12 bucks. I called them on it several times and the representative at their store had no explanation. I cancelled my contract right there.</p><p>I have Sprint now and they are really good. However my phone (Samsung Exclaim) has features that if you are not paying attention will connect to their 3G connection. I will give them that at least my phone asks if I want to connect to the system. The LG rant my wife uses doesn't prompt her but connects. Sprint has been very forgiving and erased most of the charges as mistakes. I bet Verizon won't. They are the worst carrier to deal with as far as I am concerned. I used to carry Virgin Mobile and that was good. Uses Sprint service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't ever have a Verizon Wireless phone again .
Their billing was at best questionable .
I never went over my minutes or used any other features ( was in the bill that I did not ) but the price of the bill was never the same each month .
I am not talking a few bucks either more like 8 to 10 sometimes 12 bucks .
I called them on it several times and the representative at their store had no explanation .
I cancelled my contract right there.I have Sprint now and they are really good .
However my phone ( Samsung Exclaim ) has features that if you are not paying attention will connect to their 3G connection .
I will give them that at least my phone asks if I want to connect to the system .
The LG rant my wife uses does n't prompt her but connects .
Sprint has been very forgiving and erased most of the charges as mistakes .
I bet Verizon wo n't .
They are the worst carrier to deal with as far as I am concerned .
I used to carry Virgin Mobile and that was good .
Uses Sprint service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't ever have a Verizon Wireless phone again.
Their billing was at best questionable.
I never went over my minutes or used any other features (was in the bill that I did not) but the price of the bill was never the same each month.
I am not talking a few bucks either more like 8 to 10 sometimes 12 bucks.
I called them on it several times and the representative at their store had no explanation.
I cancelled my contract right there.I have Sprint now and they are really good.
However my phone (Samsung Exclaim) has features that if you are not paying attention will connect to their 3G connection.
I will give them that at least my phone asks if I want to connect to the system.
The LG rant my wife uses doesn't prompt her but connects.
Sprint has been very forgiving and erased most of the charges as mistakes.
I bet Verizon won't.
They are the worst carrier to deal with as far as I am concerned.
I used to carry Virgin Mobile and that was good.
Uses Sprint service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080132</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1258024440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not if the government regulates competitors out of existence.  What exists today in no way resembles a free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not if the government regulates competitors out of existence .
What exists today in no way resembles a free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not if the government regulates competitors out of existence.
What exists today in no way resembles a free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079950</id>
	<title>Dear Verizon:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you !</p><p>P.S.: If you need further assistance with your random bogus phone billing software, please e-mail me:</p><p>ktrout@russianflyphishers.ru</p><p>Yours In Novorossiysk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you ! P.S .
: If you need further assistance with your random bogus phone billing software , please e-mail me : ktrout @ russianflyphishers.ruYours In Novorossiysk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you !P.S.
: If you need further assistance with your random bogus phone billing software, please e-mail me:ktrout@russianflyphishers.ruYours In Novorossiysk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084802</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Atomic Fro</author>
	<datestamp>1258109460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Also, the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $100 a month or more? Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something?)</p></div><p>But Verizon <a href="http://www.intomobile.com/2009/07/27/verizons-ceo-official-response-to-david-pogues-article-on-the-united-states-mobile-industry.html" title="intomobile.com" rel="nofollow">told me</a> [intomobile.com] they are cheaper than Europe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Also , the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $ 100 a month or more ?
Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something ?
) But Verizon told me [ intomobile.com ] they are cheaper than Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Also, the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $100 a month or more?
Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something?
)But Verizon told me [intomobile.com] they are cheaper than Europe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079798</id>
	<title>Damnit...</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1258023300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why, oh why, are the only other two options actually WORSE? Cell phones in The U.S. are a freakin money mining joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , oh why , are the only other two options actually WORSE ?
Cell phones in The U.S. are a freakin money mining joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, oh why, are the only other two options actually WORSE?
Cell phones in The U.S. are a freakin money mining joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081488</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350..</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1258030620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting little Verizon Wireless,(VW) fact that I got to experience was an ETF withdrawal for $50 out of my checking account.  I don't use VW, but I do subscribe to their FIOS product; so I called the contact number associated with the transaction.  Ya it was Verizon, ya it was their Wireless Department.  "$50? Out of your account?  We don't have a record of that transaction, ah Sir."; the joy in this woman's voice was completely unmistakable.  As I got more tert, and pissed, I started to think what had to done on my end of the phone.  So I called my Credit Union.  "Disputted" the Transaction, now the $50 is back in my account, and Verizon can deal with a Shop Lifting problem.  Then I went one step further, I notified my Credit Union NOT TO ACCEPT any more ETF requests directly from Verizon.  Seeing how my problem was so funny to Verizon's Wireless staff, I figure it will be even funnier if the only way Verizon can get paid is going through their bank, first.  Last month Verizon cashed my check, just like everybody else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting little Verizon Wireless , ( VW ) fact that I got to experience was an ETF withdrawal for $ 50 out of my checking account .
I do n't use VW , but I do subscribe to their FIOS product ; so I called the contact number associated with the transaction .
Ya it was Verizon , ya it was their Wireless Department .
" $ 50 ? Out of your account ?
We do n't have a record of that transaction , ah Sir .
" ; the joy in this woman 's voice was completely unmistakable .
As I got more tert , and pissed , I started to think what had to done on my end of the phone .
So I called my Credit Union .
" Disputted " the Transaction , now the $ 50 is back in my account , and Verizon can deal with a Shop Lifting problem .
Then I went one step further , I notified my Credit Union NOT TO ACCEPT any more ETF requests directly from Verizon .
Seeing how my problem was so funny to Verizon 's Wireless staff , I figure it will be even funnier if the only way Verizon can get paid is going through their bank , first .
Last month Verizon cashed my check , just like everybody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting little Verizon Wireless,(VW) fact that I got to experience was an ETF withdrawal for $50 out of my checking account.
I don't use VW, but I do subscribe to their FIOS product; so I called the contact number associated with the transaction.
Ya it was Verizon, ya it was their Wireless Department.
"$50? Out of your account?
We don't have a record of that transaction, ah Sir.
"; the joy in this woman's voice was completely unmistakable.
As I got more tert, and pissed, I started to think what had to done on my end of the phone.
So I called my Credit Union.
"Disputted" the Transaction, now the $50 is back in my account, and Verizon can deal with a Shop Lifting problem.
Then I went one step further, I notified my Credit Union NOT TO ACCEPT any more ETF requests directly from Verizon.
Seeing how my problem was so funny to Verizon's Wireless staff, I figure it will be even funnier if the only way Verizon can get paid is going through their bank, first.
Last month Verizon cashed my check, just like everybody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079784</id>
	<title>Suspension</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To avoid steep termination fees, just put your plan on suspension - costs about $7 a month until the end of the contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To avoid steep termination fees , just put your plan on suspension - costs about $ 7 a month until the end of the contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To avoid steep termination fees, just put your plan on suspension - costs about $7 a month until the end of the contract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079974</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>Evro</author>
	<datestamp>1258023900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully this is a joke.  A free market is a nice idea, as is using a competing service, but what do you do when there are only 4 or 5 players in the market, and they all charge an early termination fee?  It's collusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this is a joke .
A free market is a nice idea , as is using a competing service , but what do you do when there are only 4 or 5 players in the market , and they all charge an early termination fee ?
It 's collusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this is a joke.
A free market is a nice idea, as is using a competing service, but what do you do when there are only 4 or 5 players in the market, and they all charge an early termination fee?
It's collusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080468</id>
	<title>SMS price fixing</title>
	<author>esocid</author>
	<datestamp>1258025700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They and ATT got away with price fixing SMS charges, what makes you think they can't do whatever the hell they please?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They and ATT got away with price fixing SMS charges , what makes you think they ca n't do whatever the hell they please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They and ATT got away with price fixing SMS charges, what makes you think they can't do whatever the hell they please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080704</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>citation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>citation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>citation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080454</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact at one point I was going to sign up for a plan with Verizon and bring my own phone, but even if I didn't get a new phone from them to setup new service I had to agree to a 1 year contract which included an ETF. There was NO way to avoid the contract.</p></div><p>Of course you can. All cell providers allow you to pay month-by-month and either use your own phone OR pay for the phone up front.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact at one point I was going to sign up for a plan with Verizon and bring my own phone , but even if I did n't get a new phone from them to setup new service I had to agree to a 1 year contract which included an ETF .
There was NO way to avoid the contract.Of course you can .
All cell providers allow you to pay month-by-month and either use your own phone OR pay for the phone up front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact at one point I was going to sign up for a plan with Verizon and bring my own phone, but even if I didn't get a new phone from them to setup new service I had to agree to a 1 year contract which included an ETF.
There was NO way to avoid the contract.Of course you can.
All cell providers allow you to pay month-by-month and either use your own phone OR pay for the phone up front.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080700</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Droid is coming to T-Mobile. Google for it. Android Guys have the article I believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Droid is coming to T-Mobile .
Google for it .
Android Guys have the article I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Droid is coming to T-Mobile.
Google for it.
Android Guys have the article I believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081084</id>
	<title>Re:The new termination fee is high, but justifiabl</title>
	<author>GumphMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1258028460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too understand their reasoning: it's called profit.</p><p>They pay substantially less than the ticket price ($560) for the phone.  So, when you do a purchase and cancel shuffle, and they pocket $550, they will be making the essentially the same profit as an outright purchase would have given them.  They essentially lose their $10 bet that you will stick with the plan fees long enough for them to exceed this profit level (happens pretty quickly I expect).  The original $375 probably also made them a small profit, but not as handsome, but was essentially a $185 bet you'd stick around.</p><p>Clearly the dynamic has changed a little, with people buying phones like fashion accessories and discarding them for the latest fad, rather than buying a phone for (egads!) making/taking phone calls and sticking to a fixed term contract.  Seems that this is the logical result of that.  Of course, I have never owned a mobile phone, so I could be talking crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too understand their reasoning : it 's called profit.They pay substantially less than the ticket price ( $ 560 ) for the phone .
So , when you do a purchase and cancel shuffle , and they pocket $ 550 , they will be making the essentially the same profit as an outright purchase would have given them .
They essentially lose their $ 10 bet that you will stick with the plan fees long enough for them to exceed this profit level ( happens pretty quickly I expect ) .
The original $ 375 probably also made them a small profit , but not as handsome , but was essentially a $ 185 bet you 'd stick around.Clearly the dynamic has changed a little , with people buying phones like fashion accessories and discarding them for the latest fad , rather than buying a phone for ( egads !
) making/taking phone calls and sticking to a fixed term contract .
Seems that this is the logical result of that .
Of course , I have never owned a mobile phone , so I could be talking crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too understand their reasoning: it's called profit.They pay substantially less than the ticket price ($560) for the phone.
So, when you do a purchase and cancel shuffle, and they pocket $550, they will be making the essentially the same profit as an outright purchase would have given them.
They essentially lose their $10 bet that you will stick with the plan fees long enough for them to exceed this profit level (happens pretty quickly I expect).
The original $375 probably also made them a small profit, but not as handsome, but was essentially a $185 bet you'd stick around.Clearly the dynamic has changed a little, with people buying phones like fashion accessories and discarding them for the latest fad, rather than buying a phone for (egads!
) making/taking phone calls and sticking to a fixed term contract.
Seems that this is the logical result of that.
Of course, I have never owned a mobile phone, so I could be talking crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083410</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>Mean Variance</author>
	<datestamp>1258045800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No termination fees:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://www.mycricket.com/" title="mycricket.com">Cricket</a> [mycricket.com]</li><li> <a href="http://pagepluscellular.com/" title="pagepluscellular.com">PagePlus</a> [pagepluscellular.com] - uses the <b>entire Verizon network</b> unencumbered</li><li>Boost Mobile (Sprint/Nextel network, I think)</li><li>T-Mobile Prepaid @10c a minute</li><li>etc., etc., etc.</li></ul><p>Each has its pros and cons. There are choices out there if you try a little.</p><p>It reminds me of people complaining that B of A cranked up their credit card but, for some reason, won't check a local bank or credit union.</p><p>Sometimes, it's just easier to complain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No termination fees : Cricket [ mycricket.com ] PagePlus [ pagepluscellular.com ] - uses the entire Verizon network unencumberedBoost Mobile ( Sprint/Nextel network , I think ) T-Mobile Prepaid @ 10c a minuteetc. , etc. , etc.Each has its pros and cons .
There are choices out there if you try a little.It reminds me of people complaining that B of A cranked up their credit card but , for some reason , wo n't check a local bank or credit union.Sometimes , it 's just easier to complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No termination fees: Cricket [mycricket.com] PagePlus [pagepluscellular.com] - uses the entire Verizon network unencumberedBoost Mobile (Sprint/Nextel network, I think)T-Mobile Prepaid @10c a minuteetc., etc., etc.Each has its pros and cons.
There are choices out there if you try a little.It reminds me of people complaining that B of A cranked up their credit card but, for some reason, won't check a local bank or credit union.Sometimes, it's just easier to complain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083490</id>
	<title>Customer Service costs vs. Nickel &amp; Diming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258046880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is where everyone calls customer service until it's cost prohibitive for them and they stop nickel and diming everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where everyone calls customer service until it 's cost prohibitive for them and they stop nickel and diming everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where everyone calls customer service until it's cost prohibitive for them and they stop nickel and diming everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079914</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Orange Crush</author>
	<datestamp>1258023720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>^They can't charge you $110 if you've fulfilled your contract.  They're just making it expensive to terminate with even a single month left to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>^ They ca n't charge you $ 110 if you 've fulfilled your contract .
They 're just making it expensive to terminate with even a single month left to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>^They can't charge you $110 if you've fulfilled your contract.
They're just making it expensive to terminate with even a single month left to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</id>
	<title>Sprint</title>
	<author>Akaihiryuu</author>
	<datestamp>1258024800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm extremely glad I finally ditched Verizon for Sprint 3 months ago.  Sprint has better coverage and better service for cheaper.  Even though my workplace provides a Verizon discount, Sprint was still cheaper.  Not to mention with my Verizon phones I was lucky to even get a signal in the building I'm in.  With my Sprint phone I get 3-4 bars consistently (all my coworkers with Verizon have noted this too).  The 3 Sprint users here are the only ones that can get a signal without going outside.  Anyway, I digress...I'm paying $15/month less with Sprint, unlimited data, unlimited text/pix, 1500 minutes/month, free nights/weekends, nights/weekends starting at 7pm instead of 9pm, than I was with Verizon, with unlimited text, but no pix, no data, and my company discount.  Verizon has terrible phones, terrible service, and they are a ripoff in general.  I switched on the advice of my roommate, who has had service with Sprint for 6 years and has never had any issues.  Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm extremely glad I finally ditched Verizon for Sprint 3 months ago .
Sprint has better coverage and better service for cheaper .
Even though my workplace provides a Verizon discount , Sprint was still cheaper .
Not to mention with my Verizon phones I was lucky to even get a signal in the building I 'm in .
With my Sprint phone I get 3-4 bars consistently ( all my coworkers with Verizon have noted this too ) .
The 3 Sprint users here are the only ones that can get a signal without going outside .
Anyway , I digress...I 'm paying $ 15/month less with Sprint , unlimited data , unlimited text/pix , 1500 minutes/month , free nights/weekends , nights/weekends starting at 7pm instead of 9pm , than I was with Verizon , with unlimited text , but no pix , no data , and my company discount .
Verizon has terrible phones , terrible service , and they are a ripoff in general .
I switched on the advice of my roommate , who has had service with Sprint for 6 years and has never had any issues .
Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm extremely glad I finally ditched Verizon for Sprint 3 months ago.
Sprint has better coverage and better service for cheaper.
Even though my workplace provides a Verizon discount, Sprint was still cheaper.
Not to mention with my Verizon phones I was lucky to even get a signal in the building I'm in.
With my Sprint phone I get 3-4 bars consistently (all my coworkers with Verizon have noted this too).
The 3 Sprint users here are the only ones that can get a signal without going outside.
Anyway, I digress...I'm paying $15/month less with Sprint, unlimited data, unlimited text/pix, 1500 minutes/month, free nights/weekends, nights/weekends starting at 7pm instead of 9pm, than I was with Verizon, with unlimited text, but no pix, no data, and my company discount.
Verizon has terrible phones, terrible service, and they are a ripoff in general.
I switched on the advice of my roommate, who has had service with Sprint for 6 years and has never had any issues.
Neither of us understand why they have a bad reputation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30105832</id>
	<title>Funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone read the "funny" comments? They are annoying and disruptive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone read the " funny " comments ?
They are annoying and disruptive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone read the "funny" comments?
They are annoying and disruptive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079822</id>
	<title>More red on the map</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone has to pay for all that red on the 3G map</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone has to pay for all that red on the 3G map</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone has to pay for all that red on the 3G map</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Zantac69</author>
	<datestamp>1258022640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for early termination fees increasing, that's what gets you nice phones for cheap. I don't really see a problem with these fees since they are making phones more affordable given that you would have a phone plan anyway.</p></div><p>The pisser is that I want to BUY the phone by itself...and then be able to go to whatever provider I wanted.  "Cheap phones" be damned!  They should be clear about how much the phone is subsidized...and for how long...and make that as an "adder" to the normal monthly charge.  You can either BUY a Droid for $550 outright and have a $40/mo bill...or get it for "Free" and pay an addl $28/month for 24 months (threw in some interest to boot).  If you cancel after 12 months, then you owe 12*28, or $336.<br> <br>But that makes too much sense...carriers would never go for that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for early termination fees increasing , that 's what gets you nice phones for cheap .
I do n't really see a problem with these fees since they are making phones more affordable given that you would have a phone plan anyway.The pisser is that I want to BUY the phone by itself...and then be able to go to whatever provider I wanted .
" Cheap phones " be damned !
They should be clear about how much the phone is subsidized...and for how long...and make that as an " adder " to the normal monthly charge .
You can either BUY a Droid for $ 550 outright and have a $ 40/mo bill...or get it for " Free " and pay an addl $ 28/month for 24 months ( threw in some interest to boot ) .
If you cancel after 12 months , then you owe 12 * 28 , or $ 336 .
But that makes too much sense...carriers would never go for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for early termination fees increasing, that's what gets you nice phones for cheap.
I don't really see a problem with these fees since they are making phones more affordable given that you would have a phone plan anyway.The pisser is that I want to BUY the phone by itself...and then be able to go to whatever provider I wanted.
"Cheap phones" be damned!
They should be clear about how much the phone is subsidized...and for how long...and make that as an "adder" to the normal monthly charge.
You can either BUY a Droid for $550 outright and have a $40/mo bill...or get it for "Free" and pay an addl $28/month for 24 months (threw in some interest to boot).
If you cancel after 12 months, then you owe 12*28, or $336.
But that makes too much sense...carriers would never go for that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082678</id>
	<title>If verizon are scum...</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1258039740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people keep signing up for them?<br>And why the hell hasn't AT&amp;T made it its mission to match or beat Verizon for coverage in every state in the union? I am sure that if it could do that, it would get a LOT of business from people who hate Verizon. Or people who want phones AT&amp;T has but Verizon wont have (iPhone for example).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people keep signing up for them ? And why the hell has n't AT&amp;T made it its mission to match or beat Verizon for coverage in every state in the union ?
I am sure that if it could do that , it would get a LOT of business from people who hate Verizon .
Or people who want phones AT&amp;T has but Verizon wont have ( iPhone for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people keep signing up for them?And why the hell hasn't AT&amp;T made it its mission to match or beat Verizon for coverage in every state in the union?
I am sure that if it could do that, it would get a LOT of business from people who hate Verizon.
Or people who want phones AT&amp;T has but Verizon wont have (iPhone for example).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083270</id>
	<title>Re:ORLY?</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1258044480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh well, I guess you are fine, so fuck everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh well , I guess you are fine , so fuck everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh well, I guess you are fine, so fuck everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082744</id>
	<title>0.02kb?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, that's not much bigger than 20 bytes!</p><p>Next up, I'm going to measure my weight in tonnes and my belt size in kilometres.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , that 's not much bigger than 20 bytes ! Next up , I 'm going to measure my weight in tonnes and my belt size in kilometres .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, that's not much bigger than 20 bytes!Next up, I'm going to measure my weight in tonnes and my belt size in kilometres.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083612</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon Smartphones required to get data plan</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1258048500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a VX6700 smartphone on Verizon and sucessfully got them to turn off all data services a few months into my plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a VX6700 smartphone on Verizon and sucessfully got them to turn off all data services a few months into my plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a VX6700 smartphone on Verizon and sucessfully got them to turn off all data services a few months into my plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084446</id>
	<title>N900 is not locked to provider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258103400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get the Nokia N900 from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-N900-Unlocked-Computer-Touchscreen/dp/B002OB49SW/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=wireless&amp;qid=1258098448&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">amazon</a> [amazon.com] or from Nokia's online shop. Unlike the Droid, or any other phone out there it comes with Linux and thus offers the most open system to twiddle around with. Imho such a push for FOSS in the cell phone market needs to be supported and encouraged. There is nobody else out there going this route. You can write apps in any language you want, Python, Perl, Java, C, - hell, you could even install Dosbox and write batch files!</p><p>Droid may be based on some open source code, but it doesn't even come close in terms of openness and freedom; most of the more useful apps are Google's own apps (Gmail, Gmaps, <i>webkit based</i> browser etc.), which, admittedly, are definitely high-quality apps, but they are NOT open source and together with Android 2.0 (which is also mostly not open source) would quite probably be used for data-mining, whether anonymously or not, we have no way to know, but rest assured that any Android phone will be uniquely and easily identifiable on demand (especially when locked in to using a specific SIM card from a specific provider).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get the Nokia N900 from amazon [ amazon.com ] or from Nokia 's online shop .
Unlike the Droid , or any other phone out there it comes with Linux and thus offers the most open system to twiddle around with .
Imho such a push for FOSS in the cell phone market needs to be supported and encouraged .
There is nobody else out there going this route .
You can write apps in any language you want , Python , Perl , Java , C , - hell , you could even install Dosbox and write batch files ! Droid may be based on some open source code , but it does n't even come close in terms of openness and freedom ; most of the more useful apps are Google 's own apps ( Gmail , Gmaps , webkit based browser etc .
) , which , admittedly , are definitely high-quality apps , but they are NOT open source and together with Android 2.0 ( which is also mostly not open source ) would quite probably be used for data-mining , whether anonymously or not , we have no way to know , but rest assured that any Android phone will be uniquely and easily identifiable on demand ( especially when locked in to using a specific SIM card from a specific provider ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get the Nokia N900 from amazon [amazon.com] or from Nokia's online shop.
Unlike the Droid, or any other phone out there it comes with Linux and thus offers the most open system to twiddle around with.
Imho such a push for FOSS in the cell phone market needs to be supported and encouraged.
There is nobody else out there going this route.
You can write apps in any language you want, Python, Perl, Java, C, - hell, you could even install Dosbox and write batch files!Droid may be based on some open source code, but it doesn't even come close in terms of openness and freedom; most of the more useful apps are Google's own apps (Gmail, Gmaps, webkit based browser etc.
), which, admittedly, are definitely high-quality apps, but they are NOT open source and together with Android 2.0 (which is also mostly not open source) would quite probably be used for data-mining, whether anonymously or not, we have no way to know, but rest assured that any Android phone will be uniquely and easily identifiable on demand (especially when locked in to using a specific SIM card from a specific provider).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088384</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Concern</author>
	<datestamp>1258135680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we've convinced ourselves that laissez faire capitalism is actually brilliant and the only reason the 19th century and the Great Depression were so non-fun was that we "just weren't doing it right." Time for round two.</p><p>You've got economists with the bullshit theory that markets are efficient and that consumers make rational, perfectly informed choices about every economic decision in their lives. This hilarious concept is actually used as cover by policy makers and regulators, to justify their actions, since it is easier to say this than to admit, "hey, I took a bribe!" The result is a "free" market where participants can be fucked over with impugnity via scams that are generally illegal in other countries, and then blamed for being victimized.</p><p>By now we have reached a level of intellectual depravity where we actually believe we can have an "efficient market" of i.e. cell phone service, land line service, or electricity - concepts which are funny, ludicrous and pathetic, in that order.</p><p>For cell phones, sure, you can make a new competitor, if you can raise several billion dollars - no problem, right? This market is so "efficient" that the 5 US participants rig prices in broad daylight. Unless you actually think the cost of sending an SMS is not only measurable but has increased 400\% since ~2000. As usual, the rest of the first world (Europe, Asia) regulates these business in a more sane way and have had vastly better and cheaper cell phone service for many years. Luckily Americans have no idea what goes on in the rest of the world, so our sense of superiority need not be threatened.</p><p>Land lines are even more fun. No point in recapping our amusing attempts to apply antitrust law to The Telephone Company, only to let all the little parts practically merge back together again. Verizon's 200 billion monopoly dollars in annual revenue is put to entirely efficient uses, you can be assured. Fortunately if you don't like them, you can switch to an entirely different brand name for your Verizon land-line. At least we have the self-respect to let an unaccountable plutocrat own and profit from the infrastructure, rather than a democratic government, in Jesus's Name, I Pray.</p><p>Electricity is even more fun, since as a system it was basically designed by ex-Soviet robber barons. As Republican-patrons Enron demonstrated in federal court, the market is so "efficient" you can even create a shortage just by never building more power plants, and even turning off the ones you have. This is why privatized electricity has been so good at reducing costs in every instance it was tried. By negative dollar amounts.</p><p>You know what? I can see why privatization is so attractive. What's the point of letting government try to fix anything. Just let some lucky individuals own these natural monopolies. Not only can we not vote with our wallets, we cannot figure out how to vote, period. If the voters are too stupid to defend themselves from these scams, they don't deserve to keep their money, right? Just a bunch of children in need of some Catholic school vouchers, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we 've convinced ourselves that laissez faire capitalism is actually brilliant and the only reason the 19th century and the Great Depression were so non-fun was that we " just were n't doing it right .
" Time for round two.You 've got economists with the bullshit theory that markets are efficient and that consumers make rational , perfectly informed choices about every economic decision in their lives .
This hilarious concept is actually used as cover by policy makers and regulators , to justify their actions , since it is easier to say this than to admit , " hey , I took a bribe !
" The result is a " free " market where participants can be fucked over with impugnity via scams that are generally illegal in other countries , and then blamed for being victimized.By now we have reached a level of intellectual depravity where we actually believe we can have an " efficient market " of i.e .
cell phone service , land line service , or electricity - concepts which are funny , ludicrous and pathetic , in that order.For cell phones , sure , you can make a new competitor , if you can raise several billion dollars - no problem , right ?
This market is so " efficient " that the 5 US participants rig prices in broad daylight .
Unless you actually think the cost of sending an SMS is not only measurable but has increased 400 \ % since ~ 2000 .
As usual , the rest of the first world ( Europe , Asia ) regulates these business in a more sane way and have had vastly better and cheaper cell phone service for many years .
Luckily Americans have no idea what goes on in the rest of the world , so our sense of superiority need not be threatened.Land lines are even more fun .
No point in recapping our amusing attempts to apply antitrust law to The Telephone Company , only to let all the little parts practically merge back together again .
Verizon 's 200 billion monopoly dollars in annual revenue is put to entirely efficient uses , you can be assured .
Fortunately if you do n't like them , you can switch to an entirely different brand name for your Verizon land-line .
At least we have the self-respect to let an unaccountable plutocrat own and profit from the infrastructure , rather than a democratic government , in Jesus 's Name , I Pray.Electricity is even more fun , since as a system it was basically designed by ex-Soviet robber barons .
As Republican-patrons Enron demonstrated in federal court , the market is so " efficient " you can even create a shortage just by never building more power plants , and even turning off the ones you have .
This is why privatized electricity has been so good at reducing costs in every instance it was tried .
By negative dollar amounts.You know what ?
I can see why privatization is so attractive .
What 's the point of letting government try to fix anything .
Just let some lucky individuals own these natural monopolies .
Not only can we not vote with our wallets , we can not figure out how to vote , period .
If the voters are too stupid to defend themselves from these scams , they do n't deserve to keep their money , right ?
Just a bunch of children in need of some Catholic school vouchers , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we've convinced ourselves that laissez faire capitalism is actually brilliant and the only reason the 19th century and the Great Depression were so non-fun was that we "just weren't doing it right.
" Time for round two.You've got economists with the bullshit theory that markets are efficient and that consumers make rational, perfectly informed choices about every economic decision in their lives.
This hilarious concept is actually used as cover by policy makers and regulators, to justify their actions, since it is easier to say this than to admit, "hey, I took a bribe!
" The result is a "free" market where participants can be fucked over with impugnity via scams that are generally illegal in other countries, and then blamed for being victimized.By now we have reached a level of intellectual depravity where we actually believe we can have an "efficient market" of i.e.
cell phone service, land line service, or electricity - concepts which are funny, ludicrous and pathetic, in that order.For cell phones, sure, you can make a new competitor, if you can raise several billion dollars - no problem, right?
This market is so "efficient" that the 5 US participants rig prices in broad daylight.
Unless you actually think the cost of sending an SMS is not only measurable but has increased 400\% since ~2000.
As usual, the rest of the first world (Europe, Asia) regulates these business in a more sane way and have had vastly better and cheaper cell phone service for many years.
Luckily Americans have no idea what goes on in the rest of the world, so our sense of superiority need not be threatened.Land lines are even more fun.
No point in recapping our amusing attempts to apply antitrust law to The Telephone Company, only to let all the little parts practically merge back together again.
Verizon's 200 billion monopoly dollars in annual revenue is put to entirely efficient uses, you can be assured.
Fortunately if you don't like them, you can switch to an entirely different brand name for your Verizon land-line.
At least we have the self-respect to let an unaccountable plutocrat own and profit from the infrastructure, rather than a democratic government, in Jesus's Name, I Pray.Electricity is even more fun, since as a system it was basically designed by ex-Soviet robber barons.
As Republican-patrons Enron demonstrated in federal court, the market is so "efficient" you can even create a shortage just by never building more power plants, and even turning off the ones you have.
This is why privatized electricity has been so good at reducing costs in every instance it was tried.
By negative dollar amounts.You know what?
I can see why privatization is so attractive.
What's the point of letting government try to fix anything.
Just let some lucky individuals own these natural monopolies.
Not only can we not vote with our wallets, we cannot figure out how to vote, period.
If the voters are too stupid to defend themselves from these scams, they don't deserve to keep their money, right?
Just a bunch of children in need of some Catholic school vouchers, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080882</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258027500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at <a href="http://www.pagepluscellular.com/" title="pagepluscellular.com" rel="nofollow">Page Plus Cellular</a> [pagepluscellular.com], a Verizon <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile\_virtual\_network\_operator" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">MVNO</a> [wikipedia.org] with pre-pay plans.  They allow you to use just about any CDMA phone and can even port existing Verizon numbers to their service.</p><p>You can find more information about them on <a href="http://www.howardforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=364" title="howardforums.com" rel="nofollow">Howard Forums</a> [howardforums.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at Page Plus Cellular [ pagepluscellular.com ] , a Verizon MVNO [ wikipedia.org ] with pre-pay plans .
They allow you to use just about any CDMA phone and can even port existing Verizon numbers to their service.You can find more information about them on Howard Forums [ howardforums.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at Page Plus Cellular [pagepluscellular.com], a Verizon MVNO [wikipedia.org] with pre-pay plans.
They allow you to use just about any CDMA phone and can even port existing Verizon numbers to their service.You can find more information about them on Howard Forums [howardforums.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085754</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>Drasham</author>
	<datestamp>1258122000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, this is pretty bad.<br>
<br>
I do like the slowly lowering of the termination fee month over month, not sure if that warrants doubling the initial amount though.<br>
<br>
The charging for "even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB" sounds really shady to me and would make me question my carrier, no matter who it was at the time.<br>
I do feel that the article is somewhat disjointed though, as it goes from discussing termination fees for smart phones (which often have data plans) to data charges on all the other phones to the point of mentioning how most of the non-smart phones have dedicated keys for some form of web access.<br>
<br>
Two interesting points, poorly constructed transition from one to the next..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , this is pretty bad .
I do like the slowly lowering of the termination fee month over month , not sure if that warrants doubling the initial amount though .
The charging for " even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB " sounds really shady to me and would make me question my carrier , no matter who it was at the time .
I do feel that the article is somewhat disjointed though , as it goes from discussing termination fees for smart phones ( which often have data plans ) to data charges on all the other phones to the point of mentioning how most of the non-smart phones have dedicated keys for some form of web access .
Two interesting points , poorly constructed transition from one to the next. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, this is pretty bad.
I do like the slowly lowering of the termination fee month over month, not sure if that warrants doubling the initial amount though.
The charging for "even one kilobyte--is billed as 1MB" sounds really shady to me and would make me question my carrier, no matter who it was at the time.
I do feel that the article is somewhat disjointed though, as it goes from discussing termination fees for smart phones (which often have data plans) to data charges on all the other phones to the point of mentioning how most of the non-smart phones have dedicated keys for some form of web access.
Two interesting points, poorly constructed transition from one to the next..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</id>
	<title>It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1258021920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you buy a smartphone through Verizon, be prepared for an increase in the early termination fee. Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350.</p></div><p>You sign a contract with Verizon.  Verizon is providing the services.  You are contracting with them and saying you will use their services for X years.  It's a contract.  Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be.  In this case, Verizon is saying that you are charged $350 if you break your contract and stop paying them what you said you would pay them.</p><p>Honestly, I don't see what the deal is.  Chances are you are paying what... average of $100 a month for a Verizon plan?  So $350 is 3.5 months?  Paying 3.5 months for breaking a <i>24 month contract</i> doesn't seem so unreasonable.</p><p>The fact that they ARE using that money to subsidize their "free phone" stuff is irrelevant.  If they are able to apply money they get from termination fees to offer cheaper phones and get more customers that way, I see no problem with that.</p><p>But... oh well.  It's much more interesting to complain about early termination fees as if they are hidden or sneaky or something.  As if contracts should be able to be broken by either party without any consequences...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you buy a smartphone through Verizon , be prepared for an increase in the early termination fee .
Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $ 350.You sign a contract with Verizon .
Verizon is providing the services .
You are contracting with them and saying you will use their services for X years .
It 's a contract .
Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be .
In this case , Verizon is saying that you are charged $ 350 if you break your contract and stop paying them what you said you would pay them.Honestly , I do n't see what the deal is .
Chances are you are paying what... average of $ 100 a month for a Verizon plan ?
So $ 350 is 3.5 months ?
Paying 3.5 months for breaking a 24 month contract does n't seem so unreasonable.The fact that they ARE using that money to subsidize their " free phone " stuff is irrelevant .
If they are able to apply money they get from termination fees to offer cheaper phones and get more customers that way , I see no problem with that.But... oh well .
It 's much more interesting to complain about early termination fees as if they are hidden or sneaky or something .
As if contracts should be able to be broken by either party without any consequences.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you buy a smartphone through Verizon, be prepared for an increase in the early termination fee.
Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350.You sign a contract with Verizon.
Verizon is providing the services.
You are contracting with them and saying you will use their services for X years.
It's a contract.
Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be.
In this case, Verizon is saying that you are charged $350 if you break your contract and stop paying them what you said you would pay them.Honestly, I don't see what the deal is.
Chances are you are paying what... average of $100 a month for a Verizon plan?
So $350 is 3.5 months?
Paying 3.5 months for breaking a 24 month contract doesn't seem so unreasonable.The fact that they ARE using that money to subsidize their "free phone" stuff is irrelevant.
If they are able to apply money they get from termination fees to offer cheaper phones and get more customers that way, I see no problem with that.But... oh well.
It's much more interesting to complain about early termination fees as if they are hidden or sneaky or something.
As if contracts should be able to be broken by either party without any consequences...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086452</id>
	<title>Verizon can bite my shiny metal...</title>
	<author>Chelloveck</author>
	<datestamp>1258126380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We were on Verizon for the length of our contract plus 11 months. Then we switched to Sprint. Verizon wanted us to pay the early cancellation fee, despite there being nothing "early" about it. Their claim was that by continuing to use the phone we had renewed the contract. Yeah, right. It's only taken three years, but their collections people have finally stopped calling us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We were on Verizon for the length of our contract plus 11 months .
Then we switched to Sprint .
Verizon wanted us to pay the early cancellation fee , despite there being nothing " early " about it .
Their claim was that by continuing to use the phone we had renewed the contract .
Yeah , right .
It 's only taken three years , but their collections people have finally stopped calling us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were on Verizon for the length of our contract plus 11 months.
Then we switched to Sprint.
Verizon wanted us to pay the early cancellation fee, despite there being nothing "early" about it.
Their claim was that by continuing to use the phone we had renewed the contract.
Yeah, right.
It's only taken three years, but their collections people have finally stopped calling us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081582</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>LurkerXXX</author>
	<datestamp>1258031100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had that happen.  I specifically called them to have them block data service.</p><p>The next 2 months each had data charges that I had to call them up and insist they remove the charges and enforce the block.</p><p>Verizon sucks.  I never want to use them again.  They nickel and dime you worse than any other provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had that happen .
I specifically called them to have them block data service.The next 2 months each had data charges that I had to call them up and insist they remove the charges and enforce the block.Verizon sucks .
I never want to use them again .
They nickel and dime you worse than any other provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had that happen.
I specifically called them to have them block data service.The next 2 months each had data charges that I had to call them up and insist they remove the charges and enforce the block.Verizon sucks.
I never want to use them again.
They nickel and dime you worse than any other provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084590</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1258106520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if Motorola wont bring out the phone in unlocked form, there are others currently coming on board with similar specced Android phones. You just have to wait 1-3 months for the alternatives.<br>Currently in the line, HTC Dragon, the Sony and Acer as well as the LG mobile.<br>Just because Motorola was first does not mean there wont be others, we are not talking about the iPhone here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if Motorola wont bring out the phone in unlocked form , there are others currently coming on board with similar specced Android phones .
You just have to wait 1-3 months for the alternatives.Currently in the line , HTC Dragon , the Sony and Acer as well as the LG mobile.Just because Motorola was first does not mean there wont be others , we are not talking about the iPhone here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if Motorola wont bring out the phone in unlocked form, there are others currently coming on board with similar specced Android phones.
You just have to wait 1-3 months for the alternatives.Currently in the line, HTC Dragon, the Sony and Acer as well as the LG mobile.Just because Motorola was first does not mean there wont be others, we are not talking about the iPhone here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084840</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>Atomic Fro</author>
	<datestamp>1258109880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be great, except the other three will be doing the same thing very shortly. Same with text message fees. It was David Pogue's number one <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/technology/personaltech/23pogue.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">gripe</a> [nytimes.com].</p><p>Cellular phone service in the United States is not a free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be great , except the other three will be doing the same thing very shortly .
Same with text message fees .
It was David Pogue 's number one gripe [ nytimes.com ] .Cellular phone service in the United States is not a free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be great, except the other three will be doing the same thing very shortly.
Same with text message fees.
It was David Pogue's number one gripe [nytimes.com].Cellular phone service in the United States is not a free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079426</id>
	<title>Verizon: "there's a scam for that".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't want to use the data service? There's a scam for that. Want to upgrade your phone? There's a scam for that. No matter what you want to do, we'll get your money. Because there's a scam for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't want to use the data service ?
There 's a scam for that .
Want to upgrade your phone ?
There 's a scam for that .
No matter what you want to do , we 'll get your money .
Because there 's a scam for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't want to use the data service?
There's a scam for that.
Want to upgrade your phone?
There's a scam for that.
No matter what you want to do, we'll get your money.
Because there's a scam for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080306</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon is doubling the phone-subsidy to $350..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out StraightTalk, Verizon network without the Verizon scam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out StraightTalk , Verizon network without the Verizon scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out StraightTalk, Verizon network without the Verizon scam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081046</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon: "there's a scam for that".</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258028280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should really make a YouTube video series with that theme. Let's just hire some **AA henchmen, and let them do it. Nobody in the world could create a more horrifyingly disgusting view on them. Nobody. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should really make a YouTube video series with that theme .
Let 's just hire some * * AA henchmen , and let them do it .
Nobody in the world could create a more horrifyingly disgusting view on them .
Nobody. ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should really make a YouTube video series with that theme.
Let's just hire some **AA henchmen, and let them do it.
Nobody in the world could create a more horrifyingly disgusting view on them.
Nobody. ^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083078</id>
	<title>Re:The new termination fee is high, but justifiabl</title>
	<author>amram9999</author>
	<datestamp>1258042920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this line of reasoning is that the phone shouldn't cost anywhere near $560. It probably costs Motorola less than $200 to produce the phone, and they probably sell it to VZW for less than $300. If anyone buys the phone for $560, VZW is making a killing on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this line of reasoning is that the phone should n't cost anywhere near $ 560 .
It probably costs Motorola less than $ 200 to produce the phone , and they probably sell it to VZW for less than $ 300 .
If anyone buys the phone for $ 560 , VZW is making a killing on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this line of reasoning is that the phone shouldn't cost anywhere near $560.
It probably costs Motorola less than $200 to produce the phone, and they probably sell it to VZW for less than $300.
If anyone buys the phone for $560, VZW is making a killing on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080148</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>DarkSabreLord</author>
	<datestamp>1258024440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a major reason they did this was because of customers abusing buy-one-get-one-free offers on smartphones.  Under the old fees structure it was possible to buy two and resell/terminate on one device, thus leading to a net profit at the expense of Verizon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a major reason they did this was because of customers abusing buy-one-get-one-free offers on smartphones .
Under the old fees structure it was possible to buy two and resell/terminate on one device , thus leading to a net profit at the expense of Verizon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a major reason they did this was because of customers abusing buy-one-get-one-free offers on smartphones.
Under the old fees structure it was possible to buy two and resell/terminate on one device, thus leading to a net profit at the expense of Verizon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079436</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See, if it were real data usage, that would be fine and I agree with you. One major problem: they explicitly refuse to disable data. I have no intention of ever using data on Verizon yet I have to have a plan that says they charge obscene amounts for accidental button presses on a phone I only want to use for calls and texting. (I have nothing against smart phones / data plans... I just have an n810 and am at university so there is free Wi-Fi everywhere.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>See , if it were real data usage , that would be fine and I agree with you .
One major problem : they explicitly refuse to disable data .
I have no intention of ever using data on Verizon yet I have to have a plan that says they charge obscene amounts for accidental button presses on a phone I only want to use for calls and texting .
( I have nothing against smart phones / data plans... I just have an n810 and am at university so there is free Wi-Fi everywhere .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, if it were real data usage, that would be fine and I agree with you.
One major problem: they explicitly refuse to disable data.
I have no intention of ever using data on Verizon yet I have to have a plan that says they charge obscene amounts for accidental button presses on a phone I only want to use for calls and texting.
(I have nothing against smart phones / data plans... I just have an n810 and am at university so there is free Wi-Fi everywhere.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080492</id>
	<title>Yeah we get a buck for that</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1258025820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you actually want to look at the map, yeah we get a buck for that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually want to look at the map , yeah we get a buck for that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually want to look at the map, yeah we get a buck for that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079592</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>mayko</author>
	<datestamp>1258022700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My problem would be with<br> <br>

Guy/Girl: "Hey Verizon, can you block my data service so I don't accidentally use it?"<br> <br>
Verizon:  "Sure we can. (click)"<br> <br>
Guy/Girl: "Uh, Why is my bill showing charges for data, that I have disabled?"<br> <br>
Verizon:  "Because silly.... we have to send you data to tell you that you can't use the data plan!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem would be with Guy/Girl : " Hey Verizon , can you block my data service so I do n't accidentally use it ?
" Verizon : " Sure we can .
( click ) " Guy/Girl : " Uh , Why is my bill showing charges for data , that I have disabled ?
" Verizon : " Because silly.... we have to send you data to tell you that you ca n't use the data plan !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem would be with 

Guy/Girl: "Hey Verizon, can you block my data service so I don't accidentally use it?
" 
Verizon:  "Sure we can.
(click)" 
Guy/Girl: "Uh, Why is my bill showing charges for data, that I have disabled?
" 
Verizon:  "Because silly.... we have to send you data to tell you that you can't use the data plan!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem for me isn't that they have ETF fees, in fact given most phones have a subsidy I under stand that. My problem is that you cannot sign a contract without an ETF even if you provide your own phone. On top of that if you buy a phone without a subsidy it's not like you can negotiate a service discount with Verizon. You pay the same amount in either case and that's not really fair.</p><p>If Verizon actually cared about the customer they would offer a choice of the following two plan options.</p><p>1. Subsidized phone, contract, and ETF. You pay for you phone over the life of your contract, basically you're leasing the phone.</p><p>2. Unsubsidized phone, no contract, no ETF, discounted plan rate. You buy the phone outright since you paid full price for it you should save the difference between the price you paid and the subsidized price over the same length of time as the contract from option 1.</p><p>In fact at one point I was going to sign up for a plan with Verizon and bring my own phone, but even if I didn't get a new phone from them to setup new service I had to agree to a 1 year contract which included an ETF. There was NO way to avoid the contract.</p><p>This entire subsidy and ETF thing on your phone reminds me of old MA Bell. Before the original AT&amp;T got broken up due to being a monopoly it wasn't actually possible for you to buy a telephone. You HAD to lease the phone from the phone company, and the phone company owned your phone. You basically got whatever phone Ma Bell wanted you to have. Cellphone companies are in that position now. While they say you "buy" your phone, you're really leasing it with no option to truly own it. If these companies were forced to offer a choice of phones, and didn't have these crazy contracts to hide behind I'm sure the cost of cellphone handsets would drop along through real competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem for me is n't that they have ETF fees , in fact given most phones have a subsidy I under stand that .
My problem is that you can not sign a contract without an ETF even if you provide your own phone .
On top of that if you buy a phone without a subsidy it 's not like you can negotiate a service discount with Verizon .
You pay the same amount in either case and that 's not really fair.If Verizon actually cared about the customer they would offer a choice of the following two plan options.1 .
Subsidized phone , contract , and ETF .
You pay for you phone over the life of your contract , basically you 're leasing the phone.2 .
Unsubsidized phone , no contract , no ETF , discounted plan rate .
You buy the phone outright since you paid full price for it you should save the difference between the price you paid and the subsidized price over the same length of time as the contract from option 1.In fact at one point I was going to sign up for a plan with Verizon and bring my own phone , but even if I did n't get a new phone from them to setup new service I had to agree to a 1 year contract which included an ETF .
There was NO way to avoid the contract.This entire subsidy and ETF thing on your phone reminds me of old MA Bell .
Before the original AT&amp;T got broken up due to being a monopoly it was n't actually possible for you to buy a telephone .
You HAD to lease the phone from the phone company , and the phone company owned your phone .
You basically got whatever phone Ma Bell wanted you to have .
Cellphone companies are in that position now .
While they say you " buy " your phone , you 're really leasing it with no option to truly own it .
If these companies were forced to offer a choice of phones , and did n't have these crazy contracts to hide behind I 'm sure the cost of cellphone handsets would drop along through real competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem for me isn't that they have ETF fees, in fact given most phones have a subsidy I under stand that.
My problem is that you cannot sign a contract without an ETF even if you provide your own phone.
On top of that if you buy a phone without a subsidy it's not like you can negotiate a service discount with Verizon.
You pay the same amount in either case and that's not really fair.If Verizon actually cared about the customer they would offer a choice of the following two plan options.1.
Subsidized phone, contract, and ETF.
You pay for you phone over the life of your contract, basically you're leasing the phone.2.
Unsubsidized phone, no contract, no ETF, discounted plan rate.
You buy the phone outright since you paid full price for it you should save the difference between the price you paid and the subsidized price over the same length of time as the contract from option 1.In fact at one point I was going to sign up for a plan with Verizon and bring my own phone, but even if I didn't get a new phone from them to setup new service I had to agree to a 1 year contract which included an ETF.
There was NO way to avoid the contract.This entire subsidy and ETF thing on your phone reminds me of old MA Bell.
Before the original AT&amp;T got broken up due to being a monopoly it wasn't actually possible for you to buy a telephone.
You HAD to lease the phone from the phone company, and the phone company owned your phone.
You basically got whatever phone Ma Bell wanted you to have.
Cellphone companies are in that position now.
While they say you "buy" your phone, you're really leasing it with no option to truly own it.
If these companies were forced to offer a choice of phones, and didn't have these crazy contracts to hide behind I'm sure the cost of cellphone handsets would drop along through real competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080844</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1258027320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh right.  The free market.</p><p>I can choose from one of 5 companies who all do the same thing or one which doesn't provide coverage anywhere useful.</p><p>WhoooO! Free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh right .
The free market.I can choose from one of 5 companies who all do the same thing or one which does n't provide coverage anywhere useful.WhoooO !
Free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh right.
The free market.I can choose from one of 5 companies who all do the same thing or one which doesn't provide coverage anywhere useful.WhoooO!
Free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079386</id>
	<title>Cancel your data service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just call them and say, "Hey, I would like to have all data services blocked on my account." When I was trying to save a buck that is what I did. The only collateral damage was that I could not receive MMS pictures on my Windows Mobile Smart Phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just call them and say , " Hey , I would like to have all data services blocked on my account .
" When I was trying to save a buck that is what I did .
The only collateral damage was that I could not receive MMS pictures on my Windows Mobile Smart Phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just call them and say, "Hey, I would like to have all data services blocked on my account.
" When I was trying to save a buck that is what I did.
The only collateral damage was that I could not receive MMS pictures on my Windows Mobile Smart Phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>ZombieWomble</author>
	<datestamp>1258022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article, I think the issue with the fee is that it is <i>not</i> an early termination fee on your contract, any more. According to the article, on a 2 year contract it starts at $350 and goes down $10 every month. A quick bit of subtraction shows that at the end of your contract you still owe $110. You've held up your end of the contract, and still Verizon want to take more money from you. That doesn't seem right.<p>
(Also, the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $100 a month or more? Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article , I think the issue with the fee is that it is not an early termination fee on your contract , any more .
According to the article , on a 2 year contract it starts at $ 350 and goes down $ 10 every month .
A quick bit of subtraction shows that at the end of your contract you still owe $ 110 .
You 've held up your end of the contract , and still Verizon want to take more money from you .
That does n't seem right .
( Also , the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $ 100 a month or more ?
Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article, I think the issue with the fee is that it is not an early termination fee on your contract, any more.
According to the article, on a 2 year contract it starts at $350 and goes down $10 every month.
A quick bit of subtraction shows that at the end of your contract you still owe $110.
You've held up your end of the contract, and still Verizon want to take more money from you.
That doesn't seem right.
(Also, the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $100 a month or more?
Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080324</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1258025220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've posted this on here before re the ETF issue...</p><p>since you can't negotiate in the context of this monopoly (or, really, oligopoly...) why not do what I do until our gov't gets a clue (good luck to that):</p><p>buy whatever phone has the highest spread between the eBay resale price and the discounted price you get a new contract/renewal and just sell the phone you don't want?</p><p>I've been doing this for years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've posted this on here before re the ETF issue...since you ca n't negotiate in the context of this monopoly ( or , really , oligopoly... ) why not do what I do until our gov't gets a clue ( good luck to that ) : buy whatever phone has the highest spread between the eBay resale price and the discounted price you get a new contract/renewal and just sell the phone you do n't want ? I 've been doing this for years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've posted this on here before re the ETF issue...since you can't negotiate in the context of this monopoly (or, really, oligopoly...) why not do what I do until our gov't gets a clue (good luck to that):buy whatever phone has the highest spread between the eBay resale price and the discounted price you get a new contract/renewal and just sell the phone you don't want?I've been doing this for years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080548</id>
	<title>Insidious...</title>
	<author>PPCAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1258026060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem I have is that on my phone the web browser is bound to the up direction on the circular directional wheel... With the OK button in the middle. I have frequently hit the up direction accidentally when I meant to press OK. And that launches the web browser. It doesn't ask for confirmation... Just pops up the web browser and immediately starts loading a page.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is the first I've heard of this practice and I know I accidentally called up a data app using the wheel by accident recently so I checked my bills but there are no data charges on it. Maybe it's because I'm one of those crazy "telephones make phone calls" people and still use a Razr.</p><p>Being the kind who would rather be safe than sorry and remembering my old moto phone allowed me to customize what each of those wheel buttons did, I went to go and change it. Trouble is, that phone was bought before Verizon started forcing their standard user interface onto all phone models.</p><p>Under the forced Verizon UI the only wheel button that is allowed to be modified is the down button which doesn't map to any of their services by default so not only do you get charged if you accidentally hit the button but you can't even remap or disable the button to ensure you never accidentally press it! </p><p>Worse still, according to TFA even if you specifically call Verizon and tell them to disable all data services the very act of pressing the button only to get a message saying you can't access that results in the fee being applied because data was technically transmitted.</p><p>I was fully prepared to contact the the FCC, the FTC, the BBB and my government reps about this if I had actually seen these charges but since I haven't I can't verify that this problem actually exists.</p><p>If you have been bitten by this then by all means contact the folks above because that's about as abusively scammed as you can get by a major company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem I have is that on my phone the web browser is bound to the up direction on the circular directional wheel... With the OK button in the middle .
I have frequently hit the up direction accidentally when I meant to press OK. And that launches the web browser .
It does n't ask for confirmation... Just pops up the web browser and immediately starts loading a page.This is the first I 've heard of this practice and I know I accidentally called up a data app using the wheel by accident recently so I checked my bills but there are no data charges on it .
Maybe it 's because I 'm one of those crazy " telephones make phone calls " people and still use a Razr.Being the kind who would rather be safe than sorry and remembering my old moto phone allowed me to customize what each of those wheel buttons did , I went to go and change it .
Trouble is , that phone was bought before Verizon started forcing their standard user interface onto all phone models.Under the forced Verizon UI the only wheel button that is allowed to be modified is the down button which does n't map to any of their services by default so not only do you get charged if you accidentally hit the button but you ca n't even remap or disable the button to ensure you never accidentally press it !
Worse still , according to TFA even if you specifically call Verizon and tell them to disable all data services the very act of pressing the button only to get a message saying you ca n't access that results in the fee being applied because data was technically transmitted.I was fully prepared to contact the the FCC , the FTC , the BBB and my government reps about this if I had actually seen these charges but since I have n't I ca n't verify that this problem actually exists.If you have been bitten by this then by all means contact the folks above because that 's about as abusively scammed as you can get by a major company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem I have is that on my phone the web browser is bound to the up direction on the circular directional wheel... With the OK button in the middle.
I have frequently hit the up direction accidentally when I meant to press OK. And that launches the web browser.
It doesn't ask for confirmation... Just pops up the web browser and immediately starts loading a page.This is the first I've heard of this practice and I know I accidentally called up a data app using the wheel by accident recently so I checked my bills but there are no data charges on it.
Maybe it's because I'm one of those crazy "telephones make phone calls" people and still use a Razr.Being the kind who would rather be safe than sorry and remembering my old moto phone allowed me to customize what each of those wheel buttons did, I went to go and change it.
Trouble is, that phone was bought before Verizon started forcing their standard user interface onto all phone models.Under the forced Verizon UI the only wheel button that is allowed to be modified is the down button which doesn't map to any of their services by default so not only do you get charged if you accidentally hit the button but you can't even remap or disable the button to ensure you never accidentally press it!
Worse still, according to TFA even if you specifically call Verizon and tell them to disable all data services the very act of pressing the button only to get a message saying you can't access that results in the fee being applied because data was technically transmitted.I was fully prepared to contact the the FCC, the FTC, the BBB and my government reps about this if I had actually seen these charges but since I haven't I can't verify that this problem actually exists.If you have been bitten by this then by all means contact the folks above because that's about as abusively scammed as you can get by a major company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082036</id>
	<title>Re:The new termination fee is high, but justifiabl</title>
	<author>rhizome</author>
	<datestamp>1258033980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The DROID with no contract is $560.</i></p><p>Is this really relevant to your ETF math, or are you just accepting their MSRP figure as a good starting point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DROID with no contract is $ 560.Is this really relevant to your ETF math , or are you just accepting their MSRP figure as a good starting point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DROID with no contract is $560.Is this really relevant to your ETF math, or are you just accepting their MSRP figure as a good starting point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081244</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258029180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But that makes too much sense...carriers would never go for that.</i></p><p>Wow.  Something Australian carriers have been doing for years that they haven't copied from the US asshats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that makes too much sense...carriers would never go for that.Wow .
Something Australian carriers have been doing for years that they have n't copied from the US asshats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that makes too much sense...carriers would never go for that.Wow.
Something Australian carriers have been doing for years that they haven't copied from the US asshats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734</id>
	<title>RUN AWAY FROM VERIZON WIRELESS!</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1258032000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, for the love of God and all that is decent in this world, steer clear of Verizon Wireless!!!</p><p>I am a Verizon Wireless customer. <b>They make "horrible customer service" sound like something to aspire to.</b></p><p>They haven't been able to get my bill "right" for months. Every single month there are random charges tacked on, that they cannot explain when I call. Until recently, they've cancelled these charges with good apology. But now?</p><p>I have two phones suspended because they are lost. Originally, I was told I could suspend them indefinitely. Then I was told that I could only suspend them month-by-month. Then I was was told I could suspend them three months at a time. Now, they're telling me that I can only suspend 6 months per year. None of which was mentioned when I asked up front, and none of which is ever consistently said after the fact.</p><p>So I decided to buy out the contract. Get this: Not only are they're charging me for two months' service for two phones I don't even have, they're charging me for an entire two months of service for both of those two phones AFTER the contract has been cancelled by being bought out!</p><p>If you are ever, EVER tempted to go Verizon, RUN LIKE HELL OUT OF THERE. They make a pack of lying vultures being eaten by a horde of hungry lawyers seem friendly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , for the love of God and all that is decent in this world , steer clear of Verizon Wireless ! !
! I am a Verizon Wireless customer .
They make " horrible customer service " sound like something to aspire to.They have n't been able to get my bill " right " for months .
Every single month there are random charges tacked on , that they can not explain when I call .
Until recently , they 've cancelled these charges with good apology .
But now ? I have two phones suspended because they are lost .
Originally , I was told I could suspend them indefinitely .
Then I was told that I could only suspend them month-by-month .
Then I was was told I could suspend them three months at a time .
Now , they 're telling me that I can only suspend 6 months per year .
None of which was mentioned when I asked up front , and none of which is ever consistently said after the fact.So I decided to buy out the contract .
Get this : Not only are they 're charging me for two months ' service for two phones I do n't even have , they 're charging me for an entire two months of service for both of those two phones AFTER the contract has been cancelled by being bought out ! If you are ever , EVER tempted to go Verizon , RUN LIKE HELL OUT OF THERE .
They make a pack of lying vultures being eaten by a horde of hungry lawyers seem friendly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, for the love of God and all that is decent in this world, steer clear of Verizon Wireless!!
!I am a Verizon Wireless customer.
They make "horrible customer service" sound like something to aspire to.They haven't been able to get my bill "right" for months.
Every single month there are random charges tacked on, that they cannot explain when I call.
Until recently, they've cancelled these charges with good apology.
But now?I have two phones suspended because they are lost.
Originally, I was told I could suspend them indefinitely.
Then I was told that I could only suspend them month-by-month.
Then I was was told I could suspend them three months at a time.
Now, they're telling me that I can only suspend 6 months per year.
None of which was mentioned when I asked up front, and none of which is ever consistently said after the fact.So I decided to buy out the contract.
Get this: Not only are they're charging me for two months' service for two phones I don't even have, they're charging me for an entire two months of service for both of those two phones AFTER the contract has been cancelled by being bought out!If you are ever, EVER tempted to go Verizon, RUN LIKE HELL OUT OF THERE.
They make a pack of lying vultures being eaten by a horde of hungry lawyers seem friendly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082406</id>
	<title>No, it is completely unjustifiable</title>
	<author>Michael G. Kaplan</author>
	<datestamp>1258036920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using the DROID as an example:</p><p>The DROID with no contract is $560.</p><p>Math with the current termination fee:
$200 for the phone +
$175 to immediately break your contract =
$375 (You save $185 over the no-contract price)</p><p>Math with the new termination fee:
$200 for the phone +
$350 to immediately break your contract =
$550 (You save $10 over the no-contract price)</p><p>Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract.  The new fee is high, but I can understand their reasoning.</p></div><p>Why do you blindly accept Verizon's word that the true cost of the DROID is $560? I don't know how much the DROID cost to manufacture, but the <a href="http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-Carries-178-96-BOM-and-Manufacturing-Cost-iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals.aspx" title="isuppli.com" rel="nofollow">components of an iPhone 3GS cost $179</a> [isuppli.com].  Assume the same for the DROID and toss in a generous amount for Motorola's assembly and R&amp;D and I will guesstimate that Motorola can easily sell these things at $300 each and still make a reasonable profit.</p><p>Verizon wants to make it effectively impossible for people to leave so they slap on a ridiculous extra $260 to what they paid for each DROID and they announce that a no-contract phone costs $560. All of a sudden the price-gouging termination fees they charge for their plans are 'justified'.</p><p>Oh yeah, and if you pay the ridiculous termination fee you must trash your DROID as it is carrier locked. You don't even own the phone you paid for.</p><p>This is just another reminder of why we desperately need Net Neutrality to apply to wireless carriers -- Motorola would then be selling unlocked DROIDs directly to users regardless of cell phone provider.  The retail price of the DROID would be determined by the open market in competition with every other model of cell phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the DROID as an example : The DROID with no contract is $ 560.Math with the current termination fee : $ 200 for the phone + $ 175 to immediately break your contract = $ 375 ( You save $ 185 over the no-contract price ) Math with the new termination fee : $ 200 for the phone + $ 350 to immediately break your contract = $ 550 ( You save $ 10 over the no-contract price ) Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract .
The new fee is high , but I can understand their reasoning.Why do you blindly accept Verizon 's word that the true cost of the DROID is $ 560 ?
I do n't know how much the DROID cost to manufacture , but the components of an iPhone 3GS cost $ 179 [ isuppli.com ] .
Assume the same for the DROID and toss in a generous amount for Motorola 's assembly and R&amp;D and I will guesstimate that Motorola can easily sell these things at $ 300 each and still make a reasonable profit.Verizon wants to make it effectively impossible for people to leave so they slap on a ridiculous extra $ 260 to what they paid for each DROID and they announce that a no-contract phone costs $ 560 .
All of a sudden the price-gouging termination fees they charge for their plans are 'justified'.Oh yeah , and if you pay the ridiculous termination fee you must trash your DROID as it is carrier locked .
You do n't even own the phone you paid for.This is just another reminder of why we desperately need Net Neutrality to apply to wireless carriers -- Motorola would then be selling unlocked DROIDs directly to users regardless of cell phone provider .
The retail price of the DROID would be determined by the open market in competition with every other model of cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the DROID as an example:The DROID with no contract is $560.Math with the current termination fee:
$200 for the phone +
$175 to immediately break your contract =
$375 (You save $185 over the no-contract price)Math with the new termination fee:
$200 for the phone +
$350 to immediately break your contract =
$550 (You save $10 over the no-contract price)Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract.
The new fee is high, but I can understand their reasoning.Why do you blindly accept Verizon's word that the true cost of the DROID is $560?
I don't know how much the DROID cost to manufacture, but the components of an iPhone 3GS cost $179 [isuppli.com].
Assume the same for the DROID and toss in a generous amount for Motorola's assembly and R&amp;D and I will guesstimate that Motorola can easily sell these things at $300 each and still make a reasonable profit.Verizon wants to make it effectively impossible for people to leave so they slap on a ridiculous extra $260 to what they paid for each DROID and they announce that a no-contract phone costs $560.
All of a sudden the price-gouging termination fees they charge for their plans are 'justified'.Oh yeah, and if you pay the ridiculous termination fee you must trash your DROID as it is carrier locked.
You don't even own the phone you paid for.This is just another reminder of why we desperately need Net Neutrality to apply to wireless carriers -- Motorola would then be selling unlocked DROIDs directly to users regardless of cell phone provider.
The retail price of the DROID would be determined by the open market in competition with every other model of cell phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</id>
	<title>Free market</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1258022820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't like the termination fee then you should simply use a competing service.  Your choice to use Verizon is voluntary.  Eventually the market will dictate what Verizon can charge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the termination fee then you should simply use a competing service .
Your choice to use Verizon is voluntary .
Eventually the market will dictate what Verizon can charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the termination fee then you should simply use a competing service.
Your choice to use Verizon is voluntary.
Eventually the market will dictate what Verizon can charge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083674</id>
	<title>Guaranteed way to avoid the web access charges</title>
	<author>The Rizz</author>
	<datestamp>1258049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have Verizon disable all web access from your phone. I believe you can even do it yourself through the My Verizon website.</p><p>Also, if you do end up getting charged for having accidentally hit a button, call up their billing department and explain that you hit the wrong button, and did not actually use said service - they'll usually take the charge right off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have Verizon disable all web access from your phone .
I believe you can even do it yourself through the My Verizon website.Also , if you do end up getting charged for having accidentally hit a button , call up their billing department and explain that you hit the wrong button , and did not actually use said service - they 'll usually take the charge right off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have Verizon disable all web access from your phone.
I believe you can even do it yourself through the My Verizon website.Also, if you do end up getting charged for having accidentally hit a button, call up their billing department and explain that you hit the wrong button, and did not actually use said service - they'll usually take the charge right off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080028</id>
	<title>Oh, a contract.  I guess that's okay th-- no wait.</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1258024080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You sign a contract with Verizon. Verizon is providing the services. You are contracting with them and saying you will use their services for X years. It's a contract. [...]</p><p>Honestly, I don't see what the deal is.</p></div><p>So what if it's a contract?  Does that magically make it unquestionably super-awesome or some sort of natural law like gravity which is pointless to complain about?</p><p>The point is that it's an <em>asinine</em> contract and that people are upset with its terms.  It would be one thing if Verizon was giving its customers something in exchange for the new terms, but no such benefit is being offered for the higher cost.  There are no upsides.  People have a right to be upset.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sign a contract with Verizon .
Verizon is providing the services .
You are contracting with them and saying you will use their services for X years .
It 's a contract .
[ ... ] Honestly , I do n't see what the deal is.So what if it 's a contract ?
Does that magically make it unquestionably super-awesome or some sort of natural law like gravity which is pointless to complain about ? The point is that it 's an asinine contract and that people are upset with its terms .
It would be one thing if Verizon was giving its customers something in exchange for the new terms , but no such benefit is being offered for the higher cost .
There are no upsides .
People have a right to be upset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sign a contract with Verizon.
Verizon is providing the services.
You are contracting with them and saying you will use their services for X years.
It's a contract.
[...]Honestly, I don't see what the deal is.So what if it's a contract?
Does that magically make it unquestionably super-awesome or some sort of natural law like gravity which is pointless to complain about?The point is that it's an asinine contract and that people are upset with its terms.
It would be one thing if Verizon was giving its customers something in exchange for the new terms, but no such benefit is being offered for the higher cost.
There are no upsides.
People have a right to be upset.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083286</id>
	<title>Droid on T-Mobile?</title>
	<author>crow</author>
	<datestamp>1258044660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=15838&amp;news=Motorola+Droid+Google+Android+OS+2.0+T-Mobile" title="brighthand.com">http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=15838&amp;news=Motorola+Droid+Google+Android+OS+2.0+T-Mobile</a> [brighthand.com]</p><p>That's what I found.  It's important to note that the Verizon 3G and the T-Mobile 3G networks are incompatible, so you can't just get a Verizon Droid, unlock it, and use it with T-Mobile.  (Even if you could, it would be expensive, and who knows how hard it will be to unlock the phone.)</p><p>If Verizon isn't paying for a significant exclusive contract on the phone, then this makes sense.  Otherwise we might be seeing a year or two delay, in which time some other phone will come out with all the same features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.brighthand.com/default.asp ? newsID = 15838&amp;news = Motorola + Droid + Google + Android + OS + 2.0 + T-Mobile [ brighthand.com ] That 's what I found .
It 's important to note that the Verizon 3G and the T-Mobile 3G networks are incompatible , so you ca n't just get a Verizon Droid , unlock it , and use it with T-Mobile .
( Even if you could , it would be expensive , and who knows how hard it will be to unlock the phone .
) If Verizon is n't paying for a significant exclusive contract on the phone , then this makes sense .
Otherwise we might be seeing a year or two delay , in which time some other phone will come out with all the same features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=15838&amp;news=Motorola+Droid+Google+Android+OS+2.0+T-Mobile [brighthand.com]That's what I found.
It's important to note that the Verizon 3G and the T-Mobile 3G networks are incompatible, so you can't just get a Verizon Droid, unlock it, and use it with T-Mobile.
(Even if you could, it would be expensive, and who knows how hard it will be to unlock the phone.
)If Verizon isn't paying for a significant exclusive contract on the phone, then this makes sense.
Otherwise we might be seeing a year or two delay, in which time some other phone will come out with all the same features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080014</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon Smartphones required to get data plan</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1258024020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can actually (or at least used to be able to) get around this by FULLY disabling data on your plan.</p><p>Pay-as-you-go data is, however, so actively discouraged that I wouldn't be surprised if they outright refuse to sell you the phone if you want PAYG data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can actually ( or at least used to be able to ) get around this by FULLY disabling data on your plan.Pay-as-you-go data is , however , so actively discouraged that I would n't be surprised if they outright refuse to sell you the phone if you want PAYG data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can actually (or at least used to be able to) get around this by FULLY disabling data on your plan.Pay-as-you-go data is, however, so actively discouraged that I wouldn't be surprised if they outright refuse to sell you the phone if you want PAYG data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082200</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint</title>
	<author>yottabit42</author>
	<datestamp>1258035060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a telecom worker, and having mobile phone service in the US and in Europe since the mid-1990s, I can say I hate Sprint and will never go back to them, ever, no matter what. I've had service from Cellular One, Airtouch, Sprint PCS, KPN (Netherlands), T-Mobile (the real one, in Germany), Tele2 (Germany), ATT Wireless (pre-GSM, and pre-Cingular), and VZW. I've had VZW now for five or six years and love it. I travel for a living around the whole country and rarely ever have any problems at all.

</p><p>I had Sprint in the late 90s until 2001. For crisake they named their company after the frequency band NO ONE WANTS because it's CRAP ("PCS" = 1900 MHz). Every time I would pass a semi on the I-70 between Dayton and Columbus I would drop the call. Absolutely aggravating. And the phone I bought was their top-of-the-line model at the time, and was very expensive, and was some POS made by Dense that did everything brilliantly but actually let you talk.

</p><p>VZW is more expensive, yes. But they're way more reliable. And they use 850 MHz band in most of the country; only 1900 MHz in the few areas they were late-to-market and the 850 MHz spectrum was already used up.

</p><p>Sprint Nextel is dead on their feet. I know many people in VZW and do a lot of work for them, and we all agree. They're just biding their time, hoping someone buys them out.

</p><p>Their generally horrible coverage, thanks to their generally horrible spectrum choice, has always led them to be a bargain for consumers, and most companies won't touch them. When they implemented PTT it sucked, too. So what did they do? They bought Nextel, a company using a proprietary Motorola protocol based on GSM and completely incompatible with the CDMA Sprint PCS was using. And now there are rumors Sprint Nextel will buy T-Mobile? Let's add a third incompatible protocol, because that just makes sense. You know, it's so quick and easy and cheap to switch out your entire infrastructure to be compatible.

</p><p>If you and your colleagues have such experiences where Sprint has good coverage in your area, and VZW does not, you are in a very rare area indeed. And I implore you and everyone you know with VZW problems in your area, to call VZW and complain. They do listen to complaints, and they are eventually sent to the local offices and RF engineers. I promise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a telecom worker , and having mobile phone service in the US and in Europe since the mid-1990s , I can say I hate Sprint and will never go back to them , ever , no matter what .
I 've had service from Cellular One , Airtouch , Sprint PCS , KPN ( Netherlands ) , T-Mobile ( the real one , in Germany ) , Tele2 ( Germany ) , ATT Wireless ( pre-GSM , and pre-Cingular ) , and VZW .
I 've had VZW now for five or six years and love it .
I travel for a living around the whole country and rarely ever have any problems at all .
I had Sprint in the late 90s until 2001 .
For crisake they named their company after the frequency band NO ONE WANTS because it 's CRAP ( " PCS " = 1900 MHz ) .
Every time I would pass a semi on the I-70 between Dayton and Columbus I would drop the call .
Absolutely aggravating .
And the phone I bought was their top-of-the-line model at the time , and was very expensive , and was some POS made by Dense that did everything brilliantly but actually let you talk .
VZW is more expensive , yes .
But they 're way more reliable .
And they use 850 MHz band in most of the country ; only 1900 MHz in the few areas they were late-to-market and the 850 MHz spectrum was already used up .
Sprint Nextel is dead on their feet .
I know many people in VZW and do a lot of work for them , and we all agree .
They 're just biding their time , hoping someone buys them out .
Their generally horrible coverage , thanks to their generally horrible spectrum choice , has always led them to be a bargain for consumers , and most companies wo n't touch them .
When they implemented PTT it sucked , too .
So what did they do ?
They bought Nextel , a company using a proprietary Motorola protocol based on GSM and completely incompatible with the CDMA Sprint PCS was using .
And now there are rumors Sprint Nextel will buy T-Mobile ?
Let 's add a third incompatible protocol , because that just makes sense .
You know , it 's so quick and easy and cheap to switch out your entire infrastructure to be compatible .
If you and your colleagues have such experiences where Sprint has good coverage in your area , and VZW does not , you are in a very rare area indeed .
And I implore you and everyone you know with VZW problems in your area , to call VZW and complain .
They do listen to complaints , and they are eventually sent to the local offices and RF engineers .
I promise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a telecom worker, and having mobile phone service in the US and in Europe since the mid-1990s, I can say I hate Sprint and will never go back to them, ever, no matter what.
I've had service from Cellular One, Airtouch, Sprint PCS, KPN (Netherlands), T-Mobile (the real one, in Germany), Tele2 (Germany), ATT Wireless (pre-GSM, and pre-Cingular), and VZW.
I've had VZW now for five or six years and love it.
I travel for a living around the whole country and rarely ever have any problems at all.
I had Sprint in the late 90s until 2001.
For crisake they named their company after the frequency band NO ONE WANTS because it's CRAP ("PCS" = 1900 MHz).
Every time I would pass a semi on the I-70 between Dayton and Columbus I would drop the call.
Absolutely aggravating.
And the phone I bought was their top-of-the-line model at the time, and was very expensive, and was some POS made by Dense that did everything brilliantly but actually let you talk.
VZW is more expensive, yes.
But they're way more reliable.
And they use 850 MHz band in most of the country; only 1900 MHz in the few areas they were late-to-market and the 850 MHz spectrum was already used up.
Sprint Nextel is dead on their feet.
I know many people in VZW and do a lot of work for them, and we all agree.
They're just biding their time, hoping someone buys them out.
Their generally horrible coverage, thanks to their generally horrible spectrum choice, has always led them to be a bargain for consumers, and most companies won't touch them.
When they implemented PTT it sucked, too.
So what did they do?
They bought Nextel, a company using a proprietary Motorola protocol based on GSM and completely incompatible with the CDMA Sprint PCS was using.
And now there are rumors Sprint Nextel will buy T-Mobile?
Let's add a third incompatible protocol, because that just makes sense.
You know, it's so quick and easy and cheap to switch out your entire infrastructure to be compatible.
If you and your colleagues have such experiences where Sprint has good coverage in your area, and VZW does not, you are in a very rare area indeed.
And I implore you and everyone you know with VZW problems in your area, to call VZW and complain.
They do listen to complaints, and they are eventually sent to the local offices and RF engineers.
I promise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080658</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258026540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're not against it because it makes sense. They're against it because it's not "leveraging" their collusion against the consumer as profitably as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not against it because it makes sense .
They 're against it because it 's not " leveraging " their collusion against the consumer as profitably as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not against it because it makes sense.
They're against it because it's not "leveraging" their collusion against the consumer as profitably as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084490</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258104540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait wait wait? 1 year + 11 months = almost 2 years.... Over where I live its illegal(by law) for these kinds of deals to have over 12 months "binding" contract, only when talking about big companies that do big contracts one may do a binding contract that lasts longer than 12 months<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P<br>I guess contracts and  binding time sucks in US, compared to Norway 3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait wait wait ?
1 year + 11 months = almost 2 years.... Over where I live its illegal ( by law ) for these kinds of deals to have over 12 months " binding " contract , only when talking about big companies that do big contracts one may do a binding contract that lasts longer than 12 months : PI guess contracts and binding time sucks in US , compared to Norway 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait wait wait?
1 year + 11 months = almost 2 years.... Over where I live its illegal(by law) for these kinds of deals to have over 12 months "binding" contract, only when talking about big companies that do big contracts one may do a binding contract that lasts longer than 12 months :PI guess contracts and  binding time sucks in US, compared to Norway 3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081874</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258032960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except the government didn't regulate the competitors out of existence, they were all purchased and this corporate loving government did nothing to stop it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the government did n't regulate the competitors out of existence , they were all purchased and this corporate loving government did nothing to stop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the government didn't regulate the competitors out of existence, they were all purchased and this corporate loving government did nothing to stop it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083032</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>gladish</author>
	<datestamp>1258042500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>T-Mobile already has droid phones. I bought an HTC Magic with android 1.6 from craigslist. The phone WILL NOT operate without a sim card. On bootup, it just sits and says no sim card. The only thing you can do is dial 911. I went to t-mobile, and they gave me the same as verizon. I had to get the most expensive plan they could dream up. I paid $60.00 to get a SIM card and now I have a droid phone and no lock-in. Since I didn't get any subsidized phone from them, I have no contract. Now from here you can do a couple things.

1. You can get an unlock code. This apparently removes the t-mobile lock-in. I've never don't it, but I'm almost certainly going to try it.

2. You can "root" it. This allows you to take any droid image and flash in onto the phone. I've have absolutely no experience with doing this, but there are articles on the web with detailed instructions.

* I don't know if 1 is required to do 2.

If you want to phone for hacking, I just laid out the plan for you. Buy one used from ebay or craigslist or wherever, get a month-to-month SIM card (if you don't already have one). and you're off and running.

One more thing. All these posts about how verizon sucks with their cancellation fees, nickel-and-diming you for everything, making it impossible to figure out what you're going to be charged for is exactly what these people want to turn the web into.</htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile already has droid phones .
I bought an HTC Magic with android 1.6 from craigslist .
The phone WILL NOT operate without a sim card .
On bootup , it just sits and says no sim card .
The only thing you can do is dial 911 .
I went to t-mobile , and they gave me the same as verizon .
I had to get the most expensive plan they could dream up .
I paid $ 60.00 to get a SIM card and now I have a droid phone and no lock-in .
Since I did n't get any subsidized phone from them , I have no contract .
Now from here you can do a couple things .
1. You can get an unlock code .
This apparently removes the t-mobile lock-in .
I 've never do n't it , but I 'm almost certainly going to try it .
2. You can " root " it .
This allows you to take any droid image and flash in onto the phone .
I 've have absolutely no experience with doing this , but there are articles on the web with detailed instructions .
* I do n't know if 1 is required to do 2 .
If you want to phone for hacking , I just laid out the plan for you .
Buy one used from ebay or craigslist or wherever , get a month-to-month SIM card ( if you do n't already have one ) .
and you 're off and running .
One more thing .
All these posts about how verizon sucks with their cancellation fees , nickel-and-diming you for everything , making it impossible to figure out what you 're going to be charged for is exactly what these people want to turn the web into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>T-Mobile already has droid phones.
I bought an HTC Magic with android 1.6 from craigslist.
The phone WILL NOT operate without a sim card.
On bootup, it just sits and says no sim card.
The only thing you can do is dial 911.
I went to t-mobile, and they gave me the same as verizon.
I had to get the most expensive plan they could dream up.
I paid $60.00 to get a SIM card and now I have a droid phone and no lock-in.
Since I didn't get any subsidized phone from them, I have no contract.
Now from here you can do a couple things.
1. You can get an unlock code.
This apparently removes the t-mobile lock-in.
I've never don't it, but I'm almost certainly going to try it.
2. You can "root" it.
This allows you to take any droid image and flash in onto the phone.
I've have absolutely no experience with doing this, but there are articles on the web with detailed instructions.
* I don't know if 1 is required to do 2.
If you want to phone for hacking, I just laid out the plan for you.
Buy one used from ebay or craigslist or wherever, get a month-to-month SIM card (if you don't already have one).
and you're off and running.
One more thing.
All these posts about how verizon sucks with their cancellation fees, nickel-and-diming you for everything, making it impossible to figure out what you're going to be charged for is exactly what these people want to turn the web into.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079948</id>
	<title>Sounds like FUD from the Deathstar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T and Apple are scared stupid about the Google power behind the Droid. So they are circulating these rumors about overage charges and early termination fees to scare people away from the Driod. As in these are not the Droids you are looking for. FUD plain and simple. I grilled Verizon the other day and I found out that the mandatory data plan that comes with the Droid has NO LIMIT, thats right NO LIMIT, the 5GB limit is on other devices the Drroid has NO LIMIT and NO OVERAGE CHARGES. So stop being whiner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T and Apple are scared stupid about the Google power behind the Droid .
So they are circulating these rumors about overage charges and early termination fees to scare people away from the Driod .
As in these are not the Droids you are looking for .
FUD plain and simple .
I grilled Verizon the other day and I found out that the mandatory data plan that comes with the Droid has NO LIMIT , thats right NO LIMIT , the 5GB limit is on other devices the Drroid has NO LIMIT and NO OVERAGE CHARGES .
So stop being whiner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T and Apple are scared stupid about the Google power behind the Droid.
So they are circulating these rumors about overage charges and early termination fees to scare people away from the Driod.
As in these are not the Droids you are looking for.
FUD plain and simple.
I grilled Verizon the other day and I found out that the mandatory data plan that comes with the Droid has NO LIMIT, thats right NO LIMIT, the 5GB limit is on other devices the Drroid has NO LIMIT and NO OVERAGE CHARGES.
So stop being whiner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083770</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258050900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Paying 3.5 months for breaking a 24 month contract doesn't seem so unreasonable.</p><p>Paying for 3.5 months MORE than you'll receive seems horribly unreasonable. If you change apartments, you don't pay the old landlord an extra 3.5 months rent. If you change car insurance, you don't pay your old insurer an extra 3.5 months.</p><p>Paying the fraction of the phone subsidy that you hadn't already covered in the monthly bills would make sense, but it's the same fee no matter where in the 24 months you cancel, be it day two or month 23. So it's not about money in a rational kind of way, it's about money in a punish-you-for-leaving/extra-money-extraction kind of way. Because on average, people would be leaving somewhere in the middle, and end up getting charged overall more than the phone was worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Paying 3.5 months for breaking a 24 month contract does n't seem so unreasonable.Paying for 3.5 months MORE than you 'll receive seems horribly unreasonable .
If you change apartments , you do n't pay the old landlord an extra 3.5 months rent .
If you change car insurance , you do n't pay your old insurer an extra 3.5 months.Paying the fraction of the phone subsidy that you had n't already covered in the monthly bills would make sense , but it 's the same fee no matter where in the 24 months you cancel , be it day two or month 23 .
So it 's not about money in a rational kind of way , it 's about money in a punish-you-for-leaving/extra-money-extraction kind of way .
Because on average , people would be leaving somewhere in the middle , and end up getting charged overall more than the phone was worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Paying 3.5 months for breaking a 24 month contract doesn't seem so unreasonable.Paying for 3.5 months MORE than you'll receive seems horribly unreasonable.
If you change apartments, you don't pay the old landlord an extra 3.5 months rent.
If you change car insurance, you don't pay your old insurer an extra 3.5 months.Paying the fraction of the phone subsidy that you hadn't already covered in the monthly bills would make sense, but it's the same fee no matter where in the 24 months you cancel, be it day two or month 23.
So it's not about money in a rational kind of way, it's about money in a punish-you-for-leaving/extra-money-extraction kind of way.
Because on average, people would be leaving somewhere in the middle, and end up getting charged overall more than the phone was worth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080552</id>
	<title>Re:The new termination fee is high, but justifiabl</title>
	<author>rocketPack</author>
	<datestamp>1258026060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah, I actually built a business model on this concept:<blockquote><div><p>1. Purchased DROID w/ contract<br>
2. Break contract, keep phone at $185 net profit<br>
3. Sell phone on eBay<br>
4. New user of phone activates phone on Verizon (because they have no choice of carrier when they buy the DROID) and pay Verizon a bunch of money that I wasn't going to pay<br>
5. New user changes their mind, sells the phone on eBay, and new-new user runs off to sign up with Verizon</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Ha! Ha! Ha! I really screwed Verizon over!!<br> <br>
Hey, wait...<br> <br> <br>
Point is, no matter how much Verizon sells a phone for, that phone can only do one of two things: be used to make Verizon money, or go in the trash. Is it justifiable for a CARRIER-LOCKED PHONE to be contractually *fully* subsidized by the purchaser? If this was AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, etc. I could see the point - I take my phone and run, screwing the company out of money. But with Verizon's phones, regardless of how long I am with them - the phone will keep making them money!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , I actually built a business model on this concept : 1 .
Purchased DROID w/ contract 2 .
Break contract , keep phone at $ 185 net profit 3 .
Sell phone on eBay 4 .
New user of phone activates phone on Verizon ( because they have no choice of carrier when they buy the DROID ) and pay Verizon a bunch of money that I was n't going to pay 5 .
New user changes their mind , sells the phone on eBay , and new-new user runs off to sign up with Verizon Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
I really screwed Verizon over ! !
Hey , wait.. . Point is , no matter how much Verizon sells a phone for , that phone can only do one of two things : be used to make Verizon money , or go in the trash .
Is it justifiable for a CARRIER-LOCKED PHONE to be contractually * fully * subsidized by the purchaser ?
If this was AT&amp;T , T-Mobile , etc .
I could see the point - I take my phone and run , screwing the company out of money .
But with Verizon 's phones , regardless of how long I am with them - the phone will keep making them money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, I actually built a business model on this concept:1.
Purchased DROID w/ contract
2.
Break contract, keep phone at $185 net profit
3.
Sell phone on eBay
4.
New user of phone activates phone on Verizon (because they have no choice of carrier when they buy the DROID) and pay Verizon a bunch of money that I wasn't going to pay
5.
New user changes their mind, sells the phone on eBay, and new-new user runs off to sign up with Verizon

Ha!
Ha! Ha!
I really screwed Verizon over!!
Hey, wait...  
Point is, no matter how much Verizon sells a phone for, that phone can only do one of two things: be used to make Verizon money, or go in the trash.
Is it justifiable for a CARRIER-LOCKED PHONE to be contractually *fully* subsidized by the purchaser?
If this was AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, etc.
I could see the point - I take my phone and run, screwing the company out of money.
But with Verizon's phones, regardless of how long I am with them - the phone will keep making them money!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086094</id>
	<title>Turns out AT&amp;T was the right choice</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1258124460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THIS is why Apple had to go with AT&amp;T and not Verizon.  Verizon may have the better network on paper, but I'm sure they would have buckled under the bandwidth issues presented by the iPhone explosion, just like AT&amp;T.  At least AT&amp;T had the sense to listen to Apple about how the phone should be bundled, and now they are reaping the rewards.</p><p>They all suck, but I have a special dark place in my heart for Verizon's shitty behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS is why Apple had to go with AT&amp;T and not Verizon .
Verizon may have the better network on paper , but I 'm sure they would have buckled under the bandwidth issues presented by the iPhone explosion , just like AT&amp;T .
At least AT&amp;T had the sense to listen to Apple about how the phone should be bundled , and now they are reaping the rewards.They all suck , but I have a special dark place in my heart for Verizon 's shitty behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS is why Apple had to go with AT&amp;T and not Verizon.
Verizon may have the better network on paper, but I'm sure they would have buckled under the bandwidth issues presented by the iPhone explosion, just like AT&amp;T.
At least AT&amp;T had the sense to listen to Apple about how the phone should be bundled, and now they are reaping the rewards.They all suck, but I have a special dark place in my heart for Verizon's shitty behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080182</id>
	<title>re Verizon</title>
	<author>freddieb</author>
	<datestamp>1258024560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I though AT&amp;T was bad..(well they are). Looks like Verizon is thanking customers as well with very unfriendly customer service.
I am a Sprint customer and I can say they finally seem to be getting it. I recently received unlimited cell to cell (any carrier) from them
without having to do anything. Looks like T-Mobile also gets it. I see they have added some nice options to their plans.

Unfortunately, they (Sprint and Tmobile) are the small guys now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I though AT&amp;T was bad.. ( well they are ) .
Looks like Verizon is thanking customers as well with very unfriendly customer service .
I am a Sprint customer and I can say they finally seem to be getting it .
I recently received unlimited cell to cell ( any carrier ) from them without having to do anything .
Looks like T-Mobile also gets it .
I see they have added some nice options to their plans .
Unfortunately , they ( Sprint and Tmobile ) are the small guys now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I though AT&amp;T was bad..(well they are).
Looks like Verizon is thanking customers as well with very unfriendly customer service.
I am a Sprint customer and I can say they finally seem to be getting it.
I recently received unlimited cell to cell (any carrier) from them
without having to do anything.
Looks like T-Mobile also gets it.
I see they have added some nice options to their plans.
Unfortunately, they (Sprint and Tmobile) are the small guys now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079588</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1258022700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".</p></div> </blockquote><p>
That's gotta be a troll but what the hell.  The problem is not that they are charging you for something you used even by mistake, the issue is they are charging you for much more then you are actually using and apparently they don't allow you to use what you've been charged for.  So lets say you accidentally push a button that opens up a browser or what ever and you load a page that is about 50KB you get charged for a megabyte so I should be able to go back and load the page again with out getting charged again since another 50KB would only be 100KB out of my 1000KB right?  That $1.99 should actually provide you with a megabyte of usage right?  So I should be able to make about 1000 1KB mistakes and only be charged $1.99 because I've only used 1MB of data on their network.  The idea is if I charge you for 1MB why shouldn't it be reasonable to be able to use it all?  If you intentionally check out a web page and someone calls while it loads will you have to start again?  So would it be reasonable to you if I charged you for a dozen doughnuts but only let you keep the ones you could stuff in your mouth at once?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use data , it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made " a mistake " .
That 's got ta be a troll but what the hell .
The problem is not that they are charging you for something you used even by mistake , the issue is they are charging you for much more then you are actually using and apparently they do n't allow you to use what you 've been charged for .
So lets say you accidentally push a button that opens up a browser or what ever and you load a page that is about 50KB you get charged for a megabyte so I should be able to go back and load the page again with out getting charged again since another 50KB would only be 100KB out of my 1000KB right ?
That $ 1.99 should actually provide you with a megabyte of usage right ?
So I should be able to make about 1000 1KB mistakes and only be charged $ 1.99 because I 've only used 1MB of data on their network .
The idea is if I charge you for 1MB why should n't it be reasonable to be able to use it all ?
If you intentionally check out a web page and someone calls while it loads will you have to start again ?
So would it be reasonable to you if I charged you for a dozen doughnuts but only let you keep the ones you could stuff in your mouth at once ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".
That's gotta be a troll but what the hell.
The problem is not that they are charging you for something you used even by mistake, the issue is they are charging you for much more then you are actually using and apparently they don't allow you to use what you've been charged for.
So lets say you accidentally push a button that opens up a browser or what ever and you load a page that is about 50KB you get charged for a megabyte so I should be able to go back and load the page again with out getting charged again since another 50KB would only be 100KB out of my 1000KB right?
That $1.99 should actually provide you with a megabyte of usage right?
So I should be able to make about 1000 1KB mistakes and only be charged $1.99 because I've only used 1MB of data on their network.
The idea is if I charge you for 1MB why shouldn't it be reasonable to be able to use it all?
If you intentionally check out a web page and someone calls while it loads will you have to start again?
So would it be reasonable to you if I charged you for a dozen doughnuts but only let you keep the ones you could stuff in your mouth at once?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079574</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got bit by accidental data service one month...<br>One phonecall to Verizon had data disabled.<br>No more issue.</p><p>You can also buy the phones without a contract- just plan on spending several hundred more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got bit by accidental data service one month...One phonecall to Verizon had data disabled.No more issue.You can also buy the phones without a contract- just plan on spending several hundred more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got bit by accidental data service one month...One phonecall to Verizon had data disabled.No more issue.You can also buy the phones without a contract- just plan on spending several hundred more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080362</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1258025340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(Also, the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $100 a month or more? Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something?)</i></p><p>What, you mean you DON'T get gold-plated USB sticks? Wow, you're getting ripped off!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Also , the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $ 100 a month or more ?
Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something ?
) What , you mean you DO N'T get gold-plated USB sticks ?
Wow , you 're getting ripped off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Also, the numbers Americans throw around for their cell phone contracts scare me - $100 a month or more?
Do they deliver your data to you in gold-plated USB sticks or something?
)What, you mean you DON'T get gold-plated USB sticks?
Wow, you're getting ripped off!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081306</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258029660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they give me $350 when they want to ammend the contract. Oh because they don't give a shit!<br>
<br>
If what you are saying is true then both sides should have similar penalties. There are penalties only going one way. They have all the power and are extorting money out of people.<br>
<br>
If I went to Verizon and told them I wanted to lower my termination fee, they wouldn't do anything.<br>
If Verizon goes to me (or mails me a form letter) stating they are raising the fee, it just goes up. All I can do is eat it, or buy a GSM phone and change carriers. Not at all a real 'Contract'. More like endentured servitude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they give me $ 350 when they want to ammend the contract .
Oh because they do n't give a shit !
If what you are saying is true then both sides should have similar penalties .
There are penalties only going one way .
They have all the power and are extorting money out of people .
If I went to Verizon and told them I wanted to lower my termination fee , they would n't do anything .
If Verizon goes to me ( or mails me a form letter ) stating they are raising the fee , it just goes up .
All I can do is eat it , or buy a GSM phone and change carriers .
Not at all a real 'Contract' .
More like endentured servitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they give me $350 when they want to ammend the contract.
Oh because they don't give a shit!
If what you are saying is true then both sides should have similar penalties.
There are penalties only going one way.
They have all the power and are extorting money out of people.
If I went to Verizon and told them I wanted to lower my termination fee, they wouldn't do anything.
If Verizon goes to me (or mails me a form letter) stating they are raising the fee, it just goes up.
All I can do is eat it, or buy a GSM phone and change carriers.
Not at all a real 'Contract'.
More like endentured servitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080662</id>
	<title>Done</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1258026540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking it would be difficult to justify switching from Verizon when my current contract runs out in 2 months, but now, fuck 'em.  I'm gone.  I only switched to Verizon from T-mobile because the latter didn't have the Treo I wanted any more.  Now they both have advanced Android models.  So fuck 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking it would be difficult to justify switching from Verizon when my current contract runs out in 2 months , but now , fuck 'em .
I 'm gone .
I only switched to Verizon from T-mobile because the latter did n't have the Treo I wanted any more .
Now they both have advanced Android models .
So fuck 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking it would be difficult to justify switching from Verizon when my current contract runs out in 2 months, but now, fuck 'em.
I'm gone.
I only switched to Verizon from T-mobile because the latter didn't have the Treo I wanted any more.
Now they both have advanced Android models.
So fuck 'em.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084014</id>
	<title>Re:RUN AWAY FROM VERIZON WIRELESS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258053540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>File an FCC complaint. They'll fall all over themselves trying to bend over backwards to do whatever you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>File an FCC complaint .
They 'll fall all over themselves trying to bend over backwards to do whatever you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>File an FCC complaint.
They'll fall all over themselves trying to bend over backwards to do whatever you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080386</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1258025460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This entire subsidy and ETF thing on your phone reminds me of old MA Bell.</p> </div><p>Indeed, the situation wrt to cell phone usage and billing is what we can look forward to if net neutrality is loses.  The tariffs that provided net neutrality in the US until the 1996 Telecom Act enabled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Cable\_\%26\_Telecommunications\_Association\_v.\_Brand\_X\_Internet\_Services" title="wikipedia.org">the Brand X ruling</a> [wikipedia.org] were written as part of the ATT break-up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This entire subsidy and ETF thing on your phone reminds me of old MA Bell .
Indeed , the situation wrt to cell phone usage and billing is what we can look forward to if net neutrality is loses .
The tariffs that provided net neutrality in the US until the 1996 Telecom Act enabled the Brand X ruling [ wikipedia.org ] were written as part of the ATT break-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This entire subsidy and ETF thing on your phone reminds me of old MA Bell.
Indeed, the situation wrt to cell phone usage and billing is what we can look forward to if net neutrality is loses.
The tariffs that provided net neutrality in the US until the 1996 Telecom Act enabled the Brand X ruling [wikipedia.org] were written as part of the ATT break-up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080134</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get the phone obsession</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1258024440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The wife &amp; I just bought a house and I've been inundated by tons of crap from Verizon about everything from Cell plans to television access... Hurray! Propaganda! Why am I going to get television service from a horrible phone company? Side note: Much less, why would I want phone service from a Cable Co? --Stak</htmltext>
<tokenext>The wife &amp; I just bought a house and I 've been inundated by tons of crap from Verizon about everything from Cell plans to television access... Hurray ! Propaganda !
Why am I going to get television service from a horrible phone company ?
Side note : Much less , why would I want phone service from a Cable Co ?
--Stak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wife &amp; I just bought a house and I've been inundated by tons of crap from Verizon about everything from Cell plans to television access... Hurray! Propaganda!
Why am I going to get television service from a horrible phone company?
Side note: Much less, why would I want phone service from a Cable Co?
--Stak</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079952</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1258023840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't so much the charge itself. It's just how easy it is to make that mistake.</p><p>It isn't like it's deeper menu item. On my phone, just fat fingering "up" will cause you to try to use Mobile Web.
This is a <i>really</i> easy thing to do, given that the "ok" button is in the middle of the D-pad on my phone.</p><p>The granularity is also an issue. Charging for a full MB when you use less than 1k? That's orders of magnitude worse than futzing a call and being charged a minute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't so much the charge itself .
It 's just how easy it is to make that mistake.It is n't like it 's deeper menu item .
On my phone , just fat fingering " up " will cause you to try to use Mobile Web .
This is a really easy thing to do , given that the " ok " button is in the middle of the D-pad on my phone.The granularity is also an issue .
Charging for a full MB when you use less than 1k ?
That 's orders of magnitude worse than futzing a call and being charged a minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't so much the charge itself.
It's just how easy it is to make that mistake.It isn't like it's deeper menu item.
On my phone, just fat fingering "up" will cause you to try to use Mobile Web.
This is a really easy thing to do, given that the "ok" button is in the middle of the D-pad on my phone.The granularity is also an issue.
Charging for a full MB when you use less than 1k?
That's orders of magnitude worse than futzing a call and being charged a minute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079376</id>
	<title>Setting a new standard for absurdity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that one key leading to charge of 1MB download thingy should be illegal. BY default the keys should come configured to NOT allow data fetch if the subscriber doesn't have a data plan. They charge so much for monthly phone plans and then they nickle &amp; dime their customers like this. What a shame!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that one key leading to charge of 1MB download thingy should be illegal .
BY default the keys should come configured to NOT allow data fetch if the subscriber does n't have a data plan .
They charge so much for monthly phone plans and then they nickle &amp; dime their customers like this .
What a shame !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that one key leading to charge of 1MB download thingy should be illegal.
BY default the keys should come configured to NOT allow data fetch if the subscriber doesn't have a data plan.
They charge so much for monthly phone plans and then they nickle &amp; dime their customers like this.
What a shame!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079446</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1258022280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, this 'article' doesn't seem to have any coherent point beyond 'Verizon sucks!' which makes me question the motives of the author.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this 'article ' does n't seem to have any coherent point beyond 'Verizon sucks !
' which makes me question the motives of the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this 'article' doesn't seem to have any coherent point beyond 'Verizon sucks!
' which makes me question the motives of the author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080052</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon Smartphones required to get data plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not in New England.</p><p>Also: all of those extra services: navigator, mobile-web, premium txt, ringtone downloads, ringbacks, etc. can be disabled from your online account.  Once done you can hit those buttons all you want and nothing happens.</p><p>Can't vote with my feet.  Nobody else has coverage here in the wilds 15 miles outside of Boston.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not in New England.Also : all of those extra services : navigator , mobile-web , premium txt , ringtone downloads , ringbacks , etc .
can be disabled from your online account .
Once done you can hit those buttons all you want and nothing happens.Ca n't vote with my feet .
Nobody else has coverage here in the wilds 15 miles outside of Boston .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not in New England.Also: all of those extra services: navigator, mobile-web, premium txt, ringtone downloads, ringbacks, etc.
can be disabled from your online account.
Once done you can hit those buttons all you want and nothing happens.Can't vote with my feet.
Nobody else has coverage here in the wilds 15 miles outside of Boston.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080788</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint</title>
	<author>otterpopjunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1258027080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got sprint for two years - it was the cheapest plan @ 35/mo. Ended up paying close to $60 every month.. and I hardly went over my minutes at all. Hidden fees and taxes out the ying yang.
<p>
Now I have ATT, wayy more minutes, better service, rollover, and I pay $45 or less every month.
</p><p>
Although a friend highly recommended verizon. What a vicious cycle of pain.
</p><p>
*Living in Alaska and Washington State.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got sprint for two years - it was the cheapest plan @ 35/mo .
Ended up paying close to $ 60 every month.. and I hardly went over my minutes at all .
Hidden fees and taxes out the ying yang .
Now I have ATT , wayy more minutes , better service , rollover , and I pay $ 45 or less every month .
Although a friend highly recommended verizon .
What a vicious cycle of pain .
* Living in Alaska and Washington State .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got sprint for two years - it was the cheapest plan @ 35/mo.
Ended up paying close to $60 every month.. and I hardly went over my minutes at all.
Hidden fees and taxes out the ying yang.
Now I have ATT, wayy more minutes, better service, rollover, and I pay $45 or less every month.
Although a friend highly recommended verizon.
What a vicious cycle of pain.
*Living in Alaska and Washington State.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079714</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon: "there's a scam for that".</title>
	<author>Moof123</author>
	<datestamp>1258023060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charging for incoming text messages:  Scam<br>Charging for data service without a verification nag: Scam<br>Seeing an iphone/droid user wander into oncoming traffic: Priceless!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charging for incoming text messages : ScamCharging for data service without a verification nag : ScamSeeing an iphone/droid user wander into oncoming traffic : Priceless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charging for incoming text messages:  ScamCharging for data service without a verification nag: ScamSeeing an iphone/droid user wander into oncoming traffic: Priceless!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</id>
	<title>Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1258021860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T?  If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".  It's not like international roaming is any more lenient.</p><p>As for early termination fees increasing, that's what gets you nice phones for cheap.  I don't really see a problem with these fees since they are making phones more affordable given that you would have a phone plan anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T ?
If you use data , it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made " a mistake " .
It 's not like international roaming is any more lenient.As for early termination fees increasing , that 's what gets you nice phones for cheap .
I do n't really see a problem with these fees since they are making phones more affordable given that you would have a phone plan anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T?
If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".
It's not like international roaming is any more lenient.As for early termination fees increasing, that's what gets you nice phones for cheap.
I don't really see a problem with these fees since they are making phones more affordable given that you would have a phone plan anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080086</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>enigma32</author>
	<datestamp>1258024260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that.</p><p>There are really only two major options (ATT,Verizon) in the US.... add Sprint and T-Mobile if OK coverage is acceptable... and then slowly get into all the little guys.</p><p>So what if I want a modern phone with good coverage? What voluntary choice should I make that keeps ATT and Verizon in line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that.There are really only two major options ( ATT,Verizon ) in the US.... add Sprint and T-Mobile if OK coverage is acceptable... and then slowly get into all the little guys.So what if I want a modern phone with good coverage ?
What voluntary choice should I make that keeps ATT and Verizon in line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that.There are really only two major options (ATT,Verizon) in the US.... add Sprint and T-Mobile if OK coverage is acceptable... and then slowly get into all the little guys.So what if I want a modern phone with good coverage?
What voluntary choice should I make that keeps ATT and Verizon in line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084126</id>
	<title>Honest phone company?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there such thing as an honest phone company in the US?  If so, I'd gladly change carriers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there such thing as an honest phone company in the US ?
If so , I 'd gladly change carriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there such thing as an honest phone company in the US?
If so, I'd gladly change carriers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084870</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>unwastaken</author>
	<datestamp>1258110420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I understand, on principle why they charge early termination fees.  $350 for a smartphone seems extreme, but taking the new Droid for example, the phone costs $550 without a plan and the customer gets it for $200 which is right in line.  What doesn't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in, I'm expected to pay the whole termination fee, despite the fact that Verizon has already made back $335 of it.  That's just abusive.  Termination fees should be proportional to the amount of the contract you are terminating and capped at the amount of subsidization on the phone.</p></div><p>The principal is that they <b>can</b> charge the fee, and nothing more than that.  It's basic contracts, you agreed to it when you signed up.  Paying back the phone is a red herring they use to make you feel less violated.  At the rates these companies are charging for sending radio waves back and forth the phone is paid off well before the end of the contract.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand , on principle why they charge early termination fees .
$ 350 for a smartphone seems extreme , but taking the new Droid for example , the phone costs $ 550 without a plan and the customer gets it for $ 200 which is right in line .
What does n't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in , I 'm expected to pay the whole termination fee , despite the fact that Verizon has already made back $ 335 of it .
That 's just abusive .
Termination fees should be proportional to the amount of the contract you are terminating and capped at the amount of subsidization on the phone.The principal is that they can charge the fee , and nothing more than that .
It 's basic contracts , you agreed to it when you signed up .
Paying back the phone is a red herring they use to make you feel less violated .
At the rates these companies are charging for sending radio waves back and forth the phone is paid off well before the end of the contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand, on principle why they charge early termination fees.
$350 for a smartphone seems extreme, but taking the new Droid for example, the phone costs $550 without a plan and the customer gets it for $200 which is right in line.
What doesn't make sense is the fact that if I cancel my contract 1 year and 11 months in, I'm expected to pay the whole termination fee, despite the fact that Verizon has already made back $335 of it.
That's just abusive.
Termination fees should be proportional to the amount of the contract you are terminating and capped at the amount of subsidization on the phone.The principal is that they can charge the fee, and nothing more than that.
It's basic contracts, you agreed to it when you signed up.
Paying back the phone is a red herring they use to make you feel less violated.
At the rates these companies are charging for sending radio waves back and forth the phone is paid off well before the end of the contract.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079986</id>
	<title>Re:Free market</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258023960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There isn't anything free about the cell phone market in the USA.  Have you seen what people in the other parts of the world pay for service?  A hell of a lot less.</p><p>Why doesn't the "free" market in the USA remedy this situation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't anything free about the cell phone market in the USA .
Have you seen what people in the other parts of the world pay for service ?
A hell of a lot less.Why does n't the " free " market in the USA remedy this situation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't anything free about the cell phone market in the USA.
Have you seen what people in the other parts of the world pay for service?
A hell of a lot less.Why doesn't the "free" market in the USA remedy this situation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080072</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>ubercam</author>
	<datestamp>1258024200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's T-Mobile's European heritage soaking through since pretty much all carriers in the UK (unsure about other countries) do that. If you're just getting a plan, you save a bit vs. getting a plan and subsidizing the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's T-Mobile 's European heritage soaking through since pretty much all carriers in the UK ( unsure about other countries ) do that .
If you 're just getting a plan , you save a bit vs. getting a plan and subsidizing the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's T-Mobile's European heritage soaking through since pretty much all carriers in the UK (unsure about other countries) do that.
If you're just getting a plan, you save a bit vs. getting a plan and subsidizing the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086006</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1258123860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's a contract. Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be.</i></p><p>Uh, <b>changing</b> a contract is something both parties have to agree to.  And that's precisely what Verizon is trying to pull.  You sign a contract, then a few months later, Verizon says, <i>"Well, actually, <b>this</b> is what we meant."</i></p><p>Thankfully, any time a company does this you have the legal option to say <b>NO.</b>  And happily keep any promotional items that came along with the deal (like... oh, I don't know... <b>THE PHONE!</b>)</p><p>If Verizon was serious about contracts they'd try sticking to one for a change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a contract .
Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be.Uh , changing a contract is something both parties have to agree to .
And that 's precisely what Verizon is trying to pull .
You sign a contract , then a few months later , Verizon says , " Well , actually , this is what we meant .
" Thankfully , any time a company does this you have the legal option to say NO .
And happily keep any promotional items that came along with the deal ( like... oh , I do n't know... THE PHONE !
) If Verizon was serious about contracts they 'd try sticking to one for a change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a contract.
Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be.Uh, changing a contract is something both parties have to agree to.
And that's precisely what Verizon is trying to pull.
You sign a contract, then a few months later, Verizon says, "Well, actually, this is what we meant.
"Thankfully, any time a company does this you have the legal option to say NO.
And happily keep any promotional items that came along with the deal (like... oh, I don't know... THE PHONE!
)If Verizon was serious about contracts they'd try sticking to one for a change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080946</id>
	<title>Re:The new termination fee is high, but justifiabl</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1258027740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using the DROID as an example:</p><p>The DROID with no contract is $560.</p><p>Math with the current termination fee:<br>$200 for the phone +<br>$175 to immediately break your contract =<br>$375 (You save $185 over the no-contract price)</p><p>Math with the new termination fee:<br>$200 for the phone +<br>$350 to immediately break your contract =<br>$550 (You save $10 over the no-contract price)</p><p>Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract.  The new fee is high, but I can understand their reasoning.</p></div><p>Yeah, but what if you buy a cheapo phone and then move to a place where the service sucks and you want to switch?<br>Now those people are screwed, and I imagine that plenty of people want to terminate for fair reasons like that.</p><p>Personally I think the termination fee should be related to the phone you get.<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the DROID as an example : The DROID with no contract is $ 560.Math with the current termination fee : $ 200 for the phone + $ 175 to immediately break your contract = $ 375 ( You save $ 185 over the no-contract price ) Math with the new termination fee : $ 200 for the phone + $ 350 to immediately break your contract = $ 550 ( You save $ 10 over the no-contract price ) Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract .
The new fee is high , but I can understand their reasoning.Yeah , but what if you buy a cheapo phone and then move to a place where the service sucks and you want to switch ? Now those people are screwed , and I imagine that plenty of people want to terminate for fair reasons like that.Personally I think the termination fee should be related to the phone you get.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the DROID as an example:The DROID with no contract is $560.Math with the current termination fee:$200 for the phone +$175 to immediately break your contract =$375 (You save $185 over the no-contract price)Math with the new termination fee:$200 for the phone +$350 to immediately break your contract =$550 (You save $10 over the no-contract price)Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract.
The new fee is high, but I can understand their reasoning.Yeah, but what if you buy a cheapo phone and then move to a place where the service sucks and you want to switch?Now those people are screwed, and I imagine that plenty of people want to terminate for fair reasons like that.Personally I think the termination fee should be related to the phone you get.-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080520</id>
	<title>There's a fee for that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess we need another carrier to attack verizon now with a "There's a fee for that..." ad?</p><p>Here's the question that matters most though:<br>a) Do you join At&amp;t just because of the iPhone but with sucky 3G coverage<br>b) Do you pick Verizon because of better infrastructure?<br>c) Or do you pick some other guy simply because of the philosophical argument against fee's?  Eventhough that other guy may not be pushing technology as hard as the other two?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess we need another carrier to attack verizon now with a " There 's a fee for that... " ad ? Here 's the question that matters most though : a ) Do you join At&amp;t just because of the iPhone but with sucky 3G coverageb ) Do you pick Verizon because of better infrastructure ? c ) Or do you pick some other guy simply because of the philosophical argument against fee 's ?
Eventhough that other guy may not be pushing technology as hard as the other two ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess we need another carrier to attack verizon now with a "There's a fee for that..." ad?Here's the question that matters most though:a) Do you join At&amp;t just because of the iPhone but with sucky 3G coverageb) Do you pick Verizon because of better infrastructure?c) Or do you pick some other guy simply because of the philosophical argument against fee's?
Eventhough that other guy may not be pushing technology as hard as the other two?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081230</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1258029120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is like plugging in a desk lamp into your wall outlet for 5 minutes and ComEd charging you for an entire kWh.</p></div><p>That sounds like a deal to me (unless your desk lamp is rated under 12 watts).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like plugging in a desk lamp into your wall outlet for 5 minutes and ComEd charging you for an entire kWh.That sounds like a deal to me ( unless your desk lamp is rated under 12 watts ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like plugging in a desk lamp into your wall outlet for 5 minutes and ComEd charging you for an entire kWh.That sounds like a deal to me (unless your desk lamp is rated under 12 watts).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079556</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Artraze</author>
	<datestamp>1258022580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is that they don't disable the data, but rather let you use it and set a fairly huge and costly (without a plan) minimum, so when you accidentally hit the wrong button they make pretty good money (esp. when added across all their subscribers).  According to a friend on Verizon, this is fairly standard fare.</p><p>As far as the termination penalty is concerned, I couldn't agree more.  When a contract offers a concession upfront, early termination almost invariably involves a penalty on the order of that concession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that they do n't disable the data , but rather let you use it and set a fairly huge and costly ( without a plan ) minimum , so when you accidentally hit the wrong button they make pretty good money ( esp .
when added across all their subscribers ) .
According to a friend on Verizon , this is fairly standard fare.As far as the termination penalty is concerned , I could n't agree more .
When a contract offers a concession upfront , early termination almost invariably involves a penalty on the order of that concession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that they don't disable the data, but rather let you use it and set a fairly huge and costly (without a plan) minimum, so when you accidentally hit the wrong button they make pretty good money (esp.
when added across all their subscribers).
According to a friend on Verizon, this is fairly standard fare.As far as the termination penalty is concerned, I couldn't agree more.
When a contract offers a concession upfront, early termination almost invariably involves a penalty on the order of that concession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080320</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1258025220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Droid with unlimited data (I don't tether) and 450 minutes (which I don't use and wish they had less minutes on the minimum plan) for $68/month on a corporate discount.  Having my Email, IM, Last.fm, Browser, GPS, and everything else available to me mobile... It's well worth $68/month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Droid with unlimited data ( I do n't tether ) and 450 minutes ( which I do n't use and wish they had less minutes on the minimum plan ) for $ 68/month on a corporate discount .
Having my Email , IM , Last.fm , Browser , GPS , and everything else available to me mobile... It 's well worth $ 68/month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Droid with unlimited data (I don't tether) and 450 minutes (which I don't use and wish they had less minutes on the minimum plan) for $68/month on a corporate discount.
Having my Email, IM, Last.fm, Browser, GPS, and everything else available to me mobile... It's well worth $68/month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748</id>
	<title>Verizon Smartphones required to get data plan</title>
	<author>LordKazan</author>
	<datestamp>1258023180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you have a smartphone on verizon you are REQUIRED to have a smartphone data plan which is "unlimited" (5GB/month), so no 1MB billings.</p><p>i know.  I have an Omnia on Verizon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/employer discounts ftw</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you have a smartphone on verizon you are REQUIRED to have a smartphone data plan which is " unlimited " ( 5GB/month ) , so no 1MB billings.i know .
I have an Omnia on Verizon /employer discounts ftw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you have a smartphone on verizon you are REQUIRED to have a smartphone data plan which is "unlimited" (5GB/month), so no 1MB billings.i know.
I have an Omnia on Verizon /employer discounts ftw</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081744</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>sfbiker</author>
	<datestamp>1258032060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, you could go to the Verizon online service center, go to "Self Service Options-&gt;Add and delete Features" and select "Block Mobile Web", "Block VCast usage", "Block Ringtone Purchase", "Block Application Downloads", and "Block Premium SMS". Or just call Verizon and ask them to do the same.</p><p>If your complaint is that *you* want those features but you don't want your daughter to access them, then I think the correct answer is "Don't give her your phone". Please don't ask manufacturers to make child-proof phones just in case some parent wants to use it as a toy. I'm an adult and I like my phones to be easy to use, even if features that sometimes cost money are easy to activate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , you could go to the Verizon online service center , go to " Self Service Options- &gt; Add and delete Features " and select " Block Mobile Web " , " Block VCast usage " , " Block Ringtone Purchase " , " Block Application Downloads " , and " Block Premium SMS " .
Or just call Verizon and ask them to do the same.If your complaint is that * you * want those features but you do n't want your daughter to access them , then I think the correct answer is " Do n't give her your phone " .
Please do n't ask manufacturers to make child-proof phones just in case some parent wants to use it as a toy .
I 'm an adult and I like my phones to be easy to use , even if features that sometimes cost money are easy to activate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, you could go to the Verizon online service center, go to "Self Service Options-&gt;Add and delete Features" and select "Block Mobile Web", "Block VCast usage", "Block Ringtone Purchase", "Block Application Downloads", and "Block Premium SMS".
Or just call Verizon and ask them to do the same.If your complaint is that *you* want those features but you don't want your daughter to access them, then I think the correct answer is "Don't give her your phone".
Please don't ask manufacturers to make child-proof phones just in case some parent wants to use it as a toy.
I'm an adult and I like my phones to be easy to use, even if features that sometimes cost money are easy to activate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080568</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon Smartphones required to get data plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people continue to perpetuate this false information? Data plans for phones and smartphones are listed as unlimited and are unlimited, within reason, there is no 5gb limit listed anywhere for these devices. The 5gb limit is imposed on the tethering and broadband connect (for laptops, etc) plans, which are listed to be limited to 5gb and not unlimited.</p><p>But yes, with a smartphone, you are required to purchase one of two unlimited data plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people continue to perpetuate this false information ?
Data plans for phones and smartphones are listed as unlimited and are unlimited , within reason , there is no 5gb limit listed anywhere for these devices .
The 5gb limit is imposed on the tethering and broadband connect ( for laptops , etc ) plans , which are listed to be limited to 5gb and not unlimited.But yes , with a smartphone , you are required to purchase one of two unlimited data plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people continue to perpetuate this false information?
Data plans for phones and smartphones are listed as unlimited and are unlimited, within reason, there is no 5gb limit listed anywhere for these devices.
The 5gb limit is imposed on the tethering and broadband connect (for laptops, etc) plans, which are listed to be limited to 5gb and not unlimited.But yes, with a smartphone, you are required to purchase one of two unlimited data plans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079834</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>Pollardito</author>
	<datestamp>1258023420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>relax, relax, there are <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081702365.html?hpid=topnews" title="washingtonpost.com">lots of ways to get out of a Verizon contract</a> [washingtonpost.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>relax , relax , there are lots of ways to get out of a Verizon contract [ washingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>relax, relax, there are lots of ways to get out of a Verizon contract [washingtonpost.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081278</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>netruner</author>
	<datestamp>1258029480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoever it was apparently bought a smartphone without an unlimited data plan - what do you think?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever it was apparently bought a smartphone without an unlimited data plan - what do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever it was apparently bought a smartphone without an unlimited data plan - what do you think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30089220</id>
	<title>Re:maybe nowyou can cancel w/o a fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is not a contract change to existing contracts thus etf will not be waived for changing.  it affects contracts started after x date.thus if you have a contract with the standard 175 etf it will remain unchanged till you start a new contract</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is not a contract change to existing contracts thus etf will not be waived for changing .
it affects contracts started after x date.thus if you have a contract with the standard 175 etf it will remain unchanged till you start a new contract</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is not a contract change to existing contracts thus etf will not be waived for changing.
it affects contracts started after x date.thus if you have a contract with the standard 175 etf it will remain unchanged till you start a new contract</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079474</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1258022340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T? If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake". It's not like international roaming is any more lenient.</p></div><p>Except that it's far easier to do this even when you know the consequences.  I have a Motorola Krave on Verizon for example (which BTW just might qualify as shittiest phone in existence) - the touch screen is INCREDIBLY fickle.  When typing a text message even when I'm sitting there doing my best to hit 1 letter sometimes it'll register the one next to it - making me backspace 3-4 times to fix it (and it then occasionally not registering the backspace but instead a key next to THAT key - further frustrating me).  So, the web browser (which I have no desire to use - AT ALL) is right next to the Tools and Media Center icons under the main menu.   Despite your best efforts sometimes it'll hit that key when you're going for one next to it.  Such things shouldn't incur extra charges.</p><p>Luckily I was able to go online and specifically disable all web data access from my phone, but it's sad to have to jump through hoops like that.  Ideally just opening the web browser shouldn't use any data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T ?
If you use data , it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made " a mistake " .
It 's not like international roaming is any more lenient.Except that it 's far easier to do this even when you know the consequences .
I have a Motorola Krave on Verizon for example ( which BTW just might qualify as shittiest phone in existence ) - the touch screen is INCREDIBLY fickle .
When typing a text message even when I 'm sitting there doing my best to hit 1 letter sometimes it 'll register the one next to it - making me backspace 3-4 times to fix it ( and it then occasionally not registering the backspace but instead a key next to THAT key - further frustrating me ) .
So , the web browser ( which I have no desire to use - AT ALL ) is right next to the Tools and Media Center icons under the main menu .
Despite your best efforts sometimes it 'll hit that key when you 're going for one next to it .
Such things should n't incur extra charges.Luckily I was able to go online and specifically disable all web data access from my phone , but it 's sad to have to jump through hoops like that .
Ideally just opening the web browser should n't use any data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T?
If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".
It's not like international roaming is any more lenient.Except that it's far easier to do this even when you know the consequences.
I have a Motorola Krave on Verizon for example (which BTW just might qualify as shittiest phone in existence) - the touch screen is INCREDIBLY fickle.
When typing a text message even when I'm sitting there doing my best to hit 1 letter sometimes it'll register the one next to it - making me backspace 3-4 times to fix it (and it then occasionally not registering the backspace but instead a key next to THAT key - further frustrating me).
So, the web browser (which I have no desire to use - AT ALL) is right next to the Tools and Media Center icons under the main menu.
Despite your best efforts sometimes it'll hit that key when you're going for one next to it.
Such things shouldn't incur extra charges.Luckily I was able to go online and specifically disable all web data access from my phone, but it's sad to have to jump through hoops like that.
Ideally just opening the web browser shouldn't use any data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084592</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get the phone obsession</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1258106520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, most Nokia phones are like that; seems like they understand the main purpose of mobile phones. Even their 20, without contract of course, 1280 (well, ok, 1280 isn't in the wild yet, but if 1100, 1200, 1202, 1208 performance is any indicator...). Helps them to be the largest phone manufacturer in the world, I imagine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , most Nokia phones are like that ; seems like they understand the main purpose of mobile phones .
Even their 20 , without contract of course , 1280 ( well , ok , 1280 is n't in the wild yet , but if 1100 , 1200 , 1202 , 1208 performance is any indicator... ) .
Helps them to be the largest phone manufacturer in the world , I imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, most Nokia phones are like that; seems like they understand the main purpose of mobile phones.
Even their 20, without contract of course, 1280 (well, ok, 1280 isn't in the wild yet, but if 1100, 1200, 1202, 1208 performance is any indicator...).
Helps them to be the largest phone manufacturer in the world, I imagine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081906</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1258033260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why with AT&amp;T the ETF is $180 or so and every month you complete, they take $5 off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why with AT&amp;T the ETF is $ 180 or so and every month you complete , they take $ 5 off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why with AT&amp;T the ETF is $180 or so and every month you complete, they take $5 off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080678</id>
	<title>Prorated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linked article requires registration so I didn't read it.</p><p>The ETF is prorated on the life of the contract. For each month of service, the ETF is reduced. The focus seems to be that the fee is doubled. What this is discouraging is getting expensive devices at sharp discounts and resell for a profit or do something else that negatively affects Verizon. Of course, to avoid paying more than the old ETF, you'd have to keep service for at least 18 months.</p><p>This is to discourage carrier jumping and acquiring expensive devices at a significant discount, not to screw customers. Verizon simply doesn't care about those people trying to screw Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linked article requires registration so I did n't read it.The ETF is prorated on the life of the contract .
For each month of service , the ETF is reduced .
The focus seems to be that the fee is doubled .
What this is discouraging is getting expensive devices at sharp discounts and resell for a profit or do something else that negatively affects Verizon .
Of course , to avoid paying more than the old ETF , you 'd have to keep service for at least 18 months.This is to discourage carrier jumping and acquiring expensive devices at a significant discount , not to screw customers .
Verizon simply does n't care about those people trying to screw Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linked article requires registration so I didn't read it.The ETF is prorated on the life of the contract.
For each month of service, the ETF is reduced.
The focus seems to be that the fee is doubled.
What this is discouraging is getting expensive devices at sharp discounts and resell for a profit or do something else that negatively affects Verizon.
Of course, to avoid paying more than the old ETF, you'd have to keep service for at least 18 months.This is to discourage carrier jumping and acquiring expensive devices at a significant discount, not to screw customers.
Verizon simply doesn't care about those people trying to screw Verizon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079958</id>
	<title>Re:Termination Fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, welcome to cell service in the US. You must be new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , welcome to cell service in the US .
You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, welcome to cell service in the US.
You must be new here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080730</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just a "phone subsidy."</title>
	<author>ianbnet</author>
	<datestamp>1258026840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, this is exactly what T-Mobile is doing now. They have subsidized phone plans, with a contract and a higher monthly price, and they have unsubsidized, no contract plans with a lower price. But expensive phones. It's fantastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , this is exactly what T-Mobile is doing now .
They have subsidized phone plans , with a contract and a higher monthly price , and they have unsubsidized , no contract plans with a lower price .
But expensive phones .
It 's fantastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, this is exactly what T-Mobile is doing now.
They have subsidized phone plans, with a contract and a higher monthly price, and they have unsubsidized, no contract plans with a lower price.
But expensive phones.
It's fantastic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086316</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>psm321</author>
	<datestamp>1258125660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I bought an HTC Magic with android 1.6 from craigslist. The phone WILL NOT operate without a sim card.</p></div><p>95\% false.  While most of the phones I've had do that, the MyTouch 3G (=HTC Magic) does not.  It says no sim card, but press menu to unlock the screen and you can go do whatever.  Unless you're complaining that you can't activate the Google account to get in, which there are WiFi work arounds for.  But once the phone is set up, you can definitely use it (not for calls obviously) without a sim card.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought an HTC Magic with android 1.6 from craigslist .
The phone WILL NOT operate without a sim card.95 \ % false .
While most of the phones I 've had do that , the MyTouch 3G ( = HTC Magic ) does not .
It says no sim card , but press menu to unlock the screen and you can go do whatever .
Unless you 're complaining that you ca n't activate the Google account to get in , which there are WiFi work arounds for .
But once the phone is set up , you can definitely use it ( not for calls obviously ) without a sim card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought an HTC Magic with android 1.6 from craigslist.
The phone WILL NOT operate without a sim card.95\% false.
While most of the phones I've had do that, the MyTouch 3G (=HTC Magic) does not.
It says no sim card, but press menu to unlock the screen and you can go do whatever.
Unless you're complaining that you can't activate the Google account to get in, which there are WiFi work arounds for.
But once the phone is set up, you can definitely use it (not for calls obviously) without a sim card.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084852</id>
	<title>Re:RUN AWAY FROM VERIZON WIRELESS!</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1258110060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You say this as if there is some other cell provider to run to</htmltext>
<tokenext>You say this as if there is some other cell provider to run to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say this as if there is some other cell provider to run to</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080516</id>
	<title>payment for the first month and activation fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but you need to count in the payment for the first month and also the activation fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but you need to count in the payment for the first month and also the activation fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but you need to count in the payment for the first month and also the activation fee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079968</id>
	<title>ORLY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I buy a smartphone from Verizon and sign a 2-year contract, I'm prepared to keep the phone and service for two years.  That's the game and they're setting the rules - if I want to phone and service jump, sure I could prefer not to pay but I can't really find a fault in them wanting me to.  Who is this hurting?  If you move to a location where you don't get service, they already let you cancel without penalty.  How many people actually end up paying the ETF?</p><p>Also, I don't know about the data bit either.  My old k1m/krzr went to the "mobile web" or get it now if I hit the down arrow.  That brought up a launch screen where I could check account settings (for free), purchase a day's worth of mobile browsing, or sign up for mobile web and have it as a recurring payment.  I've never been charged for any sort of access for pulling anything down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I buy a smartphone from Verizon and sign a 2-year contract , I 'm prepared to keep the phone and service for two years .
That 's the game and they 're setting the rules - if I want to phone and service jump , sure I could prefer not to pay but I ca n't really find a fault in them wanting me to .
Who is this hurting ?
If you move to a location where you do n't get service , they already let you cancel without penalty .
How many people actually end up paying the ETF ? Also , I do n't know about the data bit either .
My old k1m/krzr went to the " mobile web " or get it now if I hit the down arrow .
That brought up a launch screen where I could check account settings ( for free ) , purchase a day 's worth of mobile browsing , or sign up for mobile web and have it as a recurring payment .
I 've never been charged for any sort of access for pulling anything down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I buy a smartphone from Verizon and sign a 2-year contract, I'm prepared to keep the phone and service for two years.
That's the game and they're setting the rules - if I want to phone and service jump, sure I could prefer not to pay but I can't really find a fault in them wanting me to.
Who is this hurting?
If you move to a location where you don't get service, they already let you cancel without penalty.
How many people actually end up paying the ETF?Also, I don't know about the data bit either.
My old k1m/krzr went to the "mobile web" or get it now if I hit the down arrow.
That brought up a launch screen where I could check account settings (for free), purchase a day's worth of mobile browsing, or sign up for mobile web and have it as a recurring payment.
I've never been charged for any sort of access for pulling anything down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079500</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".</p></div><p>
Agreed...but the issue is not about paying for the 0.2kb HTTP request you just made, but rather paying for an entire MB worth of data. It's not like billing per kilobyte or even per BYTE is technically infeasible, so why can't you pay for a fractional MB if that's what you use? In fact, there is absolutely no justifiable technical reason for this -- it's pure asshat accounting. This is like plugging in a desk lamp into your wall outlet for 5 minutes and ComEd charging you for an entire kWh.
</p><p>
You know it's asshat-ish when even AT&amp;T has a better policy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use data , it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made " a mistake " .
Agreed...but the issue is not about paying for the 0.2kb HTTP request you just made , but rather paying for an entire MB worth of data .
It 's not like billing per kilobyte or even per BYTE is technically infeasible , so why ca n't you pay for a fractional MB if that 's what you use ?
In fact , there is absolutely no justifiable technical reason for this -- it 's pure asshat accounting .
This is like plugging in a desk lamp into your wall outlet for 5 minutes and ComEd charging you for an entire kWh .
You know it 's asshat-ish when even AT&amp;T has a better policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use data, it seems reasonable to me to charge a fee even if you just made "a mistake".
Agreed...but the issue is not about paying for the 0.2kb HTTP request you just made, but rather paying for an entire MB worth of data.
It's not like billing per kilobyte or even per BYTE is technically infeasible, so why can't you pay for a fractional MB if that's what you use?
In fact, there is absolutely no justifiable technical reason for this -- it's pure asshat accounting.
This is like plugging in a desk lamp into your wall outlet for 5 minutes and ComEd charging you for an entire kWh.
You know it's asshat-ish when even AT&amp;T has a better policy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080740</id>
	<title>Re:Sprint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sprint has a bad reputation because they just don't work outside of metropolitan areas</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint has a bad reputation because they just do n't work outside of metropolitan areas</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint has a bad reputation because they just don't work outside of metropolitan areas</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088560</id>
	<title>Re:RUN AWAY FROM VERIZON WIRELESS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258136580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on earth would you keep suspending a phone line after the phone is lost? If you didn't need those lines after all, then cancel them. If you do need those phone lines, and you lost your phones, get new ones! Verizon doesn't charge for phone upgrades.</p><p>You clearly didn't opt for insurance, so why are you whining that you lost some very expensive equipment, and now have to pay for it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth would you keep suspending a phone line after the phone is lost ?
If you did n't need those lines after all , then cancel them .
If you do need those phone lines , and you lost your phones , get new ones !
Verizon does n't charge for phone upgrades.You clearly did n't opt for insurance , so why are you whining that you lost some very expensive equipment , and now have to pay for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth would you keep suspending a phone line after the phone is lost?
If you didn't need those lines after all, then cancel them.
If you do need those phone lines, and you lost your phones, get new ones!
Verizon doesn't charge for phone upgrades.You clearly didn't opt for insurance, so why are you whining that you lost some very expensive equipment, and now have to pay for it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080224</id>
	<title>Infants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife let the infant play with her phone, next month we were billed for downloading 3 songs, worst part is it was the same song all three times.</p><p>Talked to CS to get it reversed, they said it would be, so far, it hasn't. He's a toddler now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife let the infant play with her phone , next month we were billed for downloading 3 songs , worst part is it was the same song all three times.Talked to CS to get it reversed , they said it would be , so far , it has n't .
He 's a toddler now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife let the infant play with her phone, next month we were billed for downloading 3 songs, worst part is it was the same song all three times.Talked to CS to get it reversed, they said it would be, so far, it hasn't.
He's a toddler now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30092488</id>
	<title>Re:Seems reasonable...</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1258110480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T?</p></div><p>I've never had Verizon, but we got fed up with AT&amp;T's generally crappy customer service, and how they lied to us for six weeks about getting internet installed at our new house, and how they kept adding random mysterious charges to our cellphone bill. We switched to T-Mobile and haven't looked back. T-Mobile hasn't fucked us over yet, but they ARE a giant corporation, so that'll probably happen eventually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T ? I 've never had Verizon , but we got fed up with AT&amp;T 's generally crappy customer service , and how they lied to us for six weeks about getting internet installed at our new house , and how they kept adding random mysterious charges to our cellphone bill .
We switched to T-Mobile and have n't looked back .
T-Mobile has n't fucked us over yet , but they ARE a giant corporation , so that 'll probably happen eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this some kind of hit piece to try and convince people not to use Verizon instead of AT&amp;T?I've never had Verizon, but we got fed up with AT&amp;T's generally crappy customer service, and how they lied to us for six weeks about getting internet installed at our new house, and how they kept adding random mysterious charges to our cellphone bill.
We switched to T-Mobile and haven't looked back.
T-Mobile hasn't fucked us over yet, but they ARE a giant corporation, so that'll probably happen eventually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30091656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30089220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30087590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30089682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30092488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_2059238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30085982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30091656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30089682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30092488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30087590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30089220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30090396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080490
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_2059238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083032
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30086316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30083286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30079574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30082706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080546
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081734
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088560
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084852
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084014
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30084034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30081744
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30088230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_2059238.30080536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
