<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_31_1922204</id>
	<title>Time Warner ToS Changes Could Mean Tiered Pricing, Throttling</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243798380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:mark@mirell.org" rel="nofollow">Mirell</a> writes <i>"Time Warner Cable has recently changed their <a href="http://gigaom.com/2009/05/30/time-warner-cable-adds-tier-friendly-terms-to-its-contracts/">Terms of Service</a>, so that they are allowed to charge you at their discretion via consumption-based billing.  They were shot down a few months ago after raising the wrath of many subscribers and several politicians. Now they're trying again, but since they make exclusions for their own voice and video not to count against the cap, this could draw the attention of the FCC."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mirell writes " Time Warner Cable has recently changed their Terms of Service , so that they are allowed to charge you at their discretion via consumption-based billing .
They were shot down a few months ago after raising the wrath of many subscribers and several politicians .
Now they 're trying again , but since they make exclusions for their own voice and video not to count against the cap , this could draw the attention of the FCC .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mirell writes "Time Warner Cable has recently changed their Terms of Service, so that they are allowed to charge you at their discretion via consumption-based billing.
They were shot down a few months ago after raising the wrath of many subscribers and several politicians.
Now they're trying again, but since they make exclusions for their own voice and video not to count against the cap, this could draw the attention of the FCC.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161267</id>
	<title>Re:Could they possibly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243765320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And who, exactly, is advertising service as "unlimited" these days?  I don't remember even seeing the word since AOLvertisements advertising unlimited hours in what was clearly a deal for unlimited <em>time</em> (since the word "hours" was right there on the packaging).</p><p>I'm willing to believe that at some point the ISPs dropped the word hours from their advertising around the time broadband was picking up, but have you got any contemporary examples - like within the last five years - of an ISP advertising unlimited service?</p><p>I mean, contracts <em>do</em> expire, and the companies involved are under no obligation to continue providing service under the terms of an expired contract.  In fact the standard mechanism is to change the terms of the contract and allow people to continue under their existing contract until expiration at which time their service ends if they don't agree to the new terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And who , exactly , is advertising service as " unlimited " these days ?
I do n't remember even seeing the word since AOLvertisements advertising unlimited hours in what was clearly a deal for unlimited time ( since the word " hours " was right there on the packaging ) .I 'm willing to believe that at some point the ISPs dropped the word hours from their advertising around the time broadband was picking up , but have you got any contemporary examples - like within the last five years - of an ISP advertising unlimited service ? I mean , contracts do expire , and the companies involved are under no obligation to continue providing service under the terms of an expired contract .
In fact the standard mechanism is to change the terms of the contract and allow people to continue under their existing contract until expiration at which time their service ends if they do n't agree to the new terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And who, exactly, is advertising service as "unlimited" these days?
I don't remember even seeing the word since AOLvertisements advertising unlimited hours in what was clearly a deal for unlimited time (since the word "hours" was right there on the packaging).I'm willing to believe that at some point the ISPs dropped the word hours from their advertising around the time broadband was picking up, but have you got any contemporary examples - like within the last five years - of an ISP advertising unlimited service?I mean, contracts do expire, and the companies involved are under no obligation to continue providing service under the terms of an expired contract.
In fact the standard mechanism is to change the terms of the contract and allow people to continue under their existing contract until expiration at which time their service ends if they don't agree to the new terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160689</id>
	<title>Re:Terms of Service = Contract?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243760640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be fine with my provider changing their contracts as they see fit if there was real competition in the market. Right now I don't have much of a choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be fine with my provider changing their contracts as they see fit if there was real competition in the market .
Right now I do n't have much of a choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be fine with my provider changing their contracts as they see fit if there was real competition in the market.
Right now I don't have much of a choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160643</id>
	<title>Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1243760400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights.  Last I looked there were at least  a few more things to do online than movies and music.</p></div><p>Porn?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights .
Last I looked there were at least a few more things to do online than movies and music.Porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights.
Last I looked there were at least  a few more things to do online than movies and music.Porn?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160489</id>
	<title>Stick em, FCC.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243802520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make them pay the tiered pricing for their own content, directly into a class-action trust to repay bilked customers.</p><p>They see dollar signs with tiered caps, but they stand to lose significant numbers from their subscriber base.</p><p>Predict: Comcast or somebody big eats you inside 2 years time.  You don't belong in business anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make them pay the tiered pricing for their own content , directly into a class-action trust to repay bilked customers.They see dollar signs with tiered caps , but they stand to lose significant numbers from their subscriber base.Predict : Comcast or somebody big eats you inside 2 years time .
You do n't belong in business anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make them pay the tiered pricing for their own content, directly into a class-action trust to repay bilked customers.They see dollar signs with tiered caps, but they stand to lose significant numbers from their subscriber base.Predict: Comcast or somebody big eats you inside 2 years time.
You don't belong in business anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161533</id>
	<title>Re:A change is gonna come...</title>
	<author>kp5b68802</author>
	<datestamp>1243767540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you talk to any business and ask about increased pricing and they say "no we are not going to charge more and we have no plans for such".  What they mean is "Thanks for the heads-up and you can expect increases as soon as I pass this idea along."</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you talk to any business and ask about increased pricing and they say " no we are not going to charge more and we have no plans for such " .
What they mean is " Thanks for the heads-up and you can expect increases as soon as I pass this idea along .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you talk to any business and ask about increased pricing and they say "no we are not going to charge more and we have no plans for such".
What they mean is "Thanks for the heads-up and you can expect increases as soon as I pass this idea along.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160975</id>
	<title>Just Municipalize the Telcos Already.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243762620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our tax dollars, land grants, and subsidies practically built them anyway. If they're not going to play fair, they don't deserve to play at all. For as much as we taxpayers have already given them and continue to give them, it's a goddamn crime that we don't get telecommunication services for free!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our tax dollars , land grants , and subsidies practically built them anyway .
If they 're not going to play fair , they do n't deserve to play at all .
For as much as we taxpayers have already given them and continue to give them , it 's a goddamn crime that we do n't get telecommunication services for free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our tax dollars, land grants, and subsidies practically built them anyway.
If they're not going to play fair, they don't deserve to play at all.
For as much as we taxpayers have already given them and continue to give them, it's a goddamn crime that we don't get telecommunication services for free!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160741</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>smitty\_one\_each</author>
	<datestamp>1243761000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they and the other major providers form a cartel and manipulate the government to implement this across the board, and kill off competition, then we are all baked, baked, and baked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they and the other major providers form a cartel and manipulate the government to implement this across the board , and kill off competition , then we are all baked , baked , and baked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they and the other major providers form a cartel and manipulate the government to implement this across the board, and kill off competition, then we are all baked, baked, and baked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160755</id>
	<title>Adding unfair competition doesn't make it better</title>
	<author>bombastinator</author>
	<datestamp>1243761060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what corporate genius thought this would make it more acceptable instead of less acceptable.  This is like the Simpson's "can we have a pool dad" chant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what corporate genius thought this would make it more acceptable instead of less acceptable .
This is like the Simpson 's " can we have a pool dad " chant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what corporate genius thought this would make it more acceptable instead of less acceptable.
This is like the Simpson's "can we have a pool dad" chant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T's UVerse also excludes their own content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243802280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not at all strange.</p><p>AT&amp;T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth. I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.</p><p>What's most important is that for truly equivalent services, the providers should not be able to discriminate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not at all strange.AT&amp;T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content does n't use up their backhaul bandwidth .
I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.What 's most important is that for truly equivalent services , the providers should not be able to discriminate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not at all strange.AT&amp;T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth.
I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.What's most important is that for truly equivalent services, the providers should not be able to discriminate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28166103</id>
	<title>Re:Why not....</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1243859820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market".  Just can't get enough of that corporate cock, can you?</p><p><i>That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.</i></p><p>Yes, because paying 1000\% more for monopolized products and services will be such a boon for you, as well as deadly workplaces and poisonous food/medicine/products/drinking water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so on one hand you do n't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use , yet on the other you want a " free market " .
Just ca n't get enough of that corporate cock , can you ? That 's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.Yes , because paying 1000 \ % more for monopolized products and services will be such a boon for you , as well as deadly workplaces and poisonous food/medicine/products/drinking water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market".
Just can't get enough of that corporate cock, can you?That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.Yes, because paying 1000\% more for monopolized products and services will be such a boon for you, as well as deadly workplaces and poisonous food/medicine/products/drinking water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160639</id>
	<title>Re:Could they possibly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243803540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt that they are. Most of their customer base probably just does email, web surfing, and a TV show or two from a major site. Most of them probably don't do much BitTorrent (copyrighted or not), file sharing, etc.<br> <br>I'm in an area where they don't do business and have to use Comcast. But my occasional download of a Windows 7 build from the Connect site, downloads of Vista SP2, Office 2007 SP2, Ubuntu 9.04, etc. don't seem to put me in any danger of hitting one of Comcast's limits. It seems those limits are set for actual abusers - as I imagine I download a lot more than your average "completely legal" user would.<br> <br>Now, if you mean could they be out of touch with 5\% of thier customer base - sure, they outliers could certainly think that; on both ends. Both the person who only does a small amount of web and email (who may wonder why it costs so much for so little) and the abuser who downloads hundreds of MB a day (who wonders why he has to pay more or get capped) will think it is a bit unfair. But to the normal customer? No, they wouldn't see any problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that they are .
Most of their customer base probably just does email , web surfing , and a TV show or two from a major site .
Most of them probably do n't do much BitTorrent ( copyrighted or not ) , file sharing , etc .
I 'm in an area where they do n't do business and have to use Comcast .
But my occasional download of a Windows 7 build from the Connect site , downloads of Vista SP2 , Office 2007 SP2 , Ubuntu 9.04 , etc .
do n't seem to put me in any danger of hitting one of Comcast 's limits .
It seems those limits are set for actual abusers - as I imagine I download a lot more than your average " completely legal " user would .
Now , if you mean could they be out of touch with 5 \ % of thier customer base - sure , they outliers could certainly think that ; on both ends .
Both the person who only does a small amount of web and email ( who may wonder why it costs so much for so little ) and the abuser who downloads hundreds of MB a day ( who wonders why he has to pay more or get capped ) will think it is a bit unfair .
But to the normal customer ?
No , they would n't see any problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that they are.
Most of their customer base probably just does email, web surfing, and a TV show or two from a major site.
Most of them probably don't do much BitTorrent (copyrighted or not), file sharing, etc.
I'm in an area where they don't do business and have to use Comcast.
But my occasional download of a Windows 7 build from the Connect site, downloads of Vista SP2, Office 2007 SP2, Ubuntu 9.04, etc.
don't seem to put me in any danger of hitting one of Comcast's limits.
It seems those limits are set for actual abusers - as I imagine I download a lot more than your average "completely legal" user would.
Now, if you mean could they be out of touch with 5\% of thier customer base - sure, they outliers could certainly think that; on both ends.
Both the person who only does a small amount of web and email (who may wonder why it costs so much for so little) and the abuser who downloads hundreds of MB a day (who wonders why he has to pay more or get capped) will think it is a bit unfair.
But to the normal customer?
No, they wouldn't see any problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28162157</id>
	<title>Re:Could they possibly...</title>
	<author>stinerman</author>
	<datestamp>1243773360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu.</p></div></blockquote><p>Correct.  This is a consequence of the owners of the infrastructure also selling services over that infrastructure.  <i>That</i> is the key.  The infrastructure needs to be owned by the public (just like with our roads and airwaves) to ensure there is no conflict of interest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance .
Time Warner does n't want you downloading movies from Netflix , using Skype to make free phone calls , and watching TV on Hulu.Correct .
This is a consequence of the owners of the infrastructure also selling services over that infrastructure .
That is the key .
The infrastructure needs to be owned by the public ( just like with our roads and airwaves ) to ensure there is no conflict of interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance.
Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu.Correct.
This is a consequence of the owners of the infrastructure also selling services over that infrastructure.
That is the key.
The infrastructure needs to be owned by the public (just like with our roads and airwaves) to ensure there is no conflict of interest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28165141</id>
	<title>Re:It's "triple play", not all "Internet"</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1243889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realize Time Warner Cable and similar companies spend minimal amounts of money on infrastructure investment versus the profit they make, right?  They have insanely high 28\% profit margins.  TWC spent $37 million on infrastructure last year, while making a cool $4 billion in profit.

Other countries in Europe and Asia offer infinitely better service and speed at better prices.

Regardless of what technical arguments you try to make, those economic facts alone force a lay observer to realize you're just spitting up lies and excuses.


Simply look at your comment: "but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies".  You're a very narrow-minded fool who can't wrap his head around the idea that there are other high-bandwidth uses for the internet besides torrent of pirated files.


Ultimately caps and metered-billing are horrible ideas.  They force people to "negotiate" their internet usage.  A person has to ask themselves "should I play a game online or watch a movie".  This kind of attitude stifles innovation and progress as everyone's worried about their bill.

BTW, if you respond to my comment don't focus on my last paragraph.  Respond in kind to my points about the cable companies' unprecedented profits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize Time Warner Cable and similar companies spend minimal amounts of money on infrastructure investment versus the profit they make , right ?
They have insanely high 28 \ % profit margins .
TWC spent $ 37 million on infrastructure last year , while making a cool $ 4 billion in profit .
Other countries in Europe and Asia offer infinitely better service and speed at better prices .
Regardless of what technical arguments you try to make , those economic facts alone force a lay observer to realize you 're just spitting up lies and excuses .
Simply look at your comment : " but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies " .
You 're a very narrow-minded fool who ca n't wrap his head around the idea that there are other high-bandwidth uses for the internet besides torrent of pirated files .
Ultimately caps and metered-billing are horrible ideas .
They force people to " negotiate " their internet usage .
A person has to ask themselves " should I play a game online or watch a movie " .
This kind of attitude stifles innovation and progress as everyone 's worried about their bill .
BTW , if you respond to my comment do n't focus on my last paragraph .
Respond in kind to my points about the cable companies ' unprecedented profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize Time Warner Cable and similar companies spend minimal amounts of money on infrastructure investment versus the profit they make, right?
They have insanely high 28\% profit margins.
TWC spent $37 million on infrastructure last year, while making a cool $4 billion in profit.
Other countries in Europe and Asia offer infinitely better service and speed at better prices.
Regardless of what technical arguments you try to make, those economic facts alone force a lay observer to realize you're just spitting up lies and excuses.
Simply look at your comment: "but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies".
You're a very narrow-minded fool who can't wrap his head around the idea that there are other high-bandwidth uses for the internet besides torrent of pirated files.
Ultimately caps and metered-billing are horrible ideas.
They force people to "negotiate" their internet usage.
A person has to ask themselves "should I play a game online or watch a movie".
This kind of attitude stifles innovation and progress as everyone's worried about their bill.
BTW, if you respond to my comment don't focus on my last paragraph.
Respond in kind to my points about the cable companies' unprecedented profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160839</id>
	<title>Re:A change is gonna come...</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1243761600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW I just switched from TWC to Earthlink cable.</p><p>The funny thing is, TWC is still the cable provider, but Earthlink is the ISP. I still have the same cable modem TWC installed, etc. After I called Earthlink and signed up for their service ($20 a month cheaper than TWC for 6 months, then $10/mon cheaper than TWC forever...no contract) I had to call my local TWC office and they toggled something in software that made me get an Earthlink IP.</p><p>I don't know if TWC will be able to start making Earthlink charge more, but when I talked to the people at Earthlink they specifically told me there were no bandwidth caps, no tiers, and no plans for such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW I just switched from TWC to Earthlink cable.The funny thing is , TWC is still the cable provider , but Earthlink is the ISP .
I still have the same cable modem TWC installed , etc .
After I called Earthlink and signed up for their service ( $ 20 a month cheaper than TWC for 6 months , then $ 10/mon cheaper than TWC forever...no contract ) I had to call my local TWC office and they toggled something in software that made me get an Earthlink IP.I do n't know if TWC will be able to start making Earthlink charge more , but when I talked to the people at Earthlink they specifically told me there were no bandwidth caps , no tiers , and no plans for such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW I just switched from TWC to Earthlink cable.The funny thing is, TWC is still the cable provider, but Earthlink is the ISP.
I still have the same cable modem TWC installed, etc.
After I called Earthlink and signed up for their service ($20 a month cheaper than TWC for 6 months, then $10/mon cheaper than TWC forever...no contract) I had to call my local TWC office and they toggled something in software that made me get an Earthlink IP.I don't know if TWC will be able to start making Earthlink charge more, but when I talked to the people at Earthlink they specifically told me there were no bandwidth caps, no tiers, and no plans for such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160983</id>
	<title>Cap 'n Trade</title>
	<author>gringofrijolero</author>
	<datestamp>1243762620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the trade. You cap my net, I block all ad servers. That should save me a bundle. Unclog the tubes with Drano.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the trade .
You cap my net , I block all ad servers .
That should save me a bundle .
Unclog the tubes with Drano .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the trade.
You cap my net, I block all ad servers.
That should save me a bundle.
Unclog the tubes with Drano.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28163019</id>
	<title>Looking ahead</title>
	<author>Dega704</author>
	<datestamp>1243780680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bandwidth caps and metered billing might sound agreeable to some people now, but you have to consider it will halt online video in it's tracks, just like the cable companies want.  I'm always reading about how formats like dvd and blu-ray are supposed to be ultimately doomed because everything will be streamed or downloaded online, Adobe is bringing flash to TVs, etc.  How can any of this happen with bandwidth caps and tiered pricing?  Especially HD video?  Cable companies feed us the online video internet apocalypse baloney, but it's all about protecting their core TV business and maximizing their bottom line.  Oh well.  Refusing to change with the times went really well for the recording industry.........</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bandwidth caps and metered billing might sound agreeable to some people now , but you have to consider it will halt online video in it 's tracks , just like the cable companies want .
I 'm always reading about how formats like dvd and blu-ray are supposed to be ultimately doomed because everything will be streamed or downloaded online , Adobe is bringing flash to TVs , etc .
How can any of this happen with bandwidth caps and tiered pricing ?
Especially HD video ?
Cable companies feed us the online video internet apocalypse baloney , but it 's all about protecting their core TV business and maximizing their bottom line .
Oh well .
Refusing to change with the times went really well for the recording industry........ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bandwidth caps and metered billing might sound agreeable to some people now, but you have to consider it will halt online video in it's tracks, just like the cable companies want.
I'm always reading about how formats like dvd and blu-ray are supposed to be ultimately doomed because everything will be streamed or downloaded online, Adobe is bringing flash to TVs, etc.
How can any of this happen with bandwidth caps and tiered pricing?
Especially HD video?
Cable companies feed us the online video internet apocalypse baloney, but it's all about protecting their core TV business and maximizing their bottom line.
Oh well.
Refusing to change with the times went really well for the recording industry.........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160827</id>
	<title>Re:Terms of Service = Contract?</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1243761540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Is it legal to change the terms? Do they count as a contract in the legal sense?</i>
<br>
<br>
It might make it not a contract, but the only relief you'd be able to get out of that is you could quit their service without paying a penalty fee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it legal to change the terms ?
Do they count as a contract in the legal sense ?
It might make it not a contract , but the only relief you 'd be able to get out of that is you could quit their service without paying a penalty fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it legal to change the terms?
Do they count as a contract in the legal sense?
It might make it not a contract, but the only relief you'd be able to get out of that is you could quit their service without paying a penalty fee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161011</id>
	<title>I really feel like...</title>
	<author>NervousNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1243762800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really feel like prank calling them again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really feel like prank calling them again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really feel like prank calling them again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160803</id>
	<title>Sad but true...</title>
	<author>FragInc</author>
	<datestamp>1243761420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a country that has so many advantages and advances yet so constricted, it is no wonder we fail dismally in the world of technology; both, people and machines. Where is that light at the end of the tunnel?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a country that has so many advantages and advances yet so constricted , it is no wonder we fail dismally in the world of technology ; both , people and machines .
Where is that light at the end of the tunnel ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a country that has so many advantages and advances yet so constricted, it is no wonder we fail dismally in the world of technology; both, people and machines.
Where is that light at the end of the tunnel?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28173353</id>
	<title>Just when I thought...</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1243849620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just when I thought I was in with cable Internet they push me away again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just when I thought I was in with cable Internet they push me away again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just when I thought I was in with cable Internet they push me away again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161821</id>
	<title>Just send them a blank check...</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1243770180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically Time Warner is saying "we can charge you whatever we want based on whatever we feel like and you must agree to this or fuck off"</p><p>Time Warner really gets it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically Time Warner is saying " we can charge you whatever we want based on whatever we feel like and you must agree to this or fuck off " Time Warner really gets it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically Time Warner is saying "we can charge you whatever we want based on whatever we feel like and you must agree to this or fuck off"Time Warner really gets it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160831</id>
	<title>Its inevitable anyway</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1243761540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wince the ISP's are tied  ( or are actually one in the same... ) to the content producers, it is only a matter of time before we end up in a situation where you are punished for using competitors.</p><p>Oh, and punished as a customer in general, like comcast does now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wince the ISP 's are tied ( or are actually one in the same... ) to the content producers , it is only a matter of time before we end up in a situation where you are punished for using competitors.Oh , and punished as a customer in general , like comcast does now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wince the ISP's are tied  ( or are actually one in the same... ) to the content producers, it is only a matter of time before we end up in a situation where you are punished for using competitors.Oh, and punished as a customer in general, like comcast does now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160749</id>
	<title>Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data</title>
	<author>George\_Ou</author>
	<datestamp>1243761060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data.  Gigaom is just reading controversy where there is none.  Video and telephony infrastructure operate on private channels on private infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Voice and Video is n't on same channel as Data .
Gigaom is just reading controversy where there is none .
Video and telephony infrastructure operate on private channels on private infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data.
Gigaom is just reading controversy where there is none.
Video and telephony infrastructure operate on private channels on private infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160957</id>
	<title>Re:Could they possibly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243762440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First I would have to ask, what's their real customer base. It doesn't sound to me that it would be "Joe the Subscriber".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First I would have to ask , what 's their real customer base .
It does n't sound to me that it would be " Joe the Subscriber " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First I would have to ask, what's their real customer base.
It doesn't sound to me that it would be "Joe the Subscriber".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28162041</id>
	<title>Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243772280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep hearing this argument.  I do not buy it.</p><p>I think this is just a 100\% money grab.  Nothing as well thought out as 'internet is cannibalizing our other business'.  Remember that the internet segment of their business is a growing segment.  Their video is a declining one.  The reason it is declining is due to competition from directtv/dish/att/others...</p><p>Now they are also pretty much a monopoly/duopoly in most areas.  This means without any sort of competition/regulation they will place their prices where they make maximum revenue.  That means at nearly 1 dollar per GB this is where marginal rev is equal to marginal cost for them.  In a more competitive market this is usually where the demand curve crosses the supply curve.  With monopoly they can pick the spot that gives them max profit.  The price they set will have very little relation to the real cost of the produce (which is where it happens to be right now if not a bit high).  The reason your cable tv is not 'high' was due to early regulation.  Now it is more due to competition.</p><p>One business cannibalizing another is not what a monopoly/duopoly cares about.  All they care about is MAXIMUM profit.  They will say whatever (including the very cannibalization argument you are using) to justify it.  But it is what they care about.</p><p>There are only 3 things that can be done 1 more competition, 2 regulation, 3 let them do it.  The first involves building more network or taking away their network and selling it to others.  Or 2 regulation meaning they are regulated in some way either by policy and/or price control.  3 lets them gouge the very customers they have.  Eventually with 3 you get others entering the market to make more money.</p><p>Now TW and ATT in North carolina (and other states) are trying to basically get laws passed to make it even harder for people to get together and make their own networks.  Making their networks the 'only' ones you can use.</p><p>Wireless has some possibilities but becomes rather limited in the long term.</p><p>The only one that seems viable long term is fiber to the premises with wireless tied to it in some way.  The real problem is who 'owns' the network.  It is the same ones selling the service on those lines.  So you get price gouging from one service to another with no incentive to improve the network in any way.  It will probably come down to the whole wired network being unprivatized here in the US.  Oh boy that will be a storm....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep hearing this argument .
I do not buy it.I think this is just a 100 \ % money grab .
Nothing as well thought out as 'internet is cannibalizing our other business' .
Remember that the internet segment of their business is a growing segment .
Their video is a declining one .
The reason it is declining is due to competition from directtv/dish/att/others...Now they are also pretty much a monopoly/duopoly in most areas .
This means without any sort of competition/regulation they will place their prices where they make maximum revenue .
That means at nearly 1 dollar per GB this is where marginal rev is equal to marginal cost for them .
In a more competitive market this is usually where the demand curve crosses the supply curve .
With monopoly they can pick the spot that gives them max profit .
The price they set will have very little relation to the real cost of the produce ( which is where it happens to be right now if not a bit high ) .
The reason your cable tv is not 'high ' was due to early regulation .
Now it is more due to competition.One business cannibalizing another is not what a monopoly/duopoly cares about .
All they care about is MAXIMUM profit .
They will say whatever ( including the very cannibalization argument you are using ) to justify it .
But it is what they care about.There are only 3 things that can be done 1 more competition , 2 regulation , 3 let them do it .
The first involves building more network or taking away their network and selling it to others .
Or 2 regulation meaning they are regulated in some way either by policy and/or price control .
3 lets them gouge the very customers they have .
Eventually with 3 you get others entering the market to make more money.Now TW and ATT in North carolina ( and other states ) are trying to basically get laws passed to make it even harder for people to get together and make their own networks .
Making their networks the 'only ' ones you can use.Wireless has some possibilities but becomes rather limited in the long term.The only one that seems viable long term is fiber to the premises with wireless tied to it in some way .
The real problem is who 'owns ' the network .
It is the same ones selling the service on those lines .
So you get price gouging from one service to another with no incentive to improve the network in any way .
It will probably come down to the whole wired network being unprivatized here in the US .
Oh boy that will be a storm... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep hearing this argument.
I do not buy it.I think this is just a 100\% money grab.
Nothing as well thought out as 'internet is cannibalizing our other business'.
Remember that the internet segment of their business is a growing segment.
Their video is a declining one.
The reason it is declining is due to competition from directtv/dish/att/others...Now they are also pretty much a monopoly/duopoly in most areas.
This means without any sort of competition/regulation they will place their prices where they make maximum revenue.
That means at nearly 1 dollar per GB this is where marginal rev is equal to marginal cost for them.
In a more competitive market this is usually where the demand curve crosses the supply curve.
With monopoly they can pick the spot that gives them max profit.
The price they set will have very little relation to the real cost of the produce (which is where it happens to be right now if not a bit high).
The reason your cable tv is not 'high' was due to early regulation.
Now it is more due to competition.One business cannibalizing another is not what a monopoly/duopoly cares about.
All they care about is MAXIMUM profit.
They will say whatever (including the very cannibalization argument you are using) to justify it.
But it is what they care about.There are only 3 things that can be done 1 more competition, 2 regulation, 3 let them do it.
The first involves building more network or taking away their network and selling it to others.
Or 2 regulation meaning they are regulated in some way either by policy and/or price control.
3 lets them gouge the very customers they have.
Eventually with 3 you get others entering the market to make more money.Now TW and ATT in North carolina (and other states) are trying to basically get laws passed to make it even harder for people to get together and make their own networks.
Making their networks the 'only' ones you can use.Wireless has some possibilities but becomes rather limited in the long term.The only one that seems viable long term is fiber to the premises with wireless tied to it in some way.
The real problem is who 'owns' the network.
It is the same ones selling the service on those lines.
So you get price gouging from one service to another with no incentive to improve the network in any way.
It will probably come down to the whole wired network being unprivatized here in the US.
Oh boy that will be a storm....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160705</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243760760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my country, people like you are tied upside-down to a tree with a fork up your ass while nigger tribesmen dance around and blow big wads of holy gay nigger seed into your mouth, then they chop your tiny white wii off in order to fashion an ink pen out of it and sell it to the other white tourists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my country , people like you are tied upside-down to a tree with a fork up your ass while nigger tribesmen dance around and blow big wads of holy gay nigger seed into your mouth , then they chop your tiny white wii off in order to fashion an ink pen out of it and sell it to the other white tourists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my country, people like you are tied upside-down to a tree with a fork up your ass while nigger tribesmen dance around and blow big wads of holy gay nigger seed into your mouth, then they chop your tiny white wii off in order to fashion an ink pen out of it and sell it to the other white tourists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160719</id>
	<title>A change is gonna come...</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1243760880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like I may have to switch off of TWCable... sad.  It was good service for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like I may have to switch off of TWCable... sad. It was good service for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like I may have to switch off of TWCable... sad.  It was good service for a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28166113</id>
	<title>Re:Why not....</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1243859940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.</i></p><p>If you want to grab your ankles to increase TW's already high profit margins while they spend a fraction of a percentage of revenue on improving the infrastructure, knock yourself out.  It's a free country.  But don't be surprised as the abhorrence the rest of us have for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.If you want to grab your ankles to increase TW 's already high profit margins while they spend a fraction of a percentage of revenue on improving the infrastructure , knock yourself out .
It 's a free country .
But do n't be surprised as the abhorrence the rest of us have for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.If you want to grab your ankles to increase TW's already high profit margins while they spend a fraction of a percentage of revenue on improving the infrastructure, knock yourself out.
It's a free country.
But don't be surprised as the abhorrence the rest of us have for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161889</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, no, no</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1243770720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time Warner just wants to lock people into yearly contracts where they can charge whatever they want and if you want out of the contract, you will have to pay a penalty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time Warner just wants to lock people into yearly contracts where they can charge whatever they want and if you want out of the contract , you will have to pay a penalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time Warner just wants to lock people into yearly contracts where they can charge whatever they want and if you want out of the contract, you will have to pay a penalty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160845</id>
	<title>Competitiveness, or lack thereof</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243761600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of investing in infrastructures thereby ensure continued and steady growth in revenue like "other countries," US companies devise new ways to extract more revenues out of their existing customers with ZERO investment into additional infrastructure while hurting the overall competitiveness of the country internationally, with blessing from the elected officials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of investing in infrastructures thereby ensure continued and steady growth in revenue like " other countries , " US companies devise new ways to extract more revenues out of their existing customers with ZERO investment into additional infrastructure while hurting the overall competitiveness of the country internationally , with blessing from the elected officials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of investing in infrastructures thereby ensure continued and steady growth in revenue like "other countries," US companies devise new ways to extract more revenues out of their existing customers with ZERO investment into additional infrastructure while hurting the overall competitiveness of the country internationally, with blessing from the elected officials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161585</id>
	<title>Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243768080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It&#226;(TM)s probably illegal. If it&#226;(TM)s not it&#226;(TM)s so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers.</p></div><p>HAHAHahahahahahahah</p><p>Oh, you weren't kidding. uh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wow</p><p>Ok, lemme spell it out for you. The FCC is full of industry cronies. They will look the other way. If of any of them causes any trouble, the media companies will step in by using one of the politicians that they own (oh hey look, that's <i>all of them</i>, whaddaya know?) and replace the troublemakers within the FCC with good little puppets that will blather about how these caps and anticompetitive measures are actually good for the consumer and all.</p><p>You are correct about the reasons why the media companies want to impose these caps, but that's really captain obvious stuff. The simple fact is these media companies have the political clout to see to it that internet does not replace TV. They simply will not let it happen. They have the power to ensure their local monopolies in many markets and keep regulation out of their hair. They will do it. They will get away with it. You are already watching it happen. Kiss your fat pipe goodbye.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It   ( TM ) s probably illegal .
If it   ( TM ) s not it   ( TM ) s so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers.HAHAHahahahahahahahOh , you were n't kidding .
uh ... wowOk , lem me spell it out for you .
The FCC is full of industry cronies .
They will look the other way .
If of any of them causes any trouble , the media companies will step in by using one of the politicians that they own ( oh hey look , that 's all of them , whaddaya know ?
) and replace the troublemakers within the FCC with good little puppets that will blather about how these caps and anticompetitive measures are actually good for the consumer and all.You are correct about the reasons why the media companies want to impose these caps , but that 's really captain obvious stuff .
The simple fact is these media companies have the political clout to see to it that internet does not replace TV .
They simply will not let it happen .
They have the power to ensure their local monopolies in many markets and keep regulation out of their hair .
They will do it .
They will get away with it .
You are already watching it happen .
Kiss your fat pipe goodbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Itâ(TM)s probably illegal.
If itâ(TM)s not itâ(TM)s so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers.HAHAHahahahahahahahOh, you weren't kidding.
uh ... wowOk, lemme spell it out for you.
The FCC is full of industry cronies.
They will look the other way.
If of any of them causes any trouble, the media companies will step in by using one of the politicians that they own (oh hey look, that's all of them, whaddaya know?
) and replace the troublemakers within the FCC with good little puppets that will blather about how these caps and anticompetitive measures are actually good for the consumer and all.You are correct about the reasons why the media companies want to impose these caps, but that's really captain obvious stuff.
The simple fact is these media companies have the political clout to see to it that internet does not replace TV.
They simply will not let it happen.
They have the power to ensure their local monopolies in many markets and keep regulation out of their hair.
They will do it.
They will get away with it.
You are already watching it happen.
Kiss your fat pipe goodbye.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161879</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1243770660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they don't even need the government-they just do what they did here. i am at the edge of a rural area, and three times in the last five years a small startup has come along and tried to offer broadband to those that have gotten the finger from the local duopoly. The latest is Wifi, and it looks like they'll go under by summer. the pattern they use is always the same. They let the startup come in, sell them backbone access at a decent price, and then when their dialup customers begin dropping their crazy priced dialup services they just jack the backbone access until they can't stay in business. So basically they have decided that the rural customers can "suck this dialup and like it!"</p><p>I learned this is their SOP by a buddy of mine who had his own mini-ISP trying to serve the same area nearly a decade ago. His business was out of their "service area" and when he saw plenty of other businesses and homes that were in the same shitty boat that he was in, he just did what any capitalist American should be able to do and tried to solve the problem. He paid a good chunk of money out of his own pocket for a T-1 and leased space off of it to his neighbors. He set up a little server with a freeware repository and Windows updating from there, and according to him after having "10k on a good day" dialup he and his customers were quite happy.</p><p> Then the teleco got wind when the neighbors stopped paying for their crappy dialup and changed the TOS to "number of attached nodes" or some BS and raised his rates 4000\%. They made it real clear "don't like it? Sue us". When he talked to his lawyer the lawyer said "Yeah you can sue them. For about half a million and a decade or so out of your life. Of course by then you will be completely bankrupt and won't be able to afford the appeals. If you are that crazy good luck, but I can't take the case. It would be economic suicide." So now the line sits rotting in a field, the business is empty because he moved away rather than go back to trying to run his business on 10k dialup, and the people there are screwed. Just as the WISP will be out of business by summer because the backbone charges are forcing them to charge $150 for 756k and of course at that price they can't keep enough customers in a rural area to stay afloat.</p><p>

So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them. They have used our public right of way to run their cables, we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger, it is time to take it back. Take it back and force companies to compete for the lines while we use part of the money we make from the lease to run nationwide fiber. To those companies that want a monopoly? We say "See those rural customers? The ones we paid you to serve once before? You will get a monopoly for x number of years for running fiber to them. The farther and fewer there are, the more time you'll get. Have at it." The maybe those like my mom who was 2 blocks from the cable when she and dad built their house 29 years ago will actually be able to get broadband instead of STILL being two blocks away after 29 fricking years even though nearly 2 dozen houses have sprung up on the lousy quarter mile straight line from the junction box!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they do n't even need the government-they just do what they did here .
i am at the edge of a rural area , and three times in the last five years a small startup has come along and tried to offer broadband to those that have gotten the finger from the local duopoly .
The latest is Wifi , and it looks like they 'll go under by summer .
the pattern they use is always the same .
They let the startup come in , sell them backbone access at a decent price , and then when their dialup customers begin dropping their crazy priced dialup services they just jack the backbone access until they ca n't stay in business .
So basically they have decided that the rural customers can " suck this dialup and like it !
" I learned this is their SOP by a buddy of mine who had his own mini-ISP trying to serve the same area nearly a decade ago .
His business was out of their " service area " and when he saw plenty of other businesses and homes that were in the same shitty boat that he was in , he just did what any capitalist American should be able to do and tried to solve the problem .
He paid a good chunk of money out of his own pocket for a T-1 and leased space off of it to his neighbors .
He set up a little server with a freeware repository and Windows updating from there , and according to him after having " 10k on a good day " dialup he and his customers were quite happy .
Then the teleco got wind when the neighbors stopped paying for their crappy dialup and changed the TOS to " number of attached nodes " or some BS and raised his rates 4000 \ % .
They made it real clear " do n't like it ?
Sue us " .
When he talked to his lawyer the lawyer said " Yeah you can sue them .
For about half a million and a decade or so out of your life .
Of course by then you will be completely bankrupt and wo n't be able to afford the appeals .
If you are that crazy good luck , but I ca n't take the case .
It would be economic suicide .
" So now the line sits rotting in a field , the business is empty because he moved away rather than go back to trying to run his business on 10k dialup , and the people there are screwed .
Just as the WISP will be out of business by summer because the backbone charges are forcing them to charge $ 150 for 756k and of course at that price they ca n't keep enough customers in a rural area to stay afloat .
So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them .
They have used our public right of way to run their cables , we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger , it is time to take it back .
Take it back and force companies to compete for the lines while we use part of the money we make from the lease to run nationwide fiber .
To those companies that want a monopoly ?
We say " See those rural customers ?
The ones we paid you to serve once before ?
You will get a monopoly for x number of years for running fiber to them .
The farther and fewer there are , the more time you 'll get .
Have at it .
" The maybe those like my mom who was 2 blocks from the cable when she and dad built their house 29 years ago will actually be able to get broadband instead of STILL being two blocks away after 29 fricking years even though nearly 2 dozen houses have sprung up on the lousy quarter mile straight line from the junction box !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they don't even need the government-they just do what they did here.
i am at the edge of a rural area, and three times in the last five years a small startup has come along and tried to offer broadband to those that have gotten the finger from the local duopoly.
The latest is Wifi, and it looks like they'll go under by summer.
the pattern they use is always the same.
They let the startup come in, sell them backbone access at a decent price, and then when their dialup customers begin dropping their crazy priced dialup services they just jack the backbone access until they can't stay in business.
So basically they have decided that the rural customers can "suck this dialup and like it!
"I learned this is their SOP by a buddy of mine who had his own mini-ISP trying to serve the same area nearly a decade ago.
His business was out of their "service area" and when he saw plenty of other businesses and homes that were in the same shitty boat that he was in, he just did what any capitalist American should be able to do and tried to solve the problem.
He paid a good chunk of money out of his own pocket for a T-1 and leased space off of it to his neighbors.
He set up a little server with a freeware repository and Windows updating from there, and according to him after having "10k on a good day" dialup he and his customers were quite happy.
Then the teleco got wind when the neighbors stopped paying for their crappy dialup and changed the TOS to "number of attached nodes" or some BS and raised his rates 4000\%.
They made it real clear "don't like it?
Sue us".
When he talked to his lawyer the lawyer said "Yeah you can sue them.
For about half a million and a decade or so out of your life.
Of course by then you will be completely bankrupt and won't be able to afford the appeals.
If you are that crazy good luck, but I can't take the case.
It would be economic suicide.
" So now the line sits rotting in a field, the business is empty because he moved away rather than go back to trying to run his business on 10k dialup, and the people there are screwed.
Just as the WISP will be out of business by summer because the backbone charges are forcing them to charge $150 for 756k and of course at that price they can't keep enough customers in a rural area to stay afloat.
So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them.
They have used our public right of way to run their cables, we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger, it is time to take it back.
Take it back and force companies to compete for the lines while we use part of the money we make from the lease to run nationwide fiber.
To those companies that want a monopoly?
We say "See those rural customers?
The ones we paid you to serve once before?
You will get a monopoly for x number of years for running fiber to them.
The farther and fewer there are, the more time you'll get.
Have at it.
" The maybe those like my mom who was 2 blocks from the cable when she and dad built their house 29 years ago will actually be able to get broadband instead of STILL being two blocks away after 29 fricking years even though nearly 2 dozen houses have sprung up on the lousy quarter mile straight line from the junction box!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601</id>
	<title>Terms of Service = Contract?</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1243803360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it legal to change the terms?  Do they count as a contract in the legal sense?</p><p>I guess if you're paying month by month, changing them and, ideally, notifying your customers that you did and that's just the way the cookie crumbles, they can continue to purchase their services or not.  But what if you got locked into one of those deals?  You know, three months at such and such price but then you have to stay on for nine more months at full price or whatever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it legal to change the terms ?
Do they count as a contract in the legal sense ? I guess if you 're paying month by month , changing them and , ideally , notifying your customers that you did and that 's just the way the cookie crumbles , they can continue to purchase their services or not .
But what if you got locked into one of those deals ?
You know , three months at such and such price but then you have to stay on for nine more months at full price or whatever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it legal to change the terms?
Do they count as a contract in the legal sense?I guess if you're paying month by month, changing them and, ideally, notifying your customers that you did and that's just the way the cookie crumbles, they can continue to purchase their services or not.
But what if you got locked into one of those deals?
You know, three months at such and such price but then you have to stay on for nine more months at full price or whatever?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161187</id>
	<title>Re:Why not....</title>
	<author>MoonBuggy</author>
	<datestamp>1243764540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here. The way it's done now is certainly an issue, with the level of the caps, the prices and (worst of all) the blatantly untrue attempts to label a capped connection as 'unlimited' all being major problems, but that doesn't mean the idea itself is inherently flawed. Since I'm feeling lazy, here's what I said last time it came up:</p><blockquote><div><p>There is a logical, non-evil argument for transfer capping.</p><p>Bandwidth is oversold, and there's not an inherent problem with that: for the couple of hours per day (at most) that a connection is actually saturated, there are many more when it is idle or nearly so. Obviously we want to be able to use a lot of bandwidth in short bursts (waiting for an iPlayer video to download, for example) but for most usage patterns it would be wasteful to have that amount of backbone bandwidth sitting 'reserved' with my name on it all day. By overselling, the costs for high-bandwidth connections are kept sensible and bandwidth capacity 'waste' is minimised.</p><p>Marketing an oversold connection as unlimited, however, is rather dishonest and becomes more so as the extent of the overselling increases. If a connection is marked as unlimited then it should not be oversold, it should be bandwidth limited such that there will be enough backbone capacity to support 100\% usage 24/7.</p><p>As mentioned above, however, that true unlimited connection is overkill for many people. Provision of that level of service would have us all being lied to and sold 'unlimited' connections that are anything but unlimited (sound familiar?) or paying through the nose for a few Mbps.</p><p>The imposition of a cap on data transfer allows the oversold bandwidth to be allocated more sensibly: take a hypothetical 100Mbps connection, oversold by a ratio of 50:1. If my calculations are accurate, 100Mbps is equivalent to approximately 30.9TB (note the capital B) per month. This means that for the same infrastructure cost as giving one person a truly unlimited 100Mbps connection, you can give 50 people a connection that can deliver burst speeds of up to 100Mbps and allow each one of them about 600GB/month of data transfer. Assuming you want the cheaper, oversold connection rather than the truly unlimited one, I don't see why being upfront about that overselling and giving everyone a 'portion' of the total capacity is problematic. It's the same as having an unlimited 2Mbps connection, except it can deliver burst rates of 50 times that when you need them.</p><p>As I said in another post, the problems come because caps are made for reasons of profiteering not network management, and that leads to all kinds of consumer-unfriendly behaviour.</p></div></blockquote><p>Someone did mention that it doesn't alleviate the issue of peak-time overuse, which is true, but I see that as a different problem. Congestion at peak times can only be alleviated with increased resources; once the resources are at an adequate level, the bandwidth caps then keep the average overall usage fairly split between users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here .
The way it 's done now is certainly an issue , with the level of the caps , the prices and ( worst of all ) the blatantly untrue attempts to label a capped connection as 'unlimited ' all being major problems , but that does n't mean the idea itself is inherently flawed .
Since I 'm feeling lazy , here 's what I said last time it came up : There is a logical , non-evil argument for transfer capping.Bandwidth is oversold , and there 's not an inherent problem with that : for the couple of hours per day ( at most ) that a connection is actually saturated , there are many more when it is idle or nearly so .
Obviously we want to be able to use a lot of bandwidth in short bursts ( waiting for an iPlayer video to download , for example ) but for most usage patterns it would be wasteful to have that amount of backbone bandwidth sitting 'reserved ' with my name on it all day .
By overselling , the costs for high-bandwidth connections are kept sensible and bandwidth capacity 'waste ' is minimised.Marketing an oversold connection as unlimited , however , is rather dishonest and becomes more so as the extent of the overselling increases .
If a connection is marked as unlimited then it should not be oversold , it should be bandwidth limited such that there will be enough backbone capacity to support 100 \ % usage 24/7.As mentioned above , however , that true unlimited connection is overkill for many people .
Provision of that level of service would have us all being lied to and sold 'unlimited ' connections that are anything but unlimited ( sound familiar ?
) or paying through the nose for a few Mbps.The imposition of a cap on data transfer allows the oversold bandwidth to be allocated more sensibly : take a hypothetical 100Mbps connection , oversold by a ratio of 50 : 1 .
If my calculations are accurate , 100Mbps is equivalent to approximately 30.9TB ( note the capital B ) per month .
This means that for the same infrastructure cost as giving one person a truly unlimited 100Mbps connection , you can give 50 people a connection that can deliver burst speeds of up to 100Mbps and allow each one of them about 600GB/month of data transfer .
Assuming you want the cheaper , oversold connection rather than the truly unlimited one , I do n't see why being upfront about that overselling and giving everyone a 'portion ' of the total capacity is problematic .
It 's the same as having an unlimited 2Mbps connection , except it can deliver burst rates of 50 times that when you need them.As I said in another post , the problems come because caps are made for reasons of profiteering not network management , and that leads to all kinds of consumer-unfriendly behaviour.Someone did mention that it does n't alleviate the issue of peak-time overuse , which is true , but I see that as a different problem .
Congestion at peak times can only be alleviated with increased resources ; once the resources are at an adequate level , the bandwidth caps then keep the average overall usage fairly split between users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.
The way it's done now is certainly an issue, with the level of the caps, the prices and (worst of all) the blatantly untrue attempts to label a capped connection as 'unlimited' all being major problems, but that doesn't mean the idea itself is inherently flawed.
Since I'm feeling lazy, here's what I said last time it came up:There is a logical, non-evil argument for transfer capping.Bandwidth is oversold, and there's not an inherent problem with that: for the couple of hours per day (at most) that a connection is actually saturated, there are many more when it is idle or nearly so.
Obviously we want to be able to use a lot of bandwidth in short bursts (waiting for an iPlayer video to download, for example) but for most usage patterns it would be wasteful to have that amount of backbone bandwidth sitting 'reserved' with my name on it all day.
By overselling, the costs for high-bandwidth connections are kept sensible and bandwidth capacity 'waste' is minimised.Marketing an oversold connection as unlimited, however, is rather dishonest and becomes more so as the extent of the overselling increases.
If a connection is marked as unlimited then it should not be oversold, it should be bandwidth limited such that there will be enough backbone capacity to support 100\% usage 24/7.As mentioned above, however, that true unlimited connection is overkill for many people.
Provision of that level of service would have us all being lied to and sold 'unlimited' connections that are anything but unlimited (sound familiar?
) or paying through the nose for a few Mbps.The imposition of a cap on data transfer allows the oversold bandwidth to be allocated more sensibly: take a hypothetical 100Mbps connection, oversold by a ratio of 50:1.
If my calculations are accurate, 100Mbps is equivalent to approximately 30.9TB (note the capital B) per month.
This means that for the same infrastructure cost as giving one person a truly unlimited 100Mbps connection, you can give 50 people a connection that can deliver burst speeds of up to 100Mbps and allow each one of them about 600GB/month of data transfer.
Assuming you want the cheaper, oversold connection rather than the truly unlimited one, I don't see why being upfront about that overselling and giving everyone a 'portion' of the total capacity is problematic.
It's the same as having an unlimited 2Mbps connection, except it can deliver burst rates of 50 times that when you need them.As I said in another post, the problems come because caps are made for reasons of profiteering not network management, and that leads to all kinds of consumer-unfriendly behaviour.Someone did mention that it doesn't alleviate the issue of peak-time overuse, which is true, but I see that as a different problem.
Congestion at peak times can only be alleviated with increased resources; once the resources are at an adequate level, the bandwidth caps then keep the average overall usage fairly split between users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160437</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1243802220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not the First disappointment!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the First disappointment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the First disappointment!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28165847</id>
	<title>Re:It's "triple play", not all "Internet"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243856700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure they could "buy" more capacity, but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies?  Tiered pricing allows my price, for using under 50 GB/month, to stay reasonable.</p></div><p>What makes you think that the cost of internet for a "light user" will become any lower with a tiered service? If the actions of companies like TWC and Comcast are any indicator, then tiered service would more likely become one more means of nickel-and-diming customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they could " buy " more capacity , but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies ?
Tiered pricing allows my price , for using under 50 GB/month , to stay reasonable.What makes you think that the cost of internet for a " light user " will become any lower with a tiered service ?
If the actions of companies like TWC and Comcast are any indicator , then tiered service would more likely become one more means of nickel-and-diming customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they could "buy" more capacity, but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies?
Tiered pricing allows my price, for using under 50 GB/month, to stay reasonable.What makes you think that the cost of internet for a "light user" will become any lower with a tiered service?
If the actions of companies like TWC and Comcast are any indicator, then tiered service would more likely become one more means of nickel-and-diming customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161117</id>
	<title>Re:Could they possibly...</title>
	<author>WillyWanker</author>
	<datestamp>1243763760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is absurd. What in your mind constitutes an "abuser" of a service that is advertised as unlimited? "Completely legal"??? So you assume that people who are download "abusers" are also pirates? Ridiculous. With the popularity of Hulu, YouTube, and any number of proprietary video-on-demand sites (Amazon, Netflix, iTunes, and an assortment of TV sites) it's quite easy to rack up the gigabytes on a monthly basis, all of which are completely LEGAL. Don't forget VoIP, Steam, X-Box/PS3, MMOs, and other assorted on-line gaming resources, all of which also pack on the gigabytes, and again, all LEGAL.<br><br>By your rationale, people who watch only a few hours of cable TV a month should pay less than those watching hundreds of hours of cable TV, as they are essentially "abusers" of what is advertised and sold as an unlimited service. Total bullsh*t. Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu. They want you to pay outrageous amounts of money for their crappy cable TV service, VoIP telephone service, and PPV movies on-demand service. They know it, we know it, and the feds know it. They're not fooling anyone.<br><br>At best it's anti-competitive, at worst it's extortion. The feds need to come in and smack TWC back in line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is absurd .
What in your mind constitutes an " abuser " of a service that is advertised as unlimited ?
" Completely legal " ? ? ?
So you assume that people who are download " abusers " are also pirates ?
Ridiculous. With the popularity of Hulu , YouTube , and any number of proprietary video-on-demand sites ( Amazon , Netflix , iTunes , and an assortment of TV sites ) it 's quite easy to rack up the gigabytes on a monthly basis , all of which are completely LEGAL .
Do n't forget VoIP , Steam , X-Box/PS3 , MMOs , and other assorted on-line gaming resources , all of which also pack on the gigabytes , and again , all LEGAL.By your rationale , people who watch only a few hours of cable TV a month should pay less than those watching hundreds of hours of cable TV , as they are essentially " abusers " of what is advertised and sold as an unlimited service .
Total bullsh * t. Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance .
Time Warner does n't want you downloading movies from Netflix , using Skype to make free phone calls , and watching TV on Hulu .
They want you to pay outrageous amounts of money for their crappy cable TV service , VoIP telephone service , and PPV movies on-demand service .
They know it , we know it , and the feds know it .
They 're not fooling anyone.At best it 's anti-competitive , at worst it 's extortion .
The feds need to come in and smack TWC back in line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is absurd.
What in your mind constitutes an "abuser" of a service that is advertised as unlimited?
"Completely legal"???
So you assume that people who are download "abusers" are also pirates?
Ridiculous. With the popularity of Hulu, YouTube, and any number of proprietary video-on-demand sites (Amazon, Netflix, iTunes, and an assortment of TV sites) it's quite easy to rack up the gigabytes on a monthly basis, all of which are completely LEGAL.
Don't forget VoIP, Steam, X-Box/PS3, MMOs, and other assorted on-line gaming resources, all of which also pack on the gigabytes, and again, all LEGAL.By your rationale, people who watch only a few hours of cable TV a month should pay less than those watching hundreds of hours of cable TV, as they are essentially "abusers" of what is advertised and sold as an unlimited service.
Total bullsh*t. Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance.
Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu.
They want you to pay outrageous amounts of money for their crappy cable TV service, VoIP telephone service, and PPV movies on-demand service.
They know it, we know it, and the feds know it.
They're not fooling anyone.At best it's anti-competitive, at worst it's extortion.
The feds need to come in and smack TWC back in line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161341</id>
	<title>I don't mind.</title>
	<author>Charcharodon</author>
	<datestamp>1243766100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for tiered pricing, as long as the tiering applies to them as well. <p>


 No more of this "up to X mps for $50 a month".  If they promise X but can only deliver 1/5X then they only get to bill me $10 a month instead of $50.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for tiered pricing , as long as the tiering applies to them as well .
No more of this " up to X mps for $ 50 a month " .
If they promise X but can only deliver 1/5X then they only get to bill me $ 10 a month instead of $ 50 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for tiered pricing, as long as the tiering applies to them as well.
No more of this "up to X mps for $50 a month".
If they promise X but can only deliver 1/5X then they only get to bill me $10 a month instead of $50.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160737</id>
	<title>Re:Terms of Service = Contract?</title>
	<author>Archfeld</author>
	<datestamp>1243761000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the ultra fine print you will probably find a clause that allows them to change the terms of the contract at their discretion, and that posting a update on their web site is sufficient notice, it's usually right before the clause that allows them to have any disputes settled by their cousin Harrold in a kangaroo court of their choosing....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the ultra fine print you will probably find a clause that allows them to change the terms of the contract at their discretion , and that posting a update on their web site is sufficient notice , it 's usually right before the clause that allows them to have any disputes settled by their cousin Harrold in a kangaroo court of their choosing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the ultra fine print you will probably find a clause that allows them to change the terms of the contract at their discretion, and that posting a update on their web site is sufficient notice, it's usually right before the clause that allows them to have any disputes settled by their cousin Harrold in a kangaroo court of their choosing....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160463</id>
	<title>Why not....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth. While I despise regulation of any free market the fact remains that a lot of Time Warner's lines run through public property so they should answer to the people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth .
While I despise regulation of any free market the fact remains that a lot of Time Warner 's lines run through public property so they should answer to the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth.
While I despise regulation of any free market the fact remains that a lot of Time Warner's lines run through public property so they should answer to the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160853</id>
	<title>Re:Could they possibly...</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1243761660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they not the least bit stupid and are totally "in touch". They just know they are a borderline monopoly so they really don't care what their customers want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they not the least bit stupid and are totally " in touch " .
They just know they are a borderline monopoly so they really do n't care what their customers want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they not the least bit stupid and are totally "in touch".
They just know they are a borderline monopoly so they really don't care what their customers want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161701</id>
	<title>Re:Why not....</title>
	<author>WillyWanker</author>
	<datestamp>1243769100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You answered your own question. I don't think many would argue the merit of caps if they were set high enough and priced accordingly. But this is not the case. Hence all the bitching and moaning.<br><br>We are also questioning the motivation. As you've pointed out, transfer caps have very little to do with bandwidth saturation. So while TWC is using this as their rationale, we who know better are calling bullsh*t.<br><br>And seriously, did you actually read the new TOS? Does anyone think it's okay to sign up for a service for an agreed upon price of $40 a month (based on connection speed, not transfer amount) only to get a bill for $150 because you went over some transfer cap? Where they don't actually disclose where that cap is nor give you tools to monitor your usage???<br><br>This would be like a getting a car lease, knowing you had a mileage limit but never being told what that limit is. Oh, and having your odometer removed. Or like a cell phone plan that you knew had a monthly minute restriction, but no idea what that restriction is or any way to find out how many minutes you've used.<br><br>If TWC wants to eliminate pricing by speed and switch to a transfer tiered system I don't have a problem with that. But the prices of the new tiers needs to be comparable to current offerings (not 3x what it is now like their proposed change), with full disclosure of the limits, and easy to use tools to monitor usage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You answered your own question .
I do n't think many would argue the merit of caps if they were set high enough and priced accordingly .
But this is not the case .
Hence all the bitching and moaning.We are also questioning the motivation .
As you 've pointed out , transfer caps have very little to do with bandwidth saturation .
So while TWC is using this as their rationale , we who know better are calling bullsh * t.And seriously , did you actually read the new TOS ?
Does anyone think it 's okay to sign up for a service for an agreed upon price of $ 40 a month ( based on connection speed , not transfer amount ) only to get a bill for $ 150 because you went over some transfer cap ?
Where they do n't actually disclose where that cap is nor give you tools to monitor your usage ? ?
? This would be like a getting a car lease , knowing you had a mileage limit but never being told what that limit is .
Oh , and having your odometer removed .
Or like a cell phone plan that you knew had a monthly minute restriction , but no idea what that restriction is or any way to find out how many minutes you 've used.If TWC wants to eliminate pricing by speed and switch to a transfer tiered system I do n't have a problem with that .
But the prices of the new tiers needs to be comparable to current offerings ( not 3x what it is now like their proposed change ) , with full disclosure of the limits , and easy to use tools to monitor usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You answered your own question.
I don't think many would argue the merit of caps if they were set high enough and priced accordingly.
But this is not the case.
Hence all the bitching and moaning.We are also questioning the motivation.
As you've pointed out, transfer caps have very little to do with bandwidth saturation.
So while TWC is using this as their rationale, we who know better are calling bullsh*t.And seriously, did you actually read the new TOS?
Does anyone think it's okay to sign up for a service for an agreed upon price of $40 a month (based on connection speed, not transfer amount) only to get a bill for $150 because you went over some transfer cap?
Where they don't actually disclose where that cap is nor give you tools to monitor your usage??
?This would be like a getting a car lease, knowing you had a mileage limit but never being told what that limit is.
Oh, and having your odometer removed.
Or like a cell phone plan that you knew had a monthly minute restriction, but no idea what that restriction is or any way to find out how many minutes you've used.If TWC wants to eliminate pricing by speed and switch to a transfer tiered system I don't have a problem with that.
But the prices of the new tiers needs to be comparable to current offerings (not 3x what it is now like their proposed change), with full disclosure of the limits, and easy to use tools to monitor usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161593</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T's UVerse also excludes their own conte</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1243768080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>AT&amp;T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth. I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, that depends how much difference there is between how much the backhaul bandwidth costs them, and how much they resell it to you for.</p><p>In the case of Time Warner's proposed fees, they were planning to charge about 10x the free market rate, which is a bit much when you're a monopoly in many areas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content does n't use up their backhaul bandwidth .
I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.Well , that depends how much difference there is between how much the backhaul bandwidth costs them , and how much they resell it to you for.In the case of Time Warner 's proposed fees , they were planning to charge about 10x the free market rate , which is a bit much when you 're a monopoly in many areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth.
I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.Well, that depends how much difference there is between how much the backhaul bandwidth costs them, and how much they resell it to you for.In the case of Time Warner's proposed fees, they were planning to charge about 10x the free market rate, which is a bit much when you're a monopoly in many areas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160691</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T's UVerse also excludes their own conte</title>
	<author>PacketU</author>
	<datestamp>1243760640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would have to say that these large Cable Companies are probably getting scared of possibility of IP based Television Companies cropping up and taking their client base.  Their core product has to change from Cable Television service to IP Connectivity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have to say that these large Cable Companies are probably getting scared of possibility of IP based Television Companies cropping up and taking their client base .
Their core product has to change from Cable Television service to IP Connectivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have to say that these large Cable Companies are probably getting scared of possibility of IP based Television Companies cropping up and taking their client base.
Their core product has to change from Cable Television service to IP Connectivity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164953</id>
	<title>contradictory</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1243799460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Operators usually justify throttling by saying that unlimited usage degrades service for everybody on the same cable.  That justification makes sense.</p><p>There is no reason why "backhaul bandwidth" should be a problem.  If it really were a problem, they could fix it by increasing upload bandwidth (rather than decreasing download bandwidth).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Operators usually justify throttling by saying that unlimited usage degrades service for everybody on the same cable .
That justification makes sense.There is no reason why " backhaul bandwidth " should be a problem .
If it really were a problem , they could fix it by increasing upload bandwidth ( rather than decreasing download bandwidth ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Operators usually justify throttling by saying that unlimited usage degrades service for everybody on the same cable.
That justification makes sense.There is no reason why "backhaul bandwidth" should be a problem.
If it really were a problem, they could fix it by increasing upload bandwidth (rather than decreasing download bandwidth).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461</id>
	<title>Could they possibly...</title>
	<author>acrobg</author>
	<datestamp>1243802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could they possibly be any more out of touch with their customer base?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could they possibly be any more out of touch with their customer base ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could they possibly be any more out of touch with their customer base?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160583</id>
	<title>New Name of The Game is Content Value</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1243803240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what's going on. Big content providers are primarily in the business of distributing movies, music, tv shows.  Distribution used to be expensive because of exclusive licenses for limited radio spectrum or having cable pay for your content.  Along comes this damn inconvenient packet switched broadband and basically reduces distribution costs to a ridiculously low number.  So, some people who aren't as smart as you, or for that matter a poblano pepper decided that:</p><p>* By raising the cost for residential broadband, it would make it cost you more to download Heroes vs. just watching it on their cable/on demand network.<br>* Because you can get your shows for less through the cable company, then they can sell all the commercials and make more money.<br>* Big content benefits because they can wrap everything up in a nice DRM wrapper on the DVR box you rent and then they get to sell you Cloverfield eight times over the next four years.</p><p>There's just a couple of small holes in the plan:</p><p>* It's probably illegal.  If it's not it's so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers.<br>* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights.  Last I looked there were at least  a few more things to do online than movies and music.<br>* There are emerging technologies that are going to absolutely screw any business plan counting on a last mile monopoly (google meraki just for fun). Just for the hell of it, I'm going to start a mesh in the apartment complex I live in ($20/month/2.5MBPS).<br>* Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time, and last I looked, the internet only ISP isn't gone yet... and won't be gone for some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what 's going on .
Big content providers are primarily in the business of distributing movies , music , tv shows .
Distribution used to be expensive because of exclusive licenses for limited radio spectrum or having cable pay for your content .
Along comes this damn inconvenient packet switched broadband and basically reduces distribution costs to a ridiculously low number .
So , some people who are n't as smart as you , or for that matter a poblano pepper decided that : * By raising the cost for residential broadband , it would make it cost you more to download Heroes vs. just watching it on their cable/on demand network .
* Because you can get your shows for less through the cable company , then they can sell all the commercials and make more money .
* Big content benefits because they can wrap everything up in a nice DRM wrapper on the DVR box you rent and then they get to sell you Cloverfield eight times over the next four years.There 's just a couple of small holes in the plan : * It 's probably illegal .
If it 's not it 's so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers .
* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights .
Last I looked there were at least a few more things to do online than movies and music .
* There are emerging technologies that are going to absolutely screw any business plan counting on a last mile monopoly ( google meraki just for fun ) .
Just for the hell of it , I 'm going to start a mesh in the apartment complex I live in ( $ 20/month/2.5MBPS ) .
* Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time , and last I looked , the internet only ISP is n't gone yet... and wo n't be gone for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what's going on.
Big content providers are primarily in the business of distributing movies, music, tv shows.
Distribution used to be expensive because of exclusive licenses for limited radio spectrum or having cable pay for your content.
Along comes this damn inconvenient packet switched broadband and basically reduces distribution costs to a ridiculously low number.
So, some people who aren't as smart as you, or for that matter a poblano pepper decided that:* By raising the cost for residential broadband, it would make it cost you more to download Heroes vs. just watching it on their cable/on demand network.
* Because you can get your shows for less through the cable company, then they can sell all the commercials and make more money.
* Big content benefits because they can wrap everything up in a nice DRM wrapper on the DVR box you rent and then they get to sell you Cloverfield eight times over the next four years.There's just a couple of small holes in the plan:* It's probably illegal.
If it's not it's so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers.
* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights.
Last I looked there were at least  a few more things to do online than movies and music.
* There are emerging technologies that are going to absolutely screw any business plan counting on a last mile monopoly (google meraki just for fun).
Just for the hell of it, I'm going to start a mesh in the apartment complex I live in ($20/month/2.5MBPS).
* Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time, and last I looked, the internet only ISP isn't gone yet... and won't be gone for some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161791</id>
	<title>Re:Terms of Service = Contract?</title>
	<author>NineNine</author>
	<datestamp>1243769940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because somebody sends you a bill doesn't mean that you're contractually obligated to pay it.  If they do something like arbitrarily changing the contract, and you want to exit it, there's nothing they can do (other than ding your credit score).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because somebody sends you a bill does n't mean that you 're contractually obligated to pay it .
If they do something like arbitrarily changing the contract , and you want to exit it , there 's nothing they can do ( other than ding your credit score ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because somebody sends you a bill doesn't mean that you're contractually obligated to pay it.
If they do something like arbitrarily changing the contract, and you want to exit it, there's nothing they can do (other than ding your credit score).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28163373</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T's UVerse also excludes their own conte</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1243783680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I would think that sympathy should diminish if they find the backhaul bandwidth isn't of significant cost.
</p><p>
And that they still meter and charge for other bandwidth that doesn't cross the backhaul but isn't to AT&amp;T-specific services.
</p><p>
e.g. maybe it's to services offered by other ATT users
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think that sympathy should diminish if they find the backhaul bandwidth is n't of significant cost .
And that they still meter and charge for other bandwidth that does n't cross the backhaul but is n't to AT&amp;T-specific services .
e.g. maybe it 's to services offered by other ATT users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I would think that sympathy should diminish if they find the backhaul bandwidth isn't of significant cost.
And that they still meter and charge for other bandwidth that doesn't cross the backhaul but isn't to AT&amp;T-specific services.
e.g. maybe it's to services offered by other ATT users
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164499</id>
	<title>It's "triple play", not all "Internet"</title>
	<author>isdnip</author>
	<datestamp>1243793580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Childish whining like the OP about cable companies' not metering their own television broadcasts or telephone calls, but metering Internet, gets nowhere.  You all want cake, and you want it free, and to eat it too. But the cake is a lie.</p><p>Cable runs telephone on reserved, engineered capacity (PacketCable) for which subscribers pay a fee. It doesn't touch the Internet; it goes to a media gateway into the phone network.</p><p>Cable runs video on many channels, some analog, most QAM nowadays.  That's sent from the head end, mostly from satellite feeds, some from over-the-air receivers and ATSC-to-QAM remodulators.</p><p>Internet goes on a separate CMTS that goes over middle mile facilities to an ISP backbone.  That all costs money.  UPSTREAM capacity on cable is VERY limited; it only works upstream to 42 MHz, and broadband only above about 20 MHz.  It is a terrible medium for providing content or running file servers, which is what Torrent is about.</p><p>So heavy uploaders in particular, and heavy users in general, tax the shared capacity of the Internet and worsen everyone else's usage (gaming response, data performance, etc.).  So I'd rather be on a system that invites the heaviest users to go elsewhere, thank you.</p><p>Sure they could "buy" more capacity, but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies?  Tiered pricing allows my price, for using under 50 GB/month, to stay reasonable.</p><p>I would prefer a free market in ISPs, with DSL still open to any ISP so that there would be an open market.  The FCC could fix that.  But regulating ISPs per se is a truly, deeply dumb idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Childish whining like the OP about cable companies ' not metering their own television broadcasts or telephone calls , but metering Internet , gets nowhere .
You all want cake , and you want it free , and to eat it too .
But the cake is a lie.Cable runs telephone on reserved , engineered capacity ( PacketCable ) for which subscribers pay a fee .
It does n't touch the Internet ; it goes to a media gateway into the phone network.Cable runs video on many channels , some analog , most QAM nowadays .
That 's sent from the head end , mostly from satellite feeds , some from over-the-air receivers and ATSC-to-QAM remodulators.Internet goes on a separate CMTS that goes over middle mile facilities to an ISP backbone .
That all costs money .
UPSTREAM capacity on cable is VERY limited ; it only works upstream to 42 MHz , and broadband only above about 20 MHz .
It is a terrible medium for providing content or running file servers , which is what Torrent is about.So heavy uploaders in particular , and heavy users in general , tax the shared capacity of the Internet and worsen everyone else 's usage ( gaming response , data performance , etc. ) .
So I 'd rather be on a system that invites the heaviest users to go elsewhere , thank you.Sure they could " buy " more capacity , but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies ?
Tiered pricing allows my price , for using under 50 GB/month , to stay reasonable.I would prefer a free market in ISPs , with DSL still open to any ISP so that there would be an open market .
The FCC could fix that .
But regulating ISPs per se is a truly , deeply dumb idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Childish whining like the OP about cable companies' not metering their own television broadcasts or telephone calls, but metering Internet, gets nowhere.
You all want cake, and you want it free, and to eat it too.
But the cake is a lie.Cable runs telephone on reserved, engineered capacity (PacketCable) for which subscribers pay a fee.
It doesn't touch the Internet; it goes to a media gateway into the phone network.Cable runs video on many channels, some analog, most QAM nowadays.
That's sent from the head end, mostly from satellite feeds, some from over-the-air receivers and ATSC-to-QAM remodulators.Internet goes on a separate CMTS that goes over middle mile facilities to an ISP backbone.
That all costs money.
UPSTREAM capacity on cable is VERY limited; it only works upstream to 42 MHz, and broadband only above about 20 MHz.
It is a terrible medium for providing content or running file servers, which is what Torrent is about.So heavy uploaders in particular, and heavy users in general, tax the shared capacity of the Internet and worsen everyone else's usage (gaming response, data performance, etc.).
So I'd rather be on a system that invites the heaviest users to go elsewhere, thank you.Sure they could "buy" more capacity, but why should I pay more so that a handful of bozos can exchange movies?
Tiered pricing allows my price, for using under 50 GB/month, to stay reasonable.I would prefer a free market in ISPs, with DSL still open to any ISP so that there would be an open market.
The FCC could fix that.
But regulating ISPs per se is a truly, deeply dumb idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28170013</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1243879740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them. They have used our public right of way to run their cables, we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger, it is time to take it back.</i></p><p>Uhoh... yeah, that ain't gonna work.  That's pinko hippy communist talk, and as we all know, that way leads Stalinistic purges.  And honestly, given the choice between shitty broadband and Stalinistic purges, which would you prefer?  Huh??  Yeah, I thought so... now bend over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them .
They have used our public right of way to run their cables , we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger , it is time to take it back.Uhoh... yeah , that ai n't gon na work .
That 's pinko hippy communist talk , and as we all know , that way leads Stalinistic purges .
And honestly , given the choice between shitty broadband and Stalinistic purges , which would you prefer ?
Huh ? ? Yeah , I thought so... now bend over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them.
They have used our public right of way to run their cables, we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger, it is time to take it back.Uhoh... yeah, that ain't gonna work.
That's pinko hippy communist talk, and as we all know, that way leads Stalinistic purges.
And honestly, given the choice between shitty broadband and Stalinistic purges, which would you prefer?
Huh??  Yeah, I thought so... now bend over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28173101</id>
	<title>Re:A change is gonna come...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243848780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just ordered FiOS installation, set for next week.  Mostly because of pricing which will save us money and give better service compared to TWC.  However, in light of this news, maybe I'll tell TW that this change in terms is the reason when we cancel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just ordered FiOS installation , set for next week .
Mostly because of pricing which will save us money and give better service compared to TWC .
However , in light of this news , maybe I 'll tell TW that this change in terms is the reason when we cancel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just ordered FiOS installation, set for next week.
Mostly because of pricing which will save us money and give better service compared to TWC.
However, in light of this news, maybe I'll tell TW that this change in terms is the reason when we cancel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161413</id>
	<title>Re:Why not....</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1243766640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth.</i> <br> <br>Because just about every company uses public property in some way and this doesn't give government the right to dictate their pricing strategy. Those people who own and work for that company are also members of the public so it's their property too (don't get me started on the evils of "public" property). In principle, this is the same thing as government mandating that a railroad is only allowed to charge based on the weight of the cargo and not allowed to charge based on the contents of the cargo. Why shouldn't railroad be allowed to set their pricing any way it wants? If you think we should stop tiered pricing (and I do) do it on the basis of the monopoly these telecoms enjoy in many areas, not because they use public property. That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth .
Because just about every company uses public property in some way and this does n't give government the right to dictate their pricing strategy .
Those people who own and work for that company are also members of the public so it 's their property too ( do n't get me started on the evils of " public " property ) .
In principle , this is the same thing as government mandating that a railroad is only allowed to charge based on the weight of the cargo and not allowed to charge based on the contents of the cargo .
Why should n't railroad be allowed to set their pricing any way it wants ?
If you think we should stop tiered pricing ( and I do ) do it on the basis of the monopoly these telecoms enjoy in many areas , not because they use public property .
That 's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth.
Because just about every company uses public property in some way and this doesn't give government the right to dictate their pricing strategy.
Those people who own and work for that company are also members of the public so it's their property too (don't get me started on the evils of "public" property).
In principle, this is the same thing as government mandating that a railroad is only allowed to charge based on the weight of the cargo and not allowed to charge based on the contents of the cargo.
Why shouldn't railroad be allowed to set their pricing any way it wants?
If you think we should stop tiered pricing (and I do) do it on the basis of the monopoly these telecoms enjoy in many areas, not because they use public property.
That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164615</id>
	<title>Re:Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data</title>
	<author>stine2469</author>
	<datestamp>1243795020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>If that was true, wouldn't Charter have two cables coming into my house?&nbsp; One for cable and a separate one for Internet?<br><br>Also, with the more recent ScientificAtlanta (now Cisco) set-top boxes, when I change channels, they behave just like multicast...almost a second between the channel change and the picture/audio starting.&nbsp; &nbsp;Is this why we all have to have a receiver for each TV?&nbsp; &nbsp; Can someone with a cable sniffer tell me?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that was true , would n't Charter have two cables coming into my house ?   One for cable and a separate one for Internet ? Also , with the more recent ScientificAtlanta ( now Cisco ) set-top boxes , when I change channels , they behave just like multicast...almost a second between the channel change and the picture/audio starting.     Is this why we all have to have a receiver for each TV ?     Can someone with a cable sniffer tell me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that was true, wouldn't Charter have two cables coming into my house?  One for cable and a separate one for Internet?Also, with the more recent ScientificAtlanta (now Cisco) set-top boxes, when I change channels, they behave just like multicast...almost a second between the channel change and the picture/audio starting.   Is this why we all have to have a receiver for each TV?    Can someone with a cable sniffer tell me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160545</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T's UVerse also excludes their own conte</title>
	<author>NormalVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1243803120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing is, the large telco/cablecos' VoIP offerings don't come anywhere close to being an equivalent service.  I can't do nearly as much with TWC's VoIP service as I can with my current ala carte provider (<a href="http://www.vitelity.net/" title="vitelity.net">Vitelity</a> [vitelity.net]), and it costs many, many, many times more than what I pay now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , the large telco/cablecos ' VoIP offerings do n't come anywhere close to being an equivalent service .
I ca n't do nearly as much with TWC 's VoIP service as I can with my current ala carte provider ( Vitelity [ vitelity.net ] ) , and it costs many , many , many times more than what I pay now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, the large telco/cablecos' VoIP offerings don't come anywhere close to being an equivalent service.
I can't do nearly as much with TWC's VoIP service as I can with my current ala carte provider (Vitelity [vitelity.net]), and it costs many, many, many times more than what I pay now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160513</id>
	<title>Oh no, no, no</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1243802820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, you lost me at:<p><div class="quote"><p>they are allowed to charge you at their discretion</p> </div><p>
When selling most goods and services, it's "here is our price per [measurement], take it or leave it". They do not look into why you are buying the item, and what you are using it for, and charge you based on that. And you are informed of the rate before you decide to purchase the goods or service.
<br> <br>
For some reason I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words just now, but when they're deciding what to charge me for bandwidth based on what they think about my use of it... I don't think so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , you lost me at : they are allowed to charge you at their discretion When selling most goods and services , it 's " here is our price per [ measurement ] , take it or leave it " .
They do not look into why you are buying the item , and what you are using it for , and charge you based on that .
And you are informed of the rate before you decide to purchase the goods or service .
For some reason I 'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words just now , but when they 're deciding what to charge me for bandwidth based on what they think about my use of it... I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, you lost me at:they are allowed to charge you at their discretion 
When selling most goods and services, it's "here is our price per [measurement], take it or leave it".
They do not look into why you are buying the item, and what you are using it for, and charge you based on that.
And you are informed of the rate before you decide to purchase the goods or service.
For some reason I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words just now, but when they're deciding what to charge me for bandwidth based on what they think about my use of it... I don't think so.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28166103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28170013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28162041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28166113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28165141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28173101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28162157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28163373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28165847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1922204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28173101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28163019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28162041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28163373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28166113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28166103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161117
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161267
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28162157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161879
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28170013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28160513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28161889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1922204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28164499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28165847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1922204.28165141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
