<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_0335204</id>
	<title>BT Wants Cash For iPlayer, Video Bandwidth</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244796840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"British Telecom is <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/255805/bt-wants-bbc-to-payup-for-iplayer.html">asking for more money for the bandwidth</a> that iPlayer and video streaming sites eat up.  The BBC's Tech Editor is claiming that 'Now Britain's biggest internet service provider is making it clear that, in a cut-throat broadband market, something is going to have to give &mdash; and net neutrality may have to be chucked overboard.'  The BBC and BT are currently already in talks over how to get past this together.  This <a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/09/1652257&amp;tid=230">might sound like a familiar battle</a> from over a year ago."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " British Telecom is asking for more money for the bandwidth that iPlayer and video streaming sites eat up .
The BBC 's Tech Editor is claiming that 'Now Britain 's biggest internet service provider is making it clear that , in a cut-throat broadband market , something is going to have to give    and net neutrality may have to be chucked overboard .
' The BBC and BT are currently already in talks over how to get past this together .
This might sound like a familiar battle from over a year ago .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "British Telecom is asking for more money for the bandwidth that iPlayer and video streaming sites eat up.
The BBC's Tech Editor is claiming that 'Now Britain's biggest internet service provider is making it clear that, in a cut-throat broadband market, something is going to have to give — and net neutrality may have to be chucked overboard.
'  The BBC and BT are currently already in talks over how to get past this together.
This might sound like a familiar battle from over a year ago.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305939</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Approach</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1244807280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of the ISPs on the list resell BT's service... BT charges ridiculous amounts for the backhaul from the local exchange to the ISP... Actual Internet transit is much cheaper (from the ISP upwards) and peering with other UK based organisations is very cheap or free... For example, the BBC will peer with you for free because it saves transit costs for both of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the ISPs on the list resell BT 's service... BT charges ridiculous amounts for the backhaul from the local exchange to the ISP... Actual Internet transit is much cheaper ( from the ISP upwards ) and peering with other UK based organisations is very cheap or free... For example , the BBC will peer with you for free because it saves transit costs for both of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the ISPs on the list resell BT's service... BT charges ridiculous amounts for the backhaul from the local exchange to the ISP... Actual Internet transit is much cheaper (from the ISP upwards) and peering with other UK based organisations is very cheap or free... For example, the BBC will peer with you for free because it saves transit costs for both of you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305585</id>
	<title>Wrong Approach</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1244802900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an <a href="http://www.dslzoneuk.net/isp\_ratings.php" title="dslzoneuk.net">independent UK ISP ratings site</a> [dslzoneuk.net]. BT is third-from-bottom for a reason.<br>
&nbsp; All the top ISP's on the list implement download quotas instead of throttling and port blocking to manage traffic, it is the fairest solution to load management IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an independent UK ISP ratings site [ dslzoneuk.net ] .
BT is third-from-bottom for a reason .
  All the top ISP 's on the list implement download quotas instead of throttling and port blocking to manage traffic , it is the fairest solution to load management IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an independent UK ISP ratings site [dslzoneuk.net].
BT is third-from-bottom for a reason.
  All the top ISP's on the list implement download quotas instead of throttling and port blocking to manage traffic, it is the fairest solution to load management IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306233</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>clare-ents</author>
	<datestamp>1244810160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC are peered with every UK ISP. If you don't peer with the BBC you don't get any content at all. The BBC doesn't pay for bandwidth at all.</p><p>Historically the ISPs have concluded that in the UK your broadband should come with access to the BBC.</p><p>It's essentially going to be a peering spat, BT may pull peering from the BBC and try to get the BBC to pay. The BBC will cut off access to all streaming services if they do it. BTs customers will flee.</p><p>If the BBC are really nasty, I bet they could get a superb deal for streaming from Sprint who transit BT and nail BT for a huge transit bill for delivering the content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC are peered with every UK ISP .
If you do n't peer with the BBC you do n't get any content at all .
The BBC does n't pay for bandwidth at all.Historically the ISPs have concluded that in the UK your broadband should come with access to the BBC.It 's essentially going to be a peering spat , BT may pull peering from the BBC and try to get the BBC to pay .
The BBC will cut off access to all streaming services if they do it .
BTs customers will flee.If the BBC are really nasty , I bet they could get a superb deal for streaming from Sprint who transit BT and nail BT for a huge transit bill for delivering the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC are peered with every UK ISP.
If you don't peer with the BBC you don't get any content at all.
The BBC doesn't pay for bandwidth at all.Historically the ISPs have concluded that in the UK your broadband should come with access to the BBC.It's essentially going to be a peering spat, BT may pull peering from the BBC and try to get the BBC to pay.
The BBC will cut off access to all streaming services if they do it.
BTs customers will flee.If the BBC are really nasty, I bet they could get a superb deal for streaming from Sprint who transit BT and nail BT for a huge transit bill for delivering the content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307333</id>
	<title>Re:BT should paying the BBC</title>
	<author>commandlinegamer</author>
	<datestamp>1244817960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The splitting off of the postal service from telecommunications saw one side decline into a loss-making enterprise (post) and the other become a cash cow (telecoms). It's a bit ironic that this year the Royal Mail announced its first profit in years whilst BT posted losses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The splitting off of the postal service from telecommunications saw one side decline into a loss-making enterprise ( post ) and the other become a cash cow ( telecoms ) .
It 's a bit ironic that this year the Royal Mail announced its first profit in years whilst BT posted losses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The splitting off of the postal service from telecommunications saw one side decline into a loss-making enterprise (post) and the other become a cash cow (telecoms).
It's a bit ironic that this year the Royal Mail announced its first profit in years whilst BT posted losses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449</id>
	<title>This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT have a TV over the internet offer called "BT Vision" its suffering (and just lost its CEO) in competition with Rupert "any view that pays" Murdoch's Sky.  Now if BT could get a richer experience out of iPlayer and access to a longer back catalogue than simply the last 7 days then this would help them in competition with Sky.</p><p>So I'd expect this to end up with BT agreeing to support iPlayer in the same way but an "interesting" tie-up between BT and the BBC around the delivery of iPlayer+ features to its BT Vision customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT have a TV over the internet offer called " BT Vision " its suffering ( and just lost its CEO ) in competition with Rupert " any view that pays " Murdoch 's Sky .
Now if BT could get a richer experience out of iPlayer and access to a longer back catalogue than simply the last 7 days then this would help them in competition with Sky.So I 'd expect this to end up with BT agreeing to support iPlayer in the same way but an " interesting " tie-up between BT and the BBC around the delivery of iPlayer + features to its BT Vision customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT have a TV over the internet offer called "BT Vision" its suffering (and just lost its CEO) in competition with Rupert "any view that pays" Murdoch's Sky.
Now if BT could get a richer experience out of iPlayer and access to a longer back catalogue than simply the last 7 days then this would help them in competition with Sky.So I'd expect this to end up with BT agreeing to support iPlayer in the same way but an "interesting" tie-up between BT and the BBC around the delivery of iPlayer+ features to its BT Vision customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28311515</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1244834520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When people sign up for broadband, one of the main things they want it for in this country is iPlayer.</i></p><p>I just thought I'd remind the audience at this point that this is an incredibly presumptuous statement.  The internet was not invented with the iPlayer in mind, and it is very possible to use the internet for years in end whilst never touching the iPlayer.</p><p>So please, BBC fanbois; please stop assume that everyone loves and wants to use the BBC on their fucking internet connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people sign up for broadband , one of the main things they want it for in this country is iPlayer.I just thought I 'd remind the audience at this point that this is an incredibly presumptuous statement .
The internet was not invented with the iPlayer in mind , and it is very possible to use the internet for years in end whilst never touching the iPlayer.So please , BBC fanbois ; please stop assume that everyone loves and wants to use the BBC on their fucking internet connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people sign up for broadband, one of the main things they want it for in this country is iPlayer.I just thought I'd remind the audience at this point that this is an incredibly presumptuous statement.
The internet was not invented with the iPlayer in mind, and it is very possible to use the internet for years in end whilst never touching the iPlayer.So please, BBC fanbois; please stop assume that everyone loves and wants to use the BBC on their fucking internet connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305651</id>
	<title>Re:Share the cake... or make the cake bigger</title>
	<author>carlc75</author>
	<datestamp>1244803860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the curse of having a pre-existing infrastructure. We cannot simple lay new networks of fiber like Korea and Japan, we have a rather large network of copper that runs everywhere. Economically we can only upgrade bits at a time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the curse of having a pre-existing infrastructure .
We can not simple lay new networks of fiber like Korea and Japan , we have a rather large network of copper that runs everywhere .
Economically we can only upgrade bits at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the curse of having a pre-existing infrastructure.
We cannot simple lay new networks of fiber like Korea and Japan, we have a rather large network of copper that runs everywhere.
Economically we can only upgrade bits at a time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308077</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1244821020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>BT's packages also have a 40GB soft limit in their FUP - virtually no british home user ADSL ISPs <b>(who use IPstream)</b> offer a truly unlimited service any more, you need to get a business class ADSL account for &#195;&#194;&pound;80-100 a month or so.</p></div></blockquote><p>Slight correction. Be were always quite happy with massive bandwidth usage. I think they do have some kind of soft limit - but it's somewhere north of 400G a month.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BT 's packages also have a 40GB soft limit in their FUP - virtually no british home user ADSL ISPs ( who use IPstream ) offer a truly unlimited service any more , you need to get a business class ADSL account for       80-100 a month or so.Slight correction .
Be were always quite happy with massive bandwidth usage .
I think they do have some kind of soft limit - but it 's somewhere north of 400G a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT's packages also have a 40GB soft limit in their FUP - virtually no british home user ADSL ISPs (who use IPstream) offer a truly unlimited service any more, you need to get a business class ADSL account for ÃÂ£80-100 a month or so.Slight correction.
Be were always quite happy with massive bandwidth usage.
I think they do have some kind of soft limit - but it's somewhere north of 400G a month.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306069</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>ijakings</author>
	<datestamp>1244808360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? No problems for me on my LLU ISP. Maybe you should consider one of those instead. Most exchanges are LLU these days, unless it is you really have no excuse to still be with BT's overpriced and underserviced offering.

One example of this, on my LLU ISP when it was first activated it was only at 1meg down 256 up, I should have been on their max offering with 2.2ish down and 768 up. Were I with a BT ISP this would have probably taken a fault report to BT to get them to fix their DSLAM, but with this ISP it was done in 5 mins, no hassle. It was a freephone number too.

BT are a fail, if you continue to give them money (even on an ISP that uses their network) you are asking for trouble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
No problems for me on my LLU ISP .
Maybe you should consider one of those instead .
Most exchanges are LLU these days , unless it is you really have no excuse to still be with BT 's overpriced and underserviced offering .
One example of this , on my LLU ISP when it was first activated it was only at 1meg down 256 up , I should have been on their max offering with 2.2ish down and 768 up .
Were I with a BT ISP this would have probably taken a fault report to BT to get them to fix their DSLAM , but with this ISP it was done in 5 mins , no hassle .
It was a freephone number too .
BT are a fail , if you continue to give them money ( even on an ISP that uses their network ) you are asking for trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
No problems for me on my LLU ISP.
Maybe you should consider one of those instead.
Most exchanges are LLU these days, unless it is you really have no excuse to still be with BT's overpriced and underserviced offering.
One example of this, on my LLU ISP when it was first activated it was only at 1meg down 256 up, I should have been on their max offering with 2.2ish down and 768 up.
Were I with a BT ISP this would have probably taken a fault report to BT to get them to fix their DSLAM, but with this ISP it was done in 5 mins, no hassle.
It was a freephone number too.
BT are a fail, if you continue to give them money (even on an ISP that uses their network) you are asking for trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306363</id>
	<title>Re:It's because Iplayer is stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't work like that in terms of "spreading the load"</p><p>In the UK p2p delivery is mostly pointless since most if not all ADSL traffic goes through legacy ATM networks and is routed through London. Hence if you ping someone nearby you're routed through London anyway negating the benefits of "local" p2p delivery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't work like that in terms of " spreading the load " In the UK p2p delivery is mostly pointless since most if not all ADSL traffic goes through legacy ATM networks and is routed through London .
Hence if you ping someone nearby you 're routed through London anyway negating the benefits of " local " p2p delivery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't work like that in terms of "spreading the load"In the UK p2p delivery is mostly pointless since most if not all ADSL traffic goes through legacy ATM networks and is routed through London.
Hence if you ping someone nearby you're routed through London anyway negating the benefits of "local" p2p delivery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309539</id>
	<title>Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244827080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><p>I've just spend the last hour trying to find a broadband solution for my company that, to be fair, is not shit.</p><p>I may have to use have the same BT exchange, but I'll definitely go with a company that doesn't cap my download &amp; upload limits to far more that what ADSL 2 can provide.</p><p>It's remarkable that the competing company is offering more for less money - guess that's the effect of BT's monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.I 've just spend the last hour trying to find a broadband solution for my company that , to be fair , is not shit.I may have to use have the same BT exchange , but I 'll definitely go with a company that does n't cap my download &amp; upload limits to far more that what ADSL 2 can provide.It 's remarkable that the competing company is offering more for less money - guess that 's the effect of BT 's monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.I've just spend the last hour trying to find a broadband solution for my company that, to be fair, is not shit.I may have to use have the same BT exchange, but I'll definitely go with a company that doesn't cap my download &amp; upload limits to far more that what ADSL 2 can provide.It's remarkable that the competing company is offering more for less money - guess that's the effect of BT's monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306303</id>
	<title>The BBC should tell BT to piss off</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure BT would loose plenty of customers if BT starts blocking iPlayer.<br>Customers are already paying for their bandwidth. This is just a clear case of BT wanting to be paid twice.<br>Greedy scum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure BT would loose plenty of customers if BT starts blocking iPlayer.Customers are already paying for their bandwidth .
This is just a clear case of BT wanting to be paid twice.Greedy scum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure BT would loose plenty of customers if BT starts blocking iPlayer.Customers are already paying for their bandwidth.
This is just a clear case of BT wanting to be paid twice.Greedy scum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305477</id>
	<title>Have you noticed that poo smells?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244801040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It smells like poo and farts. Some people are so obsessed with the computer and the windows that they didn't know about the stinky smell that is their poo?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It smells like poo and farts .
Some people are so obsessed with the computer and the windows that they did n't know about the stinky smell that is their poo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It smells like poo and farts.
Some people are so obsessed with the computer and the windows that they didn't know about the stinky smell that is their poo?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305777</id>
	<title>BT throttles entire Internet worldwide</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1244805360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT, Britain's biggest broadband supplier, has thoughtfully averted complete congestion of the Internet by <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/02/bt-throttles-entire-internet-worldwide/" title="today.com">throttling all use of the Internet</a> [today.com] on its cheapest broadband package, blaming the BBC iPlayer, everyone else on the Internet and magical pixies.

</p><p>Customers on the I Can't Believe It's Eight Megabits package have all Internet data flow cut off entirely under its "fair use" clause during "peak periods," defined as being between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 11:59pm. "However," said a customer service telephone voice menu, "the connection itself runs at the full eight megabits the entire time. That we guarantee absolutely."

</p><p>BT has recently sold the technology to China, where it was put into operation today, blocking Twitter, Blogger, Microsoft Bob Hope and the live webcam of the coffee pot at Cambridge University. "We will not put up with the drop in productivity social networking sites cause," said a spokesrivercrab. "After the terrible onslaught of blue screens at the Olympics, we will stop at nothing to protect patriotic citizens from the influence of Microsoft. And they love us for it. Just find one who doesn't!"

</p><p>"Besides," said the BT phone menu, "we're still better than Virgin. A high bar to aim for, I know. But you get such better fail whales over a phone line than a cable."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT , Britain 's biggest broadband supplier , has thoughtfully averted complete congestion of the Internet by throttling all use of the Internet [ today.com ] on its cheapest broadband package , blaming the BBC iPlayer , everyone else on the Internet and magical pixies .
Customers on the I Ca n't Believe It 's Eight Megabits package have all Internet data flow cut off entirely under its " fair use " clause during " peak periods , " defined as being between the hours of 12 : 00 midnight and 11 : 59pm .
" However , " said a customer service telephone voice menu , " the connection itself runs at the full eight megabits the entire time .
That we guarantee absolutely .
" BT has recently sold the technology to China , where it was put into operation today , blocking Twitter , Blogger , Microsoft Bob Hope and the live webcam of the coffee pot at Cambridge University .
" We will not put up with the drop in productivity social networking sites cause , " said a spokesrivercrab .
" After the terrible onslaught of blue screens at the Olympics , we will stop at nothing to protect patriotic citizens from the influence of Microsoft .
And they love us for it .
Just find one who does n't !
" " Besides , " said the BT phone menu , " we 're still better than Virgin .
A high bar to aim for , I know .
But you get such better fail whales over a phone line than a cable .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT, Britain's biggest broadband supplier, has thoughtfully averted complete congestion of the Internet by throttling all use of the Internet [today.com] on its cheapest broadband package, blaming the BBC iPlayer, everyone else on the Internet and magical pixies.
Customers on the I Can't Believe It's Eight Megabits package have all Internet data flow cut off entirely under its "fair use" clause during "peak periods," defined as being between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 11:59pm.
"However," said a customer service telephone voice menu, "the connection itself runs at the full eight megabits the entire time.
That we guarantee absolutely.
"

BT has recently sold the technology to China, where it was put into operation today, blocking Twitter, Blogger, Microsoft Bob Hope and the live webcam of the coffee pot at Cambridge University.
"We will not put up with the drop in productivity social networking sites cause," said a spokesrivercrab.
"After the terrible onslaught of blue screens at the Olympics, we will stop at nothing to protect patriotic citizens from the influence of Microsoft.
And they love us for it.
Just find one who doesn't!
"

"Besides," said the BT phone menu, "we're still better than Virgin.
A high bar to aim for, I know.
But you get such better fail whales over a phone line than a cable.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229</id>
	<title>It's because Iplayer is stupid</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1244810160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iplayer actually could have helped: by actually using Bittorrent instead of their own invented Bittorrent-like protocol, and spreading the load, it could have cut the piracy bandwidth load of people downloading BBC television shows. But their business choices completely ruined the possibility.</p><p>1: They chose Windows Media Player to provide their desired DRM, which meant they had to go and stream it anyway for Linux and Mac users.<br>2: Their interface sucks so badly no one in the UK wants to use it. (At least not the sys-admin there I've discussed it with.) No one cares whether the episode of a child's program you want to see showed at which timeslot, you shouldn't have to scroll through all the times to pick the 6:30 AM or the 10:25 AM or the 2:30 re-run, just name the show and let people grab it.<br>3: Even when turned off, Iplayer quietly sucks your bandwidth for its Bittorrent like protocol without telling you. So it interferes with your other usage, and companies have to tell their own staff not to run it on their laptops or VPN connected machines, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iplayer actually could have helped : by actually using Bittorrent instead of their own invented Bittorrent-like protocol , and spreading the load , it could have cut the piracy bandwidth load of people downloading BBC television shows .
But their business choices completely ruined the possibility.1 : They chose Windows Media Player to provide their desired DRM , which meant they had to go and stream it anyway for Linux and Mac users.2 : Their interface sucks so badly no one in the UK wants to use it .
( At least not the sys-admin there I 've discussed it with .
) No one cares whether the episode of a child 's program you want to see showed at which timeslot , you should n't have to scroll through all the times to pick the 6 : 30 AM or the 10 : 25 AM or the 2 : 30 re-run , just name the show and let people grab it.3 : Even when turned off , Iplayer quietly sucks your bandwidth for its Bittorrent like protocol without telling you .
So it interferes with your other usage , and companies have to tell their own staff not to run it on their laptops or VPN connected machines , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iplayer actually could have helped: by actually using Bittorrent instead of their own invented Bittorrent-like protocol, and spreading the load, it could have cut the piracy bandwidth load of people downloading BBC television shows.
But their business choices completely ruined the possibility.1: They chose Windows Media Player to provide their desired DRM, which meant they had to go and stream it anyway for Linux and Mac users.2: Their interface sucks so badly no one in the UK wants to use it.
(At least not the sys-admin there I've discussed it with.
) No one cares whether the episode of a child's program you want to see showed at which timeslot, you shouldn't have to scroll through all the times to pick the 6:30 AM or the 10:25 AM or the 2:30 re-run, just name the show and let people grab it.3: Even when turned off, Iplayer quietly sucks your bandwidth for its Bittorrent like protocol without telling you.
So it interferes with your other usage, and companies have to tell their own staff not to run it on their laptops or VPN connected machines, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305729</id>
	<title>Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>ZigiSamblak</author>
	<datestamp>1244804820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just BT believing that because they used to be the national phone service they have a right to dominate any communications market and charge whatever they like. We have a similar company in the Netherlands KPN who used to be the national telephone and post service but since they were privatized have shown a total disregard for fair competition from other companies and tried every trick in the book to hold their dominant position so they can abuse it to make bigger profits.<br> <br>

No doubt there are some influential contacts in the government who get paid well for these agreements. If you ask me the expense scandal in the UK is just the top of the iceberg and our governments are basically nearly as corrupt as the US, they just make more effort to hide it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just BT believing that because they used to be the national phone service they have a right to dominate any communications market and charge whatever they like .
We have a similar company in the Netherlands KPN who used to be the national telephone and post service but since they were privatized have shown a total disregard for fair competition from other companies and tried every trick in the book to hold their dominant position so they can abuse it to make bigger profits .
No doubt there are some influential contacts in the government who get paid well for these agreements .
If you ask me the expense scandal in the UK is just the top of the iceberg and our governments are basically nearly as corrupt as the US , they just make more effort to hide it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just BT believing that because they used to be the national phone service they have a right to dominate any communications market and charge whatever they like.
We have a similar company in the Netherlands KPN who used to be the national telephone and post service but since they were privatized have shown a total disregard for fair competition from other companies and tried every trick in the book to hold their dominant position so they can abuse it to make bigger profits.
No doubt there are some influential contacts in the government who get paid well for these agreements.
If you ask me the expense scandal in the UK is just the top of the iceberg and our governments are basically nearly as corrupt as the US, they just make more effort to hide it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306241</id>
	<title>The invasion of the paid-for content...</title>
	<author>Archtech</author>
	<datestamp>1244810280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately we have different communication technologies overlapping here, each with its traditional pricing structure. They don't fit.</p><p>The Internet has always been free to the end-user, thanks to the generosity (and perhaps intelligent self-interest) of parties like the US federal government, owners of the many servers that forward packets to us all, and - let's not forget - even telcos. Where I live, in southern England, I can buy ISP service for about $20/month upwards. That gets me continuous Internet access using ADSL, over a telephone wire designed for speech only, with a maximum bandwidth of about 2Mbps (because I live 3 miles from the exchange). On a good day I might get 2.8 Mbps, on a bad day (and perhaps due to contention) down around 1.5 or even less.</p><p>Now this is perfectly adequate for almost everything I want to do. I use email (and have since 1980); download with ftp; browse the Web; and other such traditional activities. The only time I bump my head on the ceiling is when I have to download a really big file, or (occasionally) watch some streaming video that I can't download in its entirety first.</p><p>Where it breaks down completely, of course, is if I want to download (or worse stream) movies, watch live sporting events in full glorious technicolour on a large screen without graininess or intermittent motion; or watch TV. That's because the Internet was never intended for those activities, most of which are better adapted to the plain ol' steam TV set (complemented by a video player, DVD player, etc.) Why on earth would thousands (potentially millions) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate, contending, low-bandwidth links, when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe? It doesn't make very good engineering sense. More to the point, it doesn't make good economic or business sense. Movies, TV, sport, music and other live entertainment have traditionally been things you had to pay for - whether by buying a ticket, subscribing, or just watching tedious commercials.</p><p>AFAIAC, the really important aspect of this whole thing is that the Internet itself should remain free - as in speech and as in beer (apart from content-neutral ISP fees). Unfortunately, there are pople like this <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=19552&amp;tag=nl.e539" title="zdnet.com">http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=19552&amp;tag=nl.e539</a> [zdnet.com] who reckon otherwise. We have got to make sure they don't get their way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately we have different communication technologies overlapping here , each with its traditional pricing structure .
They do n't fit.The Internet has always been free to the end-user , thanks to the generosity ( and perhaps intelligent self-interest ) of parties like the US federal government , owners of the many servers that forward packets to us all , and - let 's not forget - even telcos .
Where I live , in southern England , I can buy ISP service for about $ 20/month upwards .
That gets me continuous Internet access using ADSL , over a telephone wire designed for speech only , with a maximum bandwidth of about 2Mbps ( because I live 3 miles from the exchange ) .
On a good day I might get 2.8 Mbps , on a bad day ( and perhaps due to contention ) down around 1.5 or even less.Now this is perfectly adequate for almost everything I want to do .
I use email ( and have since 1980 ) ; download with ftp ; browse the Web ; and other such traditional activities .
The only time I bump my head on the ceiling is when I have to download a really big file , or ( occasionally ) watch some streaming video that I ca n't download in its entirety first.Where it breaks down completely , of course , is if I want to download ( or worse stream ) movies , watch live sporting events in full glorious technicolour on a large screen without graininess or intermittent motion ; or watch TV .
That 's because the Internet was never intended for those activities , most of which are better adapted to the plain ol ' steam TV set ( complemented by a video player , DVD player , etc .
) Why on earth would thousands ( potentially millions ) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate , contending , low-bandwidth links , when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe ?
It does n't make very good engineering sense .
More to the point , it does n't make good economic or business sense .
Movies , TV , sport , music and other live entertainment have traditionally been things you had to pay for - whether by buying a ticket , subscribing , or just watching tedious commercials.AFAIAC , the really important aspect of this whole thing is that the Internet itself should remain free - as in speech and as in beer ( apart from content-neutral ISP fees ) .
Unfortunately , there are pople like this http : //blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/ ? p = 19552&amp;tag = nl.e539 [ zdnet.com ] who reckon otherwise .
We have got to make sure they do n't get their way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately we have different communication technologies overlapping here, each with its traditional pricing structure.
They don't fit.The Internet has always been free to the end-user, thanks to the generosity (and perhaps intelligent self-interest) of parties like the US federal government, owners of the many servers that forward packets to us all, and - let's not forget - even telcos.
Where I live, in southern England, I can buy ISP service for about $20/month upwards.
That gets me continuous Internet access using ADSL, over a telephone wire designed for speech only, with a maximum bandwidth of about 2Mbps (because I live 3 miles from the exchange).
On a good day I might get 2.8 Mbps, on a bad day (and perhaps due to contention) down around 1.5 or even less.Now this is perfectly adequate for almost everything I want to do.
I use email (and have since 1980); download with ftp; browse the Web; and other such traditional activities.
The only time I bump my head on the ceiling is when I have to download a really big file, or (occasionally) watch some streaming video that I can't download in its entirety first.Where it breaks down completely, of course, is if I want to download (or worse stream) movies, watch live sporting events in full glorious technicolour on a large screen without graininess or intermittent motion; or watch TV.
That's because the Internet was never intended for those activities, most of which are better adapted to the plain ol' steam TV set (complemented by a video player, DVD player, etc.
) Why on earth would thousands (potentially millions) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate, contending, low-bandwidth links, when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe?
It doesn't make very good engineering sense.
More to the point, it doesn't make good economic or business sense.
Movies, TV, sport, music and other live entertainment have traditionally been things you had to pay for - whether by buying a ticket, subscribing, or just watching tedious commercials.AFAIAC, the really important aspect of this whole thing is that the Internet itself should remain free - as in speech and as in beer (apart from content-neutral ISP fees).
Unfortunately, there are pople like this http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=19552&amp;tag=nl.e539 [zdnet.com] who reckon otherwise.
We have got to make sure they don't get their way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305667</id>
	<title>Re:Solution</title>
	<author>Trahloc</author>
	<datestamp>1244803980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should the BBC cut them off?  If BT doesn't want their users accessing the video content THEY should block it.  Once their clients realize that they can't get what their paying for over BT it will quickly lose its status as 'largest'.  Market forces are at work and BT is plugging its ears and going nya nya nya nya, let them go the way of the Dodo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the BBC cut them off ?
If BT does n't want their users accessing the video content THEY should block it .
Once their clients realize that they ca n't get what their paying for over BT it will quickly lose its status as 'largest' .
Market forces are at work and BT is plugging its ears and going nya nya nya nya , let them go the way of the Dodo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the BBC cut them off?
If BT doesn't want their users accessing the video content THEY should block it.
Once their clients realize that they can't get what their paying for over BT it will quickly lose its status as 'largest'.
Market forces are at work and BT is plugging its ears and going nya nya nya nya, let them go the way of the Dodo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309753</id>
	<title>So what happens this Autum then?</title>
	<author>Amphetam1ne</author>
	<datestamp>1244827740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what happens in Autum when Sky Player comes to Xbox Live and the Xbox Live / Zune HD movie service starts offering 1080p streaming movies? Last time I checked a 1080p movie was a minimum of 9GB.... BT seem to think that 30GB/month is "normal" usage, while MS want to sell you a movie which uses 1/3 of that bandwidth in under 2 hours (most likely within the 6pm-12am "peak" period). There is a massive wake up call on its way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens in Autum when Sky Player comes to Xbox Live and the Xbox Live / Zune HD movie service starts offering 1080p streaming movies ?
Last time I checked a 1080p movie was a minimum of 9GB.... BT seem to think that 30GB/month is " normal " usage , while MS want to sell you a movie which uses 1/3 of that bandwidth in under 2 hours ( most likely within the 6pm-12am " peak " period ) .
There is a massive wake up call on its way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens in Autum when Sky Player comes to Xbox Live and the Xbox Live / Zune HD movie service starts offering 1080p streaming movies?
Last time I checked a 1080p movie was a minimum of 9GB.... BT seem to think that 30GB/month is "normal" usage, while MS want to sell you a movie which uses 1/3 of that bandwidth in under 2 hours (most likely within the 6pm-12am "peak" period).
There is a massive wake up call on its way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28314525</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>jpop32</author>
	<datestamp>1244803140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So not only are the BBC paying for their bandwidth, and users are paying through the nose for a pretty limited service, BT now want to double dip and charge twice for the same content, with the BBC picking up the bill instead of the customers.</p></div><p>Instead? Nope. They want to charge at BOTH ends of the pipe, server AND consumer. That's like charging you for recieving calls on your mobile because lots of people want to talk to you. Why isn't anyone framing the problem like this? Then it becomes crystal clear what kind of idiocy their demand is.</p><p>I pay a monthly fee for for my DSL service, which includes flat rate transfers. So, any bytes that come down the pipe, wherever they come from, their transfer is already paid. The ISP isn't providing the BBC a free service. It's providing a paid service to me, the person who watches BBC content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So not only are the BBC paying for their bandwidth , and users are paying through the nose for a pretty limited service , BT now want to double dip and charge twice for the same content , with the BBC picking up the bill instead of the customers.Instead ?
Nope. They want to charge at BOTH ends of the pipe , server AND consumer .
That 's like charging you for recieving calls on your mobile because lots of people want to talk to you .
Why is n't anyone framing the problem like this ?
Then it becomes crystal clear what kind of idiocy their demand is.I pay a monthly fee for for my DSL service , which includes flat rate transfers .
So , any bytes that come down the pipe , wherever they come from , their transfer is already paid .
The ISP is n't providing the BBC a free service .
It 's providing a paid service to me , the person who watches BBC content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So not only are the BBC paying for their bandwidth, and users are paying through the nose for a pretty limited service, BT now want to double dip and charge twice for the same content, with the BBC picking up the bill instead of the customers.Instead?
Nope. They want to charge at BOTH ends of the pipe, server AND consumer.
That's like charging you for recieving calls on your mobile because lots of people want to talk to you.
Why isn't anyone framing the problem like this?
Then it becomes crystal clear what kind of idiocy their demand is.I pay a monthly fee for for my DSL service, which includes flat rate transfers.
So, any bytes that come down the pipe, wherever they come from, their transfer is already paid.
The ISP isn't providing the BBC a free service.
It's providing a paid service to me, the person who watches BBC content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306309</id>
	<title>Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT, the monopoly provider of telephone landlines in most of the UK, only have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPstream" title="wikipedia.org">IPstream</a> [wikipedia.org] in their exchanges, which has a maximum speed of 8Mbps. Most broadband providers, including BT Broadband, are merely reselling this 8Mbps access.</p><p>Be, Virgin and TalkTalk took advantage of the OLO (other licensed operator) scheme that BT was forced by OFTEL/OFCOM to provide. They put their equipment in BT's exchanges. They can provide broadband speeds higher than 8Mbps.</p><p>However, in order get access to those other providers inside BT's exchanges, you need a BT line, even if you never use the BT line. Sure, it sucks to be you, but what's the alternative? Other operators would be forced to build and operate all their own cables and exchanges, rather than rent a corner of BT's exchange, and given they don't have access rights to the land like BT does, there are many places they wouldn't be able to go.</p><p>That's the tradeoff - you can get better-than-BT broadband almost anywhere in the country <i>because</i> you need a BT line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT , the monopoly provider of telephone landlines in most of the UK , only have IPstream [ wikipedia.org ] in their exchanges , which has a maximum speed of 8Mbps .
Most broadband providers , including BT Broadband , are merely reselling this 8Mbps access.Be , Virgin and TalkTalk took advantage of the OLO ( other licensed operator ) scheme that BT was forced by OFTEL/OFCOM to provide .
They put their equipment in BT 's exchanges .
They can provide broadband speeds higher than 8Mbps.However , in order get access to those other providers inside BT 's exchanges , you need a BT line , even if you never use the BT line .
Sure , it sucks to be you , but what 's the alternative ?
Other operators would be forced to build and operate all their own cables and exchanges , rather than rent a corner of BT 's exchange , and given they do n't have access rights to the land like BT does , there are many places they would n't be able to go.That 's the tradeoff - you can get better-than-BT broadband almost anywhere in the country because you need a BT line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT, the monopoly provider of telephone landlines in most of the UK, only have IPstream [wikipedia.org] in their exchanges, which has a maximum speed of 8Mbps.
Most broadband providers, including BT Broadband, are merely reselling this 8Mbps access.Be, Virgin and TalkTalk took advantage of the OLO (other licensed operator) scheme that BT was forced by OFTEL/OFCOM to provide.
They put their equipment in BT's exchanges.
They can provide broadband speeds higher than 8Mbps.However, in order get access to those other providers inside BT's exchanges, you need a BT line, even if you never use the BT line.
Sure, it sucks to be you, but what's the alternative?
Other operators would be forced to build and operate all their own cables and exchanges, rather than rent a corner of BT's exchange, and given they don't have access rights to the land like BT does, there are many places they wouldn't be able to go.That's the tradeoff - you can get better-than-BT broadband almost anywhere in the country because you need a BT line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305629</id>
	<title>Consumer should pay</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1244803440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems obvious to me that any ISP (including BT) should pass these bandwidth costs on to the consumer.</p><p>One of several things will happen:</p><ul><li>Consumers decide streaming video isn't that important to them after all, and buy a cheaper service. The market has spoken.</li><li>Consumers grumble a bit, but end up paying for what they're using</li><li>Competitors step in with a cheaper way of providing the bandwidth consumers want</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems obvious to me that any ISP ( including BT ) should pass these bandwidth costs on to the consumer.One of several things will happen : Consumers decide streaming video is n't that important to them after all , and buy a cheaper service .
The market has spoken.Consumers grumble a bit , but end up paying for what they 're usingCompetitors step in with a cheaper way of providing the bandwidth consumers want</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems obvious to me that any ISP (including BT) should pass these bandwidth costs on to the consumer.One of several things will happen:Consumers decide streaming video isn't that important to them after all, and buy a cheaper service.
The market has spoken.Consumers grumble a bit, but end up paying for what they're usingCompetitors step in with a cheaper way of providing the bandwidth consumers want</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305781</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244805420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, as Bill Gates has said, 640KB is enough for everyone. Anyone needing more than 640KB per month is a pirate, because bandwidth is fucking damned expensive.<br> <br>
Except in places like Sweden, South Korea or Hong Kong where everyone is downloading by the gigabytes every week (hell, even every day for some users) with no problem. But everyone knows those places don't really exist. It's just a global conspiracy to spread false rumors by the likes of thepiratebay.org.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , as Bill Gates has said , 640KB is enough for everyone .
Anyone needing more than 640KB per month is a pirate , because bandwidth is fucking damned expensive .
Except in places like Sweden , South Korea or Hong Kong where everyone is downloading by the gigabytes every week ( hell , even every day for some users ) with no problem .
But everyone knows those places do n't really exist .
It 's just a global conspiracy to spread false rumors by the likes of thepiratebay.org .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, as Bill Gates has said, 640KB is enough for everyone.
Anyone needing more than 640KB per month is a pirate, because bandwidth is fucking damned expensive.
Except in places like Sweden, South Korea or Hong Kong where everyone is downloading by the gigabytes every week (hell, even every day for some users) with no problem.
But everyone knows those places don't really exist.
It's just a global conspiracy to spread false rumors by the likes of thepiratebay.org.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28317849</id>
	<title>Re:Charge by the bit and by performance</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1244835360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Bits" are not a finite resource.  The use of them doesn't cost the ISP any more money than a lack of use of them.  The main costs of a network are the initial deployment of infrastructure.  From there all costs are very low maintenance-based ones.

Charging by bit is completely illogical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bits " are not a finite resource .
The use of them does n't cost the ISP any more money than a lack of use of them .
The main costs of a network are the initial deployment of infrastructure .
From there all costs are very low maintenance-based ones .
Charging by bit is completely illogical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bits" are not a finite resource.
The use of them doesn't cost the ISP any more money than a lack of use of them.
The main costs of a network are the initial deployment of infrastructure.
From there all costs are very low maintenance-based ones.
Charging by bit is completely illogical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306349</id>
	<title>Another typical UK cockup!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I appreciate at the end of the day it's "who wants to look like the bad guy" when the bills come in for payment, BT or BBC ( via the license fee), just another example of a greedy telco cutting corners and costs and  who didn't keep pace with the demands of the internet. They set up and sold a service, thinking not many people will be interested other than a bit of browsing and some emails, just like the old dial-up days. Things took off and now they are fighting to stay in control. You should have metered it from the outset, like you do with mobile and landline calls!</p><p>Just like the UK's transport system, we got ours set up first, ran it into the ground without maintaining it and sit here crying now it's all f**ked and broken, looking for someone else to blame for the mess!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I appreciate at the end of the day it 's " who wants to look like the bad guy " when the bills come in for payment , BT or BBC ( via the license fee ) , just another example of a greedy telco cutting corners and costs and who did n't keep pace with the demands of the internet .
They set up and sold a service , thinking not many people will be interested other than a bit of browsing and some emails , just like the old dial-up days .
Things took off and now they are fighting to stay in control .
You should have metered it from the outset , like you do with mobile and landline calls ! Just like the UK 's transport system , we got ours set up first , ran it into the ground without maintaining it and sit here crying now it 's all f * * ked and broken , looking for someone else to blame for the mess !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I appreciate at the end of the day it's "who wants to look like the bad guy" when the bills come in for payment, BT or BBC ( via the license fee), just another example of a greedy telco cutting corners and costs and  who didn't keep pace with the demands of the internet.
They set up and sold a service, thinking not many people will be interested other than a bit of browsing and some emails, just like the old dial-up days.
Things took off and now they are fighting to stay in control.
You should have metered it from the outset, like you do with mobile and landline calls!Just like the UK's transport system, we got ours set up first, ran it into the ground without maintaining it and sit here crying now it's all f**ked and broken, looking for someone else to blame for the mess!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305771</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244805360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>BT are already on the ball. From 4pm to midnight, iPlayer is unusable for me, rebuffers every 10 seconds.  Other services such as Youtube and Vimeo suffer too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BT are already on the ball .
From 4pm to midnight , iPlayer is unusable for me , rebuffers every 10 seconds .
Other services such as Youtube and Vimeo suffer too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT are already on the ball.
From 4pm to midnight, iPlayer is unusable for me, rebuffers every 10 seconds.
Other services such as Youtube and Vimeo suffer too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306007</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1244807700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs. Also BT should be charging by the gigabyte instead of offering unrealistic "unlimited" packages that cause problems when people actually use their bandwidth.</i></p><p>Both of these already take place more or less; the BBC does pay an ungodly amount for bandwidth already.</p><p>BT's packages also have a 40GB soft limit in their FUP - virtually no british home user ADSL ISPs offer a truly unlimited service any more, you need to get a business class ADSL account for &#194;&pound;80-100 a month or so.</p><p>BT also throttle video streaming down to 750Kb/s in peak periods on the standard packages, so users already have limited access to the higher quality streams on iplayer in the evening with BT, something a number of other ISPs have been using lately in their adverts.</p><p>So not only are the BBC paying for their bandwidth, and users are paying through the nose for a pretty limited service, BT now want to double dip and charge twice for the same content, with the BBC picking up the bill instead of the customers.</p><p>Must be good business when you're an ex-public service monopoly and still the largest ISP, and can get away with bullshit like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should n't be an issue at all ; the BBC 's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs .
Also BT should be charging by the gigabyte instead of offering unrealistic " unlimited " packages that cause problems when people actually use their bandwidth.Both of these already take place more or less ; the BBC does pay an ungodly amount for bandwidth already.BT 's packages also have a 40GB soft limit in their FUP - virtually no british home user ADSL ISPs offer a truly unlimited service any more , you need to get a business class ADSL account for     80-100 a month or so.BT also throttle video streaming down to 750Kb/s in peak periods on the standard packages , so users already have limited access to the higher quality streams on iplayer in the evening with BT , something a number of other ISPs have been using lately in their adverts.So not only are the BBC paying for their bandwidth , and users are paying through the nose for a pretty limited service , BT now want to double dip and charge twice for the same content , with the BBC picking up the bill instead of the customers.Must be good business when you 're an ex-public service monopoly and still the largest ISP , and can get away with bullshit like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs.
Also BT should be charging by the gigabyte instead of offering unrealistic "unlimited" packages that cause problems when people actually use their bandwidth.Both of these already take place more or less; the BBC does pay an ungodly amount for bandwidth already.BT's packages also have a 40GB soft limit in their FUP - virtually no british home user ADSL ISPs offer a truly unlimited service any more, you need to get a business class ADSL account for Â£80-100 a month or so.BT also throttle video streaming down to 750Kb/s in peak periods on the standard packages, so users already have limited access to the higher quality streams on iplayer in the evening with BT, something a number of other ISPs have been using lately in their adverts.So not only are the BBC paying for their bandwidth, and users are paying through the nose for a pretty limited service, BT now want to double dip and charge twice for the same content, with the BBC picking up the bill instead of the customers.Must be good business when you're an ex-public service monopoly and still the largest ISP, and can get away with bullshit like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306043</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1244808060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could just start selling only what they can provide, instead of selling what they haven't got.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could just start selling only what they can provide , instead of selling what they have n't got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could just start selling only what they can provide, instead of selling what they haven't got.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305849</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1244806080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That may just be peak hours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That may just be peak hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may just be peak hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306361</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1244811840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it is debatable where the bandwidth cap should be, depending in the infrastructure maybe 100GB/month are actually reasonable.</p><p>But GP's point was that BT should stop whining and bill people for what they actually use. If you need more bandwidth, get a plan with a higher cap. Problem solved. I fully agree with him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it is debatable where the bandwidth cap should be , depending in the infrastructure maybe 100GB/month are actually reasonable.But GP 's point was that BT should stop whining and bill people for what they actually use .
If you need more bandwidth , get a plan with a higher cap .
Problem solved .
I fully agree with him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it is debatable where the bandwidth cap should be, depending in the infrastructure maybe 100GB/month are actually reasonable.But GP's point was that BT should stop whining and bill people for what they actually use.
If you need more bandwidth, get a plan with a higher cap.
Problem solved.
I fully agree with him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306639</id>
	<title>BT: stop whinging</title>
	<author>tonylemesmer</author>
	<datestamp>1244814060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't BT just charge their customers to cover the costs and stop whinging about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't BT just charge their customers to cover the costs and stop whinging about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't BT just charge their customers to cover the costs and stop whinging about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305475</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>AccUser</author>
	<datestamp>1244801040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me get this straight... the BBC pays for their internet connection, and they will have to pay a tariff appropriate to the bandwidth that they use in providing these services, which covers iPlayer video being delivered from their servers. As a consumer, I pay for my internet connection, and pay a tariff appropriate to the bandwidth that I use in consuming services, included iPlayer video that I download and stream. So if both ends are paid for, what is the problem?</p><p>It sounds to me like BT has suddenly realised that they have oversold their services on the basis that not everyone uses their internet connection at the same time. This is a classic telecommunications model. Except that, unlike the telephone, our internet access is largely un-metered (flat-rate charge), and we can use it even when we are not physically present.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight... the BBC pays for their internet connection , and they will have to pay a tariff appropriate to the bandwidth that they use in providing these services , which covers iPlayer video being delivered from their servers .
As a consumer , I pay for my internet connection , and pay a tariff appropriate to the bandwidth that I use in consuming services , included iPlayer video that I download and stream .
So if both ends are paid for , what is the problem ? It sounds to me like BT has suddenly realised that they have oversold their services on the basis that not everyone uses their internet connection at the same time .
This is a classic telecommunications model .
Except that , unlike the telephone , our internet access is largely un-metered ( flat-rate charge ) , and we can use it even when we are not physically present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight... the BBC pays for their internet connection, and they will have to pay a tariff appropriate to the bandwidth that they use in providing these services, which covers iPlayer video being delivered from their servers.
As a consumer, I pay for my internet connection, and pay a tariff appropriate to the bandwidth that I use in consuming services, included iPlayer video that I download and stream.
So if both ends are paid for, what is the problem?It sounds to me like BT has suddenly realised that they have oversold their services on the basis that not everyone uses their internet connection at the same time.
This is a classic telecommunications model.
Except that, unlike the telephone, our internet access is largely un-metered (flat-rate charge), and we can use it even when we are not physically present.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307663</id>
	<title>Re:Share the cake... or make the cake bigger</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1244819580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT's profit in 2008 was over &pound;2 billion UKP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... now tell me the tale again about how they can't afford to improve their infrastructure?</p><p>Presumably the BT management and shareholders have been pocketing the profits whilst they still maintain[ed] a near monopoly on infrastructure level service rather than investing in future-proofing. Why should one care if you can run off with all the profits and leave the company unable to properly contend in the future? Capitalism sucks. This is why, IMO, basic infrastructure (roads, utilities, communications) are jobs for a properly regulated government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT 's profit in 2008 was over   2 billion UKP ... now tell me the tale again about how they ca n't afford to improve their infrastructure ? Presumably the BT management and shareholders have been pocketing the profits whilst they still maintain [ ed ] a near monopoly on infrastructure level service rather than investing in future-proofing .
Why should one care if you can run off with all the profits and leave the company unable to properly contend in the future ?
Capitalism sucks .
This is why , IMO , basic infrastructure ( roads , utilities , communications ) are jobs for a properly regulated government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT's profit in 2008 was over £2 billion UKP ... now tell me the tale again about how they can't afford to improve their infrastructure?Presumably the BT management and shareholders have been pocketing the profits whilst they still maintain[ed] a near monopoly on infrastructure level service rather than investing in future-proofing.
Why should one care if you can run off with all the profits and leave the company unable to properly contend in the future?
Capitalism sucks.
This is why, IMO, basic infrastructure (roads, utilities, communications) are jobs for a properly regulated government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305665</id>
	<title>Got to love BT</title>
	<author>ilikejam</author>
	<datestamp>1244803980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they can make up the shortfall with the proceeds from <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm\_roundup/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Phorm</a> [theregister.co.uk].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they can make up the shortfall with the proceeds from Phorm [ theregister.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they can make up the shortfall with the proceeds from Phorm [theregister.co.uk].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305811</id>
	<title>Re:Solution</title>
	<author>kieran</author>
	<datestamp>1244805660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as an ISP senior network engineer for over a decade:</p><p>Yes. BT can get stuffed, and any other provider who violates net neutrality will see me vote with my feet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as an ISP senior network engineer for over a decade : Yes .
BT can get stuffed , and any other provider who violates net neutrality will see me vote with my feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as an ISP senior network engineer for over a decade:Yes.
BT can get stuffed, and any other provider who violates net neutrality will see me vote with my feet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305627</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244803440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't iPlayer have a significant peer-to-peer side. That won't be using the Beeb's bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't iPlayer have a significant peer-to-peer side .
That wo n't be using the Beeb 's bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't iPlayer have a significant peer-to-peer side.
That won't be using the Beeb's bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308605</id>
	<title>Re:The invasion of the paid-for content...</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1244823120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I use email (and have since 1980);</p> </div><p>Was that on ARPANET? Was it even called email then? I notice that the IETF RC822 from 1982 is called "Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages", though it does mention "electronic mail".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use email ( and have since 1980 ) ; Was that on ARPANET ?
Was it even called email then ?
I notice that the IETF RC822 from 1982 is called " Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages " , though it does mention " electronic mail " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use email (and have since 1980); Was that on ARPANET?
Was it even called email then?
I notice that the IETF RC822 from 1982 is called "Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages", though it does mention "electronic mail".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305801</id>
	<title>Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1244805540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>BT Vision is Freeview TV, with a hard drive. The part that needs broadband is minimal. Here are a list of <a href="http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=24693" title="bt.com">"Features"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</a> [bt.com]<ul>
<li>Pause rewind and record Live TV<br>

The Vision+ box is a digital TV recorder that lets you pause, record and rewind live TV.</li><li>160 GB hard drive<br>

Record and store up to 80 hours of Freeview TV with the huge 160 GB hard drive.</li><li>#
Dual tuners
<br>
The Vision+ box's dual tuners can record one or two programmes at once while you watch another recording.
</li><li>Record whole TV series
<br>
The TV guide shows scheduling 14 days in advance. Simply press the R button twice to record a whole series.</li><li>HD Experience
<br>
The HD Vision+ box gives you selected films and TV in crystal clear, High Definition picture and sound quality.</li><li>#
Convenient billing
<br>
Any pay per view movies, sport, music or TV shows you watch will be added to your next BT Vision bill. If you take one of our Value Packs, you will be billed in advance each month.
</li></ul><p>Combined with bittorrent, I already have what they are offering. Except their speeds are derisory. I recently switched provider to <a href="https://www.bethere.co.uk/" title="bethere.co.uk">Be</a> [bethere.co.uk], and experienced a doubling in download bandwidth, and a trebling in upload bandwidth, for 25\% less per month including a fixed IP. Plus BT claimed that "it was not possible to get faster speeds on my line". Funny that, considering you need a BT phone line to sign up with Be. But now I'm not with BT broadband, I can't get BT Vision. So there was no net neutrality in this case. All their stuff was prioritised already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT Vision is Freeview TV , with a hard drive .
The part that needs broadband is minimal .
Here are a list of " Features " : [ bt.com ] Pause rewind and record Live TV The Vision + box is a digital TV recorder that lets you pause , record and rewind live TV.160 GB hard drive Record and store up to 80 hours of Freeview TV with the huge 160 GB hard drive. # Dual tuners The Vision + box 's dual tuners can record one or two programmes at once while you watch another recording .
Record whole TV series The TV guide shows scheduling 14 days in advance .
Simply press the R button twice to record a whole series.HD Experience The HD Vision + box gives you selected films and TV in crystal clear , High Definition picture and sound quality. # Convenient billing Any pay per view movies , sport , music or TV shows you watch will be added to your next BT Vision bill .
If you take one of our Value Packs , you will be billed in advance each month .
Combined with bittorrent , I already have what they are offering .
Except their speeds are derisory .
I recently switched provider to Be [ bethere.co.uk ] , and experienced a doubling in download bandwidth , and a trebling in upload bandwidth , for 25 \ % less per month including a fixed IP .
Plus BT claimed that " it was not possible to get faster speeds on my line " .
Funny that , considering you need a BT phone line to sign up with Be .
But now I 'm not with BT broadband , I ca n't get BT Vision .
So there was no net neutrality in this case .
All their stuff was prioritised already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT Vision is Freeview TV, with a hard drive.
The part that needs broadband is minimal.
Here are a list of "Features" : [bt.com]
Pause rewind and record Live TV

The Vision+ box is a digital TV recorder that lets you pause, record and rewind live TV.160 GB hard drive

Record and store up to 80 hours of Freeview TV with the huge 160 GB hard drive.#
Dual tuners

The Vision+ box's dual tuners can record one or two programmes at once while you watch another recording.
Record whole TV series

The TV guide shows scheduling 14 days in advance.
Simply press the R button twice to record a whole series.HD Experience

The HD Vision+ box gives you selected films and TV in crystal clear, High Definition picture and sound quality.#
Convenient billing

Any pay per view movies, sport, music or TV shows you watch will be added to your next BT Vision bill.
If you take one of our Value Packs, you will be billed in advance each month.
Combined with bittorrent, I already have what they are offering.
Except their speeds are derisory.
I recently switched provider to Be [bethere.co.uk], and experienced a doubling in download bandwidth, and a trebling in upload bandwidth, for 25\% less per month including a fixed IP.
Plus BT claimed that "it was not possible to get faster speeds on my line".
Funny that, considering you need a BT phone line to sign up with Be.
But now I'm not with BT broadband, I can't get BT Vision.
So there was no net neutrality in this case.
All their stuff was prioritised already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305891</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244806620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs.</p> </div><p>I seem to recall from a visit to the BBC's research lab that the BBC itself has peering agreements -- ie, it is its own ISP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should n't be an issue at all ; the BBC 's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs .
I seem to recall from a visit to the BBC 's research lab that the BBC itself has peering agreements -- ie , it is its own ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs.
I seem to recall from a visit to the BBC's research lab that the BBC itself has peering agreements -- ie, it is its own ISP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306459</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244812740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was revealed that BT limits traffic within certain hours for their cheapest package. The thing is though it's not just the cheapest package. I'm on the 2nd highest package (assuming the pricing structure hasn't changed) and video comes to a stand still in the evening and then amazingly becomes super fast in the middle of the night.</p><p>I'll definitely be switching soon but I'm not sure where to go because a lot of the other options, unfortunately, seem just as bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was revealed that BT limits traffic within certain hours for their cheapest package .
The thing is though it 's not just the cheapest package .
I 'm on the 2nd highest package ( assuming the pricing structure has n't changed ) and video comes to a stand still in the evening and then amazingly becomes super fast in the middle of the night.I 'll definitely be switching soon but I 'm not sure where to go because a lot of the other options , unfortunately , seem just as bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was revealed that BT limits traffic within certain hours for their cheapest package.
The thing is though it's not just the cheapest package.
I'm on the 2nd highest package (assuming the pricing structure hasn't changed) and video comes to a stand still in the evening and then amazingly becomes super fast in the middle of the night.I'll definitely be switching soon but I'm not sure where to go because a lot of the other options, unfortunately, seem just as bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305505</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1244801580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC shouldn't give a penny to BT. They should <strong>cut them off.</strong></p><p>From the perspective of BTs dumb mass audience, who chose BT because it bundled the prettiest ADSL modem, the word will quickly spread that BT is pants because your can't get "teh TVs".<br>Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC should n't give a penny to BT .
They should cut them off.From the perspective of BTs dumb mass audience , who chose BT because it bundled the prettiest ADSL modem , the word will quickly spread that BT is pants because your ca n't get " teh TVs " .Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC shouldn't give a penny to BT.
They should cut them off.From the perspective of BTs dumb mass audience, who chose BT because it bundled the prettiest ADSL modem, the word will quickly spread that BT is pants because your can't get "teh TVs".Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306113</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Approach</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1244808900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to say I'm astonished that BT is third from the bottom. I would have expected it to be bottom. I had to help a friend recently, who had made the mistake of signing up to BT, with some bandwidth problems (other than the standard throttling from 5-midnight).<br> <br>

BT operates a slave plantation in India for customer support. They are the singular worst customer support I have ever encountered. They tell you absolutely anything you want to hear, lying in the process. A engineer needed to come and check the line. However it took 3 weeks of shouting at customer support to actually get someone to turn up. Every day we were promised the engineer would come the next day, they never ever showed. In the end had to make an official complaint by snailmail to get someone to turn up.<br> <br>

And let's not forget Phorm.<br> <br>

BT would be much better concentrating on fixing their massive problems with their service than talking about iPlayer. The BBC should tell BT to go fuck themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say I 'm astonished that BT is third from the bottom .
I would have expected it to be bottom .
I had to help a friend recently , who had made the mistake of signing up to BT , with some bandwidth problems ( other than the standard throttling from 5-midnight ) .
BT operates a slave plantation in India for customer support .
They are the singular worst customer support I have ever encountered .
They tell you absolutely anything you want to hear , lying in the process .
A engineer needed to come and check the line .
However it took 3 weeks of shouting at customer support to actually get someone to turn up .
Every day we were promised the engineer would come the next day , they never ever showed .
In the end had to make an official complaint by snailmail to get someone to turn up .
And let 's not forget Phorm .
BT would be much better concentrating on fixing their massive problems with their service than talking about iPlayer .
The BBC should tell BT to go fuck themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say I'm astonished that BT is third from the bottom.
I would have expected it to be bottom.
I had to help a friend recently, who had made the mistake of signing up to BT, with some bandwidth problems (other than the standard throttling from 5-midnight).
BT operates a slave plantation in India for customer support.
They are the singular worst customer support I have ever encountered.
They tell you absolutely anything you want to hear, lying in the process.
A engineer needed to come and check the line.
However it took 3 weeks of shouting at customer support to actually get someone to turn up.
Every day we were promised the engineer would come the next day, they never ever showed.
In the end had to make an official complaint by snailmail to get someone to turn up.
And let's not forget Phorm.
BT would be much better concentrating on fixing their massive problems with their service than talking about iPlayer.
The BBC should tell BT to go fuck themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306813</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1244815200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually BBC should go ahead and pay BT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... only it would work like this:<br>- If you access BBC via another ISP you get your iPlayer content, no problem<br>- If you access it via BT you are informed that to view iPlayer content you must pay the BT comission which is "demanded by BT, paid directly to BT and exclusive to BT" - you are then taken to a payment interface where you must provide your credit/debit card information. All money paid (minus charges from the credit card processor) goes directly to BT. BBC itself does not charge for the service (since it gets no money) and word will quickly spread that if you use BT then your have to pay BT for using iPlayer.</p><p>Give it a couple of years with this in place and BTs market share will be down to single digits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually BBC should go ahead and pay BT ... ... only it would work like this : - If you access BBC via another ISP you get your iPlayer content , no problem- If you access it via BT you are informed that to view iPlayer content you must pay the BT comission which is " demanded by BT , paid directly to BT and exclusive to BT " - you are then taken to a payment interface where you must provide your credit/debit card information .
All money paid ( minus charges from the credit card processor ) goes directly to BT .
BBC itself does not charge for the service ( since it gets no money ) and word will quickly spread that if you use BT then your have to pay BT for using iPlayer.Give it a couple of years with this in place and BTs market share will be down to single digits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually BBC should go ahead and pay BT ... ... only it would work like this:- If you access BBC via another ISP you get your iPlayer content, no problem- If you access it via BT you are informed that to view iPlayer content you must pay the BT comission which is "demanded by BT, paid directly to BT and exclusive to BT" - you are then taken to a payment interface where you must provide your credit/debit card information.
All money paid (minus charges from the credit card processor) goes directly to BT.
BBC itself does not charge for the service (since it gets no money) and word will quickly spread that if you use BT then your have to pay BT for using iPlayer.Give it a couple of years with this in place and BTs market share will be down to single digits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309119</id>
	<title>Memo to ISPs in general:</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1244825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be a Content Provider or be a Bandwidth Provider. You SHOULD NOT be both. Conflict of interest!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be a Content Provider or be a Bandwidth Provider .
You SHOULD NOT be both .
Conflict of interest !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be a Content Provider or be a Bandwidth Provider.
You SHOULD NOT be both.
Conflict of interest!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305659</id>
	<title>Heck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244803920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would even pay money if the BBC would allow me legally to access their content. Outside of britain there is no way you can get access legally.<br>The same goes for hulu.com btw, which is only legally acessible from within the USA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would even pay money if the BBC would allow me legally to access their content .
Outside of britain there is no way you can get access legally.The same goes for hulu.com btw , which is only legally acessible from within the USA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would even pay money if the BBC would allow me legally to access their content.
Outside of britain there is no way you can get access legally.The same goes for hulu.com btw, which is only legally acessible from within the USA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305879</id>
	<title>BBC to Charge BT for Content delivered.</title>
	<author>dwat001</author>
	<datestamp>1244806560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other new the BBC has announce it will start charging BT for the content that BT customers download.</p><p>OK I just made that up. But what the BBC is doing with the iPlayer is driving up demand for consumer broadband<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is good for ISPs not bad. Every time the bbc mentions now available on the iPlayer (lots) any punter with out broadband has another incentive to give ISPs more money.</p><p>BT is already getting paid to deliver zeros and ones to its customers by its customers, why should they get paid twice?<br>BBC is already getting charged to push their zeros and ones to the internet, why should they pay twice.</p><p>If BT finds this situation unpleasant they could just block the iPlayer, I think this would be a very good way to see how many customers the BBC has given them, as BT watches them leave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other new the BBC has announce it will start charging BT for the content that BT customers download.OK I just made that up .
But what the BBC is doing with the iPlayer is driving up demand for consumer broadband ... this is good for ISPs not bad .
Every time the bbc mentions now available on the iPlayer ( lots ) any punter with out broadband has another incentive to give ISPs more money.BT is already getting paid to deliver zeros and ones to its customers by its customers , why should they get paid twice ? BBC is already getting charged to push their zeros and ones to the internet , why should they pay twice.If BT finds this situation unpleasant they could just block the iPlayer , I think this would be a very good way to see how many customers the BBC has given them , as BT watches them leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other new the BBC has announce it will start charging BT for the content that BT customers download.OK I just made that up.
But what the BBC is doing with the iPlayer is driving up demand for consumer broadband ... this is good for ISPs not bad.
Every time the bbc mentions now available on the iPlayer (lots) any punter with out broadband has another incentive to give ISPs more money.BT is already getting paid to deliver zeros and ones to its customers by its customers, why should they get paid twice?BBC is already getting charged to push their zeros and ones to the internet, why should they pay twice.If BT finds this situation unpleasant they could just block the iPlayer, I think this would be a very good way to see how many customers the BBC has given them, as BT watches them leave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28317869</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to hell for saying this.</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1244835720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is worth doing.  It is definitely worth doing.

Also BT has been able to profit heartily off of UK users subscriptions, so it's not like they're not able to invest in upgrading their infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worth doing .
It is definitely worth doing .
Also BT has been able to profit heartily off of UK users subscriptions , so it 's not like they 're not able to invest in upgrading their infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worth doing.
It is definitely worth doing.
Also BT has been able to profit heartily off of UK users subscriptions, so it's not like they're not able to invest in upgrading their infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305547</id>
	<title>What do you expect?</title>
	<author>shin0r</author>
	<datestamp>1244802420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you charge pennies for a service - the big UK ISPs have been on a race to zero for years now - you'll come unstuck when people actually want to use the service. Duh. Whatever happened to charging a fair price, and then delivering a fair service? It's not rocket science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you charge pennies for a service - the big UK ISPs have been on a race to zero for years now - you 'll come unstuck when people actually want to use the service .
Duh. Whatever happened to charging a fair price , and then delivering a fair service ?
It 's not rocket science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you charge pennies for a service - the big UK ISPs have been on a race to zero for years now - you'll come unstuck when people actually want to use the service.
Duh. Whatever happened to charging a fair price, and then delivering a fair service?
It's not rocket science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306467</id>
	<title>Re:It's because Iplayer is stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244812740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did change it.</p><p>But sod that, lets moan about v.1 because as we know, the first release is always perfect...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did change it.But sod that , lets moan about v.1 because as we know , the first release is always perfect.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did change it.But sod that, lets moan about v.1 because as we know, the first release is always perfect...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28310695</id>
	<title>or just use get\_iplayer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just use  get\_iplayer - http://linuxcentre.net/getiplayer/.  Cron it, script it, whatever. Then watch at your leisure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just use get \ _iplayer - http : //linuxcentre.net/getiplayer/ .
Cron it , script it , whatever .
Then watch at your leisure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just use  get\_iplayer - http://linuxcentre.net/getiplayer/.
Cron it, script it, whatever.
Then watch at your leisure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306845</id>
	<title>BT is too close to OFCOM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244815320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I despise BT. I am forced to have a BT phone which I rarely use just in order to be able to get an ADSL connection with another, better, ISP.</p><p>For that privilege I have been paying out about &#194;&pound;160 a year on top of the ADSL fees from the ISP. BT has an iron grip on the UK's Telecom infrastructure decades after the government monopoly was privatised and OFCOM was set up to oversee the introduction of an open market. They have done little that was worth doing. The sooner BT is broken up, the better.</p><p>Complaints to OFCOM get excuses and justification in response, while the EU monopolies comission have criticised the UK for having a 'watchdog' which is not doing its job, and too close to the telecoms industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I despise BT .
I am forced to have a BT phone which I rarely use just in order to be able to get an ADSL connection with another , better , ISP.For that privilege I have been paying out about     160 a year on top of the ADSL fees from the ISP .
BT has an iron grip on the UK 's Telecom infrastructure decades after the government monopoly was privatised and OFCOM was set up to oversee the introduction of an open market .
They have done little that was worth doing .
The sooner BT is broken up , the better.Complaints to OFCOM get excuses and justification in response , while the EU monopolies comission have criticised the UK for having a 'watchdog ' which is not doing its job , and too close to the telecoms industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I despise BT.
I am forced to have a BT phone which I rarely use just in order to be able to get an ADSL connection with another, better, ISP.For that privilege I have been paying out about Â£160 a year on top of the ADSL fees from the ISP.
BT has an iron grip on the UK's Telecom infrastructure decades after the government monopoly was privatised and OFCOM was set up to oversee the introduction of an open market.
They have done little that was worth doing.
The sooner BT is broken up, the better.Complaints to OFCOM get excuses and justification in response, while the EU monopolies comission have criticised the UK for having a 'watchdog' which is not doing its job, and too close to the telecoms industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308943</id>
	<title>Re:The invasion of the paid-for content...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why on earth would thousands (potentially millions) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate, contending, low-bandwidth links, when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe?"</p><p>1 device to do everything. Why should I pay for a TV AND a PC?</p><p>Also Legally you don't need a TV Licence to watch Iplayer, 4OD Catchup etc, but you do to watch the streaming BBC news. The reason is services like iplayer aren't real time or near real time, they are recorded and replayed.<br>The streaming BBC news (news.bbc.co.uk) is however real time so you need a TV Licence (note on the news page it says you need a TV Licence when you're streaming where the pages which aren't don't mention the TV Licence also the Iplayer pages the TV Licence isn't mentioned)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why on earth would thousands ( potentially millions ) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate , contending , low-bandwidth links , when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe ?
" 1 device to do everything .
Why should I pay for a TV AND a PC ? Also Legally you do n't need a TV Licence to watch Iplayer , 4OD Catchup etc , but you do to watch the streaming BBC news .
The reason is services like iplayer are n't real time or near real time , they are recorded and replayed.The streaming BBC news ( news.bbc.co.uk ) is however real time so you need a TV Licence ( note on the news page it says you need a TV Licence when you 're streaming where the pages which are n't do n't mention the TV Licence also the Iplayer pages the TV Licence is n't mentioned )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why on earth would thousands (potentially millions) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate, contending, low-bandwidth links, when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe?
"1 device to do everything.
Why should I pay for a TV AND a PC?Also Legally you don't need a TV Licence to watch Iplayer, 4OD Catchup etc, but you do to watch the streaming BBC news.
The reason is services like iplayer aren't real time or near real time, they are recorded and replayed.The streaming BBC news (news.bbc.co.uk) is however real time so you need a TV Licence (note on the news page it says you need a TV Licence when you're streaming where the pages which aren't don't mention the TV Licence also the Iplayer pages the TV Licence isn't mentioned)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305537</id>
	<title>Needs a translation</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1244802240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We oversold and can't cope with the costs. Subsidise us."<br> <br>Well, fuck you BT. You made your bed; Lie in it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We oversold and ca n't cope with the costs .
Subsidise us .
" Well , fuck you BT .
You made your bed ; Lie in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We oversold and can't cope with the costs.
Subsidise us.
" Well, fuck you BT.
You made your bed; Lie in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305721</id>
	<title>BT should paying the BBC</title>
	<author>OdinOdin\_</author>
	<datestamp>1244804760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT is the principal landline telecommunications supplier in the UK.  Most of their income is generated from being a wholesale infrastructure supplier, so I don't understand why there is a "bandwidth delivery problem".  Since BT must have the cheapest cost of getting bandwidth from one location in the UK to their customer base.  BT can well afford to put multiple 10GbE into LINX and/or BBC directly and connect 1GbE into every local exchange/Point-of-Presence.</p><p>So the question has to be asked, what specific thing is it that stops these things from taking place ?  Could is be that upgrading equipment at both ends of a fiber optic medium might increase bandwidth by 10 fold but decrease the comodity value of that same bandwidth by 8 fold.  Which also has the effect of decreasing the comodity value of all other bandwidth products a telco has for sale.  Net result is less profit.</p><p>BT inherited their network from the government when it was the "GPO", maybe it is time for the GPO to come back so that the monopoly position BT has is rebalanced against the technological improvements of the past 10 years that a state owned entity could push forward.  Some people in the UK don't like privatisation and other people don't like nationalisation, but I say we should have both (at least 2 companies) and let the customer spend their money with the company who best serves their interests.</p><p>It is my understanding that when you are a content supplier, people pay you to get connected to you, since you have the content that your "consumers" are paying you to get to.  Within reasons the cost of bandwidth is free to the BBC (over and above some ~&#194;&pound;million costs to setup, own and manage).  Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV, radio, news and media organisation.  The money for connectivity flows in that direction, consumer to producer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT is the principal landline telecommunications supplier in the UK .
Most of their income is generated from being a wholesale infrastructure supplier , so I do n't understand why there is a " bandwidth delivery problem " .
Since BT must have the cheapest cost of getting bandwidth from one location in the UK to their customer base .
BT can well afford to put multiple 10GbE into LINX and/or BBC directly and connect 1GbE into every local exchange/Point-of-Presence.So the question has to be asked , what specific thing is it that stops these things from taking place ?
Could is be that upgrading equipment at both ends of a fiber optic medium might increase bandwidth by 10 fold but decrease the comodity value of that same bandwidth by 8 fold .
Which also has the effect of decreasing the comodity value of all other bandwidth products a telco has for sale .
Net result is less profit.BT inherited their network from the government when it was the " GPO " , maybe it is time for the GPO to come back so that the monopoly position BT has is rebalanced against the technological improvements of the past 10 years that a state owned entity could push forward .
Some people in the UK do n't like privatisation and other people do n't like nationalisation , but I say we should have both ( at least 2 companies ) and let the customer spend their money with the company who best serves their interests.It is my understanding that when you are a content supplier , people pay you to get connected to you , since you have the content that your " consumers " are paying you to get to .
Within reasons the cost of bandwidth is free to the BBC ( over and above some ~     million costs to setup , own and manage ) .
Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV , radio , news and media organisation .
The money for connectivity flows in that direction , consumer to producer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT is the principal landline telecommunications supplier in the UK.
Most of their income is generated from being a wholesale infrastructure supplier, so I don't understand why there is a "bandwidth delivery problem".
Since BT must have the cheapest cost of getting bandwidth from one location in the UK to their customer base.
BT can well afford to put multiple 10GbE into LINX and/or BBC directly and connect 1GbE into every local exchange/Point-of-Presence.So the question has to be asked, what specific thing is it that stops these things from taking place ?
Could is be that upgrading equipment at both ends of a fiber optic medium might increase bandwidth by 10 fold but decrease the comodity value of that same bandwidth by 8 fold.
Which also has the effect of decreasing the comodity value of all other bandwidth products a telco has for sale.
Net result is less profit.BT inherited their network from the government when it was the "GPO", maybe it is time for the GPO to come back so that the monopoly position BT has is rebalanced against the technological improvements of the past 10 years that a state owned entity could push forward.
Some people in the UK don't like privatisation and other people don't like nationalisation, but I say we should have both (at least 2 companies) and let the customer spend their money with the company who best serves their interests.It is my understanding that when you are a content supplier, people pay you to get connected to you, since you have the content that your "consumers" are paying you to get to.
Within reasons the cost of bandwidth is free to the BBC (over and above some ~Â£million costs to setup, own and manage).
Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV, radio, news and media organisation.
The money for connectivity flows in that direction, consumer to producer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305471</id>
	<title>Share the cake... or make the cake bigger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So video over IP is wasting BT's bandwidth eh? How about increasing the bandwidth instead of reducing the share of it subscribers are allowed to get? This is typical greedy telco mentality: let's milk the existing infrastructure for all it's worth, instead of investing in said infrastructure. Heck, if Japan or Korea ISPs can provide very high bandwidth residential internet to their customers, why couldn't the UK? This is called investing in the future, and it's what we need in times of economic crisis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So video over IP is wasting BT 's bandwidth eh ?
How about increasing the bandwidth instead of reducing the share of it subscribers are allowed to get ?
This is typical greedy telco mentality : let 's milk the existing infrastructure for all it 's worth , instead of investing in said infrastructure .
Heck , if Japan or Korea ISPs can provide very high bandwidth residential internet to their customers , why could n't the UK ?
This is called investing in the future , and it 's what we need in times of economic crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So video over IP is wasting BT's bandwidth eh?
How about increasing the bandwidth instead of reducing the share of it subscribers are allowed to get?
This is typical greedy telco mentality: let's milk the existing infrastructure for all it's worth, instead of investing in said infrastructure.
Heck, if Japan or Korea ISPs can provide very high bandwidth residential internet to their customers, why couldn't the UK?
This is called investing in the future, and it's what we need in times of economic crisis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305549</id>
	<title>Discovering unlimited internet use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all these ISPs realized advertising unlimited internet use would sell people on the idea they could use unlimited internet use maybe they should have built their infrastructure to handle it, or not market it as such. If they have anyone to whine to, it's themselves and their own short sightedness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all these ISPs realized advertising unlimited internet use would sell people on the idea they could use unlimited internet use maybe they should have built their infrastructure to handle it , or not market it as such .
If they have anyone to whine to , it 's themselves and their own short sightedness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all these ISPs realized advertising unlimited internet use would sell people on the idea they could use unlimited internet use maybe they should have built their infrastructure to handle it, or not market it as such.
If they have anyone to whine to, it's themselves and their own short sightedness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306433</id>
	<title>Re:It's because Iplayer is stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244812560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they arent using WMP anymore - they're using Adobe Air to deliver the downloadable streams.<br>its also not p2p anymore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they arent using WMP anymore - they 're using Adobe Air to deliver the downloadable streams.its also not p2p anymore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they arent using WMP anymore - they're using Adobe Air to deliver the downloadable streams.its also not p2p anymore</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307383</id>
	<title>Charge by the bit and by performance</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1244818200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charge by the bit.</p><p>Charge more for more expensive qualities of service, e.g. "slow bulk - delays up to 1 hour allowed" is less than "bulk - delays up to 1 minute allowed" is less than "sub-second response required" is less than various degrees of "real time/interactive traffic" like voice, video, and real-time gaming.</p><p>Within each of these latency QOS tiers, "no packets dropped" would be more expensive than "99.9\% of packets go through" would be more expensive than "95\% of packets go through."  The command-and-control and action-scenes of games may require no packets be dropped.  The "mere background" for games may be able to tolerate dropped packets.  Likewise, audio and video should be tolerant of dropped packets.</p><p>Of course, don't pull a Time-Warner - be reasonable about pricing:  Assuming usage patterns don't change, your overall revenue shouldn't change when you shift from flat-rate to tiered pricing.  If it does it makes you look bad.  Of course, usage patterns will change and your gross and net revenues may go up or down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge by the bit.Charge more for more expensive qualities of service , e.g .
" slow bulk - delays up to 1 hour allowed " is less than " bulk - delays up to 1 minute allowed " is less than " sub-second response required " is less than various degrees of " real time/interactive traffic " like voice , video , and real-time gaming.Within each of these latency QOS tiers , " no packets dropped " would be more expensive than " 99.9 \ % of packets go through " would be more expensive than " 95 \ % of packets go through .
" The command-and-control and action-scenes of games may require no packets be dropped .
The " mere background " for games may be able to tolerate dropped packets .
Likewise , audio and video should be tolerant of dropped packets.Of course , do n't pull a Time-Warner - be reasonable about pricing : Assuming usage patterns do n't change , your overall revenue should n't change when you shift from flat-rate to tiered pricing .
If it does it makes you look bad .
Of course , usage patterns will change and your gross and net revenues may go up or down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charge by the bit.Charge more for more expensive qualities of service, e.g.
"slow bulk - delays up to 1 hour allowed" is less than "bulk - delays up to 1 minute allowed" is less than "sub-second response required" is less than various degrees of "real time/interactive traffic" like voice, video, and real-time gaming.Within each of these latency QOS tiers, "no packets dropped" would be more expensive than "99.9\% of packets go through" would be more expensive than "95\% of packets go through.
"  The command-and-control and action-scenes of games may require no packets be dropped.
The "mere background" for games may be able to tolerate dropped packets.
Likewise, audio and video should be tolerant of dropped packets.Of course, don't pull a Time-Warner - be reasonable about pricing:  Assuming usage patterns don't change, your overall revenue shouldn't change when you shift from flat-rate to tiered pricing.
If it does it makes you look bad.
Of course, usage patterns will change and your gross and net revenues may go up or down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306423</id>
	<title>Re:It's because Iplayer is stupid</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1244812440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolute nonsense.  Bittorrent uses more total bandwidth than HTTP (by a large margin).  Bittorrent is not topology-aware, so it uses the network inefficiently.  HTTP with edge-caching (what iPlayer uses) uses an order of magnitude or more less total network bandwidth than Bittorrent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolute nonsense .
Bittorrent uses more total bandwidth than HTTP ( by a large margin ) .
Bittorrent is not topology-aware , so it uses the network inefficiently .
HTTP with edge-caching ( what iPlayer uses ) uses an order of magnitude or more less total network bandwidth than Bittorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolute nonsense.
Bittorrent uses more total bandwidth than HTTP (by a large margin).
Bittorrent is not topology-aware, so it uses the network inefficiently.
HTTP with edge-caching (what iPlayer uses) uses an order of magnitude or more less total network bandwidth than Bittorrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308485</id>
	<title>Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have Tiscali phone and broadband. It's through the BT phone line, but I don't pay BT anything. Presumably Tiscali do, on my behalf.</p><p>I'm now paying &pound;15/month for a better service (phone, 8Mbit/s broadband, some free weekend phone calls thrown in) than I was getting from BT for &pound;36/month. I've heard bad things about Tiscali, but have experienced much worse things from BT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Tiscali phone and broadband .
It 's through the BT phone line , but I do n't pay BT anything .
Presumably Tiscali do , on my behalf.I 'm now paying   15/month for a better service ( phone , 8Mbit/s broadband , some free weekend phone calls thrown in ) than I was getting from BT for   36/month .
I 've heard bad things about Tiscali , but have experienced much worse things from BT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Tiscali phone and broadband.
It's through the BT phone line, but I don't pay BT anything.
Presumably Tiscali do, on my behalf.I'm now paying £15/month for a better service (phone, 8Mbit/s broadband, some free weekend phone calls thrown in) than I was getting from BT for £36/month.
I've heard bad things about Tiscali, but have experienced much worse things from BT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306573</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer should pay</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1244813580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue in the UK is that they do pass it on to consumers already but that that extra cash that should be for infrastructure is just pocketed as extra profit instead by either the ISP or BT.</p><p>British users are already not as heavy bandwidth users as in other countries that pay less for a faster connection with more bandwidth. As BT have a monopoly they can get away with this as there is no true nationwide competition threat to cause them any harm when they do do this.</p><p>BT paid for an infrastructure upgrade already called 21cn but they refused to roll out access to it initially until OFCOM change competition rules to help them maintain their monopoly and further increase profits. As such they clearly have the money in their profits to pay for these upgrades, they just have no motivation to do them, and when they do, they only do so with the promise that they can hold onto their monopoly longer or extort money from ISPs by refusing to allow them access if they don't pay up meaning as soon as one ISP crumbles they all have to or lose out to the one that did crumble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue in the UK is that they do pass it on to consumers already but that that extra cash that should be for infrastructure is just pocketed as extra profit instead by either the ISP or BT.British users are already not as heavy bandwidth users as in other countries that pay less for a faster connection with more bandwidth .
As BT have a monopoly they can get away with this as there is no true nationwide competition threat to cause them any harm when they do do this.BT paid for an infrastructure upgrade already called 21cn but they refused to roll out access to it initially until OFCOM change competition rules to help them maintain their monopoly and further increase profits .
As such they clearly have the money in their profits to pay for these upgrades , they just have no motivation to do them , and when they do , they only do so with the promise that they can hold onto their monopoly longer or extort money from ISPs by refusing to allow them access if they do n't pay up meaning as soon as one ISP crumbles they all have to or lose out to the one that did crumble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue in the UK is that they do pass it on to consumers already but that that extra cash that should be for infrastructure is just pocketed as extra profit instead by either the ISP or BT.British users are already not as heavy bandwidth users as in other countries that pay less for a faster connection with more bandwidth.
As BT have a monopoly they can get away with this as there is no true nationwide competition threat to cause them any harm when they do do this.BT paid for an infrastructure upgrade already called 21cn but they refused to roll out access to it initially until OFCOM change competition rules to help them maintain their monopoly and further increase profits.
As such they clearly have the money in their profits to pay for these upgrades, they just have no motivation to do them, and when they do, they only do so with the promise that they can hold onto their monopoly longer or extort money from ISPs by refusing to allow them access if they don't pay up meaning as soon as one ISP crumbles they all have to or lose out to the one that did crumble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309117</id>
	<title>If you want revenue LET ME PAY</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1244825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's absurd that they are shaking down people for money for allowing access to content, when they are not allowing people from other countries to access the content by any means - even paid means.</p><p>I thought these guys were business people.  I have money, let me pay for something I want!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's absurd that they are shaking down people for money for allowing access to content , when they are not allowing people from other countries to access the content by any means - even paid means.I thought these guys were business people .
I have money , let me pay for something I want !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's absurd that they are shaking down people for money for allowing access to content, when they are not allowing people from other countries to access the content by any means - even paid means.I thought these guys were business people.
I have money, let me pay for something I want!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307337</id>
	<title>Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>c0p0n</author>
	<datestamp>1244817960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err I thought that the bandwidth was already paid for with my monthly bill... it's that or they shouldn't be selling 10 meg lines with "unlimited downloads" in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err I thought that the bandwidth was already paid for with my monthly bill... it 's that or they should n't be selling 10 meg lines with " unlimited downloads " in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err I thought that the bandwidth was already paid for with my monthly bill... it's that or they shouldn't be selling 10 meg lines with "unlimited downloads" in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305565</id>
	<title>The BBC should just ignore BT</title>
	<author>Ross D Anderson</author>
	<datestamp>1244802600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, why even enter into discussions with them? It's not like they're obligated to. If BT decided to cut them off I'm certain there would be a massive backlash from their customers as it's certainly a very popular service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , why even enter into discussions with them ?
It 's not like they 're obligated to .
If BT decided to cut them off I 'm certain there would be a massive backlash from their customers as it 's certainly a very popular service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, why even enter into discussions with them?
It's not like they're obligated to.
If BT decided to cut them off I'm certain there would be a massive backlash from their customers as it's certainly a very popular service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306213</id>
	<title>Mirror</title>
	<author>apcyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1244809920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me the Answer to this is simple. ISP are moaning becuase it eats bandwidth on thhere pipe to other networks.

if people like BT and Virgin mirrored the bbc iplayer servers locally then they can serve there shows with no impact. this is like how ISP host there own News group servers. ISP can then offer 100\% of there speeds to people using the server but not impact the backbone.

This would also help BBC load balence there servers.

I would love to hear what others think about this</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me the Answer to this is simple .
ISP are moaning becuase it eats bandwidth on thhere pipe to other networks .
if people like BT and Virgin mirrored the bbc iplayer servers locally then they can serve there shows with no impact .
this is like how ISP host there own News group servers .
ISP can then offer 100 \ % of there speeds to people using the server but not impact the backbone .
This would also help BBC load balence there servers .
I would love to hear what others think about this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me the Answer to this is simple.
ISP are moaning becuase it eats bandwidth on thhere pipe to other networks.
if people like BT and Virgin mirrored the bbc iplayer servers locally then they can serve there shows with no impact.
this is like how ISP host there own News group servers.
ISP can then offer 100\% of there speeds to people using the server but not impact the backbone.
This would also help BBC load balence there servers.
I would love to hear what others think about this</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305579</id>
	<title>Get with the times, BT</title>
	<author>Obama$$$RIAA$$$</author>
	<datestamp>1244802780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's time for BT to die and make way for municipally owned fiber. Hell, it's been time for at least 5 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time for BT to die and make way for municipally owned fiber .
Hell , it 's been time for at least 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time for BT to die and make way for municipally owned fiber.
Hell, it's been time for at least 5 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308043</id>
	<title>I'm going to hell for saying this.</title>
	<author>eiMichael</author>
	<datestamp>1244820900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya know what?  Maybe, just maybe, streaming real-time video of for-profit television programs just isn't something that our current incarnation of an Internet should be doing.<br>
<br>You want to watch on the computer?  Just download the programs you want to watch while at work at a rate that doesn't over-burden our infrastructure, then when you come home it's there.  I guess after all these problems that are apparently happening b/c we're streaming video, transferring TERRABYTES of just temporary data, maybe we should evaluate if this is something worth doing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know what ?
Maybe , just maybe , streaming real-time video of for-profit television programs just is n't something that our current incarnation of an Internet should be doing .
You want to watch on the computer ?
Just download the programs you want to watch while at work at a rate that does n't over-burden our infrastructure , then when you come home it 's there .
I guess after all these problems that are apparently happening b/c we 're streaming video , transferring TERRABYTES of just temporary data , maybe we should evaluate if this is something worth doing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know what?
Maybe, just maybe, streaming real-time video of for-profit television programs just isn't something that our current incarnation of an Internet should be doing.
You want to watch on the computer?
Just download the programs you want to watch while at work at a rate that doesn't over-burden our infrastructure, then when you come home it's there.
I guess after all these problems that are apparently happening b/c we're streaming video, transferring TERRABYTES of just temporary data, maybe we should evaluate if this is something worth doing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306123</id>
	<title>Pay for your own mistakes!</title>
	<author>Grey Loki</author>
	<datestamp>1244808900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, hold on - BT were short-sighted enough to bypass laying down a high-bandwidth system through the UK while there was time, and now people are raping their servers because of their own short-sightedness, they want someone ELSE to pay for the mistake?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , hold on - BT were short-sighted enough to bypass laying down a high-bandwidth system through the UK while there was time , and now people are raping their servers because of their own short-sightedness , they want someone ELSE to pay for the mistake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, hold on - BT were short-sighted enough to bypass laying down a high-bandwidth system through the UK while there was time, and now people are raping their servers because of their own short-sightedness, they want someone ELSE to pay for the mistake?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308775</id>
	<title>Re:BT should paying the BBC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV, radio, news and media organisation."</p><p>To a point. The difference is unicast vrs broadcast.<br>With somewhere like SKY you broadcast once and everyone recieves, with iPlayer the bbc has to handle EVERY connection.</p><p>True when you're at a major peering point like LINX if you have a 10G port (and you use it) it's costing you a few pennies a month per Mbit. If you have Private peering it's "free", you just have the upfront hardware costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV , radio , news and media organisation .
" To a point .
The difference is unicast vrs broadcast.With somewhere like SKY you broadcast once and everyone recieves , with iPlayer the bbc has to handle EVERY connection.True when you 're at a major peering point like LINX if you have a 10G port ( and you use it ) it 's costing you a few pennies a month per Mbit .
If you have Private peering it 's " free " , you just have the upfront hardware costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV, radio, news and media organisation.
"To a point.
The difference is unicast vrs broadcast.With somewhere like SKY you broadcast once and everyone recieves, with iPlayer the bbc has to handle EVERY connection.True when you're at a major peering point like LINX if you have a 10G port (and you use it) it's costing you a few pennies a month per Mbit.
If you have Private peering it's "free", you just have the upfront hardware costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305523</id>
	<title>Encyption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When all the bits look the same, there is no way to discriminate between them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When all the bits look the same , there is no way to discriminate between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When all the bits look the same, there is no way to discriminate between them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305555</id>
	<title>Having worked with...</title>
	<author>OneSmartFellow</author>
	<datestamp>1244802480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>..BT (not for them, mind you, just with them on technical projects), all I can say is that if BT (and OpenReach) would spend more on their hardware and infrastructure and less on their asinine marketing and the outsourcing of their customer support (which is a hugely inefficient operation), and all the other stupid crap that they spend money on, this would be a none-issue.
<br> <br>
Hey, BT, you still have a freaking monopoly, despite the creation of OpenReach.  If you can't make money with a monopoly, you deserve to go under.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..BT ( not for them , mind you , just with them on technical projects ) , all I can say is that if BT ( and OpenReach ) would spend more on their hardware and infrastructure and less on their asinine marketing and the outsourcing of their customer support ( which is a hugely inefficient operation ) , and all the other stupid crap that they spend money on , this would be a none-issue .
Hey , BT , you still have a freaking monopoly , despite the creation of OpenReach .
If you ca n't make money with a monopoly , you deserve to go under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..BT (not for them, mind you, just with them on technical projects), all I can say is that if BT (and OpenReach) would spend more on their hardware and infrastructure and less on their asinine marketing and the outsourcing of their customer support (which is a hugely inefficient operation), and all the other stupid crap that they spend money on, this would be a none-issue.
Hey, BT, you still have a freaking monopoly, despite the creation of OpenReach.
If you can't make money with a monopoly, you deserve to go under.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308219</id>
	<title>Have to do it</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244821560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the traditional car analogy applies well here. Imagine Amoco complaining to auto makers that their cars are using too much gasoline and driving up gas prices, and therefore they should give Amoco money to subsidize the cost of gas.</p><p>Anyone can see that is ridiculous, and the idea of charging the BBC for the costs of running an ISP is just as absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the traditional car analogy applies well here .
Imagine Amoco complaining to auto makers that their cars are using too much gasoline and driving up gas prices , and therefore they should give Amoco money to subsidize the cost of gas.Anyone can see that is ridiculous , and the idea of charging the BBC for the costs of running an ISP is just as absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the traditional car analogy applies well here.
Imagine Amoco complaining to auto makers that their cars are using too much gasoline and driving up gas prices, and therefore they should give Amoco money to subsidize the cost of gas.Anyone can see that is ridiculous, and the idea of charging the BBC for the costs of running an ISP is just as absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306543</id>
	<title>Cut-throat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244813400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> in a cut-throat broadband market, something is going to have to give &#226;" and net neutrality may have to be chucked overboard.</p></div><p>That's not how a cut-throat market works.  In a cut-throat market, the thing that has to give is the company, not the customer.  Whose throat is getting cut here, anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in a cut-throat broadband market , something is going to have to give   " and net neutrality may have to be chucked overboard.That 's not how a cut-throat market works .
In a cut-throat market , the thing that has to give is the company , not the customer .
Whose throat is getting cut here , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> in a cut-throat broadband market, something is going to have to give â" and net neutrality may have to be chucked overboard.That's not how a cut-throat market works.
In a cut-throat market, the thing that has to give is the company, not the customer.
Whose throat is getting cut here, anyway.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308129</id>
	<title>Re:Needs a translation</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1244821200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We oversold and can't cope with the costs. Subsidise us."</p><p>Well, fuck you BT. You made your bed; Lie in it.</p></div><p>I think a better response would be: you made a couple of \_billion\_ &pound;UKP profit each of the last few years, you can afford it. When you're making a loss on selling backbone bandwidth (and your directors are getting paid less than 150K pa) then come and sob, til then we poor schmuck taxpayers of Britain will keep our hard earned money from your wealthy directors and shareholders at almost any cost.</p><p>But I'm guessing the MPs will step in a write BT a big check and reap the rewards in dividend payments and retirement jobs.</p><p>Jaded, moi?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We oversold and ca n't cope with the costs .
Subsidise us .
" Well , fuck you BT .
You made your bed ; Lie in it.I think a better response would be : you made a couple of \ _billion \ _   UKP profit each of the last few years , you can afford it .
When you 're making a loss on selling backbone bandwidth ( and your directors are getting paid less than 150K pa ) then come and sob , til then we poor schmuck taxpayers of Britain will keep our hard earned money from your wealthy directors and shareholders at almost any cost.But I 'm guessing the MPs will step in a write BT a big check and reap the rewards in dividend payments and retirement jobs.Jaded , moi ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We oversold and can't cope with the costs.
Subsidise us.
"Well, fuck you BT.
You made your bed; Lie in it.I think a better response would be: you made a couple of \_billion\_ £UKP profit each of the last few years, you can afford it.
When you're making a loss on selling backbone bandwidth (and your directors are getting paid less than 150K pa) then come and sob, til then we poor schmuck taxpayers of Britain will keep our hard earned money from your wealthy directors and shareholders at almost any cost.But I'm guessing the MPs will step in a write BT a big check and reap the rewards in dividend payments and retirement jobs.Jaded, moi?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457</id>
	<title>Non-issue</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1244800860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs. Also BT should be charging by the gigabyte instead of offering unrealistic "unlimited" packages that cause problems when people actually use their bandwidth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should n't be an issue at all ; the BBC 's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs .
Also BT should be charging by the gigabyte instead of offering unrealistic " unlimited " packages that cause problems when people actually use their bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs.
Also BT should be charging by the gigabyte instead of offering unrealistic "unlimited" packages that cause problems when people actually use their bandwidth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306001</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>JTL21</author>
	<datestamp>1244807640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm, the BBC don't have an ISP.  They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.</p><p>BT's cost is only on its internal network, they won't be paying someone else for bandwidth.</p><p>BTs customers are paying for a connection speed e.g. 2Mbit and they should be able to get that rate from the BBC if they want.  BT needs to change its customer charging infrastructure not bitch and whine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , the BBC do n't have an ISP .
They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.BT 's cost is only on its internal network , they wo n't be paying someone else for bandwidth.BTs customers are paying for a connection speed e.g .
2Mbit and they should be able to get that rate from the BBC if they want .
BT needs to change its customer charging infrastructure not bitch and whine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, the BBC don't have an ISP.
They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.BT's cost is only on its internal network, they won't be paying someone else for bandwidth.BTs customers are paying for a connection speed e.g.
2Mbit and they should be able to get that rate from the BBC if they want.
BT needs to change its customer charging infrastructure not bitch and whine</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309021</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1244824980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone reconcile:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Erm, the BBC don't have an ISP. They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.</p></div><p>with:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Both of these already take place more or less; the BBC does pay an ungodly amount for bandwidth already.</p></div><p>Both are "interesting" and "informative" contradictory answers to the same question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone reconcile : Erm , the BBC do n't have an ISP .
They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.with : Both of these already take place more or less ; the BBC does pay an ungodly amount for bandwidth already.Both are " interesting " and " informative " contradictory answers to the same question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone reconcile:Erm, the BBC don't have an ISP.
They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.with:Both of these already take place more or less; the BBC does pay an ungodly amount for bandwidth already.Both are "interesting" and "informative" contradictory answers to the same question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305535</id>
	<title>That's the way BT is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that BT is the incumbent telecoms operator in the UK - they were originally a state owned monopoly and got most of their infrastructure in place using taxpayers' money.</p><p>These are the same guys that were holding back broadband in the UK a couple of years (all the while broadband adoption in the rest of Europe was taking of like crazy) ago until laws were passed forcing them to allow other ISPs to use their lines. Even now, they will still make it extra hard to use ISPs other than themselves.</p><p>They currently censor their customers connection using the list from the Internet Watch Foundation (a state controlled quango) - the same guys that were blocking Wikipedia some months ago - and will voluntarily give contact data for an IP address to any "content owner" who asks for it.</p><p>These guys are not the good guys and they haven't been so for many years now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that BT is the incumbent telecoms operator in the UK - they were originally a state owned monopoly and got most of their infrastructure in place using taxpayers ' money.These are the same guys that were holding back broadband in the UK a couple of years ( all the while broadband adoption in the rest of Europe was taking of like crazy ) ago until laws were passed forcing them to allow other ISPs to use their lines .
Even now , they will still make it extra hard to use ISPs other than themselves.They currently censor their customers connection using the list from the Internet Watch Foundation ( a state controlled quango ) - the same guys that were blocking Wikipedia some months ago - and will voluntarily give contact data for an IP address to any " content owner " who asks for it.These guys are not the good guys and they have n't been so for many years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that BT is the incumbent telecoms operator in the UK - they were originally a state owned monopoly and got most of their infrastructure in place using taxpayers' money.These are the same guys that were holding back broadband in the UK a couple of years (all the while broadband adoption in the rest of Europe was taking of like crazy) ago until laws were passed forcing them to allow other ISPs to use their lines.
Even now, they will still make it extra hard to use ISPs other than themselves.They currently censor their customers connection using the list from the Internet Watch Foundation (a state controlled quango) - the same guys that were blocking Wikipedia some months ago - and will voluntarily give contact data for an IP address to any "content owner" who asks for it.These guys are not the good guys and they haven't been so for many years now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305625</id>
	<title>Don't use BT broadband</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1244803440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>People might diss Virgin Media, but at least they host iPlayer and other TV on demand services like 4od, and provide them through their cable box (however naff the box is!).<br><br>BT's crapness in this regard suggests to me that their 21CN (21st century network) is just a pile of shit that has costed billions like everything else they do.<br><br>The whole point of iPlayer, etc, is that people will be using it when they have free time (i.e., in the evening) to catch up on TV they have missed. If it is unusable at this time due to throttling, then what's the point? It's not like we're talking about 8mbit streams either...<br><br>* disclaimer - I used to work for BT</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>People might diss Virgin Media , but at least they host iPlayer and other TV on demand services like 4od , and provide them through their cable box ( however naff the box is !
) .BT 's crapness in this regard suggests to me that their 21CN ( 21st century network ) is just a pile of shit that has costed billions like everything else they do.The whole point of iPlayer , etc , is that people will be using it when they have free time ( i.e. , in the evening ) to catch up on TV they have missed .
If it is unusable at this time due to throttling , then what 's the point ?
It 's not like we 're talking about 8mbit streams either... * disclaimer - I used to work for BT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People might diss Virgin Media, but at least they host iPlayer and other TV on demand services like 4od, and provide them through their cable box (however naff the box is!
).BT's crapness in this regard suggests to me that their 21CN (21st century network) is just a pile of shit that has costed billions like everything else they do.The whole point of iPlayer, etc, is that people will be using it when they have free time (i.e., in the evening) to catch up on TV they have missed.
If it is unusable at this time due to throttling, then what's the point?
It's not like we're talking about 8mbit streams either...* disclaimer - I used to work for BT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307985</id>
	<title>What  free ride?</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1244820720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im sorry but doesnt the BBC pay for its bandwith? Its being hosted by someone and not for free thats for sure. If theses ISPs want to cry about bandwith,then get out of the ISP business or comeup with a better competing product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im sorry but doesnt the BBC pay for its bandwith ?
Its being hosted by someone and not for free thats for sure .
If theses ISPs want to cry about bandwith,then get out of the ISP business or comeup with a better competing product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im sorry but doesnt the BBC pay for its bandwith?
Its being hosted by someone and not for free thats for sure.
If theses ISPs want to cry about bandwith,then get out of the ISP business or comeup with a better competing product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305785</id>
	<title>BT's Heavy User package</title>
	<author>Some Bitch</author>
	<datestamp>1244805420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT have a Heavy User package (&#194;&pound;20.54pcm) that contains the following as part of it's description...</p><blockquote><div><p>Downloading 3,333 music files, 26 videos or streaming 40 hours of iPlayer every month</p></div></blockquote><p>If you can't afford to provide it then don't advertise it, fuckwits.  Manage your customer's expectations properly and stop making promises you can't keep, it's a much more sustainable business model.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BT have a Heavy User package (     20.54pcm ) that contains the following as part of it 's description...Downloading 3,333 music files , 26 videos or streaming 40 hours of iPlayer every monthIf you ca n't afford to provide it then do n't advertise it , fuckwits .
Manage your customer 's expectations properly and stop making promises you ca n't keep , it 's a much more sustainable business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT have a Heavy User package (Â£20.54pcm) that contains the following as part of it's description...Downloading 3,333 music files, 26 videos or streaming 40 hours of iPlayer every monthIf you can't afford to provide it then don't advertise it, fuckwits.
Manage your customer's expectations properly and stop making promises you can't keep, it's a much more sustainable business model.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28318649</id>
	<title>no mention of youtube</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244892240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bbc iplayer takes up bandwidth, so does youtube but no mention of asking youtube to pay extra.<br>Both ends already pay to transport the data, now we are expected to pay the carrier for a service because it's popular!<br>Total bandwidth used by google must be larger than iplayer, is it because google would tell them to piss off that no mention of extra charges. What else is different?<br>BT saved 10 billion waiting for a magic bullet which arrived in the form of adsl but left them 10 years behind schedule, they have pissed away the profit and expect us to pay the bill for a 3rd time. nationalise them under a bbc type charter<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bbc iplayer takes up bandwidth , so does youtube but no mention of asking youtube to pay extra.Both ends already pay to transport the data , now we are expected to pay the carrier for a service because it 's popular ! Total bandwidth used by google must be larger than iplayer , is it because google would tell them to piss off that no mention of extra charges .
What else is different ? BT saved 10 billion waiting for a magic bullet which arrived in the form of adsl but left them 10 years behind schedule , they have pissed away the profit and expect us to pay the bill for a 3rd time .
nationalise them under a bbc type charter : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bbc iplayer takes up bandwidth, so does youtube but no mention of asking youtube to pay extra.Both ends already pay to transport the data, now we are expected to pay the carrier for a service because it's popular!Total bandwidth used by google must be larger than iplayer, is it because google would tell them to piss off that no mention of extra charges.
What else is different?BT saved 10 billion waiting for a magic bullet which arrived in the form of adsl but left them 10 years behind schedule, they have pissed away the profit and expect us to pay the bill for a 3rd time.
nationalise them under a bbc type charter :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305707</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244804580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you forgotten the one year commitment on BT service?</p><p>An by the way in my area there is NO other ISP providing the service<br>because all the available "connections" belong to BT (Canary Wharf, London):<br>that is what I was said by other ISPs I've contacted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you forgotten the one year commitment on BT service ? An by the way in my area there is NO other ISP providing the servicebecause all the available " connections " belong to BT ( Canary Wharf , London ) : that is what I was said by other ISPs I 've contacted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you forgotten the one year commitment on BT service?An by the way in my area there is NO other ISP providing the servicebecause all the available "connections" belong to BT (Canary Wharf, London):that is what I was said by other ISPs I've contacted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306803</id>
	<title>Re:The invasion of the paid-for content...</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1244815140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why on earth would thousands (potentially millions) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate, contending, low-bandwidth links, when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe?</i></p><p>Convenience. Being able to watch what you want, when you want instead of what some channel manager has decided should be broadcast in that timeslot. It's the difference between ordinary radio and spotify, and not having to wait a year (or possibly forever) for it to hit DVD for an outrageous price is just gravy.</p><p>Video-on-demand for a low price is incredibly popular whether it's from the BBC or the piratebay, even though the technology was never designed for it, and it's a pretty creaky fit. Yet even with the limitations, people still want it really badly. And it's just a driver of what's to come. High capacity links have all sorts of uses, many of them productive - video just happens to be the vox populi one.</p><p>TV, radio and phones all got very expensive custom networks built just for them at large public subsidy. Other countries like korea and france are doing the same for broadband - it's overdue time that control and upgrades of one of our key pieces of national infrastructure shouldn't be left in the hands of a selfish operator. Yes, BT openreach is nominally a different company than BT-the-consumer-ISP, but we should have a national fibre-optic to the kerb system in place by now, instead of the half-assed ADSL2+ 21CN upgrade to the copper phone line system they're struggling with right now and the LLU operators rolled out years ago. As long as management concerned only with the bottom line are in control of it, we'll be permanently stuck in the tech stone age in this country, and have to pay through the nose for it to boot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth would thousands ( potentially millions ) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate , contending , low-bandwidth links , when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe ? Convenience .
Being able to watch what you want , when you want instead of what some channel manager has decided should be broadcast in that timeslot .
It 's the difference between ordinary radio and spotify , and not having to wait a year ( or possibly forever ) for it to hit DVD for an outrageous price is just gravy.Video-on-demand for a low price is incredibly popular whether it 's from the BBC or the piratebay , even though the technology was never designed for it , and it 's a pretty creaky fit .
Yet even with the limitations , people still want it really badly .
And it 's just a driver of what 's to come .
High capacity links have all sorts of uses , many of them productive - video just happens to be the vox populi one.TV , radio and phones all got very expensive custom networks built just for them at large public subsidy .
Other countries like korea and france are doing the same for broadband - it 's overdue time that control and upgrades of one of our key pieces of national infrastructure should n't be left in the hands of a selfish operator .
Yes , BT openreach is nominally a different company than BT-the-consumer-ISP , but we should have a national fibre-optic to the kerb system in place by now , instead of the half-assed ADSL2 + 21CN upgrade to the copper phone line system they 're struggling with right now and the LLU operators rolled out years ago .
As long as management concerned only with the bottom line are in control of it , we 'll be permanently stuck in the tech stone age in this country , and have to pay through the nose for it to boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth would thousands (potentially millions) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate, contending, low-bandwidth links, when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe?Convenience.
Being able to watch what you want, when you want instead of what some channel manager has decided should be broadcast in that timeslot.
It's the difference between ordinary radio and spotify, and not having to wait a year (or possibly forever) for it to hit DVD for an outrageous price is just gravy.Video-on-demand for a low price is incredibly popular whether it's from the BBC or the piratebay, even though the technology was never designed for it, and it's a pretty creaky fit.
Yet even with the limitations, people still want it really badly.
And it's just a driver of what's to come.
High capacity links have all sorts of uses, many of them productive - video just happens to be the vox populi one.TV, radio and phones all got very expensive custom networks built just for them at large public subsidy.
Other countries like korea and france are doing the same for broadband - it's overdue time that control and upgrades of one of our key pieces of national infrastructure shouldn't be left in the hands of a selfish operator.
Yes, BT openreach is nominally a different company than BT-the-consumer-ISP, but we should have a national fibre-optic to the kerb system in place by now, instead of the half-assed ADSL2+ 21CN upgrade to the copper phone line system they're struggling with right now and the LLU operators rolled out years ago.
As long as management concerned only with the bottom line are in control of it, we'll be permanently stuck in the tech stone age in this country, and have to pay through the nose for it to boot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307401</id>
	<title>Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1244818260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You seem to be from a different set of Netherlands than where I live...<br> <br>
KPN has over the years acquired many of their important competitors but are still not a monopoly. <br>
It's sooner the cable providers than the ADSL ones that need competition. Just look at the price differences between say Het Net and Xs4all, both KPN<br>
Nor have I even heard a peep from KPN like suggesting preferential treatment for some kinds of data.<p>
I strongly oppose the idea The Netherlands suffers corruption at this level of decision making but some unhealthy 'networking' could have taken place around the time of privatisation.</p><p>
After all, compared to The UK with  it's single party government and only 2 major parties in the legislature we are a real parliamentary democracy, checks and balances are very healthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be from a different set of Netherlands than where I live.. . KPN has over the years acquired many of their important competitors but are still not a monopoly .
It 's sooner the cable providers than the ADSL ones that need competition .
Just look at the price differences between say Het Net and Xs4all , both KPN Nor have I even heard a peep from KPN like suggesting preferential treatment for some kinds of data .
I strongly oppose the idea The Netherlands suffers corruption at this level of decision making but some unhealthy 'networking ' could have taken place around the time of privatisation .
After all , compared to The UK with it 's single party government and only 2 major parties in the legislature we are a real parliamentary democracy , checks and balances are very healthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be from a different set of Netherlands than where I live... 
KPN has over the years acquired many of their important competitors but are still not a monopoly.
It's sooner the cable providers than the ADSL ones that need competition.
Just look at the price differences between say Het Net and Xs4all, both KPN
Nor have I even heard a peep from KPN like suggesting preferential treatment for some kinds of data.
I strongly oppose the idea The Netherlands suffers corruption at this level of decision making but some unhealthy 'networking' could have taken place around the time of privatisation.
After all, compared to The UK with  it's single party government and only 2 major parties in the legislature we are a real parliamentary democracy, checks and balances are very healthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306551</id>
	<title>its about Net Neutrality, nothing else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244813460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not charger the customer more for broadband access or not offer cheap 'unlimited' rates.</p><p>What this actually! is about is Net Neutrality and they use this as a lever. And our polititians will be dump enought to fall for it.</p><p>sad sad sad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not charger the customer more for broadband access or not offer cheap 'unlimited ' rates.What this actually !
is about is Net Neutrality and they use this as a lever .
And our polititians will be dump enought to fall for it.sad sad sad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not charger the customer more for broadband access or not offer cheap 'unlimited' rates.What this actually!
is about is Net Neutrality and they use this as a lever.
And our polititians will be dump enought to fall for it.sad sad sad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306121</id>
	<title>Re:Non-issue</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1244808900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs.</p></div></blockquote><p>Please, how can large companies afford to pay their CEOs obscene salaries if their busy charging each other instead of ass raping their customers?
</p><p>Providing service and value for payment is so last century.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should n't be an issue at all ; the BBC 's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs.Please , how can large companies afford to pay their CEOs obscene salaries if their busy charging each other instead of ass raping their customers ?
Providing service and value for payment is so last century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs.Please, how can large companies afford to pay their CEOs obscene salaries if their busy charging each other instead of ass raping their customers?
Providing service and value for payment is so last century.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511</id>
	<title>Competition</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1244801640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When people sign up for broadband, one of the main things they want it for in this country is iPlayer.  If iPlayer doesn't work well on BT Internet, they will go to another ISP where it does work.  That will be a selling point for their competitors.  For that reason, BBC can tell them to get lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people sign up for broadband , one of the main things they want it for in this country is iPlayer .
If iPlayer does n't work well on BT Internet , they will go to another ISP where it does work .
That will be a selling point for their competitors .
For that reason , BBC can tell them to get lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people sign up for broadband, one of the main things they want it for in this country is iPlayer.
If iPlayer doesn't work well on BT Internet, they will go to another ISP where it does work.
That will be a selling point for their competitors.
For that reason, BBC can tell them to get lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305779</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1244805420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some companies do. You'll find them <a href="http://www.thinkbroadband.com/" title="thinkbroadband.com">here</a> [thinkbroadband.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some companies do .
You 'll find them here [ thinkbroadband.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some companies do.
You'll find them here [thinkbroadband.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305557</id>
	<title>"Free ride"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it frustrating when ISPs falsely accuse content providers of "getting a free ride". It's not free, it's far from free, the BBC pay huge bandwidth costs to deliver content.</p><p>BT should not be allowed to blame "the internet" for loss in profits because of a poor business model. Especially as BT Wholesale accounts for a savage percentage of the UK broadband market.</p><p>Stop whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it frustrating when ISPs falsely accuse content providers of " getting a free ride " .
It 's not free , it 's far from free , the BBC pay huge bandwidth costs to deliver content.BT should not be allowed to blame " the internet " for loss in profits because of a poor business model .
Especially as BT Wholesale accounts for a savage percentage of the UK broadband market.Stop whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it frustrating when ISPs falsely accuse content providers of "getting a free ride".
It's not free, it's far from free, the BBC pay huge bandwidth costs to deliver content.BT should not be allowed to blame "the internet" for loss in profits because of a poor business model.
Especially as BT Wholesale accounts for a savage percentage of the UK broadband market.Stop whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28310919</id>
	<title>What "has to give" is BT's deceptive marketing</title>
	<author>Digital\_Quartz</author>
	<datestamp>1244832300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT is selling "unlimited" Internet service to its customers.  If BT can't deliver the service it has promised to provide, then BT has no one to blame but itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT is selling " unlimited " Internet service to its customers .
If BT ca n't deliver the service it has promised to provide , then BT has no one to blame but itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT is selling "unlimited" Internet service to its customers.
If BT can't deliver the service it has promised to provide, then BT has no one to blame but itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308861</id>
	<title>Here's how I'd figure out who is right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd look at iplayer's protocol and see if it's cacheable.  If it's cacheable, then this is the ISPs' fault (users: switch to another ISP who knows how to apt-get install squid).  If it's not cacheable, then it's the BBC's fault (users: stop using iPlayer and pirate your content instead).
</p><p>It's really that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd look at iplayer 's protocol and see if it 's cacheable .
If it 's cacheable , then this is the ISPs ' fault ( users : switch to another ISP who knows how to apt-get install squid ) .
If it 's not cacheable , then it 's the BBC 's fault ( users : stop using iPlayer and pirate your content instead ) .
It 's really that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd look at iplayer's protocol and see if it's cacheable.
If it's cacheable, then this is the ISPs' fault (users: switch to another ISP who knows how to apt-get install squid).
If it's not cacheable, then it's the BBC's fault (users: stop using iPlayer and pirate your content instead).
It's really that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305853</id>
	<title>Re:Solution</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1244806080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every ADSL subscriber in the country goes through BT some point. I suspect that BT wholesale is providing the BBCs net connection directly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every ADSL subscriber in the country goes through BT some point .
I suspect that BT wholesale is providing the BBCs net connection directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every ADSL subscriber in the country goes through BT some point.
I suspect that BT wholesale is providing the BBCs net connection directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305669</id>
	<title>Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244804040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://filthyunderpants.mybrute.com/" title="mybrute.com" rel="nofollow">http://filthyunderpants.mybrute.com</a> [mybrute.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //filthyunderpants.mybrute.com [ mybrute.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://filthyunderpants.mybrute.com [mybrute.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305445</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bitches</htmltext>
<tokenext>bitches</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bitches</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307123</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244816880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When people sign up for broadband, one of the main things they want it for in this country is <b>Free Porn</b></p><p>Who gives a rat's ass about the BBCs crappy iPlayer ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people sign up for broadband , one of the main things they want it for in this country is Free PornWho gives a rat 's ass about the BBCs crappy iPlayer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people sign up for broadband, one of the main things they want it for in this country is Free PornWho gives a rat's ass about the BBCs crappy iPlayer ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28317869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28317849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28311515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28314525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_0335204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28311515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28317849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306309
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309539
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28307663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28309021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28314525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28306423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28308043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28317869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_0335204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_0335204.28305523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
