<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_2049224</id>
	<title>UK Government Announces Broadband Tax</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245142920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Barence</a> writes <i>"The UK Government is planning a <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/256492/government-announces-broadband-tax.html">50p-per-month levy on fixed-line connections</a> to pay for next-generation broadband. The Government claims that market forces alone will bring fiber connections to only two thirds of the country, so it plans to use the 'broadband tax' to pay for the final third by 2017. The plans form part of the Government's Digital Britain report, which also see the UK guarantee connections of 2Mbits/sec for every citizen by 2012."</i> The report also <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/256510/digital-britain-threatens-to-throttle-file-sharers.html">threatens legal action and bandwidth restriction for repeat file sharers.</a></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " The UK Government is planning a 50p-per-month levy on fixed-line connections to pay for next-generation broadband .
The Government claims that market forces alone will bring fiber connections to only two thirds of the country , so it plans to use the 'broadband tax ' to pay for the final third by 2017 .
The plans form part of the Government 's Digital Britain report , which also see the UK guarantee connections of 2Mbits/sec for every citizen by 2012 .
" The report also threatens legal action and bandwidth restriction for repeat file sharers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "The UK Government is planning a 50p-per-month levy on fixed-line connections to pay for next-generation broadband.
The Government claims that market forces alone will bring fiber connections to only two thirds of the country, so it plans to use the 'broadband tax' to pay for the final third by 2017.
The plans form part of the Government's Digital Britain report, which also see the UK guarantee connections of 2Mbits/sec for every citizen by 2012.
" The report also threatens legal action and bandwidth restriction for repeat file sharers.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359887</id>
	<title>Re:Brits love paying tax, so let them pay.</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1245243360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I could pay an extra $15 a month to get internet access with no ads, spam or slashvertisements, I probably would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could pay an extra $ 15 a month to get internet access with no ads , spam or slashvertisements , I probably would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could pay an extra $15 a month to get internet access with no ads, spam or slashvertisements, I probably would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079</id>
	<title>Pointless</title>
	<author>Captain Kirk</author>
	<datestamp>1245233160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it.  Taxing users in order to make more connections to that backbone monopoly is totally wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it .
Taxing users in order to make more connections to that backbone monopoly is totally wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it.
Taxing users in order to make more connections to that backbone monopoly is totally wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359191</id>
	<title>The worrying bit is here ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The Government says it will make it "easier and cheaper" for rights holders to take civil action against file sharers.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;What's more, it will "place an obligation on ISPs to maintain records of the most frequent offenders, which would allow rights holders to take targeted legal action against these &gt;infringers."<br>&gt;<br>&gt;Finally, ISPs will be roped in to protect copyright material, restricting bandwidth to known filesharers, and even blocking access to certain protocols entirely.</p><p>ONLY approved protocols available - that's dictatorship, not government. Thank fuck that we'll be rid of the ruling party for a very long time (possibly for ever) after next June</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The Government says it will make it " easier and cheaper " for rights holders to take civil action against file sharers. &gt; &gt; What 's more , it will " place an obligation on ISPs to maintain records of the most frequent offenders , which would allow rights holders to take targeted legal action against these &gt; infringers .
" &gt; &gt; Finally , ISPs will be roped in to protect copyright material , restricting bandwidth to known filesharers , and even blocking access to certain protocols entirely.ONLY approved protocols available - that 's dictatorship , not government .
Thank fuck that we 'll be rid of the ruling party for a very long time ( possibly for ever ) after next June</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The Government says it will make it "easier and cheaper" for rights holders to take civil action against file sharers.&gt;&gt;What's more, it will "place an obligation on ISPs to maintain records of the most frequent offenders, which would allow rights holders to take targeted legal action against these &gt;infringers.
"&gt;&gt;Finally, ISPs will be roped in to protect copyright material, restricting bandwidth to known filesharers, and even blocking access to certain protocols entirely.ONLY approved protocols available - that's dictatorship, not government.
Thank fuck that we'll be rid of the ruling party for a very long time (possibly for ever) after next June</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362221</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite internet not good enough?</title>
	<author>ammit</author>
	<datestamp>1245257220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They were talking about satellite as one of the solutions, I forget what the project was called now but I think that this will be the option for people way way out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were talking about satellite as one of the solutions , I forget what the project was called now but I think that this will be the option for people way way out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were talking about satellite as one of the solutions, I forget what the project was called now but I think that this will be the option for people way way out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831</id>
	<title>Satellite internet not good enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In France you can get <a href="http://www.numeo.fr/offres-sat.php" title="numeo.fr">3.6MB/s satellite internet for 40 euro per month</a> [numeo.fr]. So why would you pull cables? Only hardcore gamers will be in trouble, ping times of 600 ms are typical. But then, keep the gamers in the city please<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>In France you can get 3.6MB/s satellite internet for 40 euro per month [ numeo.fr ] .
So why would you pull cables ?
Only hardcore gamers will be in trouble , ping times of 600 ms are typical .
But then , keep the gamers in the city please : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In France you can get 3.6MB/s satellite internet for 40 euro per month [numeo.fr].
So why would you pull cables?
Only hardcore gamers will be in trouble, ping times of 600 ms are typical.
But then, keep the gamers in the city please :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359443</id>
	<title>Re:Big problem with this.</title>
	<author>lisaparratt</author>
	<datestamp>1245238440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the idea of a fair tax, that's just *so* unfair!</p><p>Wait... What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the idea of a fair tax , that 's just * so * unfair ! Wait... What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the idea of a fair tax, that's just *so* unfair!Wait... What?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360115</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter, anyway</title>
	<author>Toy G</author>
	<datestamp>1245245100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can say what they want, but next year the Tories will win and scrap most of this plan.</p><p>The Tories are not in bed with telcos, credit-card manufacturers and "creative industries", they have different sponsors (oil companies, "old money", etc). The flow of pork will be redirected accordingly. This report is hardly worth the digital paper it is printed on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can say what they want , but next year the Tories will win and scrap most of this plan.The Tories are not in bed with telcos , credit-card manufacturers and " creative industries " , they have different sponsors ( oil companies , " old money " , etc ) .
The flow of pork will be redirected accordingly .
This report is hardly worth the digital paper it is printed on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can say what they want, but next year the Tories will win and scrap most of this plan.The Tories are not in bed with telcos, credit-card manufacturers and "creative industries", they have different sponsors (oil companies, "old money", etc).
The flow of pork will be redirected accordingly.
This report is hardly worth the digital paper it is printed on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363083</id>
	<title>I'm gonna quit paying the tv licence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245261300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I rarely use trhe tv for anything but games or dvds. So I'm ditching the telly for a big ass monitor and using my desktop to play movies and hook my consoles up to the monitor.
<br> <br>
I hope they come by to try to get me to pay so. Can tell them to get bent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I rarely use trhe tv for anything but games or dvds .
So I 'm ditching the telly for a big ass monitor and using my desktop to play movies and hook my consoles up to the monitor .
I hope they come by to try to get me to pay so .
Can tell them to get bent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rarely use trhe tv for anything but games or dvds.
So I'm ditching the telly for a big ass monitor and using my desktop to play movies and hook my consoles up to the monitor.
I hope they come by to try to get me to pay so.
Can tell them to get bent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361305</id>
	<title>"Guarantee" is a very strong word</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1245252480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just noticed this bit:</p><p><b>The plans form part of the Government's Digital Britain report, which also see the UK guarantee connections of 2Mbits/sec for every citizen by 2012."</b></p><p>Does this mean that if they fail to meet this guarantee by 31 December 2012 we can all claim a refund on the tax we paid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just noticed this bit : The plans form part of the Government 's Digital Britain report , which also see the UK guarantee connections of 2Mbits/sec for every citizen by 2012 .
" Does this mean that if they fail to meet this guarantee by 31 December 2012 we can all claim a refund on the tax we paid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just noticed this bit:The plans form part of the Government's Digital Britain report, which also see the UK guarantee connections of 2Mbits/sec for every citizen by 2012.
"Does this mean that if they fail to meet this guarantee by 31 December 2012 we can all claim a refund on the tax we paid?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359993</id>
	<title>Two things</title>
	<author>Movi</author>
	<datestamp>1245244260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are only two things sure in life : Death and Taxes</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are only two things sure in life : Death and Taxes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are only two things sure in life : Death and Taxes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359223</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love a speed of 2 megabytes per second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love a speed of 2 megabytes per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love a speed of 2 megabytes per second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360923</id>
	<title>BT shill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judging by your posts in this discussion I can only guess you have some vested interest in protecting BT. I can't understand why anyone else would come out with such comments from your other post as "BTs mandate only extends to universal service for phone systems and 14.4Kbit/sec capable lines. Stop moving the goal posts.". I mean really, what decade are you living in suggesting it's acceptable that they only have to support a 14.4kbps line and that we shouldn't ever up that?</p><p>But I digress, the real reason for my post was to point out that you haven't responded to his point. He pointed out that BT owns the backbone and this is why bandwidth costs are so rediculously high in the UK because BT are farming profits on it.</p><p>You then went on to the cost of wholesale lines - sorry but what? What the fuck has the cost of wholesale lines got to do with the cost of bandwidth on the backbone and the profits BT are reaping in there?</p><p>Here's some real figures. The cost of a 622mbps L2TP connection from BT (i.e. the source of bandwidth costs) is &pound;1.029 million per year as of December 2008. Prior to December 2008 the cost was roughly 25\% cheaper. The technology hasn't increased in price, uplink costs from BT to the rest of the world haven't increased in price, so BT have added an extra &pound;250,000 profit on to each 622mbps uplink an ISP has.</p><p>These companies still have little choice than to uplink to BT via these connections meaning LLU is irrelevant to the discussion. Contention on exchanges is really not a problem, upstream bandwidth is and that's where BT is holding the UK's internet future to ransom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging by your posts in this discussion I can only guess you have some vested interest in protecting BT .
I ca n't understand why anyone else would come out with such comments from your other post as " BTs mandate only extends to universal service for phone systems and 14.4Kbit/sec capable lines .
Stop moving the goal posts. " .
I mean really , what decade are you living in suggesting it 's acceptable that they only have to support a 14.4kbps line and that we should n't ever up that ? But I digress , the real reason for my post was to point out that you have n't responded to his point .
He pointed out that BT owns the backbone and this is why bandwidth costs are so rediculously high in the UK because BT are farming profits on it.You then went on to the cost of wholesale lines - sorry but what ?
What the fuck has the cost of wholesale lines got to do with the cost of bandwidth on the backbone and the profits BT are reaping in there ? Here 's some real figures .
The cost of a 622mbps L2TP connection from BT ( i.e .
the source of bandwidth costs ) is   1.029 million per year as of December 2008 .
Prior to December 2008 the cost was roughly 25 \ % cheaper .
The technology has n't increased in price , uplink costs from BT to the rest of the world have n't increased in price , so BT have added an extra   250,000 profit on to each 622mbps uplink an ISP has.These companies still have little choice than to uplink to BT via these connections meaning LLU is irrelevant to the discussion .
Contention on exchanges is really not a problem , upstream bandwidth is and that 's where BT is holding the UK 's internet future to ransom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging by your posts in this discussion I can only guess you have some vested interest in protecting BT.
I can't understand why anyone else would come out with such comments from your other post as "BTs mandate only extends to universal service for phone systems and 14.4Kbit/sec capable lines.
Stop moving the goal posts.".
I mean really, what decade are you living in suggesting it's acceptable that they only have to support a 14.4kbps line and that we shouldn't ever up that?But I digress, the real reason for my post was to point out that you haven't responded to his point.
He pointed out that BT owns the backbone and this is why bandwidth costs are so rediculously high in the UK because BT are farming profits on it.You then went on to the cost of wholesale lines - sorry but what?
What the fuck has the cost of wholesale lines got to do with the cost of bandwidth on the backbone and the profits BT are reaping in there?Here's some real figures.
The cost of a 622mbps L2TP connection from BT (i.e.
the source of bandwidth costs) is £1.029 million per year as of December 2008.
Prior to December 2008 the cost was roughly 25\% cheaper.
The technology hasn't increased in price, uplink costs from BT to the rest of the world haven't increased in price, so BT have added an extra £250,000 profit on to each 622mbps uplink an ISP has.These companies still have little choice than to uplink to BT via these connections meaning LLU is irrelevant to the discussion.
Contention on exchanges is really not a problem, upstream bandwidth is and that's where BT is holding the UK's internet future to ransom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364157</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite internet not good enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245266040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like to upload as well as download though, especialy with stuff like Google Wave, Opera Unite and such in the near future.<br>We want the internet to be decentralising, and satalites arnt good for that.</p><p>They would, however, be an excelent subpliment, if ISPs could mass-broadcast the biggest static sites online based on demand projections. (and then cached more localy to the users...thus freeing up huge amounts of bandwidth over the backbones of the internet).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to upload as well as download though , especialy with stuff like Google Wave , Opera Unite and such in the near future.We want the internet to be decentralising , and satalites arnt good for that.They would , however , be an excelent subpliment , if ISPs could mass-broadcast the biggest static sites online based on demand projections .
( and then cached more localy to the users...thus freeing up huge amounts of bandwidth over the backbones of the internet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to upload as well as download though, especialy with stuff like Google Wave, Opera Unite and such in the near future.We want the internet to be decentralising, and satalites arnt good for that.They would, however, be an excelent subpliment, if ISPs could mass-broadcast the biggest static sites online based on demand projections.
(and then cached more localy to the users...thus freeing up huge amounts of bandwidth over the backbones of the internet).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359573</id>
	<title>Re:Big problem with this.</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1245240060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely the problem here isn't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit, but that it's doing it via a poll tax?</p></div><p>I think the theory is that such a small levy will be "competed away" (see Lord Carter quote in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8102756.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">this article</a> [bbc.co.uk]) and the people who will actually pay are the phone companies when they hand their monthly sack of 50p pieces over to the treasury.
</p><p>However, while I'm sure that people who  buy a line rental &amp; calls package won't directly pay this levy, it will probably be paid by all the people (like myself) who want a minimal BT line for broadband, emergencies and those stupid fracking "local rate" 0845 numbers, and get all the outgoing calls they can eat from their mobile package and/or VOIP.
</p><p>Maybe that's moderately fair?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely the problem here is n't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit , but that it 's doing it via a poll tax ? I think the theory is that such a small levy will be " competed away " ( see Lord Carter quote in this article [ bbc.co.uk ] ) and the people who will actually pay are the phone companies when they hand their monthly sack of 50p pieces over to the treasury .
However , while I 'm sure that people who buy a line rental &amp; calls package wo n't directly pay this levy , it will probably be paid by all the people ( like myself ) who want a minimal BT line for broadband , emergencies and those stupid fracking " local rate " 0845 numbers , and get all the outgoing calls they can eat from their mobile package and/or VOIP .
Maybe that 's moderately fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely the problem here isn't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit, but that it's doing it via a poll tax?I think the theory is that such a small levy will be "competed away" (see Lord Carter quote in this article [bbc.co.uk]) and the people who will actually pay are the phone companies when they hand their monthly sack of 50p pieces over to the treasury.
However, while I'm sure that people who  buy a line rental &amp; calls package won't directly pay this levy, it will probably be paid by all the people (like myself) who want a minimal BT line for broadband, emergencies and those stupid fracking "local rate" 0845 numbers, and get all the outgoing calls they can eat from their mobile package and/or VOIP.
Maybe that's moderately fair?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359133</id>
	<title>What good will this do</title>
	<author>Houndofhell</author>
	<datestamp>1245233700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of &#194;&pound;5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this.
It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount. Its totally pointless, further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of     5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this .
It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount .
Its totally pointless , further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of Â£5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this.
It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount.
Its totally pointless, further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359097</id>
	<title>They can't be trusted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245233340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A total waste of time, and how can we trust these idiots to actually spend the money on what they're levying the tax for? Heh, they'll be insisting we all install Green Dam Youth Escort next!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A total waste of time , and how can we trust these idiots to actually spend the money on what they 're levying the tax for ?
Heh , they 'll be insisting we all install Green Dam Youth Escort next !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A total waste of time, and how can we trust these idiots to actually spend the money on what they're levying the tax for?
Heh, they'll be insisting we all install Green Dam Youth Escort next!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28365079</id>
	<title>Re:Brits love paying tax, so let them pay.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is a global service my God, I wish they let us people in other countries pay for it. I would. Here we have a curious situation, morons running news channels have turned them into little more than reality tv shows and 'entertainment' channels. They all sound like propoganda for coke *except* the government run news channel. That is some crazy shit. CNN reporters being suspiciously like Fox news reporters' got me nervous and the BBC is the only channel I trust. Your tax dollars are being put to good *global* use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is a global service my God , I wish they let us people in other countries pay for it .
I would .
Here we have a curious situation , morons running news channels have turned them into little more than reality tv shows and 'entertainment ' channels .
They all sound like propoganda for coke * except * the government run news channel .
That is some crazy shit .
CNN reporters being suspiciously like Fox news reporters ' got me nervous and the BBC is the only channel I trust .
Your tax dollars are being put to good * global * use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is a global service my God, I wish they let us people in other countries pay for it.
I would.
Here we have a curious situation, morons running news channels have turned them into little more than reality tv shows and 'entertainment' channels.
They all sound like propoganda for coke *except* the government run news channel.
That is some crazy shit.
CNN reporters being suspiciously like Fox news reporters' got me nervous and the BBC is the only channel I trust.
Your tax dollars are being put to good *global* use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360825</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing. If done right.</title>
	<author>Archimonde</author>
	<datestamp>1245249960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing only in theory. But I always remember the example I can see from my windows. There is a big bridge connecting the shore and an island which was of build with public funds 30 years ago. They of course charge (and quite much) the crossing the bridge but they did promise that will go away as soon as the credit for the bridge is repaid (to banks I suppose). But you can almost guess what happened. People repaid for the bridge in just a couple of years but that charging didn't go away. They did buckle just a little 10 years ago so those who live on the island don't have to pay for crossing. But since then it is just "normal" to pay for crossing that bridge.</p><p>So much about promises and "temporary" things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing only in theory .
But I always remember the example I can see from my windows .
There is a big bridge connecting the shore and an island which was of build with public funds 30 years ago .
They of course charge ( and quite much ) the crossing the bridge but they did promise that will go away as soon as the credit for the bridge is repaid ( to banks I suppose ) .
But you can almost guess what happened .
People repaid for the bridge in just a couple of years but that charging did n't go away .
They did buckle just a little 10 years ago so those who live on the island do n't have to pay for crossing .
But since then it is just " normal " to pay for crossing that bridge.So much about promises and " temporary " things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing only in theory.
But I always remember the example I can see from my windows.
There is a big bridge connecting the shore and an island which was of build with public funds 30 years ago.
They of course charge (and quite much) the crossing the bridge but they did promise that will go away as soon as the credit for the bridge is repaid (to banks I suppose).
But you can almost guess what happened.
People repaid for the bridge in just a couple of years but that charging didn't go away.
They did buckle just a little 10 years ago so those who live on the island don't have to pay for crossing.
But since then it is just "normal" to pay for crossing that bridge.So much about promises and "temporary" things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359685</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245241200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> So why should BT be forced to supply ADSL to outlying areas in a lossmaking fashion when no one else will?</p></div><p>Because they were granted ownership of a country-wide government built network to reap all the profits they can from?</p><p>If they don't want to provide services to all taxpayers, then they can build their own sodding network and we can run our own again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why should BT be forced to supply ADSL to outlying areas in a lossmaking fashion when no one else will ? Because they were granted ownership of a country-wide government built network to reap all the profits they can from ? If they do n't want to provide services to all taxpayers , then they can build their own sodding network and we can run our own again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So why should BT be forced to supply ADSL to outlying areas in a lossmaking fashion when no one else will?Because they were granted ownership of a country-wide government built network to reap all the profits they can from?If they don't want to provide services to all taxpayers, then they can build their own sodding network and we can run our own again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359885</id>
	<title>Label the Carter Report 'defective by design'</title>
	<author>QuatermassX</author>
	<datestamp>1245243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Carter Report is a fatally compromised blueprint for subversion that attempts to extend government control into a surprisingly vast array of areas.</p><p> <b>1. Television.</b> The existing licence fee is an outrage when the BBC via BBC Worldwide make heaps of money and yet refuse to make available their back catalogue for the benefit of the entire nation (well, they do but for a steep price). The report suggests we preserve the licence fee but siphon more off to commercial and quasi-commercial broadcasters?! Insane. Cut the licence fee in half, force the BBC to sell off some channels, let the broadcasters who can't afford to broadcast go out of business forthwith, open the iPlayer to ANY AND ALL who wish to broadcast through it (or just give it up to iTunes and Apple).
</p><p> <b>2. Broadband.</b> Universal broadband is a terrific notion, but a telephone tax seems grossly unfair when there are MANY ways to extend high-ish speed internet access to the masses outside the M25. Why not refund the spectrum auction billions to wireless providers and compel them to build-out LTE so that it covers the entire nation? Is that any less insane than the current proposal?
</p><p> <b>3. Internet privacy.</b> I well understand the government sucking up to Big Content, but surely we have learnt from Sarkosy's defeat in France that a three strikes law would be nearly impossible to enforce without some serious violations of one's privacy. But it's ok if ISP's snoop and not the government? Disgusting and typical of the Labour government that brought us nearly indefinite detention without charge, a national identity register and ID cards, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Carter Report is a fatally compromised blueprint for subversion that attempts to extend government control into a surprisingly vast array of areas .
1. Television .
The existing licence fee is an outrage when the BBC via BBC Worldwide make heaps of money and yet refuse to make available their back catalogue for the benefit of the entire nation ( well , they do but for a steep price ) .
The report suggests we preserve the licence fee but siphon more off to commercial and quasi-commercial broadcasters ? !
Insane. Cut the licence fee in half , force the BBC to sell off some channels , let the broadcasters who ca n't afford to broadcast go out of business forthwith , open the iPlayer to ANY AND ALL who wish to broadcast through it ( or just give it up to iTunes and Apple ) .
2. Broadband .
Universal broadband is a terrific notion , but a telephone tax seems grossly unfair when there are MANY ways to extend high-ish speed internet access to the masses outside the M25 .
Why not refund the spectrum auction billions to wireless providers and compel them to build-out LTE so that it covers the entire nation ?
Is that any less insane than the current proposal ?
3. Internet privacy .
I well understand the government sucking up to Big Content , but surely we have learnt from Sarkosy 's defeat in France that a three strikes law would be nearly impossible to enforce without some serious violations of one 's privacy .
But it 's ok if ISP 's snoop and not the government ?
Disgusting and typical of the Labour government that brought us nearly indefinite detention without charge , a national identity register and ID cards , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Carter Report is a fatally compromised blueprint for subversion that attempts to extend government control into a surprisingly vast array of areas.
1. Television.
The existing licence fee is an outrage when the BBC via BBC Worldwide make heaps of money and yet refuse to make available their back catalogue for the benefit of the entire nation (well, they do but for a steep price).
The report suggests we preserve the licence fee but siphon more off to commercial and quasi-commercial broadcasters?!
Insane. Cut the licence fee in half, force the BBC to sell off some channels, let the broadcasters who can't afford to broadcast go out of business forthwith, open the iPlayer to ANY AND ALL who wish to broadcast through it (or just give it up to iTunes and Apple).
2. Broadband.
Universal broadband is a terrific notion, but a telephone tax seems grossly unfair when there are MANY ways to extend high-ish speed internet access to the masses outside the M25.
Why not refund the spectrum auction billions to wireless providers and compel them to build-out LTE so that it covers the entire nation?
Is that any less insane than the current proposal?
3. Internet privacy.
I well understand the government sucking up to Big Content, but surely we have learnt from Sarkosy's defeat in France that a three strikes law would be nearly impossible to enforce without some serious violations of one's privacy.
But it's ok if ISP's snoop and not the government?
Disgusting and typical of the Labour government that brought us nearly indefinite detention without charge, a national identity register and ID cards, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360647</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1245249000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At 2Mb/s, I'd say the entire country gets punished right from the start. This sort of speed is okay, but it's hardly the future.</p></div><p>Point taken, but my father-in-law is stuck on dial up, because, here in the US, we're waiting for the cable company to decide that it is economically feasible to provide service in his area. He would kill for 2Mb/s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At 2Mb/s , I 'd say the entire country gets punished right from the start .
This sort of speed is okay , but it 's hardly the future.Point taken , but my father-in-law is stuck on dial up , because , here in the US , we 're waiting for the cable company to decide that it is economically feasible to provide service in his area .
He would kill for 2Mb/s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 2Mb/s, I'd say the entire country gets punished right from the start.
This sort of speed is okay, but it's hardly the future.Point taken, but my father-in-law is stuck on dial up, because, here in the US, we're waiting for the cable company to decide that it is economically feasible to provide service in his area.
He would kill for 2Mb/s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359151</id>
	<title>Didn't the US do something similar?</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1245233940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure I recall something about US phone companies being given vast quantities of money - officially to lay on broadband, but there were no sanctions written in to say "failure to lay on broadband will result in the money being repayable" or similar.</p><p>Quite what happened with the money I don't know but it wasn't spent on broadband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I recall something about US phone companies being given vast quantities of money - officially to lay on broadband , but there were no sanctions written in to say " failure to lay on broadband will result in the money being repayable " or similar.Quite what happened with the money I do n't know but it was n't spent on broadband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I recall something about US phone companies being given vast quantities of money - officially to lay on broadband, but there were no sanctions written in to say "failure to lay on broadband will result in the money being repayable" or similar.Quite what happened with the money I don't know but it wasn't spent on broadband.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359431</id>
	<title>ISPs doing other people's dirty work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245238260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article, the government is going to be getting the ISPs to do their dirty work for them, whatever we have as an RIAA/MPAA equivalent, and the police:</p><blockquote><div><p> it will "place an obligation on ISPs to maintain records of the most frequent offenders, which would allow rights holders to take targeted legal action against these infringers."</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds like they're making the ISPs track down the sharers so that the rights holders can just cherry-pick from a list. Sounds like a bad situation for the ISPs to get in to with things like "common carrier" statuses.</p><blockquote><div><p>Finally, ISPs will be roped in to protect copyright material, restricting bandwidth to known filesharers, and even blocking access to certain protocols entirely.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, looks like the ISPs aren't just going to be "carriers" any more. Could be quite a bad precedent (for the ISPs, at least). Also, what's the betting that a) the protocol blocks will be a blanket ban on BitTorrent, meaning that legitimate downloads (like Linux ISOs) will also be affected and b) they'll do it in such a way that's easily circumventable?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , the government is going to be getting the ISPs to do their dirty work for them , whatever we have as an RIAA/MPAA equivalent , and the police : it will " place an obligation on ISPs to maintain records of the most frequent offenders , which would allow rights holders to take targeted legal action against these infringers .
" Sounds like they 're making the ISPs track down the sharers so that the rights holders can just cherry-pick from a list .
Sounds like a bad situation for the ISPs to get in to with things like " common carrier " statuses.Finally , ISPs will be roped in to protect copyright material , restricting bandwidth to known filesharers , and even blocking access to certain protocols entirely.Again , looks like the ISPs are n't just going to be " carriers " any more .
Could be quite a bad precedent ( for the ISPs , at least ) .
Also , what 's the betting that a ) the protocol blocks will be a blanket ban on BitTorrent , meaning that legitimate downloads ( like Linux ISOs ) will also be affected and b ) they 'll do it in such a way that 's easily circumventable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, the government is going to be getting the ISPs to do their dirty work for them, whatever we have as an RIAA/MPAA equivalent, and the police: it will "place an obligation on ISPs to maintain records of the most frequent offenders, which would allow rights holders to take targeted legal action against these infringers.
"Sounds like they're making the ISPs track down the sharers so that the rights holders can just cherry-pick from a list.
Sounds like a bad situation for the ISPs to get in to with things like "common carrier" statuses.Finally, ISPs will be roped in to protect copyright material, restricting bandwidth to known filesharers, and even blocking access to certain protocols entirely.Again, looks like the ISPs aren't just going to be "carriers" any more.
Could be quite a bad precedent (for the ISPs, at least).
Also, what's the betting that a) the protocol blocks will be a blanket ban on BitTorrent, meaning that legitimate downloads (like Linux ISOs) will also be affected and b) they'll do it in such a way that's easily circumventable?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</id>
	<title>Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>Rosco P. Coltrane</author>
	<datestamp>1245233160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At 2Mb/s, I'd say the entire country gets punished right from the start. This sort of speed is okay, but it's hardly the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At 2Mb/s , I 'd say the entire country gets punished right from the start .
This sort of speed is okay , but it 's hardly the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 2Mb/s, I'd say the entire country gets punished right from the start.
This sort of speed is okay, but it's hardly the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360029</id>
	<title>What's wrong with sharing files?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really do not like the way that most news outlets say that "file sharing" is illegal.  It's not.  Sharing *copyrighted* files is but in itself, the act of sharing isn't.  The distinction is an an important one as producers of open source and even some musicians use sharing to their advantage, but it seems to be getting increasingly lost in the noise.</p><p>The danger is that the credibility of these new models will be eroded over time with the repetition of the general concept that sharing is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do not like the way that most news outlets say that " file sharing " is illegal .
It 's not .
Sharing * copyrighted * files is but in itself , the act of sharing is n't .
The distinction is an an important one as producers of open source and even some musicians use sharing to their advantage , but it seems to be getting increasingly lost in the noise.The danger is that the credibility of these new models will be eroded over time with the repetition of the general concept that sharing is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really do not like the way that most news outlets say that "file sharing" is illegal.
It's not.
Sharing *copyrighted* files is but in itself, the act of sharing isn't.
The distinction is an an important one as producers of open source and even some musicians use sharing to their advantage, but it seems to be getting increasingly lost in the noise.The danger is that the credibility of these new models will be eroded over time with the repetition of the general concept that sharing is wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363519</id>
	<title>Re:What good will this do</title>
	<author>Fusen</author>
	<datestamp>1245263400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is rubbish, FTTC is the best way to get hi speed connections as soon as physically possible without having to invest double figure billions.

Once you have FTTC installed you then use VDSL to cover the last mile and then you are talking about 40Mbit/s as the average sort of speed available.

After a couple of years when the whole "digital Britain" idea takes off you can then start pumping money to actually connect the final mile with fibre.

Saying FTTC and 2Mbit in the same sentence is simply wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is rubbish , FTTC is the best way to get hi speed connections as soon as physically possible without having to invest double figure billions .
Once you have FTTC installed you then use VDSL to cover the last mile and then you are talking about 40Mbit/s as the average sort of speed available .
After a couple of years when the whole " digital Britain " idea takes off you can then start pumping money to actually connect the final mile with fibre .
Saying FTTC and 2Mbit in the same sentence is simply wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is rubbish, FTTC is the best way to get hi speed connections as soon as physically possible without having to invest double figure billions.
Once you have FTTC installed you then use VDSL to cover the last mile and then you are talking about 40Mbit/s as the average sort of speed available.
After a couple of years when the whole "digital Britain" idea takes off you can then start pumping money to actually connect the final mile with fibre.
Saying FTTC and 2Mbit in the same sentence is simply wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359257</id>
	<title>posting on slashdot is waste of time...oops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245235500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>censorships rule you out anyway</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>censorships rule you out anyway</tokentext>
<sentencetext>censorships rule you out anyway</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359515</id>
	<title>Re:Big problem with this.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245239160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are lots of other taxes that are poll taxes (e.g., VAT). I guess the logic is "If you make use of something, you should help towards making it available for those who do not have it - but if you don't have it at all, you shouldn't have to pay at all".</p><p>And we still have income tax - so no, it hasn't become unfashionable to "tax the rich" all of a sudden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of other taxes that are poll taxes ( e.g. , VAT ) .
I guess the logic is " If you make use of something , you should help towards making it available for those who do not have it - but if you do n't have it at all , you should n't have to pay at all " .And we still have income tax - so no , it has n't become unfashionable to " tax the rich " all of a sudden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of other taxes that are poll taxes (e.g., VAT).
I guess the logic is "If you make use of something, you should help towards making it available for those who do not have it - but if you don't have it at all, you shouldn't have to pay at all".And we still have income tax - so no, it hasn't become unfashionable to "tax the rich" all of a sudden.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359121</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1245233580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm on 3mbit, and I don't mind. I'd prefer more speed, but 3mbit is actually enough to watch HD stuff off gametrailers.com, and finish downloads reasonably fast. If I need to download something big, like a steam game, I can always leave my computer on overnight.</p><p>Much more important than raw speed - the amount of bandwidth. I get 200GB/mo, which is very difficult to use up entirely. Somehow I doubt the UK/BT will give its customers that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on 3mbit , and I do n't mind .
I 'd prefer more speed , but 3mbit is actually enough to watch HD stuff off gametrailers.com , and finish downloads reasonably fast .
If I need to download something big , like a steam game , I can always leave my computer on overnight.Much more important than raw speed - the amount of bandwidth .
I get 200GB/mo , which is very difficult to use up entirely .
Somehow I doubt the UK/BT will give its customers that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on 3mbit, and I don't mind.
I'd prefer more speed, but 3mbit is actually enough to watch HD stuff off gametrailers.com, and finish downloads reasonably fast.
If I need to download something big, like a steam game, I can always leave my computer on overnight.Much more important than raw speed - the amount of bandwidth.
I get 200GB/mo, which is very difficult to use up entirely.
Somehow I doubt the UK/BT will give its customers that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360019</id>
	<title>Funny?</title>
	<author>gouthamv</author>
	<datestamp>1245244440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All Insightful, Interesting or Informative
where the fuck are my funny comments?</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Insightful , Interesting or Informative where the fuck are my funny comments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Insightful, Interesting or Informative
where the fuck are my funny comments?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360141</id>
	<title>tax the 1/3rd</title>
	<author>mehrotra.akash</author>
	<datestamp>1245245340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the 1/3rd who will be getting broadband because of this tax should be the ones paying for it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the 1/3rd who will be getting broadband because of this tax should be the ones paying for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 1/3rd who will be getting broadband because of this tax should be the ones paying for it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359529</id>
	<title>2Mbits/sec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245239460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HAHAAHHAHA 2Mbits/sec. May be my country is corrupted but I get 30Mbits/s for 17$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HAHAAHHAHA 2Mbits/sec .
May be my country is corrupted but I get 30Mbits/s for 17 $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAHAAHHAHA 2Mbits/sec.
May be my country is corrupted but I get 30Mbits/s for 17$.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359305</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1245236160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So let me get this right, they want everyone to have high speed internet, but they won't allow them to use it for its primary purpose?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this right , they want everyone to have high speed internet , but they wo n't allow them to use it for its primary purpose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this right, they want everyone to have high speed internet, but they won't allow them to use it for its primary purpose?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360135</id>
	<title>Re:Brits love paying tax, so let them pay.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245245280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A brit version of PBS".</p><p>Hahaha.</p><p>Hahahahahaha.</p><p>God love PBS for persevering in your race to the intellectual bottom of a television market, but PBS is a pale shadow of the BBC, which we don't sneer at, don't find to be either elitist or overly populist and are enormously proud of.</p><p>The licence fee burns a bit, for sure, but the alternative is sponsorship, advertising, or endless subscription drives. The absence of adverts on major mainstream channels also limits their pervasiveness in the competition.</p><p>Live here for a while before you assume we are blindly and uneducatedly being taxed for little reason.</p><p>On your central point, I mostly agree, actually. I think the licence fee comparison is not wholly implausible, though I am rather less certain it will work as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A brit version of PBS " .Hahaha.Hahahahahaha.God love PBS for persevering in your race to the intellectual bottom of a television market , but PBS is a pale shadow of the BBC , which we do n't sneer at , do n't find to be either elitist or overly populist and are enormously proud of.The licence fee burns a bit , for sure , but the alternative is sponsorship , advertising , or endless subscription drives .
The absence of adverts on major mainstream channels also limits their pervasiveness in the competition.Live here for a while before you assume we are blindly and uneducatedly being taxed for little reason.On your central point , I mostly agree , actually .
I think the licence fee comparison is not wholly implausible , though I am rather less certain it will work as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A brit version of PBS".Hahaha.Hahahahahaha.God love PBS for persevering in your race to the intellectual bottom of a television market, but PBS is a pale shadow of the BBC, which we don't sneer at, don't find to be either elitist or overly populist and are enormously proud of.The licence fee burns a bit, for sure, but the alternative is sponsorship, advertising, or endless subscription drives.
The absence of adverts on major mainstream channels also limits their pervasiveness in the competition.Live here for a while before you assume we are blindly and uneducatedly being taxed for little reason.On your central point, I mostly agree, actually.
I think the licence fee comparison is not wholly implausible, though I am rather less certain it will work as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359363</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not really true. There are cable providers who supply broadband. Mine is supplied by Virgin Media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really true .
There are cable providers who supply broadband .
Mine is supplied by Virgin Media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really true.
There are cable providers who supply broadband.
Mine is supplied by Virgin Media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359207</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the fuck are you on about? I live in a small town in the North East, 28 miles from the nearest city and 250 miles from London, with a population of 11,000 in one of the most rural counties in England. I am currently sat here on 20Mbit ADSL2+. My parents live in a house in the middle of nowhere 6 miles away from us and 2 miles from the nearest hamlet. They get 2Mbit and it's people like them that the 2Mbit minimum is aimed at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck are you on about ?
I live in a small town in the North East , 28 miles from the nearest city and 250 miles from London , with a population of 11,000 in one of the most rural counties in England .
I am currently sat here on 20Mbit ADSL2 + .
My parents live in a house in the middle of nowhere 6 miles away from us and 2 miles from the nearest hamlet .
They get 2Mbit and it 's people like them that the 2Mbit minimum is aimed at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck are you on about?
I live in a small town in the North East, 28 miles from the nearest city and 250 miles from London, with a population of 11,000 in one of the most rural counties in England.
I am currently sat here on 20Mbit ADSL2+.
My parents live in a house in the middle of nowhere 6 miles away from us and 2 miles from the nearest hamlet.
They get 2Mbit and it's people like them that the 2Mbit minimum is aimed at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360599</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>gintoki</author>
	<datestamp>1245248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im use orange broadband and i have the supposedly "unlimited" package. I get about 6mbps from the 8mbps. According to orange I should be getting about 4.5mbps but they probably made some error when calculating my speed. 6mbps is plenty fast enough for me. About 3 months ago, i had just finished one set of exams so had a bit of free time. At that time I was spending time watching HD videos a lot. I had nothing better to do so i downloaded loads of ps3 demos as well just to kill time(left it on overnight). Then the next month i noticed that my connection was ridiculously slow. Turns out, the previous month I downloaded 72 gigs worth of stuff so my connection has been permanently capped to 256kbps during 6pm and midnight everyday. My point is.....why the hell should I have to pay for high speed internet access for all when I get penalised for using my broadband connection as it was advertised? This tax is probably gonna pay for fibre connection to all households but its gonna be pretty redundant if you are  not allowed to use all the extra speed possible due to the new wires.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im use orange broadband and i have the supposedly " unlimited " package .
I get about 6mbps from the 8mbps .
According to orange I should be getting about 4.5mbps but they probably made some error when calculating my speed .
6mbps is plenty fast enough for me .
About 3 months ago , i had just finished one set of exams so had a bit of free time .
At that time I was spending time watching HD videos a lot .
I had nothing better to do so i downloaded loads of ps3 demos as well just to kill time ( left it on overnight ) .
Then the next month i noticed that my connection was ridiculously slow .
Turns out , the previous month I downloaded 72 gigs worth of stuff so my connection has been permanently capped to 256kbps during 6pm and midnight everyday .
My point is.....why the hell should I have to pay for high speed internet access for all when I get penalised for using my broadband connection as it was advertised ?
This tax is probably gon na pay for fibre connection to all households but its gon na be pretty redundant if you are not allowed to use all the extra speed possible due to the new wires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im use orange broadband and i have the supposedly "unlimited" package.
I get about 6mbps from the 8mbps.
According to orange I should be getting about 4.5mbps but they probably made some error when calculating my speed.
6mbps is plenty fast enough for me.
About 3 months ago, i had just finished one set of exams so had a bit of free time.
At that time I was spending time watching HD videos a lot.
I had nothing better to do so i downloaded loads of ps3 demos as well just to kill time(left it on overnight).
Then the next month i noticed that my connection was ridiculously slow.
Turns out, the previous month I downloaded 72 gigs worth of stuff so my connection has been permanently capped to 256kbps during 6pm and midnight everyday.
My point is.....why the hell should I have to pay for high speed internet access for all when I get penalised for using my broadband connection as it was advertised?
This tax is probably gonna pay for fibre connection to all households but its gonna be pretty redundant if you are  not allowed to use all the extra speed possible due to the new wires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363591</id>
	<title>WiMAX</title>
	<author>Niris</author>
	<datestamp>1245263640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whatever happened to the idea of WiMAX? Setting up big towers every so often and having wireless going with signals strong enough to reach out for miles. Seems to me that this would be a lot easier to do than direct cables everywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to the idea of WiMAX ?
Setting up big towers every so often and having wireless going with signals strong enough to reach out for miles .
Seems to me that this would be a lot easier to do than direct cables everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to the idea of WiMAX?
Setting up big towers every so often and having wireless going with signals strong enough to reach out for miles.
Seems to me that this would be a lot easier to do than direct cables everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362401</id>
	<title>Suprised?? I'm not.</title>
	<author>ammit</author>
	<datestamp>1245258000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Broadband is fast becoming essential and even if as another user has said - this plan gets scrapped, it is inevitable that another plan of this ilk will get thought up.  You need it, they'll tax it, and with the state of the UK network compared to other countries,  no suprise there really.

BT actually makes a massive LOSS on its broadband connections and until its 21CN upgrade is rolled out they're frankly screwed when compared to LLU services.
BT can't offer things like Annex M, they can't offer engineered broadband and they are selling products such as broadband with an SLA to try and claw back some of the market share....which just isn't happening.

I don't think most people are below 2mbps, most people are on around 3 or 4 I'd say.  Satellite is a waste of money for rural areas - one tree in the way and you're fucked.  2mbps for every citizen by 2012 just won't be met in my view, no way, and to my knowledge nothing about broadband has ever been guaranteed - least of all speeds!!

Would be interested to know what they are going to measure this guarantee upon!! Just because BTs database SAYS you can have 2mbps certainly doesn't mean you're gonna get it, and even then you may well be synced up to your exchange at 2mbps but you certainly aren't going to be downloading at more than 1.8 if that is the case!

Bollocks I say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Broadband is fast becoming essential and even if as another user has said - this plan gets scrapped , it is inevitable that another plan of this ilk will get thought up .
You need it , they 'll tax it , and with the state of the UK network compared to other countries , no suprise there really .
BT actually makes a massive LOSS on its broadband connections and until its 21CN upgrade is rolled out they 're frankly screwed when compared to LLU services .
BT ca n't offer things like Annex M , they ca n't offer engineered broadband and they are selling products such as broadband with an SLA to try and claw back some of the market share....which just is n't happening .
I do n't think most people are below 2mbps , most people are on around 3 or 4 I 'd say .
Satellite is a waste of money for rural areas - one tree in the way and you 're fucked .
2mbps for every citizen by 2012 just wo n't be met in my view , no way , and to my knowledge nothing about broadband has ever been guaranteed - least of all speeds ! !
Would be interested to know what they are going to measure this guarantee upon ! !
Just because BTs database SAYS you can have 2mbps certainly does n't mean you 're gon na get it , and even then you may well be synced up to your exchange at 2mbps but you certainly are n't going to be downloading at more than 1.8 if that is the case !
Bollocks I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Broadband is fast becoming essential and even if as another user has said - this plan gets scrapped, it is inevitable that another plan of this ilk will get thought up.
You need it, they'll tax it, and with the state of the UK network compared to other countries,  no suprise there really.
BT actually makes a massive LOSS on its broadband connections and until its 21CN upgrade is rolled out they're frankly screwed when compared to LLU services.
BT can't offer things like Annex M, they can't offer engineered broadband and they are selling products such as broadband with an SLA to try and claw back some of the market share....which just isn't happening.
I don't think most people are below 2mbps, most people are on around 3 or 4 I'd say.
Satellite is a waste of money for rural areas - one tree in the way and you're fucked.
2mbps for every citizen by 2012 just won't be met in my view, no way, and to my knowledge nothing about broadband has ever been guaranteed - least of all speeds!!
Would be interested to know what they are going to measure this guarantee upon!!
Just because BTs database SAYS you can have 2mbps certainly doesn't mean you're gonna get it, and even then you may well be synced up to your exchange at 2mbps but you certainly aren't going to be downloading at more than 1.8 if that is the case!
Bollocks I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359265</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245235620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes same here, i am on 24 Mbps Be, and i get only 16 because of the crappy cable BT have. When it's raining i loose<br>another 2 Mbps and that's often here in the UK. Why should i pay 50p more to subsidise other people connection ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes same here , i am on 24 Mbps Be , and i get only 16 because of the crappy cable BT have .
When it 's raining i looseanother 2 Mbps and that 's often here in the UK .
Why should i pay 50p more to subsidise other people connection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes same here, i am on 24 Mbps Be, and i get only 16 because of the crappy cable BT have.
When it's raining i looseanother 2 Mbps and that's often here in the UK.
Why should i pay 50p more to subsidise other people connection ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360639</id>
	<title>Re:Big problem with this.</title>
	<author>sifi</author>
	<datestamp>1245248880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, plus we are effectively subsidising people who live outside cities - am I'm willing to bet that in general that the demographic of these people will not be towards the low end of the income scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , plus we are effectively subsidising people who live outside cities - am I 'm willing to bet that in general that the demographic of these people will not be towards the low end of the income scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, plus we are effectively subsidising people who live outside cities - am I'm willing to bet that in general that the demographic of these people will not be towards the low end of the income scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360589</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing. If done right.</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1245248460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're going to do it, you just better make damn sure the government specifies hard benchmarks and deadlines for the companies getting the money. The government <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit\_20070810\_002683.html" title="pbs.org">subsidized broadband development</a> [pbs.org] in the U.S. too (to the tune of tens of billions of $), only to end up with a patchwork system where most people still don't have fiber to their homes and many don't have any broadband options at all. The fastest speed I can get on my DSL line is still only 3Mbps--and I live in an urban area, not out in the boonies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to do it , you just better make damn sure the government specifies hard benchmarks and deadlines for the companies getting the money .
The government subsidized broadband development [ pbs.org ] in the U.S. too ( to the tune of tens of billions of $ ) , only to end up with a patchwork system where most people still do n't have fiber to their homes and many do n't have any broadband options at all .
The fastest speed I can get on my DSL line is still only 3Mbps--and I live in an urban area , not out in the boonies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to do it, you just better make damn sure the government specifies hard benchmarks and deadlines for the companies getting the money.
The government subsidized broadband development [pbs.org] in the U.S. too (to the tune of tens of billions of $), only to end up with a patchwork system where most people still don't have fiber to their homes and many don't have any broadband options at all.
The fastest speed I can get on my DSL line is still only 3Mbps--and I live in an urban area, not out in the boonies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279</id>
	<title>The actual report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245235740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16\_06\_09digitalbritain.pdf" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16\_06\_09digitalbritain.pdf</a> [bbc.co.uk]

<p>Other major points in the report (from <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8102756.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">this BBC article</a> [bbc.co.uk]):</p><ul>
<li>a three-year plan to boost digital participation</li><li>universal access to broadband by 2012</li><li>fund to invest in next generation broadband</li><li>digital radio upgrade by 2015</li><li>liberalisation of 3G spectrum</li><li>legal and regulatory attack on digital piracy</li><li>support for public service content partnerships</li><li>changed role for Channel 4</li><li>consultation on how to fund local, national and regional news</li><li>&pound;130m of BBC licence fee to pay for ITV regional news</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16 \ _06 \ _09digitalbritain.pdf [ bbc.co.uk ] Other major points in the report ( from this BBC article [ bbc.co.uk ] ) : a three-year plan to boost digital participationuniversal access to broadband by 2012fund to invest in next generation broadbanddigital radio upgrade by 2015liberalisation of 3G spectrumlegal and regulatory attack on digital piracysupport for public service content partnershipschanged role for Channel 4consultation on how to fund local , national and regional news   130m of BBC licence fee to pay for ITV regional news</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16\_06\_09digitalbritain.pdf [bbc.co.uk]

Other major points in the report (from this BBC article [bbc.co.uk]):
a three-year plan to boost digital participationuniversal access to broadband by 2012fund to invest in next generation broadbanddigital radio upgrade by 2015liberalisation of 3G spectrumlegal and regulatory attack on digital piracysupport for public service content partnershipschanged role for Channel 4consultation on how to fund local, national and regional news£130m of BBC licence fee to pay for ITV regional news</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359823</id>
	<title>Re:The actual report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245242760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess which one will get the lion's share of the funds... Give up?  I predict point 6 - fighting piracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess which one will get the lion 's share of the funds... Give up ?
I predict point 6 - fighting piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess which one will get the lion's share of the funds... Give up?
I predict point 6 - fighting piracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359701</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>erikdalen</author>
	<datestamp>1245241320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they at least mean that everyone should have at least 2Mb/s upload speed as well. At least here in Sweden there's a lot of people on ADSL that only have 1Mb/s upload.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they at least mean that everyone should have at least 2Mb/s upload speed as well .
At least here in Sweden there 's a lot of people on ADSL that only have 1Mb/s upload .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they at least mean that everyone should have at least 2Mb/s upload speed as well.
At least here in Sweden there's a lot of people on ADSL that only have 1Mb/s upload.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359661</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245240900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nor does it make Britain the world's #1 which is what the PM was saying yesterday.<br>Can someone please take the govt aside and explain to them the difference between rhetoric and just sounding ignorant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor does it make Britain the world 's # 1 which is what the PM was saying yesterday.Can someone please take the govt aside and explain to them the difference between rhetoric and just sounding ignorant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor does it make Britain the world's #1 which is what the PM was saying yesterday.Can someone please take the govt aside and explain to them the difference between rhetoric and just sounding ignorant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803</id>
	<title>Brits love paying tax, so let them pay.</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1245242400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just yeterday NPR had a bit about some kind of tax in Britain called "the license fee" that runs for about 200$ a year for every TV set owned by the Brits. And the money apparently goes to fund BBC. Once you pay 15$ a month to get Brit version of PBS, why not 50$ for all of the internet at full speed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just yeterday NPR had a bit about some kind of tax in Britain called " the license fee " that runs for about 200 $ a year for every TV set owned by the Brits .
And the money apparently goes to fund BBC .
Once you pay 15 $ a month to get Brit version of PBS , why not 50 $ for all of the internet at full speed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just yeterday NPR had a bit about some kind of tax in Britain called "the license fee" that runs for about 200$ a year for every TV set owned by the Brits.
And the money apparently goes to fund BBC.
Once you pay 15$ a month to get Brit version of PBS, why not 50$ for all of the internet at full speed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363409</id>
	<title>Not Pointless!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not Pointless is Taxes Taxes &amp; Tyranny!</p><p>How come the UK is still a monarchy? Stop complaining about Iran Elections and Wake up put down your government of tyrants!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not Pointless is Taxes Taxes &amp; Tyranny ! How come the UK is still a monarchy ?
Stop complaining about Iran Elections and Wake up put down your government of tyrants !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not Pointless is Taxes Taxes &amp; Tyranny!How come the UK is still a monarchy?
Stop complaining about Iran Elections and Wake up put down your government of tyrants!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359967</id>
	<title>Taxing landlines</title>
	<author>d-r0ck</author>
	<datestamp>1245244020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're taxing landlines, so simply drop your landline and avoid the tax.</p><p>This report seems to have a lot of similarities in some sections to the reports coming from other countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're taxing landlines , so simply drop your landline and avoid the tax.This report seems to have a lot of similarities in some sections to the reports coming from other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're taxing landlines, so simply drop your landline and avoid the tax.This report seems to have a lot of similarities in some sections to the reports coming from other countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359579</id>
	<title>The correct way to proceed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245240180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government: ISPs, collect 50p per subscriber.<br>All ISPs: No.<br>Government: We'll fine you all and shut you all down!<br>All ISPs: So you're taking Britain off the Internet? Good luck with that.</p><p>Any ISP which gives in to the tax deserves it. Any customer which stays with an ISP which gives in to the tax deserves it.</p><p>Iran's got the right idea: when you don't like your government and an election doesn't work (or a leader assumes unpopular power without calling one, hello Brown), take to the streets. When veterans at Normandy respectfully greet those who formally shot at them but heckle their own leader, you know it's time for change. Yes, it's all rabble-rousing by the US to get a cruel American puppet from the '80s back in power (daft students don't remember him, I guess), but it works, doesn't it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>This ISP mess is one symptom of a very big problem. As always, you get the government you deserve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government : ISPs , collect 50p per subscriber.All ISPs : No.Government : We 'll fine you all and shut you all down ! All ISPs : So you 're taking Britain off the Internet ?
Good luck with that.Any ISP which gives in to the tax deserves it .
Any customer which stays with an ISP which gives in to the tax deserves it.Iran 's got the right idea : when you do n't like your government and an election does n't work ( or a leader assumes unpopular power without calling one , hello Brown ) , take to the streets .
When veterans at Normandy respectfully greet those who formally shot at them but heckle their own leader , you know it 's time for change .
Yes , it 's all rabble-rousing by the US to get a cruel American puppet from the '80s back in power ( daft students do n't remember him , I guess ) , but it works , does n't it ?
: - ) This ISP mess is one symptom of a very big problem .
As always , you get the government you deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government: ISPs, collect 50p per subscriber.All ISPs: No.Government: We'll fine you all and shut you all down!All ISPs: So you're taking Britain off the Internet?
Good luck with that.Any ISP which gives in to the tax deserves it.
Any customer which stays with an ISP which gives in to the tax deserves it.Iran's got the right idea: when you don't like your government and an election doesn't work (or a leader assumes unpopular power without calling one, hello Brown), take to the streets.
When veterans at Normandy respectfully greet those who formally shot at them but heckle their own leader, you know it's time for change.
Yes, it's all rabble-rousing by the US to get a cruel American puppet from the '80s back in power (daft students don't remember him, I guess), but it works, doesn't it?
:-)This ISP mess is one symptom of a very big problem.
As always, you get the government you deserve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359361</id>
	<title>Re:The actual report</title>
	<author>Grumbleduke</author>
	<datestamp>1245236940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the subject of the Digital Britain report, the UK pirate party has already released a response to the report that, rather than making the broad statements various officials did (the BPI claiming it wasn't enough, the Tories saying it was a "colossal disappointment" - you wonder if either had actually read the report) it includes a section on each of the main points of the report relevant to the PPUK's views. The response can be found <a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/PR\_PPUK\_160609.pdf" title="pirateparty.org.uk" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pirateparty.org.uk].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the subject of the Digital Britain report , the UK pirate party has already released a response to the report that , rather than making the broad statements various officials did ( the BPI claiming it was n't enough , the Tories saying it was a " colossal disappointment " - you wonder if either had actually read the report ) it includes a section on each of the main points of the report relevant to the PPUK 's views .
The response can be found here [ pirateparty.org.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the subject of the Digital Britain report, the UK pirate party has already released a response to the report that, rather than making the broad statements various officials did (the BPI claiming it wasn't enough, the Tories saying it was a "colossal disappointment" - you wonder if either had actually read the report) it includes a section on each of the main points of the report relevant to the PPUK's views.
The response can be found here [pirateparty.org.uk].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359451</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1245238560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it.</p></div><p>Supposedly, though, the <i>quid pro quo</i> for BT inheriting a near-monopoly from the old, state-funded infrastructure is that they are under a <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/mofaq/telecoms/usofaq/" title="ofcom.org.uk">Universal Service Obligation</a> [ofcom.org.uk] that requires them to provide telephone serviced to all, and not to cherry pick.
</p><p>Unfortunately, this only applies to Plain Old Telephone Services - and extending it to Broadband <i>would</i> vastly increase the cost...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it.Supposedly , though , the quid pro quo for BT inheriting a near-monopoly from the old , state-funded infrastructure is that they are under a Universal Service Obligation [ ofcom.org.uk ] that requires them to provide telephone serviced to all , and not to cherry pick .
Unfortunately , this only applies to Plain Old Telephone Services - and extending it to Broadband would vastly increase the cost.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it.Supposedly, though, the quid pro quo for BT inheriting a near-monopoly from the old, state-funded infrastructure is that they are under a Universal Service Obligation [ofcom.org.uk] that requires them to provide telephone serviced to all, and not to cherry pick.
Unfortunately, this only applies to Plain Old Telephone Services - and extending it to Broadband would vastly increase the cost...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361265</id>
	<title>Common carrier and the UK</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1245252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe no such thing exists in the UK.</p><p>This is why ISPs could freely implement deep packet inspection, phorm and so on without even asking anyone first as opposed to the US where the FCC etc. investigated usage of DPI in trying to disrupt Bittorrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe no such thing exists in the UK.This is why ISPs could freely implement deep packet inspection , phorm and so on without even asking anyone first as opposed to the US where the FCC etc .
investigated usage of DPI in trying to disrupt Bittorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe no such thing exists in the UK.This is why ISPs could freely implement deep packet inspection, phorm and so on without even asking anyone first as opposed to the US where the FCC etc.
investigated usage of DPI in trying to disrupt Bittorrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359943</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1245243900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So will the tax money eventually be 'payed back' to the tax payer? In other words, at some point someone will profit from these new pipes at the expense of the taxpayer. Why aren't they demanding compensation for the cost they are fronting?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So will the tax money eventually be 'payed back ' to the tax payer ?
In other words , at some point someone will profit from these new pipes at the expense of the taxpayer .
Why are n't they demanding compensation for the cost they are fronting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So will the tax money eventually be 'payed back' to the tax payer?
In other words, at some point someone will profit from these new pipes at the expense of the taxpayer.
Why aren't they demanding compensation for the cost they are fronting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161</id>
	<title>Good thing. If done right.</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1245234120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This actually *is* a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose: Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast. Which would mean that the runtime of this tax is limited to a few years, when every corner of the countryside has broadband.</p><p>This is actually quite different from the German GEZ fee for Internet capable devices. Which is bizar beyond anything concievable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This actually * is * a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose : Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast .
Which would mean that the runtime of this tax is limited to a few years , when every corner of the countryside has broadband.This is actually quite different from the German GEZ fee for Internet capable devices .
Which is bizar beyond anything concievable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This actually *is* a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose: Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast.
Which would mean that the runtime of this tax is limited to a few years, when every corner of the countryside has broadband.This is actually quite different from the German GEZ fee for Internet capable devices.
Which is bizar beyond anything concievable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28365653</id>
	<title>Yeah, Right</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245230040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>so it plans to use the 'broadband tax' to pay for the final third by 2017</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yeah, right. By the end of this you can count on the broadband providers ensuring that the government and taxpayers pay for ALL of it -- while they continue to record large profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so it plans to use the 'broadband tax ' to pay for the final third by 2017 Yeah , right .
By the end of this you can count on the broadband providers ensuring that the government and taxpayers pay for ALL of it -- while they continue to record large profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so it plans to use the 'broadband tax' to pay for the final third by 2017
Yeah, right.
By the end of this you can count on the broadband providers ensuring that the government and taxpayers pay for ALL of it -- while they continue to record large profits.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360885</id>
	<title>As George Harrison once said</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1245250200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,<br>If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.<br>If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,<br>If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.</p><p>Now my advice for those who die<br>Declare the pennies on your eyes<br>'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman<br>And you're working<br>for no one but me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you drive a car , I 'll tax the street,If you try to sit , I 'll tax your seat.If you get too cold I 'll tax the heat,If you take a walk , I 'll tax your feet.Now my advice for those who dieDeclare the pennies on your eyes'Cause I 'm the taxman , yeah , I 'm the taxmanAnd you 're workingfor no one but me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.Now my advice for those who dieDeclare the pennies on your eyes'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxmanAnd you're workingfor no one but me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360013</id>
	<title>Re:Brits love paying tax, so let them pay.</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1245244440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moving quickly on from your flamebait title, the licence fee is a stupid example.</p><p>Let's assume you are average and watch 70 days of TV per year. About 11 days of that will be adverts.<br>That's 75 cents an hour that advertiser pays network, for <strong>the product, ie: you</strong> to consume the ads.</p><p>Wow, that licence fee is starting to look like good value. Unless your day job pays less than 75c or your want to cut out the TV all together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moving quickly on from your flamebait title , the licence fee is a stupid example.Let 's assume you are average and watch 70 days of TV per year .
About 11 days of that will be adverts.That 's 75 cents an hour that advertiser pays network , for the product , ie : you to consume the ads.Wow , that licence fee is starting to look like good value .
Unless your day job pays less than 75c or your want to cut out the TV all together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moving quickly on from your flamebait title, the licence fee is a stupid example.Let's assume you are average and watch 70 days of TV per year.
About 11 days of that will be adverts.That's 75 cents an hour that advertiser pays network, for the product, ie: you to consume the ads.Wow, that licence fee is starting to look like good value.
Unless your day job pays less than 75c or your want to cut out the TV all together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359129</id>
	<title>Interesting scheme...</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1245233640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of the gov' taxing people and placing down public broadband lines companies can compete over... They're literally handing a giant check to the existing two big broadband network suppliers (cable and DSL) and asking them to put down the lines. So in the long term they're just giving the broadband networks a larger subscriber base without any real public benefit.</p><p>There is nothing wrong with the tax but what they're using it for is flawed. It will lead to monopolies in most areas, or at best two options to pick from that both charge similar rates and provide similar services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of the gov ' taxing people and placing down public broadband lines companies can compete over... They 're literally handing a giant check to the existing two big broadband network suppliers ( cable and DSL ) and asking them to put down the lines .
So in the long term they 're just giving the broadband networks a larger subscriber base without any real public benefit.There is nothing wrong with the tax but what they 're using it for is flawed .
It will lead to monopolies in most areas , or at best two options to pick from that both charge similar rates and provide similar services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of the gov' taxing people and placing down public broadband lines companies can compete over... They're literally handing a giant check to the existing two big broadband network suppliers (cable and DSL) and asking them to put down the lines.
So in the long term they're just giving the broadband networks a larger subscriber base without any real public benefit.There is nothing wrong with the tax but what they're using it for is flawed.
It will lead to monopolies in most areas, or at best two options to pick from that both charge similar rates and provide similar services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359165</id>
	<title>just wonderfull</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."<br>-- Ayn Rand</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot , making it unable to solve its problems , then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary .
" -- Ayn Rand</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.
"-- Ayn Rand</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359791</id>
	<title>Re:What good will this do</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1245242280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that they are concentrating on Fibre to the Cabinet is a disaster too. It's already old hat, with other countries moving to Fibre to the Home/Premises.</p><p>It doesn't help that Virgin Media keeps lying about having "fibre optic" broadband. They don't - they have analogue fibre to their cabinets, then it's copper to the home. What we need is digital fibre all the way to the wall socket.</p><p>FttC is the reason why we are aiming so low (2Mb) instead of looking at more useful speeds. 2Mb is barely enough for one person to watch an iPlayer low quality stream - it's inadequate now, let alone in 2012. By then the people only able to get 2Mb will be in the same position people only able to get dial-up are now: they will be locked out of all the services they want to access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they are concentrating on Fibre to the Cabinet is a disaster too .
It 's already old hat , with other countries moving to Fibre to the Home/Premises.It does n't help that Virgin Media keeps lying about having " fibre optic " broadband .
They do n't - they have analogue fibre to their cabinets , then it 's copper to the home .
What we need is digital fibre all the way to the wall socket.FttC is the reason why we are aiming so low ( 2Mb ) instead of looking at more useful speeds .
2Mb is barely enough for one person to watch an iPlayer low quality stream - it 's inadequate now , let alone in 2012 .
By then the people only able to get 2Mb will be in the same position people only able to get dial-up are now : they will be locked out of all the services they want to access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they are concentrating on Fibre to the Cabinet is a disaster too.
It's already old hat, with other countries moving to Fibre to the Home/Premises.It doesn't help that Virgin Media keeps lying about having "fibre optic" broadband.
They don't - they have analogue fibre to their cabinets, then it's copper to the home.
What we need is digital fibre all the way to the wall socket.FttC is the reason why we are aiming so low (2Mb) instead of looking at more useful speeds.
2Mb is barely enough for one person to watch an iPlayer low quality stream - it's inadequate now, let alone in 2012.
By then the people only able to get 2Mb will be in the same position people only able to get dial-up are now: they will be locked out of all the services they want to access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28372095</id>
	<title>2mbit?</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1245329640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is 2mbit still broadband? Normal people have 6 mbit ADSL lines in their homes and this is the lower end. Ok in some regions they only get 4mbit out of it. But 2mbit is a very small broadband connection. In cities they go up to 16, 30, 100 mbit. So when implementing fiber optics in the countryside they should aim for 2gbit instead. By 2012 this would be more appropriate then 2mbit. 3 years ago people used 768kbit and this was the upperclass today 6/4 mbit is the lowest value. However, in some regions they only get 768kbit. but when you ever worked with such a line you know calling that broadband is a lie. and by 2012 2mbit will be nothing like broadband.</p><p>And by the way. The privatized telcoms all over the world so they get cheaper prices and they got them. Ok they do not invest in the infrastructure and press the last out of the old stuff they got paid by the public. How could they ever think that a commercial company would act in the best interest of the public? Now they have to fix it with taxes. How stupid is that? Take back the infrastructure intpu public hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is 2mbit still broadband ?
Normal people have 6 mbit ADSL lines in their homes and this is the lower end .
Ok in some regions they only get 4mbit out of it .
But 2mbit is a very small broadband connection .
In cities they go up to 16 , 30 , 100 mbit .
So when implementing fiber optics in the countryside they should aim for 2gbit instead .
By 2012 this would be more appropriate then 2mbit .
3 years ago people used 768kbit and this was the upperclass today 6/4 mbit is the lowest value .
However , in some regions they only get 768kbit .
but when you ever worked with such a line you know calling that broadband is a lie .
and by 2012 2mbit will be nothing like broadband.And by the way .
The privatized telcoms all over the world so they get cheaper prices and they got them .
Ok they do not invest in the infrastructure and press the last out of the old stuff they got paid by the public .
How could they ever think that a commercial company would act in the best interest of the public ?
Now they have to fix it with taxes .
How stupid is that ?
Take back the infrastructure intpu public hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is 2mbit still broadband?
Normal people have 6 mbit ADSL lines in their homes and this is the lower end.
Ok in some regions they only get 4mbit out of it.
But 2mbit is a very small broadband connection.
In cities they go up to 16, 30, 100 mbit.
So when implementing fiber optics in the countryside they should aim for 2gbit instead.
By 2012 this would be more appropriate then 2mbit.
3 years ago people used 768kbit and this was the upperclass today 6/4 mbit is the lowest value.
However, in some regions they only get 768kbit.
but when you ever worked with such a line you know calling that broadband is a lie.
and by 2012 2mbit will be nothing like broadband.And by the way.
The privatized telcoms all over the world so they get cheaper prices and they got them.
Ok they do not invest in the infrastructure and press the last out of the old stuff they got paid by the public.
How could they ever think that a commercial company would act in the best interest of the public?
Now they have to fix it with taxes.
How stupid is that?
Take back the infrastructure intpu public hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361875</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>elvum</author>
	<datestamp>1245255420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ADSL2+ (used by Be) can only offer the full 24Mbps if you're less than about 500m from the exchange, regardless of the quality of the cable BT installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ADSL2 + ( used by Be ) can only offer the full 24Mbps if you 're less than about 500m from the exchange , regardless of the quality of the cable BT installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ADSL2+ (used by Be) can only offer the full 24Mbps if you're less than about 500m from the exchange, regardless of the quality of the cable BT installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359311</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BT have made various attempts to hold back broadband in the UK. A few years ago a high ranking employee states that there was no future whatsoever in broadband so there was little or no point in making it fast.</p><p>When you consider the fact that countries like Japan with VDSL, Sweden and South Korea have an average speed of 50mbps (and have had for a while now), the promise of a minimum 2gb isn't exactly exciting me.</p><p>BT refuse to allow this tech so they can charge more for it at a later date. Why bring out something new when you can rake in more by holding back the advances (similar to the death of the electric car at GM). I am sorry to say that I am on a BT line (through no fault of my own) and I am disgusted with the infrastructure in place. I understand that Britain had it first and our systems weren't exactly made to be easily replaceable, but what we have now is a joke.</p><p>I welcome the new proposals as a good start, but they really don't go far enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BT have made various attempts to hold back broadband in the UK .
A few years ago a high ranking employee states that there was no future whatsoever in broadband so there was little or no point in making it fast.When you consider the fact that countries like Japan with VDSL , Sweden and South Korea have an average speed of 50mbps ( and have had for a while now ) , the promise of a minimum 2gb is n't exactly exciting me.BT refuse to allow this tech so they can charge more for it at a later date .
Why bring out something new when you can rake in more by holding back the advances ( similar to the death of the electric car at GM ) .
I am sorry to say that I am on a BT line ( through no fault of my own ) and I am disgusted with the infrastructure in place .
I understand that Britain had it first and our systems were n't exactly made to be easily replaceable , but what we have now is a joke.I welcome the new proposals as a good start , but they really do n't go far enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT have made various attempts to hold back broadband in the UK.
A few years ago a high ranking employee states that there was no future whatsoever in broadband so there was little or no point in making it fast.When you consider the fact that countries like Japan with VDSL, Sweden and South Korea have an average speed of 50mbps (and have had for a while now), the promise of a minimum 2gb isn't exactly exciting me.BT refuse to allow this tech so they can charge more for it at a later date.
Why bring out something new when you can rake in more by holding back the advances (similar to the death of the electric car at GM).
I am sorry to say that I am on a BT line (through no fault of my own) and I am disgusted with the infrastructure in place.
I understand that Britain had it first and our systems weren't exactly made to be easily replaceable, but what we have now is a joke.I welcome the new proposals as a good start, but they really don't go far enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362129</id>
	<title>Re:Brits love paying tax, so let them pay.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ten TV channels, eleven national radio stations and 46 local and regional radio stations, plus one of the most popular websites in the world, all of them free from adverts (in the UK) and pledge campaigns - it's a bit more than PBS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten TV channels , eleven national radio stations and 46 local and regional radio stations , plus one of the most popular websites in the world , all of them free from adverts ( in the UK ) and pledge campaigns - it 's a bit more than PBS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten TV channels, eleven national radio stations and 46 local and regional radio stations, plus one of the most popular websites in the world, all of them free from adverts (in the UK) and pledge campaigns - it's a bit more than PBS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28381777</id>
	<title>in the words of ananananan anaa ... k ... aaa</title>
	<author>KingBenny</author>
	<datestamp>1245324300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what's his name?


FUCK YOU

(yes, very subtle, i have to admit, but considering what's happening, subtlety doesn't seem to help)</htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's his name ?
FUCK YOU ( yes , very subtle , i have to admit , but considering what 's happening , subtlety does n't seem to help )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's his name?
FUCK YOU

(yes, very subtle, i have to admit, but considering what's happening, subtlety doesn't seem to help)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359483</id>
	<title>Where did we hear that before?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1245238800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_Service\_Fund" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_Service\_Fund</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The goals of Universal Service are:<br>To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,<br>To increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation,<br>To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.</p><p>We saw where that went.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal \ _Service \ _Fund [ wikipedia.org ] The goals of Universal Service are : To promote the availability of quality services at just , reasonable , and affordable rates,To increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation,To advance the availability of such services to all consumers , including those in low income , rural , insular , and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.We saw where that went .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_Service\_Fund [wikipedia.org]The goals of Universal Service are:To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,To increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation,To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.We saw where that went.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362201</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1245257160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realize that 3mbit is 50\% faster than 2mbit, which is below the threshold for streaming HD video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that 3mbit is 50 \ % faster than 2mbit , which is below the threshold for streaming HD video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that 3mbit is 50\% faster than 2mbit, which is below the threshold for streaming HD video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359857</id>
	<title>Re:The actual report</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1245243120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note to government: "next generation" broadband is not ADSL or half fibre/half copper. It is pure fibre, with a symmetrical connection (same upload speed as download speed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note to government : " next generation " broadband is not ADSL or half fibre/half copper .
It is pure fibre , with a symmetrical connection ( same upload speed as download speed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note to government: "next generation" broadband is not ADSL or half fibre/half copper.
It is pure fibre, with a symmetrical connection (same upload speed as download speed).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359693</id>
	<title>Re:The actual report</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245241260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a <b>three-year plan</b> to boost digital participation</p></div><p>They're going to build a windmill?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a three-year plan to boost digital participationThey 're going to build a windmill ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a three-year plan to boost digital participationThey're going to build a windmill?
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281</id>
	<title>Big problem with this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245235860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely the problem here isn't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit, but that it's doing it via a poll tax? I pay as much towards this project as my millionaire friend and my grandmother who's on a small pension. Is it really that unfashionable to tax the rich?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely the problem here is n't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit , but that it 's doing it via a poll tax ?
I pay as much towards this project as my millionaire friend and my grandmother who 's on a small pension .
Is it really that unfashionable to tax the rich ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely the problem here isn't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit, but that it's doing it via a poll tax?
I pay as much towards this project as my millionaire friend and my grandmother who's on a small pension.
Is it really that unfashionable to tax the rich?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360073</id>
	<title>Re:The actual report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Argh, why the fuck do ITV get a &#194;&pound;130m slice of the license fee? They're a commercial organisation... a bad, failing one at that.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; As for this broadband bollocks - 2Mbps by a schedule date (read, ridiculously optimistic) of 2012?! Is it even worth it? By 2012 Virgin will have their 200mbps services rolled out and BT will likely be hitting at least 100mbps in urban areas. I know some remote areas don't have any broadband right now, but if we're going to do a national program then why aim so low? I think we should either roll out 10mbps as a minimum or not bother at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Argh , why the fuck do ITV get a     130m slice of the license fee ?
They 're a commercial organisation... a bad , failing one at that .
    As for this broadband bollocks - 2Mbps by a schedule date ( read , ridiculously optimistic ) of 2012 ? !
Is it even worth it ?
By 2012 Virgin will have their 200mbps services rolled out and BT will likely be hitting at least 100mbps in urban areas .
I know some remote areas do n't have any broadband right now , but if we 're going to do a national program then why aim so low ?
I think we should either roll out 10mbps as a minimum or not bother at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Argh, why the fuck do ITV get a Â£130m slice of the license fee?
They're a commercial organisation... a bad, failing one at that.
  
  As for this broadband bollocks - 2Mbps by a schedule date (read, ridiculously optimistic) of 2012?!
Is it even worth it?
By 2012 Virgin will have their 200mbps services rolled out and BT will likely be hitting at least 100mbps in urban areas.
I know some remote areas don't have any broadband right now, but if we're going to do a national program then why aim so low?
I think we should either roll out 10mbps as a minimum or not bother at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359413</id>
	<title>What some in the UK think about this report.</title>
	<author>auric\_dude</author>
	<datestamp>1245237960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A quick glance at <a href="http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3994-the-digital-britain-report-is-finally-out.html" title="thinkbroadband.com">http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3994-the-digital-britain-report-is-finally-out.html</a> [thinkbroadband.com] will show what some think of this and <a href="http://www.thinkbroadband.com/" title="thinkbroadband.com">http://www.thinkbroadband.com/</a> [thinkbroadband.com] gives a wider view of ISP related moans with links to other ISPs information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick glance at http : //www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3994-the-digital-britain-report-is-finally-out.html [ thinkbroadband.com ] will show what some think of this and http : //www.thinkbroadband.com/ [ thinkbroadband.com ] gives a wider view of ISP related moans with links to other ISPs information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick glance at http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3994-the-digital-britain-report-is-finally-out.html [thinkbroadband.com] will show what some think of this and http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ [thinkbroadband.com] gives a wider view of ISP related moans with links to other ISPs information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361791</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1245255060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2MB/s to EVERYBODY is a big step, a networks value depends on the number of people connected to it, 50p/month in exchange for a much more valuble internet is a great deal, those looking for faster connections should pay for it themselves as once everybody has access to "broadband content" iplayer/etc the incremental advantage of giving them 10mb or more is very low</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2MB/s to EVERYBODY is a big step , a networks value depends on the number of people connected to it , 50p/month in exchange for a much more valuble internet is a great deal , those looking for faster connections should pay for it themselves as once everybody has access to " broadband content " iplayer/etc the incremental advantage of giving them 10mb or more is very low</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2MB/s to EVERYBODY is a big step, a networks value depends on the number of people connected to it, 50p/month in exchange for a much more valuble internet is a great deal, those looking for faster connections should pay for it themselves as once everybody has access to "broadband content" iplayer/etc the incremental advantage of giving them 10mb or more is very low</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359295</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>BT is restricted in how much it can wholesale ADSL lines for - and the companies taking advantage of LLU (Local Loop Unbundling) at the exchange seem to have cherry picked all the good, profitable sites (large towns, cities and the like) and left the outlying areas well alone.<br> <br>

So I don't think its altogether fair to round on BT for this - the option for other companies to freely compete in these areas has been around for several years, and it has failed.  So why should BT be forced to supply ADSL to outlying areas in a lossmaking fashion when no one else will?</htmltext>
<tokenext>BT is restricted in how much it can wholesale ADSL lines for - and the companies taking advantage of LLU ( Local Loop Unbundling ) at the exchange seem to have cherry picked all the good , profitable sites ( large towns , cities and the like ) and left the outlying areas well alone .
So I do n't think its altogether fair to round on BT for this - the option for other companies to freely compete in these areas has been around for several years , and it has failed .
So why should BT be forced to supply ADSL to outlying areas in a lossmaking fashion when no one else will ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BT is restricted in how much it can wholesale ADSL lines for - and the companies taking advantage of LLU (Local Loop Unbundling) at the exchange seem to have cherry picked all the good, profitable sites (large towns, cities and the like) and left the outlying areas well alone.
So I don't think its altogether fair to round on BT for this - the option for other companies to freely compete in these areas has been around for several years, and it has failed.
So why should BT be forced to supply ADSL to outlying areas in a lossmaking fashion when no one else will?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359137</id>
	<title>Ahhh....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245233760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....a tax, how imaginative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....a tax , how imaginative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....a tax, how imaginative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359203</id>
	<title>What's the point..</title>
	<author>GeorgeStone22</author>
	<datestamp>1245234720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When in the end you're just going to limit everyones access to the internet anyway via the IWF and other spy schemes..</htmltext>
<tokenext>When in the end you 're just going to limit everyones access to the internet anyway via the IWF and other spy schemes. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When in the end you're just going to limit everyones access to the internet anyway via the IWF and other spy schemes..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360267</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>duguk</author>
	<datestamp>1245246420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When it's raining i lose
another 2 Mbps and that's often here in the UK.</p></div><p>When it's raining my friend TOTALLY loses his internet connection. No, he's not in the middle of no-where, his exchange is about 4 miles away and BT refuse to do anything about it (or even admit there is a problem).
<br> <br>
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but it is "lose" not "loose". Unless you have flappy tubes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it 's raining i lose another 2 Mbps and that 's often here in the UK.When it 's raining my friend TOTALLY loses his internet connection .
No , he 's not in the middle of no-where , his exchange is about 4 miles away and BT refuse to do anything about it ( or even admit there is a problem ) .
I hate to be a grammar nazi , but it is " lose " not " loose " .
Unless you have flappy tubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it's raining i lose
another 2 Mbps and that's often here in the UK.When it's raining my friend TOTALLY loses his internet connection.
No, he's not in the middle of no-where, his exchange is about 4 miles away and BT refuse to do anything about it (or even admit there is a problem).
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but it is "lose" not "loose".
Unless you have flappy tubes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360785</id>
	<title>The views on copyright in the report</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1245249720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought one of the most interesting parts of the Digital Britain report was the commentary on copyright and related subjects, which took a reasonably realistic and balanced view IMHO, e.g.,</p><ul>
<li>Copyright infringment <em>for profit</em> is viewed as theft.</li><li>Fair use needs updating, but this is heavily restricted by Europe-level regulation at present.</li><li>A lot of people who infringe copyright do not realise that what they are doing is illegal. Most people are not intimately familiar with copyright law.</li><li>Most people will obtain content through legitimate channels if they are convenient and cheap, so such alternatives should be promoted.</li><li>Business models must keep up with new technology; various alternative models, such as Spotify's, are acknowledged.</li><li>"Rightsholder" is not assumed to be the same as another role such as "artist" or "distributor".</li></ul><p>Of course, some of the measures and timescales they propose to support these things are rather unrealistic, but I'd be happy if we at least started moving in the right direction: working in Europe to fix restrictions on fair use, going after persistent pirates (but only with real evidence and a court order to identify them) rather than those who just don't know how the rules work, and so on.</p><p>My two big disappointments with this section were that it didn't consider the possibility of more radical changes in the longer term, e.g., replacing copyright with some alternative form of exclusive rights more in the artist's favour than the middleman's; and that it didn't consider the copyright term extension problem (though this is perhaps unsurprising given the government's quiet U-turn on that question a few months ago).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought one of the most interesting parts of the Digital Britain report was the commentary on copyright and related subjects , which took a reasonably realistic and balanced view IMHO , e.g. , Copyright infringment for profit is viewed as theft.Fair use needs updating , but this is heavily restricted by Europe-level regulation at present.A lot of people who infringe copyright do not realise that what they are doing is illegal .
Most people are not intimately familiar with copyright law.Most people will obtain content through legitimate channels if they are convenient and cheap , so such alternatives should be promoted.Business models must keep up with new technology ; various alternative models , such as Spotify 's , are acknowledged .
" Rightsholder " is not assumed to be the same as another role such as " artist " or " distributor " .Of course , some of the measures and timescales they propose to support these things are rather unrealistic , but I 'd be happy if we at least started moving in the right direction : working in Europe to fix restrictions on fair use , going after persistent pirates ( but only with real evidence and a court order to identify them ) rather than those who just do n't know how the rules work , and so on.My two big disappointments with this section were that it did n't consider the possibility of more radical changes in the longer term , e.g. , replacing copyright with some alternative form of exclusive rights more in the artist 's favour than the middleman 's ; and that it did n't consider the copyright term extension problem ( though this is perhaps unsurprising given the government 's quiet U-turn on that question a few months ago ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought one of the most interesting parts of the Digital Britain report was the commentary on copyright and related subjects, which took a reasonably realistic and balanced view IMHO, e.g.,
Copyright infringment for profit is viewed as theft.Fair use needs updating, but this is heavily restricted by Europe-level regulation at present.A lot of people who infringe copyright do not realise that what they are doing is illegal.
Most people are not intimately familiar with copyright law.Most people will obtain content through legitimate channels if they are convenient and cheap, so such alternatives should be promoted.Business models must keep up with new technology; various alternative models, such as Spotify's, are acknowledged.
"Rightsholder" is not assumed to be the same as another role such as "artist" or "distributor".Of course, some of the measures and timescales they propose to support these things are rather unrealistic, but I'd be happy if we at least started moving in the right direction: working in Europe to fix restrictions on fair use, going after persistent pirates (but only with real evidence and a court order to identify them) rather than those who just don't know how the rules work, and so on.My two big disappointments with this section were that it didn't consider the possibility of more radical changes in the longer term, e.g., replacing copyright with some alternative form of exclusive rights more in the artist's favour than the middleman's; and that it didn't consider the copyright term extension problem (though this is perhaps unsurprising given the government's quiet U-turn on that question a few months ago).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359217</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing. If done right.</title>
	<author>Tx</author>
	<datestamp>1245234900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This actually *is* a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose: Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast.</i></p><p>Unfortunately given the track record of our government, I can't say I'm hugely optimistic about that. This smells of the kind of private-public partnerships that our government is so fond of, where they can claim a low up-front cost for a scheme, but it ends up costing more than they thought, with the private companies raking it in at the tax payers expense. See for example the <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry\_sectors/public\_sector/article3652705.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">PFI hospital schemes</a> [timesonline.co.uk] that Mr Brown championed so keenly. I expect the telcos in line to be involved in this are rubbing their hands with glee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This actually * is * a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose : Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast.Unfortunately given the track record of our government , I ca n't say I 'm hugely optimistic about that .
This smells of the kind of private-public partnerships that our government is so fond of , where they can claim a low up-front cost for a scheme , but it ends up costing more than they thought , with the private companies raking it in at the tax payers expense .
See for example the PFI hospital schemes [ timesonline.co.uk ] that Mr Brown championed so keenly .
I expect the telcos in line to be involved in this are rubbing their hands with glee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This actually *is* a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose: Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast.Unfortunately given the track record of our government, I can't say I'm hugely optimistic about that.
This smells of the kind of private-public partnerships that our government is so fond of, where they can claim a low up-front cost for a scheme, but it ends up costing more than they thought, with the private companies raking it in at the tax payers expense.
See for example the PFI hospital schemes [timesonline.co.uk] that Mr Brown championed so keenly.
I expect the telcos in line to be involved in this are rubbing their hands with glee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359261</id>
	<title>These forces already lost in the govt..</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245235560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UK government already made these empty threats about "3 strikes" before and never followed through with it.</p><p>Add to this EU measures against such disconnection and the failure of such measures in other nations for human rights reasons, and I don't see this as a credible threat, just a bunch of babbling on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK government already made these empty threats about " 3 strikes " before and never followed through with it.Add to this EU measures against such disconnection and the failure of such measures in other nations for human rights reasons , and I do n't see this as a credible threat , just a bunch of babbling on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK government already made these empty threats about "3 strikes" before and never followed through with it.Add to this EU measures against such disconnection and the failure of such measures in other nations for human rights reasons, and I don't see this as a credible threat, just a bunch of babbling on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361529</id>
	<title>However they spin it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and however small an amount it (currently*) is, it's simply yet more tax by another name.</p><p>*You can bet that, once in place,it will still be going years from now, long after the original purpose has come, gone and been forgotten (and will doubtless have been boosted to a far more substantial amount). If there's one thing that the Treasury doesn't do, whoever is nominally running the country, it's to give an inch on dropping sources of tax revenue</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and however small an amount it ( currently * ) is , it 's simply yet more tax by another name .
* You can bet that , once in place,it will still be going years from now , long after the original purpose has come , gone and been forgotten ( and will doubtless have been boosted to a far more substantial amount ) .
If there 's one thing that the Treasury does n't do , whoever is nominally running the country , it 's to give an inch on dropping sources of tax revenue</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and however small an amount it (currently*) is, it's simply yet more tax by another name.
*You can bet that, once in place,it will still be going years from now, long after the original purpose has come, gone and been forgotten (and will doubtless have been boosted to a far more substantial amount).
If there's one thing that the Treasury doesn't do, whoever is nominally running the country, it's to give an inch on dropping sources of tax revenue</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364427</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1245267720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, the supply should be provided by all of the companies who wholesale ADSL lines. </p><p>Oh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , the supply should be provided by all of the companies who wholesale ADSL lines .
Oh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, the supply should be provided by all of the companies who wholesale ADSL lines.
Oh...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359333</id>
	<title>Re:What good will this do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of &#195;&#194;&pound;5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this. It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount. Its totally pointless</p></div><p>The article says they are funding "fixed/wireless services", so that isn't what they're funding.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release</p></div><p>No, you (and far too many other people) have gotten it into your head that they think that, and you won't let it go.  Note that the government quote actually says "piracy of intellectual property" and not file sharing in general.</p><p>I know it's hard, and nobody really expects you to, but you should try reading the articles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of       5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this .
It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount .
Its totally pointlessThe article says they are funding " fixed/wireless services " , so that is n't what they 're funding.further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema releaseNo , you ( and far too many other people ) have gotten it into your head that they think that , and you wo n't let it go .
Note that the government quote actually says " piracy of intellectual property " and not file sharing in general.I know it 's hard , and nobody really expects you to , but you should try reading the articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of ÃÂ£5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this.
It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount.
Its totally pointlessThe article says they are funding "fixed/wireless services", so that isn't what they're funding.further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema releaseNo, you (and far too many other people) have gotten it into your head that they think that, and you won't let it go.
Note that the government quote actually says "piracy of intellectual property" and not file sharing in general.I know it's hard, and nobody really expects you to, but you should try reading the articles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360123</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245245220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I get 200GB/mo, which is very difficult to use up entirely. Somehow I doubt the UK/BT will give its customers that much.</p></div><p>The ISPs which buy bandwidth from BT don't, because it would be uneconomic due to the extremely high rates that BT charge. Some of the LLU providers do though, and at least one makes a point of being truly unlimited.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get 200GB/mo , which is very difficult to use up entirely .
Somehow I doubt the UK/BT will give its customers that much.The ISPs which buy bandwidth from BT do n't , because it would be uneconomic due to the extremely high rates that BT charge .
Some of the LLU providers do though , and at least one makes a point of being truly unlimited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I get 200GB/mo, which is very difficult to use up entirely.
Somehow I doubt the UK/BT will give its customers that much.The ISPs which buy bandwidth from BT don't, because it would be uneconomic due to the extremely high rates that BT charge.
Some of the LLU providers do though, and at least one makes a point of being truly unlimited.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362291</id>
	<title>Python reminder</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1245257520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw this and was immediately reminded of the MPFC sketch where Terry Jones is talking to his colleagues about other things that could be taxed besides smoking and drinking. The sketch ends with Eric Idle saying, "Well, it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a more interesting job."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw this and was immediately reminded of the MPFC sketch where Terry Jones is talking to his colleagues about other things that could be taxed besides smoking and drinking .
The sketch ends with Eric Idle saying , " Well , it 'll certainly make chartered accountancy a more interesting job .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw this and was immediately reminded of the MPFC sketch where Terry Jones is talking to his colleagues about other things that could be taxed besides smoking and drinking.
The sketch ends with Eric Idle saying, "Well, it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a more interesting job.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364037</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite internet not good enough?</title>
	<author>pimpimpim</author>
	<datestamp>1245265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Germany, I get it via the mobile phone network. Exactly which century is the UK trying to even up with? It won't be like the 21th century there for a long long time, if this 2mb dsl is their plan for the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Germany , I get it via the mobile phone network .
Exactly which century is the UK trying to even up with ?
It wo n't be like the 21th century there for a long long time , if this 2mb dsl is their plan for the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Germany, I get it via the mobile phone network.
Exactly which century is the UK trying to even up with?
It won't be like the 21th century there for a long long time, if this 2mb dsl is their plan for the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362407</id>
	<title>Re:Brits love paying tax, so let them pay.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245258060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, riighttt...<br>Although, in this case, there's a grain of truth.<br>The fee is per household, and it's a license to receive broadcasts, not a tax to own a TV set (the licensing authority accept that my daughter uses her TV purely for watching DVDs, so she doesn't pay for a license). A license for colour reception costs about $230 p.a. (black-and-white reception costs about $80 p.a. at today's exchange rate - assuming that you actually still have a set that can do that). And the reason that there's a grain of truth in the license fee being grudgingly accepted by Brits is that it's the direct reason that the BBC has (a) been able to operate as a national and international broadcaster, independent of both government and vested commercial interests, for three-quarters of a century, and (b) been able to sustain a level of production values that most stations and networks in the States would, frankly, give their eye-teeth to have the finances and independence to even begin to approach. Which in turn is why the license fee has not only survived for so long but also been copied as a model for public broadcasting in quite a few other European countries. Added to the fact that the Beeb, funded by the British viewing public, is also the world's largest broadcaster, likening it to PBS is roughly in the same league as saying that Bill Gates isn't short of cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , riighttt...Although , in this case , there 's a grain of truth.The fee is per household , and it 's a license to receive broadcasts , not a tax to own a TV set ( the licensing authority accept that my daughter uses her TV purely for watching DVDs , so she does n't pay for a license ) .
A license for colour reception costs about $ 230 p.a .
( black-and-white reception costs about $ 80 p.a .
at today 's exchange rate - assuming that you actually still have a set that can do that ) .
And the reason that there 's a grain of truth in the license fee being grudgingly accepted by Brits is that it 's the direct reason that the BBC has ( a ) been able to operate as a national and international broadcaster , independent of both government and vested commercial interests , for three-quarters of a century , and ( b ) been able to sustain a level of production values that most stations and networks in the States would , frankly , give their eye-teeth to have the finances and independence to even begin to approach .
Which in turn is why the license fee has not only survived for so long but also been copied as a model for public broadcasting in quite a few other European countries .
Added to the fact that the Beeb , funded by the British viewing public , is also the world 's largest broadcaster , likening it to PBS is roughly in the same league as saying that Bill Gates is n't short of cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, riighttt...Although, in this case, there's a grain of truth.The fee is per household, and it's a license to receive broadcasts, not a tax to own a TV set (the licensing authority accept that my daughter uses her TV purely for watching DVDs, so she doesn't pay for a license).
A license for colour reception costs about $230 p.a.
(black-and-white reception costs about $80 p.a.
at today's exchange rate - assuming that you actually still have a set that can do that).
And the reason that there's a grain of truth in the license fee being grudgingly accepted by Brits is that it's the direct reason that the BBC has (a) been able to operate as a national and international broadcaster, independent of both government and vested commercial interests, for three-quarters of a century, and (b) been able to sustain a level of production values that most stations and networks in the States would, frankly, give their eye-teeth to have the finances and independence to even begin to approach.
Which in turn is why the license fee has not only survived for so long but also been copied as a model for public broadcasting in quite a few other European countries.
Added to the fact that the Beeb, funded by the British viewing public, is also the world's largest broadcaster, likening it to PBS is roughly in the same league as saying that Bill Gates isn't short of cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360669</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite internet not good enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With a monthly cap of 4.8GB, you can't download anything. But it's still very good at this price since it includes TV and phone. Many people would love to have this in rural Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a monthly cap of 4.8GB , you ca n't download anything .
But it 's still very good at this price since it includes TV and phone .
Many people would love to have this in rural Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a monthly cap of 4.8GB, you can't download anything.
But it's still very good at this price since it includes TV and phone.
Many people would love to have this in rural Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359589</id>
	<title>Should the rich pay for your TV too?</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1245240300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should the rich - or anyone else - pay for your home entertainment? And lets not kid ourselves that broadband is a vital public utility up there with water and electricty , it isnt, despite what some vested interests may proclaim. Apart from a few home workers its mostly used for recreation. Why should we be taxed on that??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the rich - or anyone else - pay for your home entertainment ?
And lets not kid ourselves that broadband is a vital public utility up there with water and electricty , it isnt , despite what some vested interests may proclaim .
Apart from a few home workers its mostly used for recreation .
Why should we be taxed on that ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the rich - or anyone else - pay for your home entertainment?
And lets not kid ourselves that broadband is a vital public utility up there with water and electricty , it isnt, despite what some vested interests may proclaim.
Apart from a few home workers its mostly used for recreation.
Why should we be taxed on that?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359215</id>
	<title>Limited tme?</title>
	<author>msgmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245234900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure goverments spend alot of time thinking of new ways to tax people, hell they'd tax breathing air and having sex if they could.  I've never seen a tax that is rescinded, tax revenue to goverments is like heroin to a junkie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure goverments spend alot of time thinking of new ways to tax people , hell they 'd tax breathing air and having sex if they could .
I 've never seen a tax that is rescinded , tax revenue to goverments is like heroin to a junkie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure goverments spend alot of time thinking of new ways to tax people, hell they'd tax breathing air and having sex if they could.
I've never seen a tax that is rescinded, tax revenue to goverments is like heroin to a junkie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360365</id>
	<title>Re:ISPs doing other people's dirty work?</title>
	<author>LordSnooty</author>
	<datestamp>1245247200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>According to the article, the government is going to be getting the ISPs to do their dirty work for them, whatever we have as an RIAA/MPAA equivalent, and the police:</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

That's exactly right. Reading chapter 4, it's clear that the only legislative change they will push for is to bring punishments for 'non-physical' copying in line with those already in place for 'physical copying'... but in both cases, only if the copying is done for SALE or HIRE or in the course of running a business (see s107 of the CDPA Act 1988). There is nothing in there about legislating against file-sharing itself when it is not-for-profit, and as you state, they want to put the responsibility for policing onto ISPs, who will be asked to cap bandwidth, ban protocols or ports, or block sites.<br> <br>
I'm hopeful that since the Government has only a few months left, none of this will see the light of day. Because the idea of ISPs being forced to block protocols without any recourse to due process is ridiculous. There is nothing in the report about protection of people who to trade copyright-free files or those they have permission to share. They seem to want to go the route of "eliminate baby + bathwater". This could be a monumental change for file-sharing. We face the prospect of losing this great technology even when we're doing nothing illegal.
<br> <br>
If you think it's such a problem then make it a criminal offence. Don't force ISPs to do it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , the government is going to be getting the ISPs to do their dirty work for them , whatever we have as an RIAA/MPAA equivalent , and the police : That 's exactly right .
Reading chapter 4 , it 's clear that the only legislative change they will push for is to bring punishments for 'non-physical ' copying in line with those already in place for 'physical copying'... but in both cases , only if the copying is done for SALE or HIRE or in the course of running a business ( see s107 of the CDPA Act 1988 ) .
There is nothing in there about legislating against file-sharing itself when it is not-for-profit , and as you state , they want to put the responsibility for policing onto ISPs , who will be asked to cap bandwidth , ban protocols or ports , or block sites .
I 'm hopeful that since the Government has only a few months left , none of this will see the light of day .
Because the idea of ISPs being forced to block protocols without any recourse to due process is ridiculous .
There is nothing in the report about protection of people who to trade copyright-free files or those they have permission to share .
They seem to want to go the route of " eliminate baby + bathwater " .
This could be a monumental change for file-sharing .
We face the prospect of losing this great technology even when we 're doing nothing illegal .
If you think it 's such a problem then make it a criminal offence .
Do n't force ISPs to do it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> According to the article, the government is going to be getting the ISPs to do their dirty work for them, whatever we have as an RIAA/MPAA equivalent, and the police: 

That's exactly right.
Reading chapter 4, it's clear that the only legislative change they will push for is to bring punishments for 'non-physical' copying in line with those already in place for 'physical copying'... but in both cases, only if the copying is done for SALE or HIRE or in the course of running a business (see s107 of the CDPA Act 1988).
There is nothing in there about legislating against file-sharing itself when it is not-for-profit, and as you state, they want to put the responsibility for policing onto ISPs, who will be asked to cap bandwidth, ban protocols or ports, or block sites.
I'm hopeful that since the Government has only a few months left, none of this will see the light of day.
Because the idea of ISPs being forced to block protocols without any recourse to due process is ridiculous.
There is nothing in the report about protection of people who to trade copyright-free files or those they have permission to share.
They seem to want to go the route of "eliminate baby + bathwater".
This could be a monumental change for file-sharing.
We face the prospect of losing this great technology even when we're doing nothing illegal.
If you think it's such a problem then make it a criminal offence.
Don't force ISPs to do it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363863</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Dulcise</author>
	<datestamp>1245264720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, crappy auto-submitting moderation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , crappy auto-submitting moderation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, crappy auto-submitting moderation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359619</id>
	<title>Will there be a tax for new computers too?</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1245240540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since theres now going to be a tax for the underclass and people who are too tight to pay for broadband themselves shall we assume there'll also need to be a tax for these people to be given computers to use on said service?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since theres now going to be a tax for the underclass and people who are too tight to pay for broadband themselves shall we assume there 'll also need to be a tax for these people to be given computers to use on said service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since theres now going to be a tax for the underclass and people who are too tight to pay for broadband themselves shall we assume there'll also need to be a tax for these people to be given computers to use on said service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28365079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2049224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28365079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28364427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28363083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2049224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28361791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28359121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28362201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2049224.28360599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
