<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_2322204</id>
	<title>Canadians Find Traffic Shaping "Reasonable"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247573280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://nickurak.ca/" rel="nofollow">gehrehmee</a> writes <i>"A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs' use of traffic shaping suggests that <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jrhYITWLPHiAVsXij2ybrXzou6mw">60\% of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly</a>, while 22\% believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless. The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.' Is there a lack of education about the long-term effects of traffic shaping on free communication? Or are net neutrality advocates just out of touch?"</i> The poll found that only 20\% of respondents had ever heard of traffic shaping. The article is unclear on whether the "60\%" who found the practice "reasonable" are 60\% of all respondents &mdash; most of whom don't know what they are talking about &mdash; or 60\% of the minority who know. If the former, then the exact phrasing of the question is the overwhelming determinant of the response. At the CTRC hearings, which wrapped up today, Bell Canada executives revealed that the company "slows certain types of downloads [P2P] to as little as <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/14/crtc-bell-internet-traffic-management-providers-customers.html?ref=rss">1.5 to 3 per cent</a> of their advertised speed during 9-1/2 hours of the day."</htmltext>
<tokenext>gehrehmee writes " A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs ' use of traffic shaping suggests that 60 \ % of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly , while 22 \ % believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless .
The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers , meanwhile , compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night , clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action .
' Is there a lack of education about the long-term effects of traffic shaping on free communication ?
Or are net neutrality advocates just out of touch ?
" The poll found that only 20 \ % of respondents had ever heard of traffic shaping .
The article is unclear on whether the " 60 \ % " who found the practice " reasonable " are 60 \ % of all respondents    most of whom do n't know what they are talking about    or 60 \ % of the minority who know .
If the former , then the exact phrasing of the question is the overwhelming determinant of the response .
At the CTRC hearings , which wrapped up today , Bell Canada executives revealed that the company " slows certain types of downloads [ P2P ] to as little as 1.5 to 3 per cent of their advertised speed during 9-1/2 hours of the day .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gehrehmee writes "A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs' use of traffic shaping suggests that 60\% of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly, while 22\% believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless.
The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.
' Is there a lack of education about the long-term effects of traffic shaping on free communication?
Or are net neutrality advocates just out of touch?
" The poll found that only 20\% of respondents had ever heard of traffic shaping.
The article is unclear on whether the "60\%" who found the practice "reasonable" are 60\% of all respondents — most of whom don't know what they are talking about — or 60\% of the minority who know.
If the former, then the exact phrasing of the question is the overwhelming determinant of the response.
At the CTRC hearings, which wrapped up today, Bell Canada executives revealed that the company "slows certain types of downloads [P2P] to as little as 1.5 to 3 per cent of their advertised speed during 9-1/2 hours of the day.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703203</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1247671260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Canada the standard response to any question is "Ya Hey!" thus the skewed results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Canada the standard response to any question is " Ya Hey !
" thus the skewed results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Canada the standard response to any question is "Ya Hey!
" thus the skewed results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702931</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1247669640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sad thing is, every router made in the last many years has had all sorts of traffic management that is fair, impersonal, and doesn't violate privacy, or single any one person, or one protocol or technology out.</p><p>I would have no problems with an ISP implementing something like WFQ, or even FIFO when their main pipe is clogged.. its when they decide that my particular choice is not one of the selected ones..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad thing is , every router made in the last many years has had all sorts of traffic management that is fair , impersonal , and does n't violate privacy , or single any one person , or one protocol or technology out.I would have no problems with an ISP implementing something like WFQ , or even FIFO when their main pipe is clogged.. its when they decide that my particular choice is not one of the selected ones. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad thing is, every router made in the last many years has had all sorts of traffic management that is fair, impersonal, and doesn't violate privacy, or single any one person, or one protocol or technology out.I would have no problems with an ISP implementing something like WFQ, or even FIFO when their main pipe is clogged.. its when they decide that my particular choice is not one of the selected ones..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706797</id>
	<title>Fact: 60\% of statistics are made up</title>
	<author>finalexodus75</author>
	<datestamp>1247688360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I read this story earlier today and could not believe the throttling practices of Bell, whom as far as I know are the backbone to all the major ISP's in Canada. Most of us in Canada have fibre sitting SO close to our homes but of course it gets down graded before entering. Those stats... well... you know they could be accurate or they could be terribly phrased. I know that at my IT job I've recieved so many surveys where you get questions like "Do you find Microsoft office to be more innovating than before or is still just the same as always, the industry standard?" Then you see a headline like "90\% of IT specialists agree, Microsoft Office is the industry standard!".

It's terrible how the ISP's are making you pay for a service and not keeping up with their end. If I pay for 16 Mbps, who are they to tell me what I can and can not do with it. If they can't support this, then they should not offer it. The internet was designed on bursty traffic a LONG time ago. Now we have streaming, downloading, p2p, and remote connections galore. Perhaps it's time to leave the stone age of the internet and move beyond bursts, peaks, and spikes in traffic and accept that it's going to be consistent high bandwidth usage!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this story earlier today and could not believe the throttling practices of Bell , whom as far as I know are the backbone to all the major ISP 's in Canada .
Most of us in Canada have fibre sitting SO close to our homes but of course it gets down graded before entering .
Those stats... well... you know they could be accurate or they could be terribly phrased .
I know that at my IT job I 've recieved so many surveys where you get questions like " Do you find Microsoft office to be more innovating than before or is still just the same as always , the industry standard ?
" Then you see a headline like " 90 \ % of IT specialists agree , Microsoft Office is the industry standard ! " .
It 's terrible how the ISP 's are making you pay for a service and not keeping up with their end .
If I pay for 16 Mbps , who are they to tell me what I can and can not do with it .
If they ca n't support this , then they should not offer it .
The internet was designed on bursty traffic a LONG time ago .
Now we have streaming , downloading , p2p , and remote connections galore .
Perhaps it 's time to leave the stone age of the internet and move beyond bursts , peaks , and spikes in traffic and accept that it 's going to be consistent high bandwidth usage !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I read this story earlier today and could not believe the throttling practices of Bell, whom as far as I know are the backbone to all the major ISP's in Canada.
Most of us in Canada have fibre sitting SO close to our homes but of course it gets down graded before entering.
Those stats... well... you know they could be accurate or they could be terribly phrased.
I know that at my IT job I've recieved so many surveys where you get questions like "Do you find Microsoft office to be more innovating than before or is still just the same as always, the industry standard?
" Then you see a headline like "90\% of IT specialists agree, Microsoft Office is the industry standard!".
It's terrible how the ISP's are making you pay for a service and not keeping up with their end.
If I pay for 16 Mbps, who are they to tell me what I can and can not do with it.
If they can't support this, then they should not offer it.
The internet was designed on bursty traffic a LONG time ago.
Now we have streaming, downloading, p2p, and remote connections galore.
Perhaps it's time to leave the stone age of the internet and move beyond bursts, peaks, and spikes in traffic and accept that it's going to be consistent high bandwidth usage!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702149</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247665320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only use P2P services on an occasional basis, roughly once a week at maximum.  Why should my particular traffic be singled out for special throttling if it does not contribute to the degradation of the network as does heavy and continuous P2P usage?  For me, the practice would indeed be unfair and discriminatory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only use P2P services on an occasional basis , roughly once a week at maximum .
Why should my particular traffic be singled out for special throttling if it does not contribute to the degradation of the network as does heavy and continuous P2P usage ?
For me , the practice would indeed be unfair and discriminatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only use P2P services on an occasional basis, roughly once a week at maximum.
Why should my particular traffic be singled out for special throttling if it does not contribute to the degradation of the network as does heavy and continuous P2P usage?
For me, the practice would indeed be unfair and discriminatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702635</id>
	<title>I'm willing to bet...</title>
	<author>lordsid</author>
	<datestamp>1247668200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm willing to bet that poll question was a little more suited to the results then they are letting on.</p><p>When you qualify that poll question "Is traffic shaping reasonable?" with "as long as the customer is treated fairly" it means something completely different then the reality of the situation. If the ISP's get their way they won't give a shit if it's fair to the customer so long as they don't start loosing business.</p><p>So the poll question may be "fair", but the reflection of reality certainly isn't going to be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm willing to bet that poll question was a little more suited to the results then they are letting on.When you qualify that poll question " Is traffic shaping reasonable ?
" with " as long as the customer is treated fairly " it means something completely different then the reality of the situation .
If the ISP 's get their way they wo n't give a shit if it 's fair to the customer so long as they do n't start loosing business.So the poll question may be " fair " , but the reflection of reality certainly is n't going to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm willing to bet that poll question was a little more suited to the results then they are letting on.When you qualify that poll question "Is traffic shaping reasonable?
" with "as long as the customer is treated fairly" it means something completely different then the reality of the situation.
If the ISP's get their way they won't give a shit if it's fair to the customer so long as they don't start loosing business.So the poll question may be "fair", but the reflection of reality certainly isn't going to be true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28707485</id>
	<title>Cap... and trade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247691540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give each user their allotted portion of the pipe, and let them auction their portion off when they aren't using it.  Let the users adjust the amount they are willing to pay for this (based on QOS data) on a per-packet basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give each user their allotted portion of the pipe , and let them auction their portion off when they are n't using it .
Let the users adjust the amount they are willing to pay for this ( based on QOS data ) on a per-packet basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give each user their allotted portion of the pipe, and let them auction their portion off when they aren't using it.
Let the users adjust the amount they are willing to pay for this (based on QOS data) on a per-packet basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28708699</id>
	<title>Rogers and general opinion of ISP filtering</title>
	<author>BlueBadger</author>
	<datestamp>1247654340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My ISP is Rogers... my biggest complaint is that while the Download speed has increased over the years, the upload speed has actually seriously DECREASED... that's what pisses me off...

Rogers and Bell both have had periods of having Monthly caps (or not having them), generally they've both had (or haven't had) them at the same time. There was a period where Bell didn't have caps caused me to consider switching, until they announced they were getting caps too...

Overall, my standard connection with something like a 10 Mbps Download and 512 Kbps Upload with a 60 Gig monthly cap isn't terrible, except that as a power user I end up getting really near my cap and sometimes passing it.

Warning, incoming wall of text about my opinion on the root cause of the problems and to what I object about with the filtering:

What I object to is the traffic shaping and the way they decide how to prioritize the internet connection when I, as a smart competent user that knows what he's doing, has already decided how I want my data and when I want it... I understand however that as most users don't know what they're doing, don't know how to change and manage settings and applications and just want things to work and the fact that most applications have terrible defaults, that the ISP needs to get involved and needs to make sure that the service they sell doesn't get used in a way that users aren't expecting (aka the user passes his monthly cap in a matter of days because a P2P app manages to use it up, viruses and other such things...). I have seen how people can easily use up their service without realizing it, but in the end, it's caused by their own actions... what the ISPs should be investing in is more education for the general public... we're really at a situation where the general public is too stupid in what it knows or understands about the computer world (or often, doesn't care, unfortunately) but is smart enough to be dangerous and to be able to cause problems... This is why it's problematic, because as an ISP, they have to deal with all the people out there who just don't know better, not the relatively small amount of users out there who actually have enough of a clue out there to not be serious problems (and that's totally ignoring the INTENT of everyone... never mind just accidental/standard behavior). If people actually knew what was allowed, and possible, they'd probably find that most people would behave properly after getting properly warned and educated after the first period of problematic usage/behavior... the problem is, people are now going to rely on having the filtering reducing the amount that people have to think and know to control their behavior and be good net citizens...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My ISP is Rogers... my biggest complaint is that while the Download speed has increased over the years , the upload speed has actually seriously DECREASED... that 's what pisses me off.. . Rogers and Bell both have had periods of having Monthly caps ( or not having them ) , generally they 've both had ( or have n't had ) them at the same time .
There was a period where Bell did n't have caps caused me to consider switching , until they announced they were getting caps too.. . Overall , my standard connection with something like a 10 Mbps Download and 512 Kbps Upload with a 60 Gig monthly cap is n't terrible , except that as a power user I end up getting really near my cap and sometimes passing it .
Warning , incoming wall of text about my opinion on the root cause of the problems and to what I object about with the filtering : What I object to is the traffic shaping and the way they decide how to prioritize the internet connection when I , as a smart competent user that knows what he 's doing , has already decided how I want my data and when I want it... I understand however that as most users do n't know what they 're doing , do n't know how to change and manage settings and applications and just want things to work and the fact that most applications have terrible defaults , that the ISP needs to get involved and needs to make sure that the service they sell does n't get used in a way that users are n't expecting ( aka the user passes his monthly cap in a matter of days because a P2P app manages to use it up , viruses and other such things... ) .
I have seen how people can easily use up their service without realizing it , but in the end , it 's caused by their own actions... what the ISPs should be investing in is more education for the general public... we 're really at a situation where the general public is too stupid in what it knows or understands about the computer world ( or often , does n't care , unfortunately ) but is smart enough to be dangerous and to be able to cause problems... This is why it 's problematic , because as an ISP , they have to deal with all the people out there who just do n't know better , not the relatively small amount of users out there who actually have enough of a clue out there to not be serious problems ( and that 's totally ignoring the INTENT of everyone... never mind just accidental/standard behavior ) .
If people actually knew what was allowed , and possible , they 'd probably find that most people would behave properly after getting properly warned and educated after the first period of problematic usage/behavior... the problem is , people are now going to rely on having the filtering reducing the amount that people have to think and know to control their behavior and be good net citizens.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ISP is Rogers... my biggest complaint is that while the Download speed has increased over the years, the upload speed has actually seriously DECREASED... that's what pisses me off...

Rogers and Bell both have had periods of having Monthly caps (or not having them), generally they've both had (or haven't had) them at the same time.
There was a period where Bell didn't have caps caused me to consider switching, until they announced they were getting caps too...

Overall, my standard connection with something like a 10 Mbps Download and 512 Kbps Upload with a 60 Gig monthly cap isn't terrible, except that as a power user I end up getting really near my cap and sometimes passing it.
Warning, incoming wall of text about my opinion on the root cause of the problems and to what I object about with the filtering:

What I object to is the traffic shaping and the way they decide how to prioritize the internet connection when I, as a smart competent user that knows what he's doing, has already decided how I want my data and when I want it... I understand however that as most users don't know what they're doing, don't know how to change and manage settings and applications and just want things to work and the fact that most applications have terrible defaults, that the ISP needs to get involved and needs to make sure that the service they sell doesn't get used in a way that users aren't expecting (aka the user passes his monthly cap in a matter of days because a P2P app manages to use it up, viruses and other such things...).
I have seen how people can easily use up their service without realizing it, but in the end, it's caused by their own actions... what the ISPs should be investing in is more education for the general public... we're really at a situation where the general public is too stupid in what it knows or understands about the computer world (or often, doesn't care, unfortunately) but is smart enough to be dangerous and to be able to cause problems... This is why it's problematic, because as an ISP, they have to deal with all the people out there who just don't know better, not the relatively small amount of users out there who actually have enough of a clue out there to not be serious problems (and that's totally ignoring the INTENT of everyone... never mind just accidental/standard behavior).
If people actually knew what was allowed, and possible, they'd probably find that most people would behave properly after getting properly warned and educated after the first period of problematic usage/behavior... the problem is, people are now going to rely on having the filtering reducing the amount that people have to think and know to control their behavior and be good net citizens...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247665200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And to you I say: Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99\% of the time.  Minor degradation for 1\% of the day is fine, but significantly overselling bandwidth when you *know* the usage patterns of your customers will require a bigger pipe for substantial portions of the day is irresponsible.</p><p>When you have unspecified traffic shaping in play, you distort the free market: How do I compare two providers of a 10 Mbps connection when they don't say what the practical speed will be (and largely can't: I've seen cable modems run reliably at 10 KB/s or less in some areas that were massively underprovisioned, while the same company provided 24/7 1 MB/s connections less than a mile away).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And to you I say : Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99 \ % of the time .
Minor degradation for 1 \ % of the day is fine , but significantly overselling bandwidth when you * know * the usage patterns of your customers will require a bigger pipe for substantial portions of the day is irresponsible.When you have unspecified traffic shaping in play , you distort the free market : How do I compare two providers of a 10 Mbps connection when they do n't say what the practical speed will be ( and largely ca n't : I 've seen cable modems run reliably at 10 KB/s or less in some areas that were massively underprovisioned , while the same company provided 24/7 1 MB/s connections less than a mile away ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to you I say: Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99\% of the time.
Minor degradation for 1\% of the day is fine, but significantly overselling bandwidth when you *know* the usage patterns of your customers will require a bigger pipe for substantial portions of the day is irresponsible.When you have unspecified traffic shaping in play, you distort the free market: How do I compare two providers of a 10 Mbps connection when they don't say what the practical speed will be (and largely can't: I've seen cable modems run reliably at 10 KB/s or less in some areas that were massively underprovisioned, while the same company provided 24/7 1 MB/s connections less than a mile away).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247665920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.'</i></p><p>I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats. Rather than a car parked on a busy highway, it's more like a convoy of SUVs full of people travelling from Chicago to St Louis for the all star baseball games. They're using the highways for what they were designed for. It's not the convoy's fault that I-55 is only four lanes for most of the way, and it's not P2P users' fault that Rogers hasn't kept their infrastructure up to date.</p><p>We're not just looking at text-only web pages and sending email on a 33k modem any more, we're streaming videos, downloading Linux ISOs, and swapping files via P2P.</p><p>It irks me that the corporates consider P2P to be evil; not all P2P is piracy. I know independant musicians who depend on P2P to get their music out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers , meanwhile , compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night , clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action .
'I 'm glad I 'm not in Canada , because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats .
Rather than a car parked on a busy highway , it 's more like a convoy of SUVs full of people travelling from Chicago to St Louis for the all star baseball games .
They 're using the highways for what they were designed for .
It 's not the convoy 's fault that I-55 is only four lanes for most of the way , and it 's not P2P users ' fault that Rogers has n't kept their infrastructure up to date.We 're not just looking at text-only web pages and sending email on a 33k modem any more , we 're streaming videos , downloading Linux ISOs , and swapping files via P2P.It irks me that the corporates consider P2P to be evil ; not all P2P is piracy .
I know independant musicians who depend on P2P to get their music out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.
'I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats.
Rather than a car parked on a busy highway, it's more like a convoy of SUVs full of people travelling from Chicago to St Louis for the all star baseball games.
They're using the highways for what they were designed for.
It's not the convoy's fault that I-55 is only four lanes for most of the way, and it's not P2P users' fault that Rogers hasn't kept their infrastructure up to date.We're not just looking at text-only web pages and sending email on a 33k modem any more, we're streaming videos, downloading Linux ISOs, and swapping files via P2P.It irks me that the corporates consider P2P to be evil; not all P2P is piracy.
I know independant musicians who depend on P2P to get their music out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702711</id>
	<title>Re:They own the network. Deal.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247668560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong, most of the money that came from the infrastructure was funded by taxpayer dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong , most of the money that came from the infrastructure was funded by taxpayer dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong, most of the money that came from the infrastructure was funded by taxpayer dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702485</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>wireloose</author>
	<datestamp>1247667300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In most of the country (at least in the US) you are rather limited on broadband access.  There is typically a cable provider in the area, and many of them do not offer Internet access.  There is typically a telephone provider that can provide you service, but even the big ones don't offer Internet access everywhere.  [I live in a city-burb of Chicago, in a high-end neighborhood, and though I get dozens of leaflets from AT&amp;T every year about cheaper, faster access, they don't offer it at my house.  Go figure.]  So most people in the US don't necessarily have a lot of choice.  <br> <br>
The second piece of this is that if you want to always pay the cheapest rate, you're going to get shared, multiplexed service.  If you want dedicated bandwidth, it's probably available to you.  Just ask for business class service, which will give you a guaranteed rate.  Of course, you're going to pay significantly different costs for guaranteed rates.<br> <br>
Finally, you have the option to complain as a customer to your provider, and to rally support with other consumers.  Do it.  Meanwhile, *everyone* knows that home Internet service is a multiplexed service, even if they don't know the term.  It's like your subdivision street.  Your provider will gradually increase bandwidth as the "street" gets busier.  However, it makes little sense to invest $100,000 in a vault upgrade or add a $200/mo charge to their operation when 98\% of a 100-home subdivision is barely using the bandwidth, and 1 or 2 users are constantly consuming all available bandwidth.  They should pay for the upgrade.  But they'd rather complain.  The provider's obvious option is to shape them.  Most of the time, that just means lowering priority for certain classes of traffic such as file sharing protocols (Gnutella, eDonkey, etc.) compared to interactive protocols such as http.  Few bother to do rate limiting.  Mostly, they just shape so that when the network is operating near capacity, the interactive stuff gets priority. <br> <br>
Meanwhile, no one else wants to bear the cost burden of increasing bandwidth just so Joey-down-the-block can share files with his buds across the planet.  If my provider told me that they have to increase the costs in our area because Joey's complaining, I'd laugh and tell them to charge Joey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most of the country ( at least in the US ) you are rather limited on broadband access .
There is typically a cable provider in the area , and many of them do not offer Internet access .
There is typically a telephone provider that can provide you service , but even the big ones do n't offer Internet access everywhere .
[ I live in a city-burb of Chicago , in a high-end neighborhood , and though I get dozens of leaflets from AT&amp;T every year about cheaper , faster access , they do n't offer it at my house .
Go figure .
] So most people in the US do n't necessarily have a lot of choice .
The second piece of this is that if you want to always pay the cheapest rate , you 're going to get shared , multiplexed service .
If you want dedicated bandwidth , it 's probably available to you .
Just ask for business class service , which will give you a guaranteed rate .
Of course , you 're going to pay significantly different costs for guaranteed rates .
Finally , you have the option to complain as a customer to your provider , and to rally support with other consumers .
Do it .
Meanwhile , * everyone * knows that home Internet service is a multiplexed service , even if they do n't know the term .
It 's like your subdivision street .
Your provider will gradually increase bandwidth as the " street " gets busier .
However , it makes little sense to invest $ 100,000 in a vault upgrade or add a $ 200/mo charge to their operation when 98 \ % of a 100-home subdivision is barely using the bandwidth , and 1 or 2 users are constantly consuming all available bandwidth .
They should pay for the upgrade .
But they 'd rather complain .
The provider 's obvious option is to shape them .
Most of the time , that just means lowering priority for certain classes of traffic such as file sharing protocols ( Gnutella , eDonkey , etc .
) compared to interactive protocols such as http .
Few bother to do rate limiting .
Mostly , they just shape so that when the network is operating near capacity , the interactive stuff gets priority .
Meanwhile , no one else wants to bear the cost burden of increasing bandwidth just so Joey-down-the-block can share files with his buds across the planet .
If my provider told me that they have to increase the costs in our area because Joey 's complaining , I 'd laugh and tell them to charge Joey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most of the country (at least in the US) you are rather limited on broadband access.
There is typically a cable provider in the area, and many of them do not offer Internet access.
There is typically a telephone provider that can provide you service, but even the big ones don't offer Internet access everywhere.
[I live in a city-burb of Chicago, in a high-end neighborhood, and though I get dozens of leaflets from AT&amp;T every year about cheaper, faster access, they don't offer it at my house.
Go figure.
]  So most people in the US don't necessarily have a lot of choice.
The second piece of this is that if you want to always pay the cheapest rate, you're going to get shared, multiplexed service.
If you want dedicated bandwidth, it's probably available to you.
Just ask for business class service, which will give you a guaranteed rate.
Of course, you're going to pay significantly different costs for guaranteed rates.
Finally, you have the option to complain as a customer to your provider, and to rally support with other consumers.
Do it.
Meanwhile, *everyone* knows that home Internet service is a multiplexed service, even if they don't know the term.
It's like your subdivision street.
Your provider will gradually increase bandwidth as the "street" gets busier.
However, it makes little sense to invest $100,000 in a vault upgrade or add a $200/mo charge to their operation when 98\% of a 100-home subdivision is barely using the bandwidth, and 1 or 2 users are constantly consuming all available bandwidth.
They should pay for the upgrade.
But they'd rather complain.
The provider's obvious option is to shape them.
Most of the time, that just means lowering priority for certain classes of traffic such as file sharing protocols (Gnutella, eDonkey, etc.
) compared to interactive protocols such as http.
Few bother to do rate limiting.
Mostly, they just shape so that when the network is operating near capacity, the interactive stuff gets priority.
Meanwhile, no one else wants to bear the cost burden of increasing bandwidth just so Joey-down-the-block can share files with his buds across the planet.
If my provider told me that they have to increase the costs in our area because Joey's complaining, I'd laugh and tell them to charge Joey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703347</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a Canadian, no.  But they didn't consult me, did they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Canadian , no .
But they did n't consult me , did they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Canadian, no.
But they didn't consult me, did they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28711545</id>
	<title>Analogy, and I think it's OK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247670660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Obviously the analogy in the article (parking a car on the street) is very poor.  It's more like moving a large volume over the road (semis or tons of cars).  Well, various municipalities *do* restrict semi traffic or commercial traffic during rush hour.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The ISPs should suck it up and build out to cover usage.  But, there's always been a recognition of priorities throughout internet history, generally with bulk, normal, and a high-priority setting.  Bulk can be delayed to keep other services working in a timely manner.  Normal is normal.  High-priority can "jump the queue" or ortherwise prioritized above normal, this was usually used for control messages or the like.  FTP would use bulk.  e-mail would use bulk.  I wouldn't say most FTP or e-mail use would be bulk any more, but really.. bittorrent (and other p2p) is bulk.  The ISPs should build out to cover most usage, but I would rather have my bulk usage slow down at busy times of day, than have my whole connection crap out because fully unmanaged usage is causing congestion collapse.  I think also there shouldn't be caps, but if they insist the caps should be soft caps -- don't threaten cancellation, put unexpected charges on the bill, etc... slow a "too heavy" user down for the rest of the month, with a "Damn the torpedoes!  Full speed ahead!" option to pay for more unthrottled use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the analogy in the article ( parking a car on the street ) is very poor .
It 's more like moving a large volume over the road ( semis or tons of cars ) .
Well , various municipalities * do * restrict semi traffic or commercial traffic during rush hour .
          The ISPs should suck it up and build out to cover usage .
But , there 's always been a recognition of priorities throughout internet history , generally with bulk , normal , and a high-priority setting .
Bulk can be delayed to keep other services working in a timely manner .
Normal is normal .
High-priority can " jump the queue " or ortherwise prioritized above normal , this was usually used for control messages or the like .
FTP would use bulk .
e-mail would use bulk .
I would n't say most FTP or e-mail use would be bulk any more , but really.. bittorrent ( and other p2p ) is bulk .
The ISPs should build out to cover most usage , but I would rather have my bulk usage slow down at busy times of day , than have my whole connection crap out because fully unmanaged usage is causing congestion collapse .
I think also there should n't be caps , but if they insist the caps should be soft caps -- do n't threaten cancellation , put unexpected charges on the bill , etc... slow a " too heavy " user down for the rest of the month , with a " Damn the torpedoes !
Full speed ahead !
" option to pay for more unthrottled use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Obviously the analogy in the article (parking a car on the street) is very poor.
It's more like moving a large volume over the road (semis or tons of cars).
Well, various municipalities *do* restrict semi traffic or commercial traffic during rush hour.
          The ISPs should suck it up and build out to cover usage.
But, there's always been a recognition of priorities throughout internet history, generally with bulk, normal, and a high-priority setting.
Bulk can be delayed to keep other services working in a timely manner.
Normal is normal.
High-priority can "jump the queue" or ortherwise prioritized above normal, this was usually used for control messages or the like.
FTP would use bulk.
e-mail would use bulk.
I wouldn't say most FTP or e-mail use would be bulk any more, but really.. bittorrent (and other p2p) is bulk.
The ISPs should build out to cover most usage, but I would rather have my bulk usage slow down at busy times of day, than have my whole connection crap out because fully unmanaged usage is causing congestion collapse.
I think also there shouldn't be caps, but if they insist the caps should be soft caps -- don't threaten cancellation, put unexpected charges on the bill, etc... slow a "too heavy" user down for the rest of the month, with a "Damn the torpedoes!
Full speed ahead!
" option to pay for more unthrottled use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702661</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Sj0</author>
	<datestamp>1247668380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such connections are available. If you want to buy one, go ahead. Be prepared to pay thousands of dollars a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such connections are available .
If you want to buy one , go ahead .
Be prepared to pay thousands of dollars a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such connections are available.
If you want to buy one, go ahead.
Be prepared to pay thousands of dollars a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704659</id>
	<title>I like to use the conceptual analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247679120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget the cars and planes and bus queues and stuff.</p><p>It's all about the organisation which offers you a supply route along which a number of services can be delivered. The supply route provider wants to give priority, on the branch of the supply route which you are paying for, to a third party's services, not because you want them to have priority, but because it is more profitable for the supply route provider to do that - because it means that they do not have to enhance the supply route network to cope with the increasing traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the cars and planes and bus queues and stuff.It 's all about the organisation which offers you a supply route along which a number of services can be delivered .
The supply route provider wants to give priority , on the branch of the supply route which you are paying for , to a third party 's services , not because you want them to have priority , but because it is more profitable for the supply route provider to do that - because it means that they do not have to enhance the supply route network to cope with the increasing traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the cars and planes and bus queues and stuff.It's all about the organisation which offers you a supply route along which a number of services can be delivered.
The supply route provider wants to give priority, on the branch of the supply route which you are paying for, to a third party's services, not because you want them to have priority, but because it is more profitable for the supply route provider to do that - because it means that they do not have to enhance the supply route network to cope with the increasing traffic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702229</id>
	<title>Obviously they didn't get a proper sample</title>
	<author>keneng</author>
	<datestamp>1247665860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, they didn't get a proper sample of people because I would imagine more people would disagree with traffic-shaping if they understood it's true purpose was to undermine net-neutrality and keep most of the bandwidth in the hands of the old big-boys club using every Canadian taxpayers' money to build their monopoly infrastructure.  There is real injustice going on.   That's O.K. though.  Given time, all this abuse of power(in this case internet bandwidth controllers) will come to light.   When the ISP big boys club put up resistance to the natural flow of information, the BIG BAD ISP CLUB will be smacked right down eventually.</p><p>BIG ISP CLUB BOYS...get ready for a global smacking down because I suspect you won't have to wait for long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , they did n't get a proper sample of people because I would imagine more people would disagree with traffic-shaping if they understood it 's true purpose was to undermine net-neutrality and keep most of the bandwidth in the hands of the old big-boys club using every Canadian taxpayers ' money to build their monopoly infrastructure .
There is real injustice going on .
That 's O.K .
though. Given time , all this abuse of power ( in this case internet bandwidth controllers ) will come to light .
When the ISP big boys club put up resistance to the natural flow of information , the BIG BAD ISP CLUB will be smacked right down eventually.BIG ISP CLUB BOYS...get ready for a global smacking down because I suspect you wo n't have to wait for long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, they didn't get a proper sample of people because I would imagine more people would disagree with traffic-shaping if they understood it's true purpose was to undermine net-neutrality and keep most of the bandwidth in the hands of the old big-boys club using every Canadian taxpayers' money to build their monopoly infrastructure.
There is real injustice going on.
That's O.K.
though.  Given time, all this abuse of power(in this case internet bandwidth controllers) will come to light.
When the ISP big boys club put up resistance to the natural flow of information, the BIG BAD ISP CLUB will be smacked right down eventually.BIG ISP CLUB BOYS...get ready for a global smacking down because I suspect you won't have to wait for long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703063</id>
	<title>Re:Charging by the Gigibyte...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247670480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charging by the gigabyte would give people an incentive to transfer less, wasting an infinitely renewable and free resource. (Fixed costs remain the same whether the link is busy or not.) The goal should be to transfer as much data as possible for the least possible cost.  To do that, we need to keep the links as close to saturated as we can without degrading performance.  Anything less is deliberate inefficiency, and is reprehensible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charging by the gigabyte would give people an incentive to transfer less , wasting an infinitely renewable and free resource .
( Fixed costs remain the same whether the link is busy or not .
) The goal should be to transfer as much data as possible for the least possible cost .
To do that , we need to keep the links as close to saturated as we can without degrading performance .
Anything less is deliberate inefficiency , and is reprehensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charging by the gigabyte would give people an incentive to transfer less, wasting an infinitely renewable and free resource.
(Fixed costs remain the same whether the link is busy or not.
) The goal should be to transfer as much data as possible for the least possible cost.
To do that, we need to keep the links as close to saturated as we can without degrading performance.
Anything less is deliberate inefficiency, and is reprehensible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702359</id>
	<title>Yes Minister - Survey Design</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>You can get any answer you want out of a survey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Hjh13hxehl4 [ youtube.com ] You can get any answer you want out of a survey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4 [youtube.com]You can get any answer you want out of a survey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247664120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I may be so kind as to play the devil's advocate here, you might also rephrase the question as: do you think that people who think of themselves as l33t h4x0rs but who really just like to download shitloads of pr0n, music, software, gaming-data and movies at the expense of everyone else, should be given preference over those who would like to use the internet responsibly and who cannot believe that such arbitration would necessarily lead to the curbing of the freedom of speech ?  Because that is the undertone I can just feel oozing out of the write-up here.  O, it's about big bad companies who want to make a buck over all of our backs and potentially use their power to wedge out the competition ?  Excuse me then - may they die in a fire !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I may be so kind as to play the devil 's advocate here , you might also rephrase the question as : do you think that people who think of themselves as l33t h4x0rs but who really just like to download shitloads of pr0n , music , software , gaming-data and movies at the expense of everyone else , should be given preference over those who would like to use the internet responsibly and who can not believe that such arbitration would necessarily lead to the curbing of the freedom of speech ?
Because that is the undertone I can just feel oozing out of the write-up here .
O , it 's about big bad companies who want to make a buck over all of our backs and potentially use their power to wedge out the competition ?
Excuse me then - may they die in a fire !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I may be so kind as to play the devil's advocate here, you might also rephrase the question as: do you think that people who think of themselves as l33t h4x0rs but who really just like to download shitloads of pr0n, music, software, gaming-data and movies at the expense of everyone else, should be given preference over those who would like to use the internet responsibly and who cannot believe that such arbitration would necessarily lead to the curbing of the freedom of speech ?
Because that is the undertone I can just feel oozing out of the write-up here.
O, it's about big bad companies who want to make a buck over all of our backs and potentially use their power to wedge out the competition ?
Excuse me then - may they die in a fire !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704055</id>
	<title>Shape My Traffic</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1247676060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Shape my traffic - seriously - I HAVE NO BANDWIDTH ANYWAY - in Canada I've given up an arm, a leg, my right eye, and a kidney for 15Mbit -- most of the time this is reliable and I can get UP TO that speed and when I am getting that speed it is usually trying to download something from Netflix or update my Linux Iso's.<br> <br>

I am sick and tired of Canadian ISP's providing crap for bandwidth - overcharging for this bandwidth - then complaining when I use it.  <br> <br>

From what I've read in previous comments it's that this survey is more alarmist than anything.  "hey you know your neighbor is downloading movies off of the internet, which makes your internet slower.  how would you feel if we made his internet slower so you can get your mail faster".<br> <br>

GIVE ME A BREAK!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shape my traffic - seriously - I HAVE NO BANDWIDTH ANYWAY - in Canada I 've given up an arm , a leg , my right eye , and a kidney for 15Mbit -- most of the time this is reliable and I can get UP TO that speed and when I am getting that speed it is usually trying to download something from Netflix or update my Linux Iso 's .
I am sick and tired of Canadian ISP 's providing crap for bandwidth - overcharging for this bandwidth - then complaining when I use it .
From what I 've read in previous comments it 's that this survey is more alarmist than anything .
" hey you know your neighbor is downloading movies off of the internet , which makes your internet slower .
how would you feel if we made his internet slower so you can get your mail faster " .
GIVE ME A BREAK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Shape my traffic - seriously - I HAVE NO BANDWIDTH ANYWAY - in Canada I've given up an arm, a leg, my right eye, and a kidney for 15Mbit -- most of the time this is reliable and I can get UP TO that speed and when I am getting that speed it is usually trying to download something from Netflix or update my Linux Iso's.
I am sick and tired of Canadian ISP's providing crap for bandwidth - overcharging for this bandwidth - then complaining when I use it.
From what I've read in previous comments it's that this survey is more alarmist than anything.
"hey you know your neighbor is downloading movies off of the internet, which makes your internet slower.
how would you feel if we made his internet slower so you can get your mail faster".
GIVE ME A BREAK!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702447</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247667120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to Slashdot. Do you want fries with that sophism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to Slashdot .
Do you want fries with that sophism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to Slashdot.
Do you want fries with that sophism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28708575</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1247653740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, except TCP connections begin to degrade network throughput at 30-40\% capacity, not 95\%.</p><p>So really, by not limiting P2P to a reasonable degree, <b>you</b> could be denying 100\% of their customers the bandwidth they are paying for.  Any customer sending out 50 TCP connections at a time at 5kb/s each is going to cause significantly more congestion than a customer sending out one TCP connection at 250kb/s.  It's a flaw in the protocol's congestion management mechanism, and any peer to peer software that connects to more than one host at a time is going to cause a worst-case-scenario for network management.</p><p>Throttling is legitimate and may be necessary to provide the service they have agreed to provide to the largest number of customers.  However, is 1.5\% fair? It is definitely extreme, and it might be during peak times, but I can't see it at all during off peak times.  It should crank way up when congestion is low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except TCP connections begin to degrade network throughput at 30-40 \ % capacity , not 95 \ % .So really , by not limiting P2P to a reasonable degree , you could be denying 100 \ % of their customers the bandwidth they are paying for .
Any customer sending out 50 TCP connections at a time at 5kb/s each is going to cause significantly more congestion than a customer sending out one TCP connection at 250kb/s .
It 's a flaw in the protocol 's congestion management mechanism , and any peer to peer software that connects to more than one host at a time is going to cause a worst-case-scenario for network management.Throttling is legitimate and may be necessary to provide the service they have agreed to provide to the largest number of customers .
However , is 1.5 \ % fair ?
It is definitely extreme , and it might be during peak times , but I ca n't see it at all during off peak times .
It should crank way up when congestion is low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except TCP connections begin to degrade network throughput at 30-40\% capacity, not 95\%.So really, by not limiting P2P to a reasonable degree, you could be denying 100\% of their customers the bandwidth they are paying for.
Any customer sending out 50 TCP connections at a time at 5kb/s each is going to cause significantly more congestion than a customer sending out one TCP connection at 250kb/s.
It's a flaw in the protocol's congestion management mechanism, and any peer to peer software that connects to more than one host at a time is going to cause a worst-case-scenario for network management.Throttling is legitimate and may be necessary to provide the service they have agreed to provide to the largest number of customers.
However, is 1.5\% fair?
It is definitely extreme, and it might be during peak times, but I can't see it at all during off peak times.
It should crank way up when congestion is low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28708257</id>
	<title>My proposal for Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1247652240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we're getting rid of Net Neutrality, I suggest that we also get rid of Electricity Neutrality.  Because things like cable modems and routers increase the load on the electric system, cable companies should have to pay extra money for all the electricity that they consume.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're getting rid of Net Neutrality , I suggest that we also get rid of Electricity Neutrality .
Because things like cable modems and routers increase the load on the electric system , cable companies should have to pay extra money for all the electricity that they consume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're getting rid of Net Neutrality, I suggest that we also get rid of Electricity Neutrality.
Because things like cable modems and routers increase the load on the electric system, cable companies should have to pay extra money for all the electricity that they consume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704821</id>
	<title>From a Canadian: Local newspaper poll results</title>
	<author>fluffernutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247680020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was ready to post and hang my head low and apologize for all fellow Canadians.  However, I just flipped to my local city major newspaper and the online poll question is "Should Internet service providers be allowed to manage and prioritize online traffic?".  Currently out of 688 votes, the result is a resounding 85\% 'NO'.  Maybe there is hope for us yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was ready to post and hang my head low and apologize for all fellow Canadians .
However , I just flipped to my local city major newspaper and the online poll question is " Should Internet service providers be allowed to manage and prioritize online traffic ? " .
Currently out of 688 votes , the result is a resounding 85 \ % 'NO' .
Maybe there is hope for us yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was ready to post and hang my head low and apologize for all fellow Canadians.
However, I just flipped to my local city major newspaper and the online poll question is "Should Internet service providers be allowed to manage and prioritize online traffic?".
Currently out of 688 votes, the result is a resounding 85\% 'NO'.
Maybe there is hope for us yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702577</id>
	<title>What About Laparoscopy and Trocar?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1247667840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs' use of traffic shaping suggests that 60\% of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly, while 22\% believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless.</i></p><p>Hmmm, I wonder why it didn't report on people's views on the use of laparoscopy in cases where the risk of trocar injuries is elevated?</p><p>Oh! I know! Because that is a question for surgeon's to answer, not the general public.</p><p><i>The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.'</i></p><p>Why P2P? Who not YouTube? Why not all large downloads? Why not all small downloads? What precisely is it about the kind of bits that makes them different than other kinds of bits? If I use P2P to download a 180 meg Debian netinst bundle using bittorrent, is that better or worse than a person who is registered for a couple dozen podcasts on iTunes?</p><p>And you, you fools. You keep arguing against capping, against tiering, against anything that would enable ISPs to charge for the number of bits. So they are left with no alternative but the sneaky one that the general public doesn't understand. Argue against them using "unlimited", argue for full disclosure of bandwidth limits, but arguing against the limits themselves is what is causing them (admittedly, happily) to jump back to traffic shaping. This is partly your fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs ' use of traffic shaping suggests that 60 \ % of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly , while 22 \ % believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless.Hmmm , I wonder why it did n't report on people 's views on the use of laparoscopy in cases where the risk of trocar injuries is elevated ? Oh !
I know !
Because that is a question for surgeon 's to answer , not the general public.The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers , meanwhile , compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night , clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action .
'Why P2P ?
Who not YouTube ?
Why not all large downloads ?
Why not all small downloads ?
What precisely is it about the kind of bits that makes them different than other kinds of bits ?
If I use P2P to download a 180 meg Debian netinst bundle using bittorrent , is that better or worse than a person who is registered for a couple dozen podcasts on iTunes ? And you , you fools .
You keep arguing against capping , against tiering , against anything that would enable ISPs to charge for the number of bits .
So they are left with no alternative but the sneaky one that the general public does n't understand .
Argue against them using " unlimited " , argue for full disclosure of bandwidth limits , but arguing against the limits themselves is what is causing them ( admittedly , happily ) to jump back to traffic shaping .
This is partly your fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs' use of traffic shaping suggests that 60\% of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly, while 22\% believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless.Hmmm, I wonder why it didn't report on people's views on the use of laparoscopy in cases where the risk of trocar injuries is elevated?Oh!
I know!
Because that is a question for surgeon's to answer, not the general public.The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.
'Why P2P?
Who not YouTube?
Why not all large downloads?
Why not all small downloads?
What precisely is it about the kind of bits that makes them different than other kinds of bits?
If I use P2P to download a 180 meg Debian netinst bundle using bittorrent, is that better or worse than a person who is registered for a couple dozen podcasts on iTunes?And you, you fools.
You keep arguing against capping, against tiering, against anything that would enable ISPs to charge for the number of bits.
So they are left with no alternative but the sneaky one that the general public doesn't understand.
Argue against them using "unlimited", argue for full disclosure of bandwidth limits, but arguing against the limits themselves is what is causing them (admittedly, happily) to jump back to traffic shaping.
This is partly your fault.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703397</id>
	<title>Shaping a Traffic Shaping Survery</title>
	<author>Frankie70</author>
	<datestamp>1247672100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice young lady(NYL) comes up to you.<br>Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you?<br>So she starts asking you some questions:<br><i><br>NYL : Are you unhappy with slow speeds on your internet connection?<br>You : Yes, of course.</i></p><p><i>NYL : Would you be acceptable to solutions to solving the congestion problems on the Internet?<br>You : Yes, of course.</i></p><p><i>NYL : So you would support traffic shaping as long as customers are treated properly?<br>You : Yes, of course.<br></i></p><p>Now, if you wanted the opposite results</p><p><i><br>NYL : Do you believe that consumers like you should be in control of the internet or your ISP<br>You : The consumer, of course.</i></p><p><i>NYL : Do you think Broadband providers should be able to use their Market power to control<br>
&nbsp; online activity?<br>You: Of course, not.</i></p><p><i>NYL : So you oppose traffic shaping by ISP's?<br>You : Yes, of course.<br></i></p><p><a href="http://users.aims.ac.za/~mackay/probability/survey.html" title="aims.ac.za">http://users.aims.ac.za/~mackay/probability/survey.html</a> [aims.ac.za]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice young lady ( NYL ) comes up to you.Obviously you want to create a good impression , you do n't want to look a fool , do you ? So she starts asking you some questions : NYL : Are you unhappy with slow speeds on your internet connection ? You : Yes , of course.NYL : Would you be acceptable to solutions to solving the congestion problems on the Internet ? You : Yes , of course.NYL : So you would support traffic shaping as long as customers are treated properly ? You : Yes , of course.Now , if you wanted the opposite resultsNYL : Do you believe that consumers like you should be in control of the internet or your ISPYou : The consumer , of course.NYL : Do you think Broadband providers should be able to use their Market power to control   online activity ? You : Of course , not.NYL : So you oppose traffic shaping by ISP 's ? You : Yes , of course.http : //users.aims.ac.za/ ~ mackay/probability/survey.html [ aims.ac.za ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice young lady(NYL) comes up to you.Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you?So she starts asking you some questions:NYL : Are you unhappy with slow speeds on your internet connection?You : Yes, of course.NYL : Would you be acceptable to solutions to solving the congestion problems on the Internet?You : Yes, of course.NYL : So you would support traffic shaping as long as customers are treated properly?You : Yes, of course.Now, if you wanted the opposite resultsNYL : Do you believe that consumers like you should be in control of the internet or your ISPYou : The consumer, of course.NYL : Do you think Broadband providers should be able to use their Market power to control
  online activity?You: Of course, not.NYL : So you oppose traffic shaping by ISP's?You : Yes, of course.http://users.aims.ac.za/~mackay/probability/survey.html [aims.ac.za]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702249</id>
	<title>Real poll result</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1247665980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most likely real meaning of this poll: about 50\% of those surveyed have no clue what the pollster is talking about, but since the poll question says "customers are treated fairly", respondents think that it's reasonable to be fair.</p><p>For instance, "Would you be in favor or against reasonable restrictions of the use of DHMO?" often returns an answer that approves of the restrictions not because the respondent knows anything about the restrictions or DHMO but because those restrictions were described as "reasonable" in the question. That's sort of thing is one of the standard techniques for getting polls with the answer you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most likely real meaning of this poll : about 50 \ % of those surveyed have no clue what the pollster is talking about , but since the poll question says " customers are treated fairly " , respondents think that it 's reasonable to be fair.For instance , " Would you be in favor or against reasonable restrictions of the use of DHMO ?
" often returns an answer that approves of the restrictions not because the respondent knows anything about the restrictions or DHMO but because those restrictions were described as " reasonable " in the question .
That 's sort of thing is one of the standard techniques for getting polls with the answer you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most likely real meaning of this poll: about 50\% of those surveyed have no clue what the pollster is talking about, but since the poll question says "customers are treated fairly", respondents think that it's reasonable to be fair.For instance, "Would you be in favor or against reasonable restrictions of the use of DHMO?
" often returns an answer that approves of the restrictions not because the respondent knows anything about the restrictions or DHMO but because those restrictions were described as "reasonable" in the question.
That's sort of thing is one of the standard techniques for getting polls with the answer you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705577</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1247682840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is exactly what the net-neutrality advocates are against: the idea that some company could pay for connections to their site to get better performance than connections to some other company that paid less. Every connection has two end-points, and both of those ends has paid for a level of service. Which one gets honoured?</p></div><p>Still wrong. I paid for my pipe, I get <i>x</i> speed. You paid for your pipe, you get <i>y</i> speed. Assuming no congestion, a connection between the two of us would naturally get the lowest of <i>x</i> or <i>y</i>. If there is congestion, then bandwidth has to be distributed in some sort of way and we'll get less than that, but that's ok too.</p><p>The net neutrality issue only comes up when either of our ISPs (or someone else along the way, presumably) wants to provide bandwidth in a way that depends not (only) on what their contract with the end user is, but (also) depending on who's on the other end. This can take both a direct money grubbing theme (our customers make loads of requests for Google pages, so we want Google to pay for that bandwidth or we'll throttle them) or a less direct, more anti-competitive theme (we provide VoIP services, so all traffic that looks like VoIP that's not ours gets decreased priority), possibly others too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what the net-neutrality advocates are against : the idea that some company could pay for connections to their site to get better performance than connections to some other company that paid less .
Every connection has two end-points , and both of those ends has paid for a level of service .
Which one gets honoured ? Still wrong .
I paid for my pipe , I get x speed .
You paid for your pipe , you get y speed .
Assuming no congestion , a connection between the two of us would naturally get the lowest of x or y. If there is congestion , then bandwidth has to be distributed in some sort of way and we 'll get less than that , but that 's ok too.The net neutrality issue only comes up when either of our ISPs ( or someone else along the way , presumably ) wants to provide bandwidth in a way that depends not ( only ) on what their contract with the end user is , but ( also ) depending on who 's on the other end .
This can take both a direct money grubbing theme ( our customers make loads of requests for Google pages , so we want Google to pay for that bandwidth or we 'll throttle them ) or a less direct , more anti-competitive theme ( we provide VoIP services , so all traffic that looks like VoIP that 's not ours gets decreased priority ) , possibly others too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what the net-neutrality advocates are against: the idea that some company could pay for connections to their site to get better performance than connections to some other company that paid less.
Every connection has two end-points, and both of those ends has paid for a level of service.
Which one gets honoured?Still wrong.
I paid for my pipe, I get x speed.
You paid for your pipe, you get y speed.
Assuming no congestion, a connection between the two of us would naturally get the lowest of x or y. If there is congestion, then bandwidth has to be distributed in some sort of way and we'll get less than that, but that's ok too.The net neutrality issue only comes up when either of our ISPs (or someone else along the way, presumably) wants to provide bandwidth in a way that depends not (only) on what their contract with the end user is, but (also) depending on who's on the other end.
This can take both a direct money grubbing theme (our customers make loads of requests for Google pages, so we want Google to pay for that bandwidth or we'll throttle them) or a less direct, more anti-competitive theme (we provide VoIP services, so all traffic that looks like VoIP that's not ours gets decreased priority), possibly others too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706595</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1247687520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, in some cases p2p \_reduces\_ traffic. If your neighbor is on the same subnet and a game patch is being distributed via p2p, he gets the packets first and you are just behind him, that's one less data stream that needs to enter the provider's network since you are largely downloading it from someone on your subnet.</p><p>IMHO overall, p2p itself neither increases nor decreases available bandwidth. The problems occur in how it's used and whether or not people "leech" (download but not allow uploads). When used legally and liberally, p2p is beneficial for everyone, \_especially\_ the ISP and it's subscribers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in some cases p2p \ _reduces \ _ traffic .
If your neighbor is on the same subnet and a game patch is being distributed via p2p , he gets the packets first and you are just behind him , that 's one less data stream that needs to enter the provider 's network since you are largely downloading it from someone on your subnet.IMHO overall , p2p itself neither increases nor decreases available bandwidth .
The problems occur in how it 's used and whether or not people " leech " ( download but not allow uploads ) .
When used legally and liberally , p2p is beneficial for everyone , \ _especially \ _ the ISP and it 's subscribers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in some cases p2p \_reduces\_ traffic.
If your neighbor is on the same subnet and a game patch is being distributed via p2p, he gets the packets first and you are just behind him, that's one less data stream that needs to enter the provider's network since you are largely downloading it from someone on your subnet.IMHO overall, p2p itself neither increases nor decreases available bandwidth.
The problems occur in how it's used and whether or not people "leech" (download but not allow uploads).
When used legally and liberally, p2p is beneficial for everyone, \_especially\_ the ISP and it's subscribers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702787</id>
	<title>What of the future?</title>
	<author>Kiralan</author>
	<datestamp>1247669040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Traffic from legitimate real-time video streaming, which may or may not be sourced by the ISP, is growing. Part of this will be the ISP/Cableco itself providing on-demand videos. This would appear to be the greater 'threat' to bandwidth, and not so easily shaped, as shaping that traffic would likely be very visible to 'Joe Consumer' in the form of stuttering, freezes, etc of their movie stream. Also, you likely get into neutrality legal issues (preferring your cableco division's traffic over outside traffic) if you shape outside streaming traffic vs your own. These ISP's are, one way or another, going to have to improve their capacity. Best get started........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Traffic from legitimate real-time video streaming , which may or may not be sourced by the ISP , is growing .
Part of this will be the ISP/Cableco itself providing on-demand videos .
This would appear to be the greater 'threat ' to bandwidth , and not so easily shaped , as shaping that traffic would likely be very visible to 'Joe Consumer ' in the form of stuttering , freezes , etc of their movie stream .
Also , you likely get into neutrality legal issues ( preferring your cableco division 's traffic over outside traffic ) if you shape outside streaming traffic vs your own .
These ISP 's are , one way or another , going to have to improve their capacity .
Best get started....... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traffic from legitimate real-time video streaming, which may or may not be sourced by the ISP, is growing.
Part of this will be the ISP/Cableco itself providing on-demand videos.
This would appear to be the greater 'threat' to bandwidth, and not so easily shaped, as shaping that traffic would likely be very visible to 'Joe Consumer' in the form of stuttering, freezes, etc of their movie stream.
Also, you likely get into neutrality legal issues (preferring your cableco division's traffic over outside traffic) if you shape outside streaming traffic vs your own.
These ISP's are, one way or another, going to have to improve their capacity.
Best get started........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702155</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247665320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>60\% agree with the question.
<p>20\% <b>understand</b> the question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>60 \ % agree with the question .
20 \ % understand the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>60\% agree with the question.
20\% understand the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702455</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247667180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99\% of the time.</p></div><p>How far downstream does that X Mbps go?  This is exactly what the net-neutrality advocates are against: the idea that some company could pay for connections to their site to get better performance than connections to some other company that paid less.  Every connection has two end-points, and both of those ends has paid for a level of service.  Which one gets honoured?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99 \ % of the time.How far downstream does that X Mbps go ?
This is exactly what the net-neutrality advocates are against : the idea that some company could pay for connections to their site to get better performance than connections to some other company that paid less .
Every connection has two end-points , and both of those ends has paid for a level of service .
Which one gets honoured ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99\% of the time.How far downstream does that X Mbps go?
This is exactly what the net-neutrality advocates are against: the idea that some company could pay for connections to their site to get better performance than connections to some other company that paid less.
Every connection has two end-points, and both of those ends has paid for a level of service.
Which one gets honoured?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703803</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>nigral</author>
	<datestamp>1247674620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're not just looking at text-only web pages and sending email on a 33k modem any more, we're streaming videos, downloading Linux ISOs, and swapping files via P2P.</p></div><p>33k ought to be enough for anybody.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not just looking at text-only web pages and sending email on a 33k modem any more , we 're streaming videos , downloading Linux ISOs , and swapping files via P2P.33k ought to be enough for anybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not just looking at text-only web pages and sending email on a 33k modem any more, we're streaming videos, downloading Linux ISOs, and swapping files via P2P.33k ought to be enough for anybody.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702699</id>
	<title>Bell polling for the lolz again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247668500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A major point that is often ignored: Bell is both an Common Carrier (they own the copper) and an ISP. By making this distinction it becomes blatantly clear that Bell is being anti-competitive by:</p><p>- Offering ADSL2 *only* to its own retail customers == (anti-competitve)<br>- Traffic shaping using DPI on wholesaler networks == (vastly overselling of wholesaler pipes, if we are really to believe congestion is true)</p><p>Traffic Management isn't the issue: as mentioned above, basic traffic management is/has to be done by all ISPs for QoS. Control over your own network is the issue. It would not bother me if my ISP throttled my connection, I would simply change ISP (in a trully competitive market). My current ISP (teksavvy) does not throttle but they are unable to offer me the service they want to because Bell sticks their dirty DPI fingers into networks it has no right to manage. This is clearly abusive overreach of their dominant position as both ILEC and ISP.</p><p>*PS I worked as an interviewer before for Decima / OpinionSearch and the telecommunication (Rogers/Bell) polls are the most biased BS I've ever seen. Without knowing who commissioned the survey and wrote the questions (ie who the Harris / Decima $cliient$ is) this poll is irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A major point that is often ignored : Bell is both an Common Carrier ( they own the copper ) and an ISP .
By making this distinction it becomes blatantly clear that Bell is being anti-competitive by : - Offering ADSL2 * only * to its own retail customers = = ( anti-competitve ) - Traffic shaping using DPI on wholesaler networks = = ( vastly overselling of wholesaler pipes , if we are really to believe congestion is true ) Traffic Management is n't the issue : as mentioned above , basic traffic management is/has to be done by all ISPs for QoS .
Control over your own network is the issue .
It would not bother me if my ISP throttled my connection , I would simply change ISP ( in a trully competitive market ) .
My current ISP ( teksavvy ) does not throttle but they are unable to offer me the service they want to because Bell sticks their dirty DPI fingers into networks it has no right to manage .
This is clearly abusive overreach of their dominant position as both ILEC and ISP .
* PS I worked as an interviewer before for Decima / OpinionSearch and the telecommunication ( Rogers/Bell ) polls are the most biased BS I 've ever seen .
Without knowing who commissioned the survey and wrote the questions ( ie who the Harris / Decima $ cliient $ is ) this poll is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A major point that is often ignored: Bell is both an Common Carrier (they own the copper) and an ISP.
By making this distinction it becomes blatantly clear that Bell is being anti-competitive by:- Offering ADSL2 *only* to its own retail customers == (anti-competitve)- Traffic shaping using DPI on wholesaler networks == (vastly overselling of wholesaler pipes, if we are really to believe congestion is true)Traffic Management isn't the issue: as mentioned above, basic traffic management is/has to be done by all ISPs for QoS.
Control over your own network is the issue.
It would not bother me if my ISP throttled my connection, I would simply change ISP (in a trully competitive market).
My current ISP (teksavvy) does not throttle but they are unable to offer me the service they want to because Bell sticks their dirty DPI fingers into networks it has no right to manage.
This is clearly abusive overreach of their dominant position as both ILEC and ISP.
*PS I worked as an interviewer before for Decima / OpinionSearch and the telecommunication (Rogers/Bell) polls are the most biased BS I've ever seen.
Without knowing who commissioned the survey and wrote the questions (ie who the Harris / Decima $cliient$ is) this poll is irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704867</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>euxneks</author>
	<datestamp>1247680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bell's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues. In reality, they take objection to ALL bandwidth intensive applications.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Oh my god!!! I might actually use the full potential of the bandwidth I'm paying for!!! What a fucking crime! I should get punished severely!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bell 's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues .
In reality , they take objection to ALL bandwidth intensive applications .
Oh my god ! ! !
I might actually use the full potential of the bandwidth I 'm paying for ! ! !
What a fucking crime !
I should get punished severely !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bell's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues.
In reality, they take objection to ALL bandwidth intensive applications.
Oh my god!!!
I might actually use the full potential of the bandwidth I'm paying for!!!
What a fucking crime!
I should get punished severely!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703489</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1247672640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do I compare two providers of a 10 Mbps connection when they don't say what the practical speed will be</p></div><p>Isn't this what DSL reports, Speedtest.net are actually about?
Is it not reasonable to ask in some internet forum to locate actual 'power user' customers of your ISP and ask them what their experience is?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I compare two providers of a 10 Mbps connection when they do n't say what the practical speed will beIs n't this what DSL reports , Speedtest.net are actually about ?
Is it not reasonable to ask in some internet forum to locate actual 'power user ' customers of your ISP and ask them what their experience is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I compare two providers of a 10 Mbps connection when they don't say what the practical speed will beIsn't this what DSL reports, Speedtest.net are actually about?
Is it not reasonable to ask in some internet forum to locate actual 'power user' customers of your ISP and ask them what their experience is?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706473</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1247686980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't focus on the supposed ethical justification behind throttling, that's what the ISPs want you to whine about.  The real issue, which has not changed in over a decade, is that they are selling a service they cannot realistically deliver: "unlimited" internet access.</p><p>If you walked into an all-you-can-eat buffet, and found out there were three chicken balls to split between 40 hungry patrons, would you not tear the restaurant owner a new asshole ?  Isn't it reasonable to expect that if the deal was "all you can eat", you should be able to stuff your face until sated ?  That's the problem with broadband today, except the ISPs try to hide their lack of substance by forcibly slowing consumption down to a trickle.  That's akin to the waiter enforcing a "one bite per hour" rule.  In the end, they're still covering up the fact that there isn't enough product to satisfy everyone.</p><p>I've been having it even worse as of late, since my idiotic ISP (Rogers) decided to bump up the middle tier from 7mbps to 10mbps, solely because Bell also upped their theoretical speeds (but it's DSL...morons!).  The backend is no faster, so in reality they're just putting more pressure on an already-overtaxed network.</p><p>Net neutrality won't matter if this continues.  Soon even first-party VoIP will drop packets because there isn't enough bandwidth to go around.  If I had to propose any sort of legislation, it would be to limit overselling and enforce more honesty in telecom advertising.  Torrents aside, any sort of telecom tyranny, in this day and age, is a direct barrier to technological progress, and in my not-so-humble opinion that should be considered an act of treason and punished as such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't focus on the supposed ethical justification behind throttling , that 's what the ISPs want you to whine about .
The real issue , which has not changed in over a decade , is that they are selling a service they can not realistically deliver : " unlimited " internet access.If you walked into an all-you-can-eat buffet , and found out there were three chicken balls to split between 40 hungry patrons , would you not tear the restaurant owner a new asshole ?
Is n't it reasonable to expect that if the deal was " all you can eat " , you should be able to stuff your face until sated ?
That 's the problem with broadband today , except the ISPs try to hide their lack of substance by forcibly slowing consumption down to a trickle .
That 's akin to the waiter enforcing a " one bite per hour " rule .
In the end , they 're still covering up the fact that there is n't enough product to satisfy everyone.I 've been having it even worse as of late , since my idiotic ISP ( Rogers ) decided to bump up the middle tier from 7mbps to 10mbps , solely because Bell also upped their theoretical speeds ( but it 's DSL...morons ! ) .
The backend is no faster , so in reality they 're just putting more pressure on an already-overtaxed network.Net neutrality wo n't matter if this continues .
Soon even first-party VoIP will drop packets because there is n't enough bandwidth to go around .
If I had to propose any sort of legislation , it would be to limit overselling and enforce more honesty in telecom advertising .
Torrents aside , any sort of telecom tyranny , in this day and age , is a direct barrier to technological progress , and in my not-so-humble opinion that should be considered an act of treason and punished as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't focus on the supposed ethical justification behind throttling, that's what the ISPs want you to whine about.
The real issue, which has not changed in over a decade, is that they are selling a service they cannot realistically deliver: "unlimited" internet access.If you walked into an all-you-can-eat buffet, and found out there were three chicken balls to split between 40 hungry patrons, would you not tear the restaurant owner a new asshole ?
Isn't it reasonable to expect that if the deal was "all you can eat", you should be able to stuff your face until sated ?
That's the problem with broadband today, except the ISPs try to hide their lack of substance by forcibly slowing consumption down to a trickle.
That's akin to the waiter enforcing a "one bite per hour" rule.
In the end, they're still covering up the fact that there isn't enough product to satisfy everyone.I've been having it even worse as of late, since my idiotic ISP (Rogers) decided to bump up the middle tier from 7mbps to 10mbps, solely because Bell also upped their theoretical speeds (but it's DSL...morons!).
The backend is no faster, so in reality they're just putting more pressure on an already-overtaxed network.Net neutrality won't matter if this continues.
Soon even first-party VoIP will drop packets because there isn't enough bandwidth to go around.
If I had to propose any sort of legislation, it would be to limit overselling and enforce more honesty in telecom advertising.
Torrents aside, any sort of telecom tyranny, in this day and age, is a direct barrier to technological progress, and in my not-so-humble opinion that should be considered an act of treason and punished as such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702689</id>
	<title>Re:Charging by the Gigibyte...</title>
	<author>Dotren</author>
	<datestamp>1247668500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...would give the ISPs a financial incentive to speed your music and video downloads along.  But you'd never support such an outrage, would you?  Because then you'd actually have to *pay* for downloading all your "tunes" and movies, <b>watching Youtube, browsing webpages, playing online games, and downloading free software.</b> </p></div><p>There, fixed that for ya.  Not everyone who uses gigs a month are downloading music and movies.  Some of us just use a lot of bandwidth for normal internet activities and even some work related activities that involve downloading large ISO files.</p><p>This solution is a win for the cable TV companies, a win for Hollywood, and a win for some of the ISP companies, but would be a big lose for a lot of internet users, and I'd bet its way more than the 5\% number that they like to throw around.</p><p>The ISP companies had a chance to increase capacity in preparation for this internet boom years ago, with government breaks no less, and they chose to ignore the issue and take the money anyways.  This became even more apparent to me recently when someone described some of the newer optical networking technology is out now and just how much data can really be sent over a single strand of fiber when using it for multiple channels... its an insane amount and much more than I had been led to believe by the information the ISPs have been putting out about the evils of Youtube/Hulu and file sharing (legal or not but, of course, it serves their purpose and Hollywood's to "educate" the masses with the idea that ALL file sharing is wrong) and how they're at "max capacity" and must consider other billing methods or risk the meltdown of the intertubes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...would give the ISPs a financial incentive to speed your music and video downloads along .
But you 'd never support such an outrage , would you ?
Because then you 'd actually have to * pay * for downloading all your " tunes " and movies , watching Youtube , browsing webpages , playing online games , and downloading free software .
There , fixed that for ya .
Not everyone who uses gigs a month are downloading music and movies .
Some of us just use a lot of bandwidth for normal internet activities and even some work related activities that involve downloading large ISO files.This solution is a win for the cable TV companies , a win for Hollywood , and a win for some of the ISP companies , but would be a big lose for a lot of internet users , and I 'd bet its way more than the 5 \ % number that they like to throw around.The ISP companies had a chance to increase capacity in preparation for this internet boom years ago , with government breaks no less , and they chose to ignore the issue and take the money anyways .
This became even more apparent to me recently when someone described some of the newer optical networking technology is out now and just how much data can really be sent over a single strand of fiber when using it for multiple channels... its an insane amount and much more than I had been led to believe by the information the ISPs have been putting out about the evils of Youtube/Hulu and file sharing ( legal or not but , of course , it serves their purpose and Hollywood 's to " educate " the masses with the idea that ALL file sharing is wrong ) and how they 're at " max capacity " and must consider other billing methods or risk the meltdown of the intertubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...would give the ISPs a financial incentive to speed your music and video downloads along.
But you'd never support such an outrage, would you?
Because then you'd actually have to *pay* for downloading all your "tunes" and movies, watching Youtube, browsing webpages, playing online games, and downloading free software.
There, fixed that for ya.
Not everyone who uses gigs a month are downloading music and movies.
Some of us just use a lot of bandwidth for normal internet activities and even some work related activities that involve downloading large ISO files.This solution is a win for the cable TV companies, a win for Hollywood, and a win for some of the ISP companies, but would be a big lose for a lot of internet users, and I'd bet its way more than the 5\% number that they like to throw around.The ISP companies had a chance to increase capacity in preparation for this internet boom years ago, with government breaks no less, and they chose to ignore the issue and take the money anyways.
This became even more apparent to me recently when someone described some of the newer optical networking technology is out now and just how much data can really be sent over a single strand of fiber when using it for multiple channels... its an insane amount and much more than I had been led to believe by the information the ISPs have been putting out about the evils of Youtube/Hulu and file sharing (legal or not but, of course, it serves their purpose and Hollywood's to "educate" the masses with the idea that ALL file sharing is wrong) and how they're at "max capacity" and must consider other billing methods or risk the meltdown of the intertubes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703241</id>
	<title>Something wrong with this survey</title>
	<author>fireheadca</author>
	<datestamp>1247671440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the hell did they call for this survey? Did they use extension numbers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell did they call for this survey ?
Did they use extension numbers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell did they call for this survey?
Did they use extension numbers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28712779</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247681640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell that to Rogers Wireless, a branch of Rogers that sells cell phones, which charges $0.05 per KILOBYTE of data unless you have a data plan.  Yes, that's right, that 3 megabyte PDF you downloaded just cost you $150.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to Rogers Wireless , a branch of Rogers that sells cell phones , which charges $ 0.05 per KILOBYTE of data unless you have a data plan .
Yes , that 's right , that 3 megabyte PDF you downloaded just cost you $ 150 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to Rogers Wireless, a branch of Rogers that sells cell phones, which charges $0.05 per KILOBYTE of data unless you have a data plan.
Yes, that's right, that 3 megabyte PDF you downloaded just cost you $150.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704105</id>
	<title>Smoke and mirrors</title>
	<author>Corson</author>
	<datestamp>1247676300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unlike radio/tv broadcasting, the Internet suffers from bandwidth limitations so I guess traffic shaping is something we should expect sooner or later. But the issue is, ISPs sell "unlimited" access packages and that's misleading. They should clearly indicate that for this and that particular software they apply traffic shaping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike radio/tv broadcasting , the Internet suffers from bandwidth limitations so I guess traffic shaping is something we should expect sooner or later .
But the issue is , ISPs sell " unlimited " access packages and that 's misleading .
They should clearly indicate that for this and that particular software they apply traffic shaping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike radio/tv broadcasting, the Internet suffers from bandwidth limitations so I guess traffic shaping is something we should expect sooner or later.
But the issue is, ISPs sell "unlimited" access packages and that's misleading.
They should clearly indicate that for this and that particular software they apply traffic shaping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702397</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1247666820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats.</p></div><p>Thankfully, that's an "or", not an "xor", because there's no reason to think that they aren't both true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad I 'm not in Canada , because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats.Thankfully , that 's an " or " , not an " xor " , because there 's no reason to think that they are n't both true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats.Thankfully, that's an "or", not an "xor", because there's no reason to think that they aren't both true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702305</id>
	<title>So what you're saying is....</title>
	<author>mr\_nazgul</author>
	<datestamp>1247666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they're saying is that the people that use p2p are expected to wait until 3 in the morning to get a decent connection. I don't think so.
<br>
<br>
If I pay for a 5Mb/s connection with unlimited downloads, I should be able to GET 5Mb/s no matter what I do at what time. If I want to be a leech for 24/7. Hey, that's what I paid for. For example some days you'll open up a p2p connection to download some new video you heard about when you get home from work, as it's unlikely you'll be able to use my machine off peak hours (Sorry! Work, family and sleep get in the way of off peak times). That download SHOULD take 1 hour and without being slowed down to 5-6 hours.
<br> <br>
I expect to get what I pay for at <b>all</b> times. Peak hours are called that because it's when MOST people are awake and home and actually have free to to use their connection. Off peak hours are for vampires and grue's.
<br> <br>
If I pay for a 10Mb/s connection with a cap of 100GB usage, that's what I should get. If I want more, I pay more. But I should GET what I pay for. Here's another car analogy.
<br> <br>
I'm not buying a corvette to find the engine acts like a pinto during certain hours.
<br>
I'm paying for a specific speed. It should be <b>my</b> choice if I want 100GB (1/2 tank gas) or 200GB (Full tank). If I want a faster speed with a lower or higher cap, let those that use, pay, but GIVE them what they pay for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 're saying is that the people that use p2p are expected to wait until 3 in the morning to get a decent connection .
I do n't think so .
If I pay for a 5Mb/s connection with unlimited downloads , I should be able to GET 5Mb/s no matter what I do at what time .
If I want to be a leech for 24/7 .
Hey , that 's what I paid for .
For example some days you 'll open up a p2p connection to download some new video you heard about when you get home from work , as it 's unlikely you 'll be able to use my machine off peak hours ( Sorry !
Work , family and sleep get in the way of off peak times ) .
That download SHOULD take 1 hour and without being slowed down to 5-6 hours .
I expect to get what I pay for at all times .
Peak hours are called that because it 's when MOST people are awake and home and actually have free to to use their connection .
Off peak hours are for vampires and grue 's .
If I pay for a 10Mb/s connection with a cap of 100GB usage , that 's what I should get .
If I want more , I pay more .
But I should GET what I pay for .
Here 's another car analogy .
I 'm not buying a corvette to find the engine acts like a pinto during certain hours .
I 'm paying for a specific speed .
It should be my choice if I want 100GB ( 1/2 tank gas ) or 200GB ( Full tank ) .
If I want a faster speed with a lower or higher cap , let those that use , pay , but GIVE them what they pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they're saying is that the people that use p2p are expected to wait until 3 in the morning to get a decent connection.
I don't think so.
If I pay for a 5Mb/s connection with unlimited downloads, I should be able to GET 5Mb/s no matter what I do at what time.
If I want to be a leech for 24/7.
Hey, that's what I paid for.
For example some days you'll open up a p2p connection to download some new video you heard about when you get home from work, as it's unlikely you'll be able to use my machine off peak hours (Sorry!
Work, family and sleep get in the way of off peak times).
That download SHOULD take 1 hour and without being slowed down to 5-6 hours.
I expect to get what I pay for at all times.
Peak hours are called that because it's when MOST people are awake and home and actually have free to to use their connection.
Off peak hours are for vampires and grue's.
If I pay for a 10Mb/s connection with a cap of 100GB usage, that's what I should get.
If I want more, I pay more.
But I should GET what I pay for.
Here's another car analogy.
I'm not buying a corvette to find the engine acts like a pinto during certain hours.
I'm paying for a specific speed.
It should be my choice if I want 100GB (1/2 tank gas) or 200GB (Full tank).
If I want a faster speed with a lower or higher cap, let those that use, pay, but GIVE them what they pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703685</id>
	<title>misleading much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Net neutrality has nothing to do with shaping P2P traffic.  And any such tie is just another leacher trying to masquerade as legitimate use.  I dunno about you guys but I have downloaded ISOs for Linux distros and its' always been from mirrors directly using FTP or HTTP, never P2P.  I'm not saying P2P is bad, but it *is* essentially only used to distribute copyrighted materials.</p><p>Net neutrality though is more about peering between hosts than clients.  Like being able to go to google.ca with my Rogers cable modem even though Rogers is a "yahoo" partner.  That's what neutrality is about.  Not about whiny kids trying to leach off P2P.</p><p>And frankly shaping is fair.  Why should my once-in-a-while traffic be slowed down because some ass with a pile of torrents wants to download [or upload] 24/7/365?  We're both paying the same monthly fees, yet I get less of the service [which is finite in capacity] because they're being a hog.  It'd be like going to a buffet and filling your plate with all of the awesome crispy chicken wings.  Sure we both paid the same to get into the buffet, but you're still an ass for taking more than your share.</p><p>On the other hand I'm having a hard time feeling bad about Rogers margins.  This is the same company that charges $7/mo to show you the number of who is calling you.  That's essentially a 99.99\% profit margin for what amounts to very cheap over-the-air traffic.</p><p>Either way, neutrality is not about P2P so stop pretending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality has nothing to do with shaping P2P traffic .
And any such tie is just another leacher trying to masquerade as legitimate use .
I dunno about you guys but I have downloaded ISOs for Linux distros and its ' always been from mirrors directly using FTP or HTTP , never P2P .
I 'm not saying P2P is bad , but it * is * essentially only used to distribute copyrighted materials.Net neutrality though is more about peering between hosts than clients .
Like being able to go to google.ca with my Rogers cable modem even though Rogers is a " yahoo " partner .
That 's what neutrality is about .
Not about whiny kids trying to leach off P2P.And frankly shaping is fair .
Why should my once-in-a-while traffic be slowed down because some ass with a pile of torrents wants to download [ or upload ] 24/7/365 ?
We 're both paying the same monthly fees , yet I get less of the service [ which is finite in capacity ] because they 're being a hog .
It 'd be like going to a buffet and filling your plate with all of the awesome crispy chicken wings .
Sure we both paid the same to get into the buffet , but you 're still an ass for taking more than your share.On the other hand I 'm having a hard time feeling bad about Rogers margins .
This is the same company that charges $ 7/mo to show you the number of who is calling you .
That 's essentially a 99.99 \ % profit margin for what amounts to very cheap over-the-air traffic.Either way , neutrality is not about P2P so stop pretending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality has nothing to do with shaping P2P traffic.
And any such tie is just another leacher trying to masquerade as legitimate use.
I dunno about you guys but I have downloaded ISOs for Linux distros and its' always been from mirrors directly using FTP or HTTP, never P2P.
I'm not saying P2P is bad, but it *is* essentially only used to distribute copyrighted materials.Net neutrality though is more about peering between hosts than clients.
Like being able to go to google.ca with my Rogers cable modem even though Rogers is a "yahoo" partner.
That's what neutrality is about.
Not about whiny kids trying to leach off P2P.And frankly shaping is fair.
Why should my once-in-a-while traffic be slowed down because some ass with a pile of torrents wants to download [or upload] 24/7/365?
We're both paying the same monthly fees, yet I get less of the service [which is finite in capacity] because they're being a hog.
It'd be like going to a buffet and filling your plate with all of the awesome crispy chicken wings.
Sure we both paid the same to get into the buffet, but you're still an ass for taking more than your share.On the other hand I'm having a hard time feeling bad about Rogers margins.
This is the same company that charges $7/mo to show you the number of who is calling you.
That's essentially a 99.99\% profit margin for what amounts to very cheap over-the-air traffic.Either way, neutrality is not about P2P so stop pretending.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702153</id>
	<title>Don't sell service you can't consistently provide</title>
	<author>seekret</author>
	<datestamp>1247665320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When it comes to traffic shaping I am a firm believer that the companies should not be overloading their connection. If an ISP advertises a certain rate they should not be relying on most people not using the Internet except during prime time as an excuse to promise service they can't actually provide. P2P has many applications and it's only going to get bigger so the ISPs need to start adapting by either not accepting more customers than they can currently handle during all hours of the day at the maximum advertised connection speed, or upgrading the network to accommodate the uses of P2P technology.

Traffic shaping is the primary reason I use DSL. My ISP never throttles my bandwidth even if my upload is running at 80\% 24/7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to traffic shaping I am a firm believer that the companies should not be overloading their connection .
If an ISP advertises a certain rate they should not be relying on most people not using the Internet except during prime time as an excuse to promise service they ca n't actually provide .
P2P has many applications and it 's only going to get bigger so the ISPs need to start adapting by either not accepting more customers than they can currently handle during all hours of the day at the maximum advertised connection speed , or upgrading the network to accommodate the uses of P2P technology .
Traffic shaping is the primary reason I use DSL .
My ISP never throttles my bandwidth even if my upload is running at 80 \ % 24/7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to traffic shaping I am a firm believer that the companies should not be overloading their connection.
If an ISP advertises a certain rate they should not be relying on most people not using the Internet except during prime time as an excuse to promise service they can't actually provide.
P2P has many applications and it's only going to get bigger so the ISPs need to start adapting by either not accepting more customers than they can currently handle during all hours of the day at the maximum advertised connection speed, or upgrading the network to accommodate the uses of P2P technology.
Traffic shaping is the primary reason I use DSL.
My ISP never throttles my bandwidth even if my upload is running at 80\% 24/7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706347</id>
	<title>Why do they have to throttle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247686320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their court filings showed that the amount of time they were at capacity was like a couple of percent of the time.</p><p>WITHOUT throttling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their court filings showed that the amount of time they were at capacity was like a couple of percent of the time.WITHOUT throttling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their court filings showed that the amount of time they were at capacity was like a couple of percent of the time.WITHOUT throttling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702799</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247669040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct. Here my ISP now have a "10Mbps" plan for more or less US$20/month, as "promotion".
<br> <br>
But, the <i>real price from plan</i> is more or less <b>US$120</b>, and in pratice you get only 1Mbps after one or two Months, if you are lucky. Is only to say "Look! my link is bigger than the others ISPs, buy it now!". But is a lie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
Here my ISP now have a " 10Mbps " plan for more or less US $ 20/month , as " promotion " .
But , the real price from plan is more or less US $ 120 , and in pratice you get only 1Mbps after one or two Months , if you are lucky .
Is only to say " Look !
my link is bigger than the others ISPs , buy it now ! " .
But is a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
Here my ISP now have a "10Mbps" plan for more or less US$20/month, as "promotion".
But, the real price from plan is more or less US$120, and in pratice you get only 1Mbps after one or two Months, if you are lucky.
Is only to say "Look!
my link is bigger than the others ISPs, buy it now!".
But is a lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702157</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247665380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The comments on <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4133/125/" title="michaelgeist.ca">Michael Geist's blog</a> [michaelgeist.ca] indicate that the polling went rather like you expected.<blockquote><div><p>Interestingly, just prior to the release of the survey, one of the people who was called over the weekend (the survey was conducted July 9 - 12th) contacted me to report:<br> <br>

<i>I took a Harris-Decima phone poll over the weekend and their questions about traffic shaping could be roughly summed up as "Did you know that your neighbour's movie downloading is slowing down your Internet?".</i></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The comments on Michael Geist 's blog [ michaelgeist.ca ] indicate that the polling went rather like you expected.Interestingly , just prior to the release of the survey , one of the people who was called over the weekend ( the survey was conducted July 9 - 12th ) contacted me to report : I took a Harris-Decima phone poll over the weekend and their questions about traffic shaping could be roughly summed up as " Did you know that your neighbour 's movie downloading is slowing down your Internet ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comments on Michael Geist's blog [michaelgeist.ca] indicate that the polling went rather like you expected.Interestingly, just prior to the release of the survey, one of the people who was called over the weekend (the survey was conducted July 9 - 12th) contacted me to report: 

I took a Harris-Decima phone poll over the weekend and their questions about traffic shaping could be roughly summed up as "Did you know that your neighbour's movie downloading is slowing down your Internet?
". 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702055</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247664600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you are asking yourself if you should shape other people's traffic because there isn't enough bandwidth, then the answer isn't to prioritize realtime protocols. The answer is to add bandwidth. You oversold your bandwidth (which is fine) and miscalculated the usage (not fine). That is YOUR fault. The bulk traffic user is just using the service that he paid for and he does not deserve to be throttled. What is inside his IP packets is none of your business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you are asking yourself if you should shape other people 's traffic because there is n't enough bandwidth , then the answer is n't to prioritize realtime protocols .
The answer is to add bandwidth .
You oversold your bandwidth ( which is fine ) and miscalculated the usage ( not fine ) .
That is YOUR fault .
The bulk traffic user is just using the service that he paid for and he does not deserve to be throttled .
What is inside his IP packets is none of your business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you are asking yourself if you should shape other people's traffic because there isn't enough bandwidth, then the answer isn't to prioritize realtime protocols.
The answer is to add bandwidth.
You oversold your bandwidth (which is fine) and miscalculated the usage (not fine).
That is YOUR fault.
The bulk traffic user is just using the service that he paid for and he does not deserve to be throttled.
What is inside his IP packets is none of your business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702969</id>
	<title>Re:Charging by the Gigibyte...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247669880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both Rogers and Bell in Canada do. 1.5$ per GB for standard account. 3$ per GB for a lite account. 1$ per GB for their most expensive account.</p><p>If they changed reasonable rates I wouldn't mind.</p><p>For comparison Teksavvy, an independent ISP sells it for 0.25$ cents a GB, you can also pre-pay for 100GB for 10$ (0.10 cents a GB).</p><p>So does that seem like fair prices? Also note that Teksavvy as an independent has to lease its lines from Bell, and Bell traffic shapes Teksavvy's customers as well.</p><p>Neither Bell or Rogers have a leg to stand on. They simply rely on the fact that the CRTC is spineless, and they have a duopoly. Heck reports subpoenaed from Bell even proved that their "need" to traffic shape what totally bullshit to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Rogers and Bell in Canada do .
1.5 $ per GB for standard account .
3 $ per GB for a lite account .
1 $ per GB for their most expensive account.If they changed reasonable rates I would n't mind.For comparison Teksavvy , an independent ISP sells it for 0.25 $ cents a GB , you can also pre-pay for 100GB for 10 $ ( 0.10 cents a GB ) .So does that seem like fair prices ?
Also note that Teksavvy as an independent has to lease its lines from Bell , and Bell traffic shapes Teksavvy 's customers as well.Neither Bell or Rogers have a leg to stand on .
They simply rely on the fact that the CRTC is spineless , and they have a duopoly .
Heck reports subpoenaed from Bell even proved that their " need " to traffic shape what totally bullshit to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Rogers and Bell in Canada do.
1.5$ per GB for standard account.
3$ per GB for a lite account.
1$ per GB for their most expensive account.If they changed reasonable rates I wouldn't mind.For comparison Teksavvy, an independent ISP sells it for 0.25$ cents a GB, you can also pre-pay for 100GB for 10$ (0.10 cents a GB).So does that seem like fair prices?
Also note that Teksavvy as an independent has to lease its lines from Bell, and Bell traffic shapes Teksavvy's customers as well.Neither Bell or Rogers have a leg to stand on.
They simply rely on the fact that the CRTC is spineless, and they have a duopoly.
Heck reports subpoenaed from Bell even proved that their "need" to traffic shape what totally bullshit to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702751</id>
	<title>I AM CANADIAN!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247668860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am going to ring the bullshit bell. I would not be surprised if this "survey" was done on behalf of the telecommunications industry. As the adage goes you can make statistics prove whatever you like.</p><p>First of all what "percentage" of Canadians even know wtf "traffic shaping" is? Second, even if it was explained to them in detail, would understand? Thirdly how was it explained, and with what bias? Considering for a moment that Rogers Communications describes it as "a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action", then if course people are going to vote that way. Another car analogy? Really?</p><p>On top of this what they could vote for is phrased as "reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly". Wtf does that mean? Because we all know that in Canada the telecommunications industry, Rogers and Bell, certainly have a record of treating customers "fairly". Bell was quoted in these CRTC hearings to say basically it was "fair" to degrade network quality to independent ISP's because they do it to their own customers. In essence, they argue the playing field is even because they treat their customers just as shitty as  they treat the independents that lease their lines. Bell and Rogers have been screwing it to the customer for as long as I can remember as they have no competition to speak of, and consumers have no choice but to bend over and smile.</p><p>The summary points out that only 20\% poll had ever even heard of file shaping before, which makes the survey a bit silly. They also make a point that I just did that the people polled is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to ring the bullshit bell .
I would not be surprised if this " survey " was done on behalf of the telecommunications industry .
As the adage goes you can make statistics prove whatever you like.First of all what " percentage " of Canadians even know wtf " traffic shaping " is ?
Second , even if it was explained to them in detail , would understand ?
Thirdly how was it explained , and with what bias ?
Considering for a moment that Rogers Communications describes it as " a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night , clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action " , then if course people are going to vote that way .
Another car analogy ?
Really ? On top of this what they could vote for is phrased as " reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly " .
Wtf does that mean ?
Because we all know that in Canada the telecommunications industry , Rogers and Bell , certainly have a record of treating customers " fairly " .
Bell was quoted in these CRTC hearings to say basically it was " fair " to degrade network quality to independent ISP 's because they do it to their own customers .
In essence , they argue the playing field is even because they treat their customers just as shitty as they treat the independents that lease their lines .
Bell and Rogers have been screwing it to the customer for as long as I can remember as they have no competition to speak of , and consumers have no choice but to bend over and smile.The summary points out that only 20 \ % poll had ever even heard of file shaping before , which makes the survey a bit silly .
They also make a point that I just did that the people polled is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to ring the bullshit bell.
I would not be surprised if this "survey" was done on behalf of the telecommunications industry.
As the adage goes you can make statistics prove whatever you like.First of all what "percentage" of Canadians even know wtf "traffic shaping" is?
Second, even if it was explained to them in detail, would understand?
Thirdly how was it explained, and with what bias?
Considering for a moment that Rogers Communications describes it as "a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action", then if course people are going to vote that way.
Another car analogy?
Really?On top of this what they could vote for is phrased as "reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly".
Wtf does that mean?
Because we all know that in Canada the telecommunications industry, Rogers and Bell, certainly have a record of treating customers "fairly".
Bell was quoted in these CRTC hearings to say basically it was "fair" to degrade network quality to independent ISP's because they do it to their own customers.
In essence, they argue the playing field is even because they treat their customers just as shitty as  they treat the independents that lease their lines.
Bell and Rogers have been screwing it to the customer for as long as I can remember as they have no competition to speak of, and consumers have no choice but to bend over and smile.The summary points out that only 20\% poll had ever even heard of file shaping before, which makes the survey a bit silly.
They also make a point that I just did that the people polled is</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28717161</id>
	<title>What!</title>
	<author>Maikeru Diron</author>
	<datestamp>1247760600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to know who they asked.
I work for an ISP, and I have many friends who work for others within Atlantic Canada - Not one of us heard of this survey, and I would flat out call them liars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to know who they asked .
I work for an ISP , and I have many friends who work for others within Atlantic Canada - Not one of us heard of this survey , and I would flat out call them liars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to know who they asked.
I work for an ISP, and I have many friends who work for others within Atlantic Canada - Not one of us heard of this survey, and I would flat out call them liars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Blymie</author>
	<datestamp>1247664600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, that this *is* about network neutrality as well.</p><p>What happens when someone wants to start offering cable TV over the net?  It's already started, and that's much more bandwidth intensive than P2P.  It is also completely legal, to boot!  In Canada, you can rebroadcast OTA TV without paying anyone a dime, currently.</p><p>What happens when someone starts to offer live video streaming, aka movie downloading, legally?</p><p>Heck, what about video game patches, add ons, downloads of Linux distros, etc, etc, etc.  All of these are entirely legal, and all of them can use P2P.</p><p>Bell's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues.  In reality, they take objection to ALL bandwidth intensive applications.  They've stated so in the past, with comments like "only 5\% of users use P2P, everyone else only checks their email and views a few webpages a night".  To them, a "few webpages" means looking at Google news, and barely using anything bandwidth intensive like YouTube.  The real issue here is that Bell vastly oversells its bandwidth.</p><p>Throttling in *any way* causes issues with Network Neutrality.  An ISP is a pipe.  Provide $x bandwidth, with $y data cap, and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.  Anything else is entirely, completely, and fully dishonest.</p><p>Hell, Bell and Rogers sell movie rentals, TV access, cable and the like.  To them, any way they can make bandwidth intensive applications look bad, is a big, massive boon to their business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , that this * is * about network neutrality as well.What happens when someone wants to start offering cable TV over the net ?
It 's already started , and that 's much more bandwidth intensive than P2P .
It is also completely legal , to boot !
In Canada , you can rebroadcast OTA TV without paying anyone a dime , currently.What happens when someone starts to offer live video streaming , aka movie downloading , legally ? Heck , what about video game patches , add ons , downloads of Linux distros , etc , etc , etc .
All of these are entirely legal , and all of them can use P2P.Bell 's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues .
In reality , they take objection to ALL bandwidth intensive applications .
They 've stated so in the past , with comments like " only 5 \ % of users use P2P , everyone else only checks their email and views a few webpages a night " .
To them , a " few webpages " means looking at Google news , and barely using anything bandwidth intensive like YouTube .
The real issue here is that Bell vastly oversells its bandwidth.Throttling in * any way * causes issues with Network Neutrality .
An ISP is a pipe .
Provide $ x bandwidth , with $ y data cap , and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY .
Anything else is entirely , completely , and fully dishonest.Hell , Bell and Rogers sell movie rentals , TV access , cable and the like .
To them , any way they can make bandwidth intensive applications look bad , is a big , massive boon to their business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, that this *is* about network neutrality as well.What happens when someone wants to start offering cable TV over the net?
It's already started, and that's much more bandwidth intensive than P2P.
It is also completely legal, to boot!
In Canada, you can rebroadcast OTA TV without paying anyone a dime, currently.What happens when someone starts to offer live video streaming, aka movie downloading, legally?Heck, what about video game patches, add ons, downloads of Linux distros, etc, etc, etc.
All of these are entirely legal, and all of them can use P2P.Bell's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues.
In reality, they take objection to ALL bandwidth intensive applications.
They've stated so in the past, with comments like "only 5\% of users use P2P, everyone else only checks their email and views a few webpages a night".
To them, a "few webpages" means looking at Google news, and barely using anything bandwidth intensive like YouTube.
The real issue here is that Bell vastly oversells its bandwidth.Throttling in *any way* causes issues with Network Neutrality.
An ISP is a pipe.
Provide $x bandwidth, with $y data cap, and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.
Anything else is entirely, completely, and fully dishonest.Hell, Bell and Rogers sell movie rentals, TV access, cable and the like.
To them, any way they can make bandwidth intensive applications look bad, is a big, massive boon to their business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705081</id>
	<title>Re:Charging by the Gigibyte...</title>
	<author>Synchis</author>
	<datestamp>1247680980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a heavy internet user. My local ISP offers 2 service levels, capped, and uncapped, at 2 different price points. I opted for the capped service.</p><p>If I was offered a usage based billing option that was *reasonable* (say... $1/G/mth, which would be significantly more than the $29.95/200G/mth I have now) I would definitely buy into that.</p><p>On months where my internet usage was heavy, I would pay more, and on months where it was light I would pay less.</p><p>Thing is, if you look at my ISP:</p><p>29.95/200G/mth/5Mbit/800kbit<br>39.95/Unlimited/mth/5Mbit/800kbit</p><p>and then look at Bell:</p><p>19.95/2G/mth/1Mbit/800kbit<br>29.95/25G/mth/6Mbit/1Mbit<br>39.95/50G/mth/12Mbit/1Mbit<br>49.95/75G/mth/18Mbit/1Mbit</p><p>theres a bit of a disconnect here...</p><p>Bell subscribes people for 18Mbit dsl service... and then screams and hollers when people *use* that bandwidth? I believe thats the biggest problem in the canadian market right now.</p><p>Not to mention the fact that *my* dsl ISP is throttled by Bell's traffic shaping, as Bell traffic shapes all traffic (including wholesalers).</p><p>Is that fair?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a heavy internet user .
My local ISP offers 2 service levels , capped , and uncapped , at 2 different price points .
I opted for the capped service.If I was offered a usage based billing option that was * reasonable * ( say... $ 1/G/mth , which would be significantly more than the $ 29.95/200G/mth I have now ) I would definitely buy into that.On months where my internet usage was heavy , I would pay more , and on months where it was light I would pay less.Thing is , if you look at my ISP : 29.95/200G/mth/5Mbit/800kbit39.95/Unlimited/mth/5Mbit/800kbitand then look at Bell : 19.95/2G/mth/1Mbit/800kbit29.95/25G/mth/6Mbit/1Mbit39.95/50G/mth/12Mbit/1Mbit49.95/75G/mth/18Mbit/1Mbittheres a bit of a disconnect here...Bell subscribes people for 18Mbit dsl service... and then screams and hollers when people * use * that bandwidth ?
I believe thats the biggest problem in the canadian market right now.Not to mention the fact that * my * dsl ISP is throttled by Bell 's traffic shaping , as Bell traffic shapes all traffic ( including wholesalers ) .Is that fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a heavy internet user.
My local ISP offers 2 service levels, capped, and uncapped, at 2 different price points.
I opted for the capped service.If I was offered a usage based billing option that was *reasonable* (say... $1/G/mth, which would be significantly more than the $29.95/200G/mth I have now) I would definitely buy into that.On months where my internet usage was heavy, I would pay more, and on months where it was light I would pay less.Thing is, if you look at my ISP:29.95/200G/mth/5Mbit/800kbit39.95/Unlimited/mth/5Mbit/800kbitand then look at Bell:19.95/2G/mth/1Mbit/800kbit29.95/25G/mth/6Mbit/1Mbit39.95/50G/mth/12Mbit/1Mbit49.95/75G/mth/18Mbit/1Mbittheres a bit of a disconnect here...Bell subscribes people for 18Mbit dsl service... and then screams and hollers when people *use* that bandwidth?
I believe thats the biggest problem in the canadian market right now.Not to mention the fact that *my* dsl ISP is throttled by Bell's traffic shaping, as Bell traffic shapes all traffic (including wholesalers).Is that fair?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705787</id>
	<title>Meanwhile</title>
	<author>frozentier</author>
	<datestamp>1247683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meanwhile, as my 4 gig torrent download screeches to a halt, the neighbor to my left downloads a DVD from Netflix, and the neighbor to my right masturbates while streaming porn to his computer, both at 8 Mbs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , as my 4 gig torrent download screeches to a halt , the neighbor to my left downloads a DVD from Netflix , and the neighbor to my right masturbates while streaming porn to his computer , both at 8 Mbs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, as my 4 gig torrent download screeches to a halt, the neighbor to my left downloads a DVD from Netflix, and the neighbor to my right masturbates while streaming porn to his computer, both at 8 Mbs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28708941</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1247655360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much truth in that it's not funny.  I've always believe that poll questions should be written so they can be understood.  After all, and not to create a mud slinging match.  But using 'vague' questions like this is nearly how Canada had Quebec separate from us when the separatists manage to use a ambiguously vague question.</p><p>The problem is, pollsters love their vague questions.  More so in Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much truth in that it 's not funny .
I 've always believe that poll questions should be written so they can be understood .
After all , and not to create a mud slinging match .
But using 'vague ' questions like this is nearly how Canada had Quebec separate from us when the separatists manage to use a ambiguously vague question.The problem is , pollsters love their vague questions .
More so in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much truth in that it's not funny.
I've always believe that poll questions should be written so they can be understood.
After all, and not to create a mud slinging match.
But using 'vague' questions like this is nearly how Canada had Quebec separate from us when the separatists manage to use a ambiguously vague question.The problem is, pollsters love their vague questions.
More so in Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705049</id>
	<title>I took this survey and the question was misleading</title>
	<author>sporb</author>
	<datestamp>1247680920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually took this phone survey. When they asked about traffic shaping, I told the interviewer that the question was extremely misleading. At the end of the interview, I emailed the polling company to express my alarm that they were using such misleading questions. I would recommend others who took this survey do the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually took this phone survey .
When they asked about traffic shaping , I told the interviewer that the question was extremely misleading .
At the end of the interview , I emailed the polling company to express my alarm that they were using such misleading questions .
I would recommend others who took this survey do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually took this phone survey.
When they asked about traffic shaping, I told the interviewer that the question was extremely misleading.
At the end of the interview, I emailed the polling company to express my alarm that they were using such misleading questions.
I would recommend others who took this survey do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702921</id>
	<title>Tag: FalseDilemma</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1247669580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is there a lack of education about the long-term effects of traffic shaping on free communication? Or are net neutrality advocates just out of touch?"</p><p>No bias to that statement there. It seems that the people surveyed support fair traffic shaping.  I.e., shape based on content, but be agnostic to the source. QoS has been talked about for quite some time without it being political. VOIP/televideo/VoD gets a certain degree of higher priority over things that are fine coming in possibly disordered packets. let customers know this when they buy a plan. But most importantly, do it fairly. If you sell VOIP, treat all VOIP at the same QoS level. Now, if Comcast offers live streaming TV, but degrades ALL non-streamed video delivery, maybe there's a problem. But that should be a treatable problem. As long as it is source/destination neutral, QoS can increase usefulness of a network for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is there a lack of education about the long-term effects of traffic shaping on free communication ?
Or are net neutrality advocates just out of touch ?
" No bias to that statement there .
It seems that the people surveyed support fair traffic shaping .
I.e. , shape based on content , but be agnostic to the source .
QoS has been talked about for quite some time without it being political .
VOIP/televideo/VoD gets a certain degree of higher priority over things that are fine coming in possibly disordered packets .
let customers know this when they buy a plan .
But most importantly , do it fairly .
If you sell VOIP , treat all VOIP at the same QoS level .
Now , if Comcast offers live streaming TV , but degrades ALL non-streamed video delivery , maybe there 's a problem .
But that should be a treatable problem .
As long as it is source/destination neutral , QoS can increase usefulness of a network for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is there a lack of education about the long-term effects of traffic shaping on free communication?
Or are net neutrality advocates just out of touch?
"No bias to that statement there.
It seems that the people surveyed support fair traffic shaping.
I.e., shape based on content, but be agnostic to the source.
QoS has been talked about for quite some time without it being political.
VOIP/televideo/VoD gets a certain degree of higher priority over things that are fine coming in possibly disordered packets.
let customers know this when they buy a plan.
But most importantly, do it fairly.
If you sell VOIP, treat all VOIP at the same QoS level.
Now, if Comcast offers live streaming TV, but degrades ALL non-streamed video delivery, maybe there's a problem.
But that should be a treatable problem.
As long as it is source/destination neutral, QoS can increase usefulness of a network for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161</id>
	<title>Charging by the Gigibyte...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247665380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...would give the ISPs a financial incentive to speed your music and video downloads along.  But you'd never support such an outrage, would you?  Because then you'd actually have to *pay* for downloading all your "tunes" and movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...would give the ISPs a financial incentive to speed your music and video downloads along .
But you 'd never support such an outrage , would you ?
Because then you 'd actually have to * pay * for downloading all your " tunes " and movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...would give the ISPs a financial incentive to speed your music and video downloads along.
But you'd never support such an outrage, would you?
Because then you'd actually have to *pay* for downloading all your "tunes" and movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702725</id>
	<title>you insenSitiv3 clod!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247668680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">By The politiCkers A dead man walking. Obligated to care When I stood for guests. Some people has run faster</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>By The politiCkers A dead man walking .
Obligated to care When I stood for guests .
Some people has run faster [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By The politiCkers A dead man walking.
Obligated to care When I stood for guests.
Some people has run faster [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702079</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247664660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""Do you think data being consumed in real time (video, phone calls, etc.) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use?" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be "yes". And it's not a bad answer. "<br>Yes, it is a bad answer. If person A and person B are both paying X dollars / unit for their Inet service, there is no justifiable reason on earth that person A's VoIP or streaming traffic should be given priority over person B's traffic. If it doesn't work without this favoritism, too frakkin' bad. Don't use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " Do you think data being consumed in real time ( video , phone calls , etc .
) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use ?
" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be " yes " .
And it 's not a bad answer .
" Yes , it is a bad answer .
If person A and person B are both paying X dollars / unit for their Inet service , there is no justifiable reason on earth that person A 's VoIP or streaming traffic should be given priority over person B 's traffic .
If it does n't work without this favoritism , too frakkin ' bad .
Do n't use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""Do you think data being consumed in real time (video, phone calls, etc.
) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use?
" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be "yes".
And it's not a bad answer.
"Yes, it is a bad answer.
If person A and person B are both paying X dollars / unit for their Inet service, there is no justifiable reason on earth that person A's VoIP or streaming traffic should be given priority over person B's traffic.
If it doesn't work without this favoritism, too frakkin' bad.
Don't use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702175</id>
	<title>More Propaganda</title>
	<author>gx5000</author>
	<datestamp>1247665500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More Propaganda...<br>Only dogs now what to do with poles...and this one deserves it.<br>We DO MIND Traffic shaping...<br>But what the heck can we do about it ?<br>Month after month our bills get higher and our download cap gets smaller...<br>We need to open up the market to more competition so badly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More Propaganda...Only dogs now what to do with poles...and this one deserves it.We DO MIND Traffic shaping...But what the heck can we do about it ? Month after month our bills get higher and our download cap gets smaller...We need to open up the market to more competition so badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More Propaganda...Only dogs now what to do with poles...and this one deserves it.We DO MIND Traffic shaping...But what the heck can we do about it ?Month after month our bills get higher and our download cap gets smaller...We need to open up the market to more competition so badly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702517</id>
	<title>In a related poll...</title>
	<author>pig-power</author>
	<datestamp>1247667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Pollsters found that most users fully understood how<br>
important traffic lights are to proper traffic shaping"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pollsters found that most users fully understood how important traffic lights are to proper traffic shaping "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pollsters found that most users fully understood how
important traffic lights are to proper traffic shaping"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702475</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1247667240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not even close to what the op was implying. Go strawman/recycle republican talking points elsewhere.</p><p>The reality is, traffic shaping when used to stifle your competition, is anticompetitive by definition. This is a problem. Nobody has an issue with not having enough bandwidth, but it's very easy to go from managing a lack of bandwidth to anticompetitive and definitely tempting for large corrupt companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not even close to what the op was implying .
Go strawman/recycle republican talking points elsewhere.The reality is , traffic shaping when used to stifle your competition , is anticompetitive by definition .
This is a problem .
Nobody has an issue with not having enough bandwidth , but it 's very easy to go from managing a lack of bandwidth to anticompetitive and definitely tempting for large corrupt companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not even close to what the op was implying.
Go strawman/recycle republican talking points elsewhere.The reality is, traffic shaping when used to stifle your competition, is anticompetitive by definition.
This is a problem.
Nobody has an issue with not having enough bandwidth, but it's very easy to go from managing a lack of bandwidth to anticompetitive and definitely tempting for large corrupt companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702747</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1247668860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats. </p></div><p>Or both.</p><p>This is the ISP that regularly monitors customer traffic.<br>How do I know?  They send you an email if your computer gets infected with an IRCbot.  How would they know you're infected, without monitoring traffic from your computer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad I 'm not in Canada , because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats .
Or both.This is the ISP that regularly monitors customer traffic.How do I know ?
They send you an email if your computer gets infected with an IRCbot .
How would they know you 're infected , without monitoring traffic from your computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats.
Or both.This is the ISP that regularly monitors customer traffic.How do I know?
They send you an email if your computer gets infected with an IRCbot.
How would they know you're infected, without monitoring traffic from your computer?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</id>
	<title>Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247663340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>
This isn't a question about Net Neutrality at all.  This is a question about network management.  If you asked people this question:  "Do you think data being consumed in real time (video, phone calls, etc.) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use?" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be "yes".  And it's not a bad answer.
</p><p>
The actual Net Neutrality question is: "Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage's VoIP traffic if they don't similarly degrade Rogers' own VoIP traffic?"
</p><p>
The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these, where people are being mislead to believe network management is the same as net neutrality.  That's the lie that is being used to skew the statistics of public opinion.  And it doesn't help that P2P proponents try to use the same lie to claim some mythical rights under the guise of net neutrality, either.  If a router has a choice between discarding one packet or another, it's disruptive to fewer people if it throws away the VoIP packet.  That's traffic shaping 101, and has nothing to do with network neutrality.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a question about Net Neutrality at all .
This is a question about network management .
If you asked people this question : " Do you think data being consumed in real time ( video , phone calls , etc .
) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use ?
" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be " yes " .
And it 's not a bad answer .
The actual Net Neutrality question is : " Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage 's VoIP traffic if they do n't similarly degrade Rogers ' own VoIP traffic ?
" The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these , where people are being mislead to believe network management is the same as net neutrality .
That 's the lie that is being used to skew the statistics of public opinion .
And it does n't help that P2P proponents try to use the same lie to claim some mythical rights under the guise of net neutrality , either .
If a router has a choice between discarding one packet or another , it 's disruptive to fewer people if it throws away the VoIP packet .
That 's traffic shaping 101 , and has nothing to do with network neutrality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

This isn't a question about Net Neutrality at all.
This is a question about network management.
If you asked people this question:  "Do you think data being consumed in real time (video, phone calls, etc.
) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use?
" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be "yes".
And it's not a bad answer.
The actual Net Neutrality question is: "Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage's VoIP traffic if they don't similarly degrade Rogers' own VoIP traffic?
"

The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these, where people are being mislead to believe network management is the same as net neutrality.
That's the lie that is being used to skew the statistics of public opinion.
And it doesn't help that P2P proponents try to use the same lie to claim some mythical rights under the guise of net neutrality, either.
If a router has a choice between discarding one packet or another, it's disruptive to fewer people if it throws away the VoIP packet.
That's traffic shaping 101, and has nothing to do with network neutrality.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702615</id>
	<title>The other shoe...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1247668080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"As long as all customers are treated fairly in the way they are affected, most believe that traffic shaping is a reasonable approach for ISPs (Internet service providers) to take," said the survey.</i></p><p>That first clause, "As long as all customers are treated fairly", is the tricky bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As long as all customers are treated fairly in the way they are affected , most believe that traffic shaping is a reasonable approach for ISPs ( Internet service providers ) to take , " said the survey.That first clause , " As long as all customers are treated fairly " , is the tricky bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As long as all customers are treated fairly in the way they are affected, most believe that traffic shaping is a reasonable approach for ISPs (Internet service providers) to take," said the survey.That first clause, "As long as all customers are treated fairly", is the tricky bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702151</id>
	<title>get your analogies straight</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1247665320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.'</i></p><p>Close but no banana.  There's one severe disparity in that analogy.  They're not parked cars.  This example makes it look like the resource is being wasted, unused, and entirely withheld from others that need it.  I'd go for that comparison if it were a car that was <b>driving</b> on that highway.  I might have to concede that they have a rather large gas tank and have been driving in circles around the bypass ring all day long, consuming resources continuously that others need only a small portion of, but the used analogy here is just fraud.</p><p>This is just getting back to the people getting kicked out of the all-you-can-eat-buffet for eating too much.  Now <b>there's</b> an accurate analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rogers , meanwhile , compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night , clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action .
'Close but no banana .
There 's one severe disparity in that analogy .
They 're not parked cars .
This example makes it look like the resource is being wasted , unused , and entirely withheld from others that need it .
I 'd go for that comparison if it were a car that was driving on that highway .
I might have to concede that they have a rather large gas tank and have been driving in circles around the bypass ring all day long , consuming resources continuously that others need only a small portion of , but the used analogy here is just fraud.This is just getting back to the people getting kicked out of the all-you-can-eat-buffet for eating too much .
Now there 's an accurate analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.
'Close but no banana.
There's one severe disparity in that analogy.
They're not parked cars.
This example makes it look like the resource is being wasted, unused, and entirely withheld from others that need it.
I'd go for that comparison if it were a car that was driving on that highway.
I might have to concede that they have a rather large gas tank and have been driving in circles around the bypass ring all day long, consuming resources continuously that others need only a small portion of, but the used analogy here is just fraud.This is just getting back to the people getting kicked out of the all-you-can-eat-buffet for eating too much.
Now there's an accurate analogy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702429</id>
	<title>Re:Charging by the Gigibyte...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247667060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be a good idea, if the charges were reasonable.  Charging $1/Gb is unreasonable.  Charging something like $0.05/Gb would be reasonable and I suspect would be widely supported.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be a good idea , if the charges were reasonable .
Charging $ 1/Gb is unreasonable .
Charging something like $ 0.05/Gb would be reasonable and I suspect would be widely supported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be a good idea, if the charges were reasonable.
Charging $1/Gb is unreasonable.
Charging something like $0.05/Gb would be reasonable and I suspect would be widely supported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28709301</id>
	<title>Re:Charging by the Gigibyte...</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1247656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their actual cost is probably more in the range of $0.005 to $.01 per GBYTE.  $0.05/Gb is way, way too marked up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their actual cost is probably more in the range of $ 0.005 to $ .01 per GBYTE .
$ 0.05/Gb is way , way too marked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their actual cost is probably more in the range of $0.005 to $.01 per GBYTE.
$0.05/Gb is way, way too marked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705655</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247683140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can add a few points here having worked for one of the ISP's in question for a number of years. First they DO massively oversubscribe their bandwidth. All ISP's do it to some extent, but few to the extent that Bell does for example. That company alone has literally received billions of dollars in federal government subsidies over the last decade (Broadband Task Force ring any bells?) and has invested very little in the actual infrastructure so they are to blame for the current bottlenecks. I am not going to waste time with analogies at all though.<br>The problem lies in the service they advertise ~vs~ the service they are providing, and the argument they are making for traffic shaping . They currently only focus on P2P, an I cannot say that is a terrible thing. The problem is they are trying to set a precedent for free control over what they allow to consume the advertised speeds, and what they do not. They have touted their service as blisteringly fast for a decade, and enticed would-be customers with images of an internet full of rich content for the whole family in their early advertising campaigns. This brought them the majority of their subscribers. Now that such content exists they are starting to scramble. For anyone who has actually read the 2008 submission to the CRTC they already know that the real bandwidth hogs were not using P2P at all as it accounted for less than 20\% of their upstream bandwidth (the stuff that goes to other providers and costs them per GB without a peering agreement) yet it still affected other bell users as they even oversubscribed the distribution network (the part that feeds the dslam from the core) this is irresponsible network design and greedy management plain and simple. That being said if they establish a precedent here then they will be free to throttle what ever they choose in the future and that should scare the crap out of any subscriber. This is not about movie sharing and stealing from Hollywood (sorry for anyone who thinks so but you are misinformed) this is about money!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can add a few points here having worked for one of the ISP 's in question for a number of years .
First they DO massively oversubscribe their bandwidth .
All ISP 's do it to some extent , but few to the extent that Bell does for example .
That company alone has literally received billions of dollars in federal government subsidies over the last decade ( Broadband Task Force ring any bells ?
) and has invested very little in the actual infrastructure so they are to blame for the current bottlenecks .
I am not going to waste time with analogies at all though.The problem lies in the service they advertise ~ vs ~ the service they are providing , and the argument they are making for traffic shaping .
They currently only focus on P2P , an I can not say that is a terrible thing .
The problem is they are trying to set a precedent for free control over what they allow to consume the advertised speeds , and what they do not .
They have touted their service as blisteringly fast for a decade , and enticed would-be customers with images of an internet full of rich content for the whole family in their early advertising campaigns .
This brought them the majority of their subscribers .
Now that such content exists they are starting to scramble .
For anyone who has actually read the 2008 submission to the CRTC they already know that the real bandwidth hogs were not using P2P at all as it accounted for less than 20 \ % of their upstream bandwidth ( the stuff that goes to other providers and costs them per GB without a peering agreement ) yet it still affected other bell users as they even oversubscribed the distribution network ( the part that feeds the dslam from the core ) this is irresponsible network design and greedy management plain and simple .
That being said if they establish a precedent here then they will be free to throttle what ever they choose in the future and that should scare the crap out of any subscriber .
This is not about movie sharing and stealing from Hollywood ( sorry for anyone who thinks so but you are misinformed ) this is about money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can add a few points here having worked for one of the ISP's in question for a number of years.
First they DO massively oversubscribe their bandwidth.
All ISP's do it to some extent, but few to the extent that Bell does for example.
That company alone has literally received billions of dollars in federal government subsidies over the last decade (Broadband Task Force ring any bells?
) and has invested very little in the actual infrastructure so they are to blame for the current bottlenecks.
I am not going to waste time with analogies at all though.The problem lies in the service they advertise ~vs~ the service they are providing, and the argument they are making for traffic shaping .
They currently only focus on P2P, an I cannot say that is a terrible thing.
The problem is they are trying to set a precedent for free control over what they allow to consume the advertised speeds, and what they do not.
They have touted their service as blisteringly fast for a decade, and enticed would-be customers with images of an internet full of rich content for the whole family in their early advertising campaigns.
This brought them the majority of their subscribers.
Now that such content exists they are starting to scramble.
For anyone who has actually read the 2008 submission to the CRTC they already know that the real bandwidth hogs were not using P2P at all as it accounted for less than 20\% of their upstream bandwidth (the stuff that goes to other providers and costs them per GB without a peering agreement) yet it still affected other bell users as they even oversubscribed the distribution network (the part that feeds the dslam from the core) this is irresponsible network design and greedy management plain and simple.
That being said if they establish a precedent here then they will be free to throttle what ever they choose in the future and that should scare the crap out of any subscriber.
This is not about movie sharing and stealing from Hollywood (sorry for anyone who thinks so but you are misinformed) this is about money!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706679</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A new poll by Galluq recently came out and out of 200,000 people asked if traffic shaping was reasonable</p><p>199,999 disagreed<br>1       agreed</p><p>Galluq (We are older and smarter than gallup)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A new poll by Galluq recently came out and out of 200,000 people asked if traffic shaping was reasonable199,999 disagreed1 agreedGalluq ( We are older and smarter than gallup )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new poll by Galluq recently came out and out of 200,000 people asked if traffic shaping was reasonable199,999 disagreed1       agreedGalluq (We are older and smarter than gallup)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703141</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1247671020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No offence, but that's not insightful at all, that's just ignorant.</p><p>There are high cost service agreements or peering arrangements that will guarantee you some percentage of the service you've purchased, but in almost all other cases, you are purchasing a peak speed, not a bandwidth.</p><p>When you purchase 6Mbit DSL for example, you're paying for the ability to go up to 6Mbits.  There's no guarantee that you'll download<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/anything/ at that speed, only that its technically possible.  If you don't like the service, don't pay for it.  If you want guaranteed service, ask for a business account with guarantees and a service level agreement and then check how many digits get added to your bill each month for those guarantees.</p><p>Home mass-market ISPs are all going to oversell bandwidth because that's how they make their money, and it always has been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No offence , but that 's not insightful at all , that 's just ignorant.There are high cost service agreements or peering arrangements that will guarantee you some percentage of the service you 've purchased , but in almost all other cases , you are purchasing a peak speed , not a bandwidth.When you purchase 6Mbit DSL for example , you 're paying for the ability to go up to 6Mbits .
There 's no guarantee that you 'll download /anything/ at that speed , only that its technically possible .
If you do n't like the service , do n't pay for it .
If you want guaranteed service , ask for a business account with guarantees and a service level agreement and then check how many digits get added to your bill each month for those guarantees.Home mass-market ISPs are all going to oversell bandwidth because that 's how they make their money , and it always has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offence, but that's not insightful at all, that's just ignorant.There are high cost service agreements or peering arrangements that will guarantee you some percentage of the service you've purchased, but in almost all other cases, you are purchasing a peak speed, not a bandwidth.When you purchase 6Mbit DSL for example, you're paying for the ability to go up to 6Mbits.
There's no guarantee that you'll download /anything/ at that speed, only that its technically possible.
If you don't like the service, don't pay for it.
If you want guaranteed service, ask for a business account with guarantees and a service level agreement and then check how many digits get added to your bill each month for those guarantees.Home mass-market ISPs are all going to oversell bandwidth because that's how they make their money, and it always has been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28707051</id>
	<title>Re:Plane Analogy</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1247689500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't like the car analogy. How about this one? An airplane has 100 seats. The airline sells 200 seats. The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter. However, they do propose a solution, noble and helpful businesspeople that they are. If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.</p></div><p>How about if a plane removes it's seats and says ok, we have 300 square feet of space. Since we estimate that a person takes up 3 square feet, then we will sell 100 tickets.<br>.<br>Then they find that most of the people are obese, and there simply isn't enough room for them all, so they look through the over weight people and tell the most unpopular ones that they have to leave the plane. Your are being kicked off because you hit your wife. You smell funny! And there's something oozing on your face. All of you had better leave to make room for us good people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the car analogy .
How about this one ?
An airplane has 100 seats .
The airline sells 200 seats .
The airline complains when 200 people show up because , clearly , the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline 's hands are tied in the matter .
However , they do propose a solution , noble and helpful businesspeople that they are .
If everyone pays a little more they 'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.How about if a plane removes it 's seats and says ok , we have 300 square feet of space .
Since we estimate that a person takes up 3 square feet , then we will sell 100 tickets..Then they find that most of the people are obese , and there simply is n't enough room for them all , so they look through the over weight people and tell the most unpopular ones that they have to leave the plane .
Your are being kicked off because you hit your wife .
You smell funny !
And there 's something oozing on your face .
All of you had better leave to make room for us good people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like the car analogy.
How about this one?
An airplane has 100 seats.
The airline sells 200 seats.
The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter.
However, they do propose a solution, noble and helpful businesspeople that they are.
If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.How about if a plane removes it's seats and says ok, we have 300 square feet of space.
Since we estimate that a person takes up 3 square feet, then we will sell 100 tickets..Then they find that most of the people are obese, and there simply isn't enough room for them all, so they look through the over weight people and tell the most unpopular ones that they have to leave the plane.
Your are being kicked off because you hit your wife.
You smell funny!
And there's something oozing on your face.
All of you had better leave to make room for us good people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705455</id>
	<title>Trafic shaping good, Non-neutrality  Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247682420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If my quake packet arrives before my HTTP one, yay!.... But if my Facebook content arrives slower than MySpace, because myspace paid my ISP more... that's bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If my quake packet arrives before my HTTP one , yay ! ... .
But if my Facebook content arrives slower than MySpace , because myspace paid my ISP more... that 's bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If my quake packet arrives before my HTTP one, yay!....
But if my Facebook content arrives slower than MySpace, because myspace paid my ISP more... that's bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706071</id>
	<title>Another poll...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is another poll, put up by one of my local papers (The Winnipeg Free Press) as a result of an article the published today in regards to this "poll"</p><p>If you want to voice your opinion on traffic shaping, feel free to go to [url]http://www.winnipegfreepress.com[/url] and scroll down about a page, it's in the left column.</p><p>I would link to the article, but it's just rehashing the topic of this post.   It is a misleading article that confuses traffic shaping and bandwidth limiting with net neutrality, and it really seems like nothing more than a PR piece put out by some of the largest ISPs in Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another poll , put up by one of my local papers ( The Winnipeg Free Press ) as a result of an article the published today in regards to this " poll " If you want to voice your opinion on traffic shaping , feel free to go to [ url ] http : //www.winnipegfreepress.com [ /url ] and scroll down about a page , it 's in the left column.I would link to the article , but it 's just rehashing the topic of this post .
It is a misleading article that confuses traffic shaping and bandwidth limiting with net neutrality , and it really seems like nothing more than a PR piece put out by some of the largest ISPs in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another poll, put up by one of my local papers (The Winnipeg Free Press) as a result of an article the published today in regards to this "poll"If you want to voice your opinion on traffic shaping, feel free to go to [url]http://www.winnipegfreepress.com[/url] and scroll down about a page, it's in the left column.I would link to the article, but it's just rehashing the topic of this post.
It is a misleading article that confuses traffic shaping and bandwidth limiting with net neutrality, and it really seems like nothing more than a PR piece put out by some of the largest ISPs in Canada.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702047</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1247664540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these</p></div><p>I wonder just how often this statement is true, or perhaps I should be careful with what I wish for. Some might say it's unfair to say but isn't it time journalism is rendered strictly as entertainment only? I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth, but it's really no secret that more often it's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like theseI wonder just how often this statement is true , or perhaps I should be careful with what I wish for .
Some might say it 's unfair to say but is n't it time journalism is rendered strictly as entertainment only ?
I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth , but it 's really no secret that more often it 's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like theseI wonder just how often this statement is true, or perhaps I should be careful with what I wish for.
Some might say it's unfair to say but isn't it time journalism is rendered strictly as entertainment only?
I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth, but it's really no secret that more often it's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702393</id>
	<title>The real need for shaping is in the upstream...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1247666820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Torrents aren't typically a problem because they're downloading huge files.  This is what the network is designed to do, and the end user expects to set-and-forget so it could reasonably have a time frame of 'tomorrow'.  The part that's contrary to the design is the uploading of huge files.  You're not supposed to be doing that.  Chances are, you even signed a contract that said you wouldn't run a 'server' of any kind.</p><p>The business model needs to adapt.  However, I don't think it is very honest to blame the ISP for expecting you to play by their terms.  We should be lobbying for change, perhaps at the legal level or perhaps by seeking/creating alternatives.</p><p>You leet's out there need more upstream, and your ISP needs to start seeing you as a data provider, and a lot of this will get better much sooner.  Until that happens, please limit your P2P upload rate to something minuscule and give the rest of us a fighting chance to have access to a speedy network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Torrents are n't typically a problem because they 're downloading huge files .
This is what the network is designed to do , and the end user expects to set-and-forget so it could reasonably have a time frame of 'tomorrow' .
The part that 's contrary to the design is the uploading of huge files .
You 're not supposed to be doing that .
Chances are , you even signed a contract that said you would n't run a 'server ' of any kind.The business model needs to adapt .
However , I do n't think it is very honest to blame the ISP for expecting you to play by their terms .
We should be lobbying for change , perhaps at the legal level or perhaps by seeking/creating alternatives.You leet 's out there need more upstream , and your ISP needs to start seeing you as a data provider , and a lot of this will get better much sooner .
Until that happens , please limit your P2P upload rate to something minuscule and give the rest of us a fighting chance to have access to a speedy network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Torrents aren't typically a problem because they're downloading huge files.
This is what the network is designed to do, and the end user expects to set-and-forget so it could reasonably have a time frame of 'tomorrow'.
The part that's contrary to the design is the uploading of huge files.
You're not supposed to be doing that.
Chances are, you even signed a contract that said you wouldn't run a 'server' of any kind.The business model needs to adapt.
However, I don't think it is very honest to blame the ISP for expecting you to play by their terms.
We should be lobbying for change, perhaps at the legal level or perhaps by seeking/creating alternatives.You leet's out there need more upstream, and your ISP needs to start seeing you as a data provider, and a lot of this will get better much sooner.
Until that happens, please limit your P2P upload rate to something minuscule and give the rest of us a fighting chance to have access to a speedy network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703523</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1247672820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bell's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues. [...] The real issue here is that Bell vastly oversells its bandwidth.</p></div><p>Precisely.  Think about what's going on here.. According to the summary, Bell throttled P2P down to as little as 1.5\% of the stated speed... think about that - if they're doing it to improve the speed of other traffic, that means that their pipe is saturated, and <i>everything</i> else is taking up the other 98.5\% of their bandwidth.. they're not just oversubscribed - they're engaging in fraud!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bell 's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues .
[ ... ] The real issue here is that Bell vastly oversells its bandwidth.Precisely .
Think about what 's going on here.. According to the summary , Bell throttled P2P down to as little as 1.5 \ % of the stated speed... think about that - if they 're doing it to improve the speed of other traffic , that means that their pipe is saturated , and everything else is taking up the other 98.5 \ % of their bandwidth.. they 're not just oversubscribed - they 're engaging in fraud !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bell's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues.
[...] The real issue here is that Bell vastly oversells its bandwidth.Precisely.
Think about what's going on here.. According to the summary, Bell throttled P2P down to as little as 1.5\% of the stated speed... think about that - if they're doing it to improve the speed of other traffic, that means that their pipe is saturated, and everything else is taking up the other 98.5\% of their bandwidth.. they're not just oversubscribed - they're engaging in fraud!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28711411</id>
	<title>Re:Plane Analogy</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247669640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>An airplane has 100 seats. The airline sells 200 seats. The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>No, it's the ticketholders which complain that they don't all get seats on their scheduled plane, even though the terms for the ticket state that they don't have a guaranteed seat at a particular time. Apparently a significant portion of tickets aren't used for the stated flight, so if all tickets guaranteed a seat, there would be many empty seats on most flights and thus tickets would cost more.

</p><p>It's the same with an ISP; they can guarantee bandwidth at a high cost, or provide a lower-cost conenction that has high bandwidth on average, but not always. With the guaranteed model even if everyone goes from just checking e-mail one day to constantly downloading video the next, there will be no problems since the ISP guarantees the bandwidth. With the non-guaranteed model, such a change would initially result in very low speeds for everyone until the ISP upgraded its capacity, which would require higher bills for everyone. There's no way around this. The point of traffic shaping is reduce the need for bandwidth upgrades by keeping important services fast and degrading less-important ones like movie downloads. This benefits users by allowing a lower bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An airplane has 100 seats .
The airline sells 200 seats .
The airline complains when 200 people show up because , clearly , the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline 's hands are tied in the matter .
No , it 's the ticketholders which complain that they do n't all get seats on their scheduled plane , even though the terms for the ticket state that they do n't have a guaranteed seat at a particular time .
Apparently a significant portion of tickets are n't used for the stated flight , so if all tickets guaranteed a seat , there would be many empty seats on most flights and thus tickets would cost more .
It 's the same with an ISP ; they can guarantee bandwidth at a high cost , or provide a lower-cost conenction that has high bandwidth on average , but not always .
With the guaranteed model even if everyone goes from just checking e-mail one day to constantly downloading video the next , there will be no problems since the ISP guarantees the bandwidth .
With the non-guaranteed model , such a change would initially result in very low speeds for everyone until the ISP upgraded its capacity , which would require higher bills for everyone .
There 's no way around this .
The point of traffic shaping is reduce the need for bandwidth upgrades by keeping important services fast and degrading less-important ones like movie downloads .
This benefits users by allowing a lower bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An airplane has 100 seats.
The airline sells 200 seats.
The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter.
No, it's the ticketholders which complain that they don't all get seats on their scheduled plane, even though the terms for the ticket state that they don't have a guaranteed seat at a particular time.
Apparently a significant portion of tickets aren't used for the stated flight, so if all tickets guaranteed a seat, there would be many empty seats on most flights and thus tickets would cost more.
It's the same with an ISP; they can guarantee bandwidth at a high cost, or provide a lower-cost conenction that has high bandwidth on average, but not always.
With the guaranteed model even if everyone goes from just checking e-mail one day to constantly downloading video the next, there will be no problems since the ISP guarantees the bandwidth.
With the non-guaranteed model, such a change would initially result in very low speeds for everyone until the ISP upgraded its capacity, which would require higher bills for everyone.
There's no way around this.
The point of traffic shaping is reduce the need for bandwidth upgrades by keeping important services fast and degrading less-important ones like movie downloads.
This benefits users by allowing a lower bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704237</id>
	<title>Re:Plane Analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247676960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go."</p><p>Nope, they call one taxi and he only takes you if you aren't too sketchy looking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If everyone pays a little more they 'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go .
" Nope , they call one taxi and he only takes you if you are n't too sketchy looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.
"Nope, they call one taxi and he only takes you if you aren't too sketchy looking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702315</id>
	<title>They own the network.  Deal.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They own the network.  They will charge whatever they want, and you will pay it, or go elsewhere.  You don't have to like it.  All this whiney crybaby bullshit with all the propeller heads thinking they are entitled to god-given unthrottled broadband is starting to piss me off.  They own it; you rent it.  They are the ones that have invested the money into this backbone.  Not you.  You are a leech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They own the network .
They will charge whatever they want , and you will pay it , or go elsewhere .
You do n't have to like it .
All this whiney crybaby bullshit with all the propeller heads thinking they are entitled to god-given unthrottled broadband is starting to piss me off .
They own it ; you rent it .
They are the ones that have invested the money into this backbone .
Not you .
You are a leech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They own the network.
They will charge whatever they want, and you will pay it, or go elsewhere.
You don't have to like it.
All this whiney crybaby bullshit with all the propeller heads thinking they are entitled to god-given unthrottled broadband is starting to piss me off.
They own it; you rent it.
They are the ones that have invested the money into this backbone.
Not you.
You are a leech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28713533</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1247775540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fact != truth</htmltext>
<tokenext>fact ! = truth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fact != truth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704409</id>
	<title>Equal bandwidth for equal payment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247677860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I do with the bandwidth is my business and none of the ISPs.</p><p>John A. downloading the latest Debian should get the same bandwidth and responsiveness as Fred B. using Skype to phone his mum.</p><p>If Bell doesn't have the capacity, then they should not offer the bandwidth. The same goes for all ISPs.</p><p>This is really an argument about favouring the services which the ISP and the paying corporate clients offer for money. Let them get away with it and you can kiss your freedom goodbye as more and more paid for tripe gets pumped into your home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do with the bandwidth is my business and none of the ISPs.John A. downloading the latest Debian should get the same bandwidth and responsiveness as Fred B. using Skype to phone his mum.If Bell does n't have the capacity , then they should not offer the bandwidth .
The same goes for all ISPs.This is really an argument about favouring the services which the ISP and the paying corporate clients offer for money .
Let them get away with it and you can kiss your freedom goodbye as more and more paid for tripe gets pumped into your home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I do with the bandwidth is my business and none of the ISPs.John A. downloading the latest Debian should get the same bandwidth and responsiveness as Fred B. using Skype to phone his mum.If Bell doesn't have the capacity, then they should not offer the bandwidth.
The same goes for all ISPs.This is really an argument about favouring the services which the ISP and the paying corporate clients offer for money.
Let them get away with it and you can kiss your freedom goodbye as more and more paid for tripe gets pumped into your home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702989</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247670000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happens when someone starts to offer live video streaming, aka movie downloading, legally?</i></p><p>You never heard of YouTube?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when someone starts to offer live video streaming , aka movie downloading , legally ? You never heard of YouTube ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when someone starts to offer live video streaming, aka movie downloading, legally?You never heard of YouTube?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702603</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Bender Unit 22</author>
	<datestamp>1247668080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is slowing down downloads etc a bit to make sure voip and other things works then I really don't care.<br>As long "a bit" isn't slowing things to a crawl 27/7 perhaps like 20\% during peak hours. Then I'd rather have a cheap throttled internet connection where time critical packages are getting through fast.</p><p>Of course in the real world until now,  what I have seen from a few ISPs is that traffic like unencrypted bittorrent are barely getting through 24/7, until you force encryption on or run it through a VPN tunnel.<br>My former ISP had a acceptable speed on my 20 megabit ADSL. But still when I forwarded all traffic in a VPN to a hosting center the speed on all protocols increased, torrent, http, ftp etc. even though most of the destinations had more routes to go through.<br>So I guess in theory it could work but the implementation is often much different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is slowing down downloads etc a bit to make sure voip and other things works then I really do n't care.As long " a bit " is n't slowing things to a crawl 27/7 perhaps like 20 \ % during peak hours .
Then I 'd rather have a cheap throttled internet connection where time critical packages are getting through fast.Of course in the real world until now , what I have seen from a few ISPs is that traffic like unencrypted bittorrent are barely getting through 24/7 , until you force encryption on or run it through a VPN tunnel.My former ISP had a acceptable speed on my 20 megabit ADSL .
But still when I forwarded all traffic in a VPN to a hosting center the speed on all protocols increased , torrent , http , ftp etc .
even though most of the destinations had more routes to go through.So I guess in theory it could work but the implementation is often much different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is slowing down downloads etc a bit to make sure voip and other things works then I really don't care.As long "a bit" isn't slowing things to a crawl 27/7 perhaps like 20\% during peak hours.
Then I'd rather have a cheap throttled internet connection where time critical packages are getting through fast.Of course in the real world until now,  what I have seen from a few ISPs is that traffic like unencrypted bittorrent are barely getting through 24/7, until you force encryption on or run it through a VPN tunnel.My former ISP had a acceptable speed on my 20 megabit ADSL.
But still when I forwarded all traffic in a VPN to a hosting center the speed on all protocols increased, torrent, http, ftp etc.
even though most of the destinations had more routes to go through.So I guess in theory it could work but the implementation is often much different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702261</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1247666040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The actual Net Neutrality question is: "Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage's VoIP traffic if they don't similarly degrade Rogers' own VoIP traffic?"</p></div></blockquote><p>That's your take on it, but it's not necessarily the right way to look at the problem. Some of us think ISPs should not be allowed to unfairly degrade specific protocols. It's one thing to shape traffic in a way that guarantees reliable service for all users, but some ISPs like to degrade P2P in ways that are not in proportion with actual impact on network resources.</p><p>I recall seeing a post by an ISP employee who bragged about degrading P2P performance down to unusable levels (something like 1\% of available bandwidth shared among all of the ISPs users) and laughing at the fact that customers might think the problem was on the peer's side rather than the ISP's side. I find that despicable, and a true violation of the principle of net neutrality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual Net Neutrality question is : " Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage 's VoIP traffic if they do n't similarly degrade Rogers ' own VoIP traffic ?
" That 's your take on it , but it 's not necessarily the right way to look at the problem .
Some of us think ISPs should not be allowed to unfairly degrade specific protocols .
It 's one thing to shape traffic in a way that guarantees reliable service for all users , but some ISPs like to degrade P2P in ways that are not in proportion with actual impact on network resources.I recall seeing a post by an ISP employee who bragged about degrading P2P performance down to unusable levels ( something like 1 \ % of available bandwidth shared among all of the ISPs users ) and laughing at the fact that customers might think the problem was on the peer 's side rather than the ISP 's side .
I find that despicable , and a true violation of the principle of net neutrality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual Net Neutrality question is: "Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage's VoIP traffic if they don't similarly degrade Rogers' own VoIP traffic?
"That's your take on it, but it's not necessarily the right way to look at the problem.
Some of us think ISPs should not be allowed to unfairly degrade specific protocols.
It's one thing to shape traffic in a way that guarantees reliable service for all users, but some ISPs like to degrade P2P in ways that are not in proportion with actual impact on network resources.I recall seeing a post by an ISP employee who bragged about degrading P2P performance down to unusable levels (something like 1\% of available bandwidth shared among all of the ISPs users) and laughing at the fact that customers might think the problem was on the peer's side rather than the ISP's side.
I find that despicable, and a true violation of the principle of net neutrality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28715333</id>
	<title>Fuck you, Frank!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you, Frank!</p><p>For those of you who aren't Penn &amp; Teller's Bullshit fans:<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB\_zK4</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you , Frank ! For those of you who are n't Penn &amp; Teller 's Bullshit fans : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = If9EWDB \ _zK4</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you, Frank!For those of you who aren't Penn &amp; Teller's Bullshit fans:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB\_zK4</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702407</id>
	<title>Plane Analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247666820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't like the car analogy. How about this one? An airplane has 100 seats. The airline sells 200 seats. The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter. However, they do propose a solution, noble and helpful businesspeople that they are. If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the car analogy .
How about this one ?
An airplane has 100 seats .
The airline sells 200 seats .
The airline complains when 200 people show up because , clearly , the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline 's hands are tied in the matter .
However , they do propose a solution , noble and helpful businesspeople that they are .
If everyone pays a little more they 'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like the car analogy.
How about this one?
An airplane has 100 seats.
The airline sells 200 seats.
The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter.
However, they do propose a solution, noble and helpful businesspeople that they are.
If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705463</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>stevied</author>
	<datestamp>1247682420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What happens when someone wants to start offering cable TV over the net? It's already started, and that's much more bandwidth intensive than P2P. It is also completely legal, to boot! In Canada, you can rebroadcast OTA TV without paying anyone a dime, currently.</i> <br> <br>

Assuming we're talking about <i>live</i> TV (if not, the situation is more like P2P), I think my answer is that this is a dumb use of the internet. In a situation where everybody wants the same data at a particular time, old-fashioned broadcast-through-the-ether is probably a better solution than clogging the internet's pipes full of hundreds of thousands of copies of the same bits. (Of course, another alternative would be to look at actually getting multicast to work..)<br> <br>

<i>Throttling in *any way* causes issues with Network Neutrality. An ISP is a pipe. Provide $x bandwidth, with $y data cap, and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Anything else is entirely, completely, and fully dishonest.</i> <br> <br>

And how much would prices have to go up? In a world with limited resources, I don't see anything wrong with deferring bulk transfers to off-peak hours. If the ISPs wanted to do this and still be seen to be playing fair, perhaps they could offer a guarantee of how many bits you can transfer in a 24hour period? So I'll know my Ubuntu ISO downloads and all the other stuff will complete with in a reasonable amount of time, but not necessarily at 5.30pm in the evening when everyone gets home from school / work and wants to check their email<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br> <br>

I'll concede, though, the word "unlimited" got used far too much in far too large typefaces in a lot of advertising. That was pretty dishonest<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when someone wants to start offering cable TV over the net ?
It 's already started , and that 's much more bandwidth intensive than P2P .
It is also completely legal , to boot !
In Canada , you can rebroadcast OTA TV without paying anyone a dime , currently .
Assuming we 're talking about live TV ( if not , the situation is more like P2P ) , I think my answer is that this is a dumb use of the internet .
In a situation where everybody wants the same data at a particular time , old-fashioned broadcast-through-the-ether is probably a better solution than clogging the internet 's pipes full of hundreds of thousands of copies of the same bits .
( Of course , another alternative would be to look at actually getting multicast to work.. ) Throttling in * any way * causes issues with Network Neutrality .
An ISP is a pipe .
Provide $ x bandwidth , with $ y data cap , and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY .
Anything else is entirely , completely , and fully dishonest .
And how much would prices have to go up ?
In a world with limited resources , I do n't see anything wrong with deferring bulk transfers to off-peak hours .
If the ISPs wanted to do this and still be seen to be playing fair , perhaps they could offer a guarantee of how many bits you can transfer in a 24hour period ?
So I 'll know my Ubuntu ISO downloads and all the other stuff will complete with in a reasonable amount of time , but not necessarily at 5.30pm in the evening when everyone gets home from school / work and wants to check their email . . I 'll concede , though , the word " unlimited " got used far too much in far too large typefaces in a lot of advertising .
That was pretty dishonest . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when someone wants to start offering cable TV over the net?
It's already started, and that's much more bandwidth intensive than P2P.
It is also completely legal, to boot!
In Canada, you can rebroadcast OTA TV without paying anyone a dime, currently.
Assuming we're talking about live TV (if not, the situation is more like P2P), I think my answer is that this is a dumb use of the internet.
In a situation where everybody wants the same data at a particular time, old-fashioned broadcast-through-the-ether is probably a better solution than clogging the internet's pipes full of hundreds of thousands of copies of the same bits.
(Of course, another alternative would be to look at actually getting multicast to work..) 

Throttling in *any way* causes issues with Network Neutrality.
An ISP is a pipe.
Provide $x bandwidth, with $y data cap, and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.
Anything else is entirely, completely, and fully dishonest.
And how much would prices have to go up?
In a world with limited resources, I don't see anything wrong with deferring bulk transfers to off-peak hours.
If the ISPs wanted to do this and still be seen to be playing fair, perhaps they could offer a guarantee of how many bits you can transfer in a 24hour period?
So I'll know my Ubuntu ISO downloads and all the other stuff will complete with in a reasonable amount of time, but not necessarily at 5.30pm in the evening when everyone gets home from school / work and wants to check their email .. 

I'll concede, though, the word "unlimited" got used far too much in far too large typefaces in a lot of advertising.
That was pretty dishonest ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703041</id>
	<title>Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247670300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention when they are selling the stuff they advertise that people need high speed, so they can download movies, etc... but then turn around once you have an account and slows your connection basically because you are doing what they told you could do?</p><p>I believe that may be the definition of crazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention when they are selling the stuff they advertise that people need high speed , so they can download movies , etc... but then turn around once you have an account and slows your connection basically because you are doing what they told you could do ? I believe that may be the definition of crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention when they are selling the stuff they advertise that people need high speed, so they can download movies, etc... but then turn around once you have an account and slows your connection basically because you are doing what they told you could do?I believe that may be the definition of crazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703531</id>
	<title>100\% of survey respondents also agreed..</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1247672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>100\% of survey respondents also agreed that if given the choice between their current ISP service and one that offered one hundred times the bandwidth for one-tenth the price, they'd choose the latter. So be sure to lobby the government for laws that support this position as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % of survey respondents also agreed that if given the choice between their current ISP service and one that offered one hundred times the bandwidth for one-tenth the price , they 'd choose the latter .
So be sure to lobby the government for laws that support this position as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% of survey respondents also agreed that if given the choice between their current ISP service and one that offered one hundred times the bandwidth for one-tenth the price, they'd choose the latter.
So be sure to lobby the government for laws that support this position as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28707051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28712779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28708941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28708575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28709301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28711411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28713533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2322204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28707051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28711411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28712779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28709301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28701921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702139
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703489
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702485
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702799
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702455
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705577
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702661
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28703041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28704867
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28708575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28706679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28708941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28713533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28702151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2322204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2322204.28705049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
