<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_16_1316213</id>
	<title>FCC Considers Opening Up US Broadband Access</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255700100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>On October 14, the FCC issued a <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs\_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2217A1.doc">call for public comments</a> on a <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/stage/pdf/Berkman\_Center\_Broadband\_Study\_13Oct09.pdf">study</a> (PDF) done by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society about whether the US should require the telephone and cable companies to <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/173703/study\_backs\_open\_access\_to">open their networks to competitors</a> so that independent ISPs could begin offering broadband, much in the way it was done back in the days of dialup access. The study found that open-access in virtually every other country 'is playing a central role in current planning exercises throughout the highest performing countries,' noting: 'While Congress adopted various open access provisions in the almost unanimously-approved Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC decided to abandon this mode of regulation for broadband in a series of decisions in 2001 and 2002. Open access has been largely treated as a closed issue in US policy debates ever since. We find that in countries where an engaged regulator enforced open access obligations, competitors that entered using these open access facilities provided an important catalyst for the development of robust competition which, in most cases, contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes On October 14 , the FCC issued a call for public comments on a study ( PDF ) done by Harvard 's Berkman Center for Internet and Society about whether the US should require the telephone and cable companies to open their networks to competitors so that independent ISPs could begin offering broadband , much in the way it was done back in the days of dialup access .
The study found that open-access in virtually every other country 'is playing a central role in current planning exercises throughout the highest performing countries, ' noting : 'While Congress adopted various open access provisions in the almost unanimously-approved Telecommunications Act of 1996 , the FCC decided to abandon this mode of regulation for broadband in a series of decisions in 2001 and 2002 .
Open access has been largely treated as a closed issue in US policy debates ever since .
We find that in countries where an engaged regulator enforced open access obligations , competitors that entered using these open access facilities provided an important catalyst for the development of robust competition which , in most cases , contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes On October 14, the FCC issued a call for public comments on a study (PDF) done by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society about whether the US should require the telephone and cable companies to open their networks to competitors so that independent ISPs could begin offering broadband, much in the way it was done back in the days of dialup access.
The study found that open-access in virtually every other country 'is playing a central role in current planning exercises throughout the highest performing countries,' noting: 'While Congress adopted various open access provisions in the almost unanimously-approved Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC decided to abandon this mode of regulation for broadband in a series of decisions in 2001 and 2002.
Open access has been largely treated as a closed issue in US policy debates ever since.
We find that in countries where an engaged regulator enforced open access obligations, competitors that entered using these open access facilities provided an important catalyst for the development of robust competition which, in most cases, contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767963</id>
	<title>slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255704300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics.'<br><a href="http://asasd.info/sitemap.php" title="asasd.info" rel="nofollow">slashdot</a> [asasd.info]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics .
'slashdot [ asasd.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> contributed to strong broadband performance across a range of metrics.
'slashdot [asasd.info]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770033</id>
	<title>Show me monies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all the fiber the cable companies have laid becomes public and they are termed &lsquo;neutral carriers&rsquo;.. what will drive cable companies to continue growing the infrastructure?</p><p>I agree, competition is great and especially in this industry, but how do you address a disincentive like this.. will the cable company receive compensation for the cable they install?  Will they charge a &lsquo;toll&rsquo; to use their lines, increasing competitors fees?  I foresee a possible oligarchy of sorts, where groups invest in expanding the infrastructure and agree to charge the same for use of that wire..</p><p>Thoughts?  Comments?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all the fiber the cable companies have laid becomes public and they are termed    neutral carriers    .. what will drive cable companies to continue growing the infrastructure ? I agree , competition is great and especially in this industry , but how do you address a disincentive like this.. will the cable company receive compensation for the cable they install ?
Will they charge a    toll    to use their lines , increasing competitors fees ?
I foresee a possible oligarchy of sorts , where groups invest in expanding the infrastructure and agree to charge the same for use of that wire..Thoughts ?
Comments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all the fiber the cable companies have laid becomes public and they are termed ‘neutral carriers’.. what will drive cable companies to continue growing the infrastructure?I agree, competition is great and especially in this industry, but how do you address a disincentive like this.. will the cable company receive compensation for the cable they install?
Will they charge a ‘toll’ to use their lines, increasing competitors fees?
I foresee a possible oligarchy of sorts, where groups invest in expanding the infrastructure and agree to charge the same for use of that wire..Thoughts?
Comments?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768459</id>
	<title>We don't need the FCC for WIRES, dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255707180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no compelling reason to create an interstate authority to deal with something as physically local as wires between your house and a network switch a mile away.  There were some good reasons for creating the FCC, and none of those reasons apply here.</p><p>As for opening access, that decision can be left to whatever government authority has given special favors (e.g. monopoly) to the phone/cableTV company.  Maybe that really is US Congress sometimes.  I honestly don't know.  But I also know my local phone company is mostly regulated by the state, and my local cable TV company has a very special deal with the city government.  Why can't <em>those</em> entities set terms that advance the interests of the people, in exchange for the monopoly powers?</p><p>We don't need Washington for this, and it's ok if your city/state ends up disagreeing on policy decisions with my city/state.  Maybe our communities' needs <em>really are</em> different.</p><p>Local governments sure as hell <em>represent</em> the people effected by their decision a lot more, than the FCC ever can.  That's not anti-Washington tea-bagger cynicism; that's the cold hard mathematics of taking the reciprocal of the number of constituents that a government serves.  It's a basic fundamental idea in democracy, and the reason we <em>have</em> any state, county, and city governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no compelling reason to create an interstate authority to deal with something as physically local as wires between your house and a network switch a mile away .
There were some good reasons for creating the FCC , and none of those reasons apply here.As for opening access , that decision can be left to whatever government authority has given special favors ( e.g .
monopoly ) to the phone/cableTV company .
Maybe that really is US Congress sometimes .
I honestly do n't know .
But I also know my local phone company is mostly regulated by the state , and my local cable TV company has a very special deal with the city government .
Why ca n't those entities set terms that advance the interests of the people , in exchange for the monopoly powers ? We do n't need Washington for this , and it 's ok if your city/state ends up disagreeing on policy decisions with my city/state .
Maybe our communities ' needs really are different.Local governments sure as hell represent the people effected by their decision a lot more , than the FCC ever can .
That 's not anti-Washington tea-bagger cynicism ; that 's the cold hard mathematics of taking the reciprocal of the number of constituents that a government serves .
It 's a basic fundamental idea in democracy , and the reason we have any state , county , and city governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no compelling reason to create an interstate authority to deal with something as physically local as wires between your house and a network switch a mile away.
There were some good reasons for creating the FCC, and none of those reasons apply here.As for opening access, that decision can be left to whatever government authority has given special favors (e.g.
monopoly) to the phone/cableTV company.
Maybe that really is US Congress sometimes.
I honestly don't know.
But I also know my local phone company is mostly regulated by the state, and my local cable TV company has a very special deal with the city government.
Why can't those entities set terms that advance the interests of the people, in exchange for the monopoly powers?We don't need Washington for this, and it's ok if your city/state ends up disagreeing on policy decisions with my city/state.
Maybe our communities' needs really are different.Local governments sure as hell represent the people effected by their decision a lot more, than the FCC ever can.
That's not anti-Washington tea-bagger cynicism; that's the cold hard mathematics of taking the reciprocal of the number of constituents that a government serves.
It's a basic fundamental idea in democracy, and the reason we have any state, county, and city governments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768903</id>
	<title>Confusing network layers? Posters are confusing me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255709220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be missing something here.</p><p>Those who "provide broadband" are the physical infrastructure providers (allowing for minimal software layers regarding static/dynamic IP addressing, mundane access control, etc.); this is not the same as what many deem "ISP"s to wit email service, web hosting, etc. It's the difference between who paves &amp; maintains the road to your mailbox vs. who picks up your trash. Back in the "golden age of the internet [where] you had dozens of ISPs to choose from" it was the phone company that provided the physical infrastructure connecting you to a bridge to the backbone; today you have a choice of phone, cable, DSL, 3G, 4G, WiMax, satellite, etc. providing that "last mile" type service bridging you to the Internet backbones. Don't confuse "golden age ISPs" data bridging service with their coincidental email/hosting/etc. services which you can now get from anywhere on the planet.</p><p>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm confused about what the FCC is considering opening up access to what by who. Anyone can, with big money, get into the very expensive "last mile" service (or into the backbone service). Comcast gives me that "last mile" service (and I have options for AT&amp;T DSL, Clear WiMax, Verizon 3G, etc.); pray tell who else is supposed to gain access to Comcast's wiring to my home for what purpose? My web/email hosting is on Hostway who knows where.</p><p>What am I missing here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be missing something here.Those who " provide broadband " are the physical infrastructure providers ( allowing for minimal software layers regarding static/dynamic IP addressing , mundane access control , etc .
) ; this is not the same as what many deem " ISP " s to wit email service , web hosting , etc .
It 's the difference between who paves &amp; maintains the road to your mailbox vs. who picks up your trash .
Back in the " golden age of the internet [ where ] you had dozens of ISPs to choose from " it was the phone company that provided the physical infrastructure connecting you to a bridge to the backbone ; today you have a choice of phone , cable , DSL , 3G , 4G , WiMax , satellite , etc .
providing that " last mile " type service bridging you to the Internet backbones .
Do n't confuse " golden age ISPs " data bridging service with their coincidental email/hosting/etc .
services which you can now get from anywhere on the planet.So ... I 'm confused about what the FCC is considering opening up access to what by who .
Anyone can , with big money , get into the very expensive " last mile " service ( or into the backbone service ) .
Comcast gives me that " last mile " service ( and I have options for AT&amp;T DSL , Clear WiMax , Verizon 3G , etc .
) ; pray tell who else is supposed to gain access to Comcast 's wiring to my home for what purpose ?
My web/email hosting is on Hostway who knows where.What am I missing here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be missing something here.Those who "provide broadband" are the physical infrastructure providers (allowing for minimal software layers regarding static/dynamic IP addressing, mundane access control, etc.
); this is not the same as what many deem "ISP"s to wit email service, web hosting, etc.
It's the difference between who paves &amp; maintains the road to your mailbox vs. who picks up your trash.
Back in the "golden age of the internet [where] you had dozens of ISPs to choose from" it was the phone company that provided the physical infrastructure connecting you to a bridge to the backbone; today you have a choice of phone, cable, DSL, 3G, 4G, WiMax, satellite, etc.
providing that "last mile" type service bridging you to the Internet backbones.
Don't confuse "golden age ISPs" data bridging service with their coincidental email/hosting/etc.
services which you can now get from anywhere on the planet.So ... I'm confused about what the FCC is considering opening up access to what by who.
Anyone can, with big money, get into the very expensive "last mile" service (or into the backbone service).
Comcast gives me that "last mile" service (and I have options for AT&amp;T DSL, Clear WiMax, Verizon 3G, etc.
); pray tell who else is supposed to gain access to Comcast's wiring to my home for what purpose?
My web/email hosting is on Hostway who knows where.What am I missing here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769439</id>
	<title>Re:So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1255711920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a law stating that every grocery store must allow other grocery stores to have stalls within their own store.  That would present a bizarre conflict of interest because they must help their competitors... and on their own property.</p><p>This is what the current "open access" laws do.  A telco who owns wires must allow another telco, who has no wires, to provide a competing service over their own wires.  That's just plain silly.  We need to go the next step, and establish telephone/ISP service providers, and providers of wires.  The provider of wires cannot provide service.  And a provider of service cannot provide wires.  Conflict vanishes.</p><p>I haven't read the PDF, but I think that is what it is talking about.  It fixes the reason why "open access" doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a law stating that every grocery store must allow other grocery stores to have stalls within their own store .
That would present a bizarre conflict of interest because they must help their competitors... and on their own property.This is what the current " open access " laws do .
A telco who owns wires must allow another telco , who has no wires , to provide a competing service over their own wires .
That 's just plain silly .
We need to go the next step , and establish telephone/ISP service providers , and providers of wires .
The provider of wires can not provide service .
And a provider of service can not provide wires .
Conflict vanishes.I have n't read the PDF , but I think that is what it is talking about .
It fixes the reason why " open access " does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a law stating that every grocery store must allow other grocery stores to have stalls within their own store.
That would present a bizarre conflict of interest because they must help their competitors... and on their own property.This is what the current "open access" laws do.
A telco who owns wires must allow another telco, who has no wires, to provide a competing service over their own wires.
That's just plain silly.
We need to go the next step, and establish telephone/ISP service providers, and providers of wires.
The provider of wires cannot provide service.
And a provider of service cannot provide wires.
Conflict vanishes.I haven't read the PDF, but I think that is what it is talking about.
It fixes the reason why "open access" doesn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767999</id>
	<title>Cell phones?</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1255704660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can they do this with cell phone networks too?  Not only to stop the Verizon "Can you hear me now", but I imagine that would focus on better phones rather than commercials about a fscking map.
<br> <br>
Just wonderin'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can they do this with cell phone networks too ?
Not only to stop the Verizon " Can you hear me now " , but I imagine that would focus on better phones rather than commercials about a fscking map .
Just wonderin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can they do this with cell phone networks too?
Not only to stop the Verizon "Can you hear me now", but I imagine that would focus on better phones rather than commercials about a fscking map.
Just wonderin'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769925</id>
	<title>Yaay finally</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1255714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its 2009 and I live in a big city (Phoenix, AZ). Yet still broadband cable is a (Cox) monopoly in my neighborhood. You can guess how good (not) and expensive (very) the service is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its 2009 and I live in a big city ( Phoenix , AZ ) .
Yet still broadband cable is a ( Cox ) monopoly in my neighborhood .
You can guess how good ( not ) and expensive ( very ) the service is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its 2009 and I live in a big city (Phoenix, AZ).
Yet still broadband cable is a (Cox) monopoly in my neighborhood.
You can guess how good (not) and expensive (very) the service is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173</id>
	<title>So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255705500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open access already is required by law, but the FCC isn't enforcing it.  Why?  Well, getting past the "It's all Bush's fault" crowd, the law was so poorly written that it was practically unenforceable.  The ILECs "opened" their lines to competitors, and then used paperwork, "reasonable" delays, and low level sabotage to ensure that their competitors didn't keep the clients they could get.</p><p>The problem isn't the FCC; the problem is a Congress that writes laws consist of</p><p>1) broad but vague edicts that are left to the Executive branch to complete ("Stimulus" Plan), and<br>2) "Disease of the Week" laws that are extremely narrow in response to whatever is in the news right now (banning ANY lead in childrens' items, no matter the exposure risk).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open access already is required by law , but the FCC is n't enforcing it .
Why ? Well , getting past the " It 's all Bush 's fault " crowd , the law was so poorly written that it was practically unenforceable .
The ILECs " opened " their lines to competitors , and then used paperwork , " reasonable " delays , and low level sabotage to ensure that their competitors did n't keep the clients they could get.The problem is n't the FCC ; the problem is a Congress that writes laws consist of1 ) broad but vague edicts that are left to the Executive branch to complete ( " Stimulus " Plan ) , and2 ) " Disease of the Week " laws that are extremely narrow in response to whatever is in the news right now ( banning ANY lead in childrens ' items , no matter the exposure risk ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open access already is required by law, but the FCC isn't enforcing it.
Why?  Well, getting past the "It's all Bush's fault" crowd, the law was so poorly written that it was practically unenforceable.
The ILECs "opened" their lines to competitors, and then used paperwork, "reasonable" delays, and low level sabotage to ensure that their competitors didn't keep the clients they could get.The problem isn't the FCC; the problem is a Congress that writes laws consist of1) broad but vague edicts that are left to the Executive branch to complete ("Stimulus" Plan), and2) "Disease of the Week" laws that are extremely narrow in response to whatever is in the news right now (banning ANY lead in childrens' items, no matter the exposure risk).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768113</id>
	<title>I wonder if it'll work as well as before...</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1255705200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny story.  When I first got DSL, back in 1999 or 2000, I (a) really wanted to stick with my cool existing dialup ISP, and (b) really wanted a static IP.  My landline provider, Verizon, was happy to sell me DSL for $49/mo, but with dynamic IP and none of the awesomeness my current ISP provided (static IP, shell access to the email/Web host, etc, etc).  Fortunately, thanks to the laws then in place, my ISP was able to offer DSL access over my Verizon line -- still giving me static IP, and letting me keep my existing accounts, all at the same $49/mo.</p><p> <b>UN</b>fortunately, Verizon back-charged my ISP something like $32.50/mo. for DSL access, so my ISP was suddenly getting $17.50/mo from me for an always-on DSL line's worth of traffic, where before they'd been getting $25/mo for a most-of-the-time-on dial-up connection's worth of traffic.  They got to keep a faithful customer, so yay, but they lost revenue and increased expenses.  I'm not sure how many others followed in my footsteps, or how much of a difference it made to the company, but they finally folded up and stole away in the wake of an ice-storm in 2002.</p><p>So, open access sounds like a great thing for consumers -- assuming the entrenched monopolists/duopolists can't find a way to make it economically untenable, while still complying with the letter of the law.  Of course, the only way <i>that</i> could happen is if the telcos and cablecos could somehow exert influence over the content of said law.  Good thing that never happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny story .
When I first got DSL , back in 1999 or 2000 , I ( a ) really wanted to stick with my cool existing dialup ISP , and ( b ) really wanted a static IP .
My landline provider , Verizon , was happy to sell me DSL for $ 49/mo , but with dynamic IP and none of the awesomeness my current ISP provided ( static IP , shell access to the email/Web host , etc , etc ) .
Fortunately , thanks to the laws then in place , my ISP was able to offer DSL access over my Verizon line -- still giving me static IP , and letting me keep my existing accounts , all at the same $ 49/mo .
UNfortunately , Verizon back-charged my ISP something like $ 32.50/mo .
for DSL access , so my ISP was suddenly getting $ 17.50/mo from me for an always-on DSL line 's worth of traffic , where before they 'd been getting $ 25/mo for a most-of-the-time-on dial-up connection 's worth of traffic .
They got to keep a faithful customer , so yay , but they lost revenue and increased expenses .
I 'm not sure how many others followed in my footsteps , or how much of a difference it made to the company , but they finally folded up and stole away in the wake of an ice-storm in 2002.So , open access sounds like a great thing for consumers -- assuming the entrenched monopolists/duopolists ca n't find a way to make it economically untenable , while still complying with the letter of the law .
Of course , the only way that could happen is if the telcos and cablecos could somehow exert influence over the content of said law .
Good thing that never happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny story.
When I first got DSL, back in 1999 or 2000, I (a) really wanted to stick with my cool existing dialup ISP, and (b) really wanted a static IP.
My landline provider, Verizon, was happy to sell me DSL for $49/mo, but with dynamic IP and none of the awesomeness my current ISP provided (static IP, shell access to the email/Web host, etc, etc).
Fortunately, thanks to the laws then in place, my ISP was able to offer DSL access over my Verizon line -- still giving me static IP, and letting me keep my existing accounts, all at the same $49/mo.
UNfortunately, Verizon back-charged my ISP something like $32.50/mo.
for DSL access, so my ISP was suddenly getting $17.50/mo from me for an always-on DSL line's worth of traffic, where before they'd been getting $25/mo for a most-of-the-time-on dial-up connection's worth of traffic.
They got to keep a faithful customer, so yay, but they lost revenue and increased expenses.
I'm not sure how many others followed in my footsteps, or how much of a difference it made to the company, but they finally folded up and stole away in the wake of an ice-storm in 2002.So, open access sounds like a great thing for consumers -- assuming the entrenched monopolists/duopolists can't find a way to make it economically untenable, while still complying with the letter of the law.
Of course, the only way that could happen is if the telcos and cablecos could somehow exert influence over the content of said law.
Good thing that never happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769363</id>
	<title>Freedom of rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255711620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this what the US was built on?!  The whole freedom thing!  Why should any telco have any right to prevent competition?  At the same time, why should they be required not too?  Lastly why should the FCC be involved at all with the exception of making sure they are playing fairly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this what the US was built on ? !
The whole freedom thing !
Why should any telco have any right to prevent competition ?
At the same time , why should they be required not too ?
Lastly why should the FCC be involved at all with the exception of making sure they are playing fairly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this what the US was built on?!
The whole freedom thing!
Why should any telco have any right to prevent competition?
At the same time, why should they be required not too?
Lastly why should the FCC be involved at all with the exception of making sure they are playing fairly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767933</id>
	<title>Monopoly vs. Balkanization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255704060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Choose one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Choose one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Choose one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769503</id>
	<title>See Brand X, 545 U.S. 967.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255712160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law was fine, it <b>was</b> the Bush FCC that FUBAR-ed it.  The law (statute) requires non-discriminatory access to telecommunications services.  The Bush FCC decided to argue that ISPs weren't actually selling telecommunications services, because it was an "integrated package" with email, etc...  That is just plain stupid.  SCOTUS went along with it because a few conservatives on the court (Justices Thomas) decided they'd overlook an administrative agency's clearly irrational interpretation of a statute because it would result in a libertarian economic policy they favored.    Scalia's dissent was withering, and rightly so.  Read it here:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZD.html</p><p>IMHO, a statute would be helpful...  The critics have at least one thing right; this kind of policy shouldn't change whenever the Presidency switches parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law was fine , it was the Bush FCC that FUBAR-ed it .
The law ( statute ) requires non-discriminatory access to telecommunications services .
The Bush FCC decided to argue that ISPs were n't actually selling telecommunications services , because it was an " integrated package " with email , etc... That is just plain stupid .
SCOTUS went along with it because a few conservatives on the court ( Justices Thomas ) decided they 'd overlook an administrative agency 's clearly irrational interpretation of a statute because it would result in a libertarian economic policy they favored .
Scalia 's dissent was withering , and rightly so .
Read it here : http : //www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZD.htmlIMHO , a statute would be helpful... The critics have at least one thing right ; this kind of policy should n't change whenever the Presidency switches parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law was fine, it was the Bush FCC that FUBAR-ed it.
The law (statute) requires non-discriminatory access to telecommunications services.
The Bush FCC decided to argue that ISPs weren't actually selling telecommunications services, because it was an "integrated package" with email, etc...  That is just plain stupid.
SCOTUS went along with it because a few conservatives on the court (Justices Thomas) decided they'd overlook an administrative agency's clearly irrational interpretation of a statute because it would result in a libertarian economic policy they favored.
Scalia's dissent was withering, and rightly so.
Read it here:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZD.htmlIMHO, a statute would be helpful...  The critics have at least one thing right; this kind of policy shouldn't change whenever the Presidency switches parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771871</id>
	<title>Canada</title>
	<author>Julien Brub</author>
	<datestamp>1255724460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If done right, it can be great.

In Qu&#233;bec, Canada, two large companies (Bell and Vid&#233;otron) had a monopoly on broadband. A few years ago, a 650k access was about 30-35$ (including modem rental, all fees, with a yearly contract).

Now, Bell is forced to share it's network and small companies can "rent" a dry loop (a phone line that cannot make phone calls) for 8$ a month.

Bell support to those companies was bad (read: non-existant) in the first few years, but now they have been imposed a short delay (a week or two) to fix the problems, or they get a fine. The system seems to work pretty well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If done right , it can be great .
In Qu   bec , Canada , two large companies ( Bell and Vid   otron ) had a monopoly on broadband .
A few years ago , a 650k access was about 30-35 $ ( including modem rental , all fees , with a yearly contract ) .
Now , Bell is forced to share it 's network and small companies can " rent " a dry loop ( a phone line that can not make phone calls ) for 8 $ a month .
Bell support to those companies was bad ( read : non-existant ) in the first few years , but now they have been imposed a short delay ( a week or two ) to fix the problems , or they get a fine .
The system seems to work pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If done right, it can be great.
In Québec, Canada, two large companies (Bell and Vidéotron) had a monopoly on broadband.
A few years ago, a 650k access was about 30-35$ (including modem rental, all fees, with a yearly contract).
Now, Bell is forced to share it's network and small companies can "rent" a dry loop (a phone line that cannot make phone calls) for 8$ a month.
Bell support to those companies was bad (read: non-existant) in the first few years, but now they have been imposed a short delay (a week or two) to fix the problems, or they get a fine.
The system seems to work pretty well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29772919</id>
	<title>Re:A return to the way things were</title>
	<author>nolifetillpleather</author>
	<datestamp>1255686960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh yes, the golden age of 56KB/s internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh yes , the golden age of 56KB/s internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh yes, the golden age of 56KB/s internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29790631</id>
	<title>This is the way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255892640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that it works in Australia. Although the problem we have is that most of the cable is owned by one company.... still it means that there can be competition when it comes to support and service</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that it works in Australia .
Although the problem we have is that most of the cable is owned by one company.... still it means that there can be competition when it comes to support and service</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that it works in Australia.
Although the problem we have is that most of the cable is owned by one company.... still it means that there can be competition when it comes to support and service</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768047</id>
	<title>Re:Canada</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1255704840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada has relatively lax regulations as compared to most European countries and it has been a huge damper on innovation and competition. Bandwidth is required to be sold wholesale to smaller providers but wholesale costs are allowed to be much higher than in Europe, and yes, the CRTC is considering lifting what meager regulations we have. It may well be a disaster for broadband prices and speeds and we already have some of the worst in the developed world</p><p>It's important to recognize that in Canada the networks were largely built using federal money and then handed over to the telecom giants. This is why regulations should exist; because the government has already interfered with competition, creating a partial monopoly. The US is a bit different since the providers built the networks using little taxpayer money. Nonetheless, more competition would clearly benefit the consumer</p><p>It's an interesting problem, I tend to be a libertarian (having just read Atlas Shrugged, it's tough not to lean further to the right than I have in the past) but I'm also an avid broadband user. I generally dislike government regulation, but the nature of the information infrastructure makes it difficult for competition to occur in an unregulated environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada has relatively lax regulations as compared to most European countries and it has been a huge damper on innovation and competition .
Bandwidth is required to be sold wholesale to smaller providers but wholesale costs are allowed to be much higher than in Europe , and yes , the CRTC is considering lifting what meager regulations we have .
It may well be a disaster for broadband prices and speeds and we already have some of the worst in the developed worldIt 's important to recognize that in Canada the networks were largely built using federal money and then handed over to the telecom giants .
This is why regulations should exist ; because the government has already interfered with competition , creating a partial monopoly .
The US is a bit different since the providers built the networks using little taxpayer money .
Nonetheless , more competition would clearly benefit the consumerIt 's an interesting problem , I tend to be a libertarian ( having just read Atlas Shrugged , it 's tough not to lean further to the right than I have in the past ) but I 'm also an avid broadband user .
I generally dislike government regulation , but the nature of the information infrastructure makes it difficult for competition to occur in an unregulated environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada has relatively lax regulations as compared to most European countries and it has been a huge damper on innovation and competition.
Bandwidth is required to be sold wholesale to smaller providers but wholesale costs are allowed to be much higher than in Europe, and yes, the CRTC is considering lifting what meager regulations we have.
It may well be a disaster for broadband prices and speeds and we already have some of the worst in the developed worldIt's important to recognize that in Canada the networks were largely built using federal money and then handed over to the telecom giants.
This is why regulations should exist; because the government has already interfered with competition, creating a partial monopoly.
The US is a bit different since the providers built the networks using little taxpayer money.
Nonetheless, more competition would clearly benefit the consumerIt's an interesting problem, I tend to be a libertarian (having just read Atlas Shrugged, it's tough not to lean further to the right than I have in the past) but I'm also an avid broadband user.
I generally dislike government regulation, but the nature of the information infrastructure makes it difficult for competition to occur in an unregulated environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768243</id>
	<title>Re:Canada</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1255705920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A wholesale business was never enforced on the non-telcos.  In some places, it's a choice of Rogers or DSL.  If your lines aren't good enough, then tough, you don't have a choice and have to pick one of the crappest ISPs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A wholesale business was never enforced on the non-telcos .
In some places , it 's a choice of Rogers or DSL .
If your lines are n't good enough , then tough , you do n't have a choice and have to pick one of the crappest ISPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A wholesale business was never enforced on the non-telcos.
In some places, it's a choice of Rogers or DSL.
If your lines aren't good enough, then tough, you don't have a choice and have to pick one of the crappest ISPs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768715</id>
	<title>As Long as</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1255708380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think its a good idea as long as no government money "Our Money" has been used by theses tel cos IE comcast att the ones keeping the lines. If they have received any government money then i say the lines are everyones and any business can use them as long as they also pay for line upkeep</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think its a good idea as long as no government money " Our Money " has been used by theses tel cos IE comcast att the ones keeping the lines .
If they have received any government money then i say the lines are everyones and any business can use them as long as they also pay for line upkeep</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think its a good idea as long as no government money "Our Money" has been used by theses tel cos IE comcast att the ones keeping the lines.
If they have received any government money then i say the lines are everyones and any business can use them as long as they also pay for line upkeep</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771217</id>
	<title>Universal Service</title>
	<author>Migraineman</author>
	<datestamp>1255720680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want universal service, dammit, in exchange for utility right-of-way access through my property.  Case and point: Verizon ran a fiber through my yard (on the pole for everyone to see) to service an adjacent community.  I tried to get FIOS for years, but nooooooo, they wouldn't give me a drop.  <br> <br>
I really wish the state governors would grow a pair and demand that companies using the utility corridors provide access to anyone who asks for it.  If that's not economical, they can find a different way to route their toobs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want universal service , dammit , in exchange for utility right-of-way access through my property .
Case and point : Verizon ran a fiber through my yard ( on the pole for everyone to see ) to service an adjacent community .
I tried to get FIOS for years , but nooooooo , they would n't give me a drop .
I really wish the state governors would grow a pair and demand that companies using the utility corridors provide access to anyone who asks for it .
If that 's not economical , they can find a different way to route their toobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want universal service, dammit, in exchange for utility right-of-way access through my property.
Case and point: Verizon ran a fiber through my yard (on the pole for everyone to see) to service an adjacent community.
I tried to get FIOS for years, but nooooooo, they wouldn't give me a drop.
I really wish the state governors would grow a pair and demand that companies using the utility corridors provide access to anyone who asks for it.
If that's not economical, they can find a different way to route their toobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768391</id>
	<title>Yes! PLEASE</title>
	<author>eples</author>
	<datestamp>1255706820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Verizon installed a fiber node this past year in my neighborhood, yet I cannot get FiOS because "it's not done". <br>
To make matters worse, I cannot use my preferred ISP (Speakeasy) because of the infrastructure hurdle mentioned above. <br>
<br>
<br>
In my mind, this is anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly (Verizon, obviously) to prevent me from choosing a different ISP. I really wish I could because Verizon's service and reliability is absolutely horrible.<br> <br>
One point of irony in all of this is that when the Verizon tech tested the copper line, the automated voice is still "Welcome to Bell Atlantic", the PREVIOUS established monopoly. (and it was James Earl Jones' voice no less.)<br> <br> <br>
As Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Krugman noted today in his column, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/opinion/16krugman.html" title="nytimes.com">competition is always a good thing</a> [nytimes.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon installed a fiber node this past year in my neighborhood , yet I can not get FiOS because " it 's not done " .
To make matters worse , I can not use my preferred ISP ( Speakeasy ) because of the infrastructure hurdle mentioned above .
In my mind , this is anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly ( Verizon , obviously ) to prevent me from choosing a different ISP .
I really wish I could because Verizon 's service and reliability is absolutely horrible .
One point of irony in all of this is that when the Verizon tech tested the copper line , the automated voice is still " Welcome to Bell Atlantic " , the PREVIOUS established monopoly .
( and it was James Earl Jones ' voice no less .
) As Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Krugman noted today in his column , competition is always a good thing [ nytimes.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon installed a fiber node this past year in my neighborhood, yet I cannot get FiOS because "it's not done".
To make matters worse, I cannot use my preferred ISP (Speakeasy) because of the infrastructure hurdle mentioned above.
In my mind, this is anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly (Verizon, obviously) to prevent me from choosing a different ISP.
I really wish I could because Verizon's service and reliability is absolutely horrible.
One point of irony in all of this is that when the Verizon tech tested the copper line, the automated voice is still "Welcome to Bell Atlantic", the PREVIOUS established monopoly.
(and it was James Earl Jones' voice no less.
)  
As Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Krugman noted today in his column, competition is always a good thing [nytimes.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769213</id>
	<title>Chile!</title>
	<author>nomorecwrd</author>
	<datestamp>1255710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
In Chile this has been open for several years, 31\% of population today has broadband access, not bad for a developing country.

For my home I can choose form several providers (also between two TV-Cable operators, apart from satellite, but that's another topic) . I pay around $28 for 3Mbps. and can go from 1Mbps for US$11 up to 10Mbps for US$70.... or FTTH for US$OMG!!

Competition is always good to the final user. (almost everybody advertises NO blocking or NO P2P restrictions... it's to easy to change to the competitor)

Just to let you know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Chile this has been open for several years , 31 \ % of population today has broadband access , not bad for a developing country .
For my home I can choose form several providers ( also between two TV-Cable operators , apart from satellite , but that 's another topic ) .
I pay around $ 28 for 3Mbps .
and can go from 1Mbps for US $ 11 up to 10Mbps for US $ 70.... or FTTH for US $ OMG ! !
Competition is always good to the final user .
( almost everybody advertises NO blocking or NO P2P restrictions... it 's to easy to change to the competitor ) Just to let you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In Chile this has been open for several years, 31\% of population today has broadband access, not bad for a developing country.
For my home I can choose form several providers (also between two TV-Cable operators, apart from satellite, but that's another topic) .
I pay around $28 for 3Mbps.
and can go from 1Mbps for US$11 up to 10Mbps for US$70.... or FTTH for US$OMG!!
Competition is always good to the final user.
(almost everybody advertises NO blocking or NO P2P restrictions... it's to easy to change to the competitor)

Just to let you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29788013</id>
	<title>Re:Cell phones?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1255869300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can they do this with cell phone networks too?</p></div></blockquote><p>Can they? Yes. Should they? No.</p><p>With cable and phone lines, municipalities have traditionally granted a single company a local monopoly over all of the cable/phone lines for every resident and business in their respective areas because telephone poles can only physically hold so many lines. For the consumer, this has turned out to be a tremendous mistake because it gives the incumbent providers no incentive to provide service that is either cheap or good, let alone both. By the time the government/public realized what a horrible idea this was in the 1980's or so, the dominant phone carrier had strung its lines across most of the country and by law, owned them. Cable companies followed the same path. Partly because AT&amp;T had set the precedent for last-mile connections, and partly because the technology for operating multiple carriers on a single cable TV network didn't exist then. (This was when "cancelling your cable" meant sending a lineman up a telephone pole to physically disconnect the line.)</p><p>Cell carriers are a different game entirely because anyone with enough initiative and capital can put up new cell towers. Radio spectrum issues aside, there's no physical barrier to how many cell networks can cover a given area.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can they do this with cell phone networks too ? Can they ?
Yes. Should they ?
No.With cable and phone lines , municipalities have traditionally granted a single company a local monopoly over all of the cable/phone lines for every resident and business in their respective areas because telephone poles can only physically hold so many lines .
For the consumer , this has turned out to be a tremendous mistake because it gives the incumbent providers no incentive to provide service that is either cheap or good , let alone both .
By the time the government/public realized what a horrible idea this was in the 1980 's or so , the dominant phone carrier had strung its lines across most of the country and by law , owned them .
Cable companies followed the same path .
Partly because AT&amp;T had set the precedent for last-mile connections , and partly because the technology for operating multiple carriers on a single cable TV network did n't exist then .
( This was when " cancelling your cable " meant sending a lineman up a telephone pole to physically disconnect the line .
) Cell carriers are a different game entirely because anyone with enough initiative and capital can put up new cell towers .
Radio spectrum issues aside , there 's no physical barrier to how many cell networks can cover a given area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can they do this with cell phone networks too?Can they?
Yes. Should they?
No.With cable and phone lines, municipalities have traditionally granted a single company a local monopoly over all of the cable/phone lines for every resident and business in their respective areas because telephone poles can only physically hold so many lines.
For the consumer, this has turned out to be a tremendous mistake because it gives the incumbent providers no incentive to provide service that is either cheap or good, let alone both.
By the time the government/public realized what a horrible idea this was in the 1980's or so, the dominant phone carrier had strung its lines across most of the country and by law, owned them.
Cable companies followed the same path.
Partly because AT&amp;T had set the precedent for last-mile connections, and partly because the technology for operating multiple carriers on a single cable TV network didn't exist then.
(This was when "cancelling your cable" meant sending a lineman up a telephone pole to physically disconnect the line.
)Cell carriers are a different game entirely because anyone with enough initiative and capital can put up new cell towers.
Radio spectrum issues aside, there's no physical barrier to how many cell networks can cover a given area.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770161</id>
	<title>Re:Yes! PLEASE</title>
	<author>oakgrove</author>
	<datestamp>1255715400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>James Earl Jones' voice no less</p></div><p>Test the line and get welcomed by Darth Vader.  Now that's epic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>James Earl Jones ' voice no lessTest the line and get welcomed by Darth Vader .
Now that 's epic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Earl Jones' voice no lessTest the line and get welcomed by Darth Vader.
Now that's epic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29777479</id>
	<title>New railroad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the track owner owns the trains as well.. you see where the priority lies. One of very few good uses for government is to protect competition. Not regulate it. The verticle integration of line and service is causing a problem. Remove the problem. Don't come up with some pansy over-regulated sharing happy happy pancake crap. Split the roles into different companies and move along. No new laws, just a return to sanity. The entry costs are respected without the consumer getting bent over. The lobbying at local, state, and fed levels and a lack of modern gov to adhere to their job responsibilities (and only those) caused the issue in the first place (see not splitting an abusive monop, hell they embraced it). That last thing we need to do is allow MORE inept government to regulate the internet at any level. No ongoing regulation required, just remove the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the track owner owns the trains as well.. you see where the priority lies .
One of very few good uses for government is to protect competition .
Not regulate it .
The verticle integration of line and service is causing a problem .
Remove the problem .
Do n't come up with some pansy over-regulated sharing happy happy pancake crap .
Split the roles into different companies and move along .
No new laws , just a return to sanity .
The entry costs are respected without the consumer getting bent over .
The lobbying at local , state , and fed levels and a lack of modern gov to adhere to their job responsibilities ( and only those ) caused the issue in the first place ( see not splitting an abusive monop , hell they embraced it ) .
That last thing we need to do is allow MORE inept government to regulate the internet at any level .
No ongoing regulation required , just remove the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the track owner owns the trains as well.. you see where the priority lies.
One of very few good uses for government is to protect competition.
Not regulate it.
The verticle integration of line and service is causing a problem.
Remove the problem.
Don't come up with some pansy over-regulated sharing happy happy pancake crap.
Split the roles into different companies and move along.
No new laws, just a return to sanity.
The entry costs are respected without the consumer getting bent over.
The lobbying at local, state, and fed levels and a lack of modern gov to adhere to their job responsibilities (and only those) caused the issue in the first place (see not splitting an abusive monop, hell they embraced it).
That last thing we need to do is allow MORE inept government to regulate the internet at any level.
No ongoing regulation required, just remove the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768581</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Astronomical? Here in Norway it costs $96 a month for adsl2+.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Astronomical ?
Here in Norway it costs $ 96 a month for adsl2 + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Astronomical?
Here in Norway it costs $96 a month for adsl2+.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770869</id>
	<title>Re:So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1255719000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analogy doesn't work. If you want to compete with an existing grocery store, you just open a new store across the street. CLECs don't have this option. They don't have this huge network of copper and fiber that the ILECs own (whose building was financed by landline phone customers), and building their own is prohibitive.</p><p>Let's try to modify your analogy so it makes more sense. That requires some fantasy. Suppose that gracery stores were very tightly regulated, so that only one store was allowed in any given community. (Which is exactly how AT&amp;T and a few regional independents operated in the old days.) This monopoly situation works because the government tells the grocery stores how much they can charge.</p><p>Then we decide to deregulate the grocery store and let the marketplace set prices. But for some reason you can't build new stores (hyperexpensive force fields needed to keep the food fresh) so just lifting regulation actually makes things worse, since each store is still a monopoly and can charge what it wants. If you don't force the stores to rent out space to their competitors, there are no competitors.</p><p>Contorted as it is, there's still a problem with my fantasy analogy: groceries occupy physical space. Bandwidth does not. An ILEC can accomodate any number of CLECs just by giving them a place to plug in.</p><p>When the ILECs first started offering data service over regular phone lines (remember ISDN?) they charged ridiculous rates because they had no competition. Which is why ISDN never cuaght on in the U.S. A pity, since now we're stuck with a kludgy digital-analog hybrid that does an end run around the ISDN tarrifs.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy does n't work .
If you want to compete with an existing grocery store , you just open a new store across the street .
CLECs do n't have this option .
They do n't have this huge network of copper and fiber that the ILECs own ( whose building was financed by landline phone customers ) , and building their own is prohibitive.Let 's try to modify your analogy so it makes more sense .
That requires some fantasy .
Suppose that gracery stores were very tightly regulated , so that only one store was allowed in any given community .
( Which is exactly how AT&amp;T and a few regional independents operated in the old days .
) This monopoly situation works because the government tells the grocery stores how much they can charge.Then we decide to deregulate the grocery store and let the marketplace set prices .
But for some reason you ca n't build new stores ( hyperexpensive force fields needed to keep the food fresh ) so just lifting regulation actually makes things worse , since each store is still a monopoly and can charge what it wants .
If you do n't force the stores to rent out space to their competitors , there are no competitors.Contorted as it is , there 's still a problem with my fantasy analogy : groceries occupy physical space .
Bandwidth does not .
An ILEC can accomodate any number of CLECs just by giving them a place to plug in.When the ILECs first started offering data service over regular phone lines ( remember ISDN ?
) they charged ridiculous rates because they had no competition .
Which is why ISDN never cuaght on in the U.S. A pity , since now we 're stuck with a kludgy digital-analog hybrid that does an end run around the ISDN tarrifs .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy doesn't work.
If you want to compete with an existing grocery store, you just open a new store across the street.
CLECs don't have this option.
They don't have this huge network of copper and fiber that the ILECs own (whose building was financed by landline phone customers), and building their own is prohibitive.Let's try to modify your analogy so it makes more sense.
That requires some fantasy.
Suppose that gracery stores were very tightly regulated, so that only one store was allowed in any given community.
(Which is exactly how AT&amp;T and a few regional independents operated in the old days.
) This monopoly situation works because the government tells the grocery stores how much they can charge.Then we decide to deregulate the grocery store and let the marketplace set prices.
But for some reason you can't build new stores (hyperexpensive force fields needed to keep the food fresh) so just lifting regulation actually makes things worse, since each store is still a monopoly and can charge what it wants.
If you don't force the stores to rent out space to their competitors, there are no competitors.Contorted as it is, there's still a problem with my fantasy analogy: groceries occupy physical space.
Bandwidth does not.
An ILEC can accomodate any number of CLECs just by giving them a place to plug in.When the ILECs first started offering data service over regular phone lines (remember ISDN?
) they charged ridiculous rates because they had no competition.
Which is why ISDN never cuaght on in the U.S. A pity, since now we're stuck with a kludgy digital-analog hybrid that does an end run around the ISDN tarrifs.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768209</id>
	<title>Sham</title>
	<author>\_LORAX\_</author>
	<datestamp>1255705680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open access is just a short term solution at best, a sham at worst;  as long as the media conglomerates own and operate the "last mile" infrastructure they will always have a competitive advantage in delivering services.  Open access works best in those other counties because the delivery system is often owned by the govt or a non-profit, not someone who is competing with others to provide service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open access is just a short term solution at best , a sham at worst ; as long as the media conglomerates own and operate the " last mile " infrastructure they will always have a competitive advantage in delivering services .
Open access works best in those other counties because the delivery system is often owned by the govt or a non-profit , not someone who is competing with others to provide service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open access is just a short term solution at best, a sham at worst;  as long as the media conglomerates own and operate the "last mile" infrastructure they will always have a competitive advantage in delivering services.
Open access works best in those other counties because the delivery system is often owned by the govt or a non-profit, not someone who is competing with others to provide service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769119</id>
	<title>Re:So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1255710300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ILECs "opened" their lines to competitors, and then used paperwork, "reasonable" delays, and low level sabotage to ensure that their competitors didn't keep the clients they could get.</p></div><p>Ain't that the truth.  I worked for a CLEC around '99-2000, and the ILECs were an absolute nightmare to deal with, even when they were technically complying with the laws.  For example, they had something like a 60 day window to handle requests that we submitted to them.  30?  60?  I forget, but we'll go with 60 for illustration.  In this case, "handle" doesn't mean "complete" - it just meant that they had to act on it in some way.</p><p>So, a new customer would sign up for our DSL service.  We'd fire off a work order to the ILEC to provision the line.  59.5 days later, we'd get back a notice that we didn't file form ID10T (which we didn't even know that the ILEC required because none of this was documented outside their internal policy manual, which was filed in the leopard-marked unused lavoratory).  We'd fill out ID10T and re-submit it.  59.5 days later, we'd find out that the filing of form ID10T requires an additional form WTF23, "Intent To File Form ID10T", and that we needed to fix our paperwork and try again.</p><p>In the mean time, our customer's been without service for nearly 4 months and is utterly unthrilled with our incompetence.  After all, when he got tired of waiting and called the ILEC directly, it only took 2 weeks for their truck to show up and turn on his DSL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ILECs " opened " their lines to competitors , and then used paperwork , " reasonable " delays , and low level sabotage to ensure that their competitors did n't keep the clients they could get.Ai n't that the truth .
I worked for a CLEC around '99-2000 , and the ILECs were an absolute nightmare to deal with , even when they were technically complying with the laws .
For example , they had something like a 60 day window to handle requests that we submitted to them .
30 ? 60 ?
I forget , but we 'll go with 60 for illustration .
In this case , " handle " does n't mean " complete " - it just meant that they had to act on it in some way.So , a new customer would sign up for our DSL service .
We 'd fire off a work order to the ILEC to provision the line .
59.5 days later , we 'd get back a notice that we did n't file form ID10T ( which we did n't even know that the ILEC required because none of this was documented outside their internal policy manual , which was filed in the leopard-marked unused lavoratory ) .
We 'd fill out ID10T and re-submit it .
59.5 days later , we 'd find out that the filing of form ID10T requires an additional form WTF23 , " Intent To File Form ID10T " , and that we needed to fix our paperwork and try again.In the mean time , our customer 's been without service for nearly 4 months and is utterly unthrilled with our incompetence .
After all , when he got tired of waiting and called the ILEC directly , it only took 2 weeks for their truck to show up and turn on his DSL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ILECs "opened" their lines to competitors, and then used paperwork, "reasonable" delays, and low level sabotage to ensure that their competitors didn't keep the clients they could get.Ain't that the truth.
I worked for a CLEC around '99-2000, and the ILECs were an absolute nightmare to deal with, even when they were technically complying with the laws.
For example, they had something like a 60 day window to handle requests that we submitted to them.
30?  60?
I forget, but we'll go with 60 for illustration.
In this case, "handle" doesn't mean "complete" - it just meant that they had to act on it in some way.So, a new customer would sign up for our DSL service.
We'd fire off a work order to the ILEC to provision the line.
59.5 days later, we'd get back a notice that we didn't file form ID10T (which we didn't even know that the ILEC required because none of this was documented outside their internal policy manual, which was filed in the leopard-marked unused lavoratory).
We'd fill out ID10T and re-submit it.
59.5 days later, we'd find out that the filing of form ID10T requires an additional form WTF23, "Intent To File Form ID10T", and that we needed to fix our paperwork and try again.In the mean time, our customer's been without service for nearly 4 months and is utterly unthrilled with our incompetence.
After all, when he got tired of waiting and called the ILEC directly, it only took 2 weeks for their truck to show up and turn on his DSL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770911</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1255719300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gov't has say in trash collection for efficiency, you say?</p><p>I had city-run trash collection for a while. It was one of the options. It sucked: they wouldn't take the trash if it wasn't -exactly- where they needed it to be, and it cost $35/month on a bi-weekly pickup.</p><p>Fortunately, the rules changed and that market was opened up to 3rd parties (mainly, the companies that were currently running commercial dumpster pickups). Trash then cost $16/month, was a weekly pickup, and on a couple occasions the guys walked 20 feet to the back of the garage and -still- took the trash. And from what I recall, they weren't necessarily the cheapest game in town, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gov't has say in trash collection for efficiency , you say ? I had city-run trash collection for a while .
It was one of the options .
It sucked : they would n't take the trash if it was n't -exactly- where they needed it to be , and it cost $ 35/month on a bi-weekly pickup.Fortunately , the rules changed and that market was opened up to 3rd parties ( mainly , the companies that were currently running commercial dumpster pickups ) .
Trash then cost $ 16/month , was a weekly pickup , and on a couple occasions the guys walked 20 feet to the back of the garage and -still- took the trash .
And from what I recall , they were n't necessarily the cheapest game in town , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gov't has say in trash collection for efficiency, you say?I had city-run trash collection for a while.
It was one of the options.
It sucked: they wouldn't take the trash if it wasn't -exactly- where they needed it to be, and it cost $35/month on a bi-weekly pickup.Fortunately, the rules changed and that market was opened up to 3rd parties (mainly, the companies that were currently running commercial dumpster pickups).
Trash then cost $16/month, was a weekly pickup, and on a couple occasions the guys walked 20 feet to the back of the garage and -still- took the trash.
And from what I recall, they weren't necessarily the cheapest game in town, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768491</id>
	<title>Look to Scandinavia: Competition is \_very\_ good!</title>
	<author>Terje Mathisen</author>
	<datestamp>1255707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Norway, Finland, Sweden &amp; Denmark are all among the top nations in the world, for both cell phone &amp; broadband coverage, and among the lowest prices in the world for cell phone use.</p><p>A key part of bringing this about here in Norway has been that the physical access layer ("last mile copper"/gsm cells) has to be available to competitors, with government-controlled rates.</p><p>I.e. when I got ADSL about 8 years ago, I got it from NextGenTel, a competitor to Telenor who owns my regular phone circuit.</p><p>On the GSM side we have two physical operators (Telenor and Netcom), both my kids get their cell phone service from one of many virtual operators (Tele2) which uses the Netcom infrastructure. Their monthly bills are usually so low that the operator will wait 3 months between each bill to reduce billing overhead. (I'm paying less than $10/month for each of them.)</p><p>Tele2 btw used to be based on the Telenor network, they got an even better deal (i.e. probably lower than government-mandated rates) from Netcom so overnight they simply moved everything across. My kids had to reset their phones to reconnect to the new set of towers, everything else just worked.</p><p>Terje</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Norway , Finland , Sweden &amp; Denmark are all among the top nations in the world , for both cell phone &amp; broadband coverage , and among the lowest prices in the world for cell phone use.A key part of bringing this about here in Norway has been that the physical access layer ( " last mile copper " /gsm cells ) has to be available to competitors , with government-controlled rates.I.e .
when I got ADSL about 8 years ago , I got it from NextGenTel , a competitor to Telenor who owns my regular phone circuit.On the GSM side we have two physical operators ( Telenor and Netcom ) , both my kids get their cell phone service from one of many virtual operators ( Tele2 ) which uses the Netcom infrastructure .
Their monthly bills are usually so low that the operator will wait 3 months between each bill to reduce billing overhead .
( I 'm paying less than $ 10/month for each of them .
) Tele2 btw used to be based on the Telenor network , they got an even better deal ( i.e .
probably lower than government-mandated rates ) from Netcom so overnight they simply moved everything across .
My kids had to reset their phones to reconnect to the new set of towers , everything else just worked.Terje</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Norway, Finland, Sweden &amp; Denmark are all among the top nations in the world, for both cell phone &amp; broadband coverage, and among the lowest prices in the world for cell phone use.A key part of bringing this about here in Norway has been that the physical access layer ("last mile copper"/gsm cells) has to be available to competitors, with government-controlled rates.I.e.
when I got ADSL about 8 years ago, I got it from NextGenTel, a competitor to Telenor who owns my regular phone circuit.On the GSM side we have two physical operators (Telenor and Netcom), both my kids get their cell phone service from one of many virtual operators (Tele2) which uses the Netcom infrastructure.
Their monthly bills are usually so low that the operator will wait 3 months between each bill to reduce billing overhead.
(I'm paying less than $10/month for each of them.
)Tele2 btw used to be based on the Telenor network, they got an even better deal (i.e.
probably lower than government-mandated rates) from Netcom so overnight they simply moved everything across.
My kids had to reset their phones to reconnect to the new set of towers, everything else just worked.Terje</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771029</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1255719900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You think government picking up the trash makes it more efficient? What planet do you live on? </i></p><p>In my town we put the contract out for bid, and trash/recycling pickup costs $3/household/week.  The incremental cost between houses is very small.  My gasoline to get to the dump is more than $3, even if my time is worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think government picking up the trash makes it more efficient ?
What planet do you live on ?
In my town we put the contract out for bid , and trash/recycling pickup costs $ 3/household/week .
The incremental cost between houses is very small .
My gasoline to get to the dump is more than $ 3 , even if my time is worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think government picking up the trash makes it more efficient?
What planet do you live on?
In my town we put the contract out for bid, and trash/recycling pickup costs $3/household/week.
The incremental cost between houses is very small.
My gasoline to get to the dump is more than $3, even if my time is worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768807</id>
	<title>Re:Canada</title>
	<author>trevelyon</author>
	<datestamp>1255708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just moved to Canada (GTA) and was amazed to find that the Telcos and the cable operators manage to screw the customers even more than in the U.S.  The only relief has been using independent ISPs that are allowed shared access to Bell infrastructure.  And with those the biggest hurdle has been Bell.  For example neither Bell nor Rogers (cable company) provided static IP service to residences when I moved in last year.  They did provide static IPs to a business but you needed to be in a building zoned commercial to get it (no home office).  Canada will slide back another few years in Internet deployment if they stop the shared access.  I really hope this does not go through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just moved to Canada ( GTA ) and was amazed to find that the Telcos and the cable operators manage to screw the customers even more than in the U.S. The only relief has been using independent ISPs that are allowed shared access to Bell infrastructure .
And with those the biggest hurdle has been Bell .
For example neither Bell nor Rogers ( cable company ) provided static IP service to residences when I moved in last year .
They did provide static IPs to a business but you needed to be in a building zoned commercial to get it ( no home office ) .
Canada will slide back another few years in Internet deployment if they stop the shared access .
I really hope this does not go through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just moved to Canada (GTA) and was amazed to find that the Telcos and the cable operators manage to screw the customers even more than in the U.S.  The only relief has been using independent ISPs that are allowed shared access to Bell infrastructure.
And with those the biggest hurdle has been Bell.
For example neither Bell nor Rogers (cable company) provided static IP service to residences when I moved in last year.
They did provide static IPs to a business but you needed to be in a building zoned commercial to get it (no home office).
Canada will slide back another few years in Internet deployment if they stop the shared access.
I really hope this does not go through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771101</id>
	<title>The flip side of the "last mile" problem</title>
	<author>wfstanle</author>
	<datestamp>1255720200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in an upscale condominium development.  The major ISP's all want a piece of the pie but will not allow competitors to use their "last mile" of cable.  As a result, we have three ISP's (maybe more) running their cable everywhere in the development.  It's a terrible waste of resources.  I recently moved into my condo and the previous owner used Comcast.  I wouldn't use Comcast if it was the last ISP on earth and fortunately didn't have to.  The new ISP had to rewire my condo and the old Comcast wiring is still in so I have wires from two competing ISP's in my condo.  I don't use Comcast, but their cable is still there.</p><p>If companies that put in the physical "last mile" had to allow their competitors to use it, it would be a better use of resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in an upscale condominium development .
The major ISP 's all want a piece of the pie but will not allow competitors to use their " last mile " of cable .
As a result , we have three ISP 's ( maybe more ) running their cable everywhere in the development .
It 's a terrible waste of resources .
I recently moved into my condo and the previous owner used Comcast .
I would n't use Comcast if it was the last ISP on earth and fortunately did n't have to .
The new ISP had to rewire my condo and the old Comcast wiring is still in so I have wires from two competing ISP 's in my condo .
I do n't use Comcast , but their cable is still there.If companies that put in the physical " last mile " had to allow their competitors to use it , it would be a better use of resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in an upscale condominium development.
The major ISP's all want a piece of the pie but will not allow competitors to use their "last mile" of cable.
As a result, we have three ISP's (maybe more) running their cable everywhere in the development.
It's a terrible waste of resources.
I recently moved into my condo and the previous owner used Comcast.
I wouldn't use Comcast if it was the last ISP on earth and fortunately didn't have to.
The new ISP had to rewire my condo and the old Comcast wiring is still in so I have wires from two competing ISP's in my condo.
I don't use Comcast, but their cable is still there.If companies that put in the physical "last mile" had to allow their competitors to use it, it would be a better use of resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768333</id>
	<title>time, space &amp; circumstance catching up with so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255706460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we could try treating both our young &amp; old folks, as well as our neighbors, better. that might delay our demise? rays of hope 'theater' does not appear to be covering it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we could try treating both our young &amp; old folks , as well as our neighbors , better .
that might delay our demise ?
rays of hope 'theater ' does not appear to be covering it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we could try treating both our young &amp; old folks, as well as our neighbors, better.
that might delay our demise?
rays of hope 'theater' does not appear to be covering it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770699</id>
	<title>I have to wonder ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1255718100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... whether this sort of proposal is floated by the gov't every time members of Congress need to replenish their campaign fund accounts. You know that everyone from AT&amp;T to Verizon will be slipping them millions to defeat such legislation/regulation. Us end users shouldn't get our hopes up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... whether this sort of proposal is floated by the gov't every time members of Congress need to replenish their campaign fund accounts .
You know that everyone from AT&amp;T to Verizon will be slipping them millions to defeat such legislation/regulation .
Us end users should n't get our hopes up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... whether this sort of proposal is floated by the gov't every time members of Congress need to replenish their campaign fund accounts.
You know that everyone from AT&amp;T to Verizon will be slipping them millions to defeat such legislation/regulation.
Us end users shouldn't get our hopes up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769083</id>
	<title>Good idea, in theory.</title>
	<author>Big Boss</author>
	<datestamp>1255710120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reasonable way to make this work is to force the companies involved to break up. The physical plant and the services MUST be separate companies with no special treatment for anyone. The owner of the physical network sells bandwidth to all comers at the same rate, and that is ALL they do. Data from A to B, charged either by rate-limit or per GB with the same price no matter who comes asking. I should be able to get the same rate for a connection as a Fortune 100 company. That will level the playing field and induce the company running the network to keep upgrading the network as they can sell more that way. I would also have some \% improvement they have to make in overall speeds per year or something like that. And break the monopoly on the last mile physical wires as well. If someone else thinks they can do it better, fine, they can try, under the exact same rules.</p><p>Of course, it also requires an active enforcement from FCC or a local PUC. If a small local ISP has problems that the bigger guys don't, they should be able to get help.</p><p>I'd like to see the same thing done with cellular as well. Move everyone to the same network standard (the latest GSM) and use ALL the spectrum for everyone's networking. One company owns the towers and backhauls, and sells transport to the companies selling services like voice/data. Any phone that works will work on any provider as the network is the same. Just swap the SIM cards. Better coverage and speeds for everyone. I'd also like to see them break the contract model a little. It's fine to have a contract for the term of the subsidy, but it should be an upfront thing and you're just paying for the handset costs with a separate line item on the bill. Once the handset is payed for, it's no longer on the bill. So the cost of the handset is obvious and you don't pay for it unless you choose to finance your handsets. The cost of the service shouldn't include the cost of a handset. If I bring my own, I shouldn't have to pay for one anyway.</p><p>Both of these would spur competition and drive costs down and service levels up. All good things, unless you are making a ton of money from the current system. Why would you want to change and take a risk if you're that guy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reasonable way to make this work is to force the companies involved to break up .
The physical plant and the services MUST be separate companies with no special treatment for anyone .
The owner of the physical network sells bandwidth to all comers at the same rate , and that is ALL they do .
Data from A to B , charged either by rate-limit or per GB with the same price no matter who comes asking .
I should be able to get the same rate for a connection as a Fortune 100 company .
That will level the playing field and induce the company running the network to keep upgrading the network as they can sell more that way .
I would also have some \ % improvement they have to make in overall speeds per year or something like that .
And break the monopoly on the last mile physical wires as well .
If someone else thinks they can do it better , fine , they can try , under the exact same rules.Of course , it also requires an active enforcement from FCC or a local PUC .
If a small local ISP has problems that the bigger guys do n't , they should be able to get help.I 'd like to see the same thing done with cellular as well .
Move everyone to the same network standard ( the latest GSM ) and use ALL the spectrum for everyone 's networking .
One company owns the towers and backhauls , and sells transport to the companies selling services like voice/data .
Any phone that works will work on any provider as the network is the same .
Just swap the SIM cards .
Better coverage and speeds for everyone .
I 'd also like to see them break the contract model a little .
It 's fine to have a contract for the term of the subsidy , but it should be an upfront thing and you 're just paying for the handset costs with a separate line item on the bill .
Once the handset is payed for , it 's no longer on the bill .
So the cost of the handset is obvious and you do n't pay for it unless you choose to finance your handsets .
The cost of the service should n't include the cost of a handset .
If I bring my own , I should n't have to pay for one anyway.Both of these would spur competition and drive costs down and service levels up .
All good things , unless you are making a ton of money from the current system .
Why would you want to change and take a risk if you 're that guy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reasonable way to make this work is to force the companies involved to break up.
The physical plant and the services MUST be separate companies with no special treatment for anyone.
The owner of the physical network sells bandwidth to all comers at the same rate, and that is ALL they do.
Data from A to B, charged either by rate-limit or per GB with the same price no matter who comes asking.
I should be able to get the same rate for a connection as a Fortune 100 company.
That will level the playing field and induce the company running the network to keep upgrading the network as they can sell more that way.
I would also have some \% improvement they have to make in overall speeds per year or something like that.
And break the monopoly on the last mile physical wires as well.
If someone else thinks they can do it better, fine, they can try, under the exact same rules.Of course, it also requires an active enforcement from FCC or a local PUC.
If a small local ISP has problems that the bigger guys don't, they should be able to get help.I'd like to see the same thing done with cellular as well.
Move everyone to the same network standard (the latest GSM) and use ALL the spectrum for everyone's networking.
One company owns the towers and backhauls, and sells transport to the companies selling services like voice/data.
Any phone that works will work on any provider as the network is the same.
Just swap the SIM cards.
Better coverage and speeds for everyone.
I'd also like to see them break the contract model a little.
It's fine to have a contract for the term of the subsidy, but it should be an upfront thing and you're just paying for the handset costs with a separate line item on the bill.
Once the handset is payed for, it's no longer on the bill.
So the cost of the handset is obvious and you don't pay for it unless you choose to finance your handsets.
The cost of the service shouldn't include the cost of a handset.
If I bring my own, I shouldn't have to pay for one anyway.Both of these would spur competition and drive costs down and service levels up.
All good things, unless you are making a ton of money from the current system.
Why would you want to change and take a risk if you're that guy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768085</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? I've never seen a landline company charge by the minute, except for long distance. Back in the BBS day there were a dozen free BBSes here at least, and this is a small city.</p><p>Back then it was absolutely free. My first dialup ISP charged me $12 a month. I have no idea what you're talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
I 've never seen a landline company charge by the minute , except for long distance .
Back in the BBS day there were a dozen free BBSes here at least , and this is a small city.Back then it was absolutely free .
My first dialup ISP charged me $ 12 a month .
I have no idea what you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
I've never seen a landline company charge by the minute, except for long distance.
Back in the BBS day there were a dozen free BBSes here at least, and this is a small city.Back then it was absolutely free.
My first dialup ISP charged me $12 a month.
I have no idea what you're talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768721</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1255708380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Make the tubes a commodity with a reliable profit margin and then allow everything else to build on top of that as long as they can pay for the bandwidth they use.  It is just common sense and YES it means we have to move more toward a model where you pay for what you use.  But really, is that SO scary?  Seriously, how much porn do you need to download.  How many movies do you need to download?  If the answer is "a lot" then yeah you should pay more.  So what.
<br> <br>
At least if we can separate the physical layer from the more abstract layers there won't be incentives at the physical layer to throttle select services in favor of other services.  The best thing that could happen would be to commoditize the delivery of bits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make the tubes a commodity with a reliable profit margin and then allow everything else to build on top of that as long as they can pay for the bandwidth they use .
It is just common sense and YES it means we have to move more toward a model where you pay for what you use .
But really , is that SO scary ?
Seriously , how much porn do you need to download .
How many movies do you need to download ?
If the answer is " a lot " then yeah you should pay more .
So what .
At least if we can separate the physical layer from the more abstract layers there wo n't be incentives at the physical layer to throttle select services in favor of other services .
The best thing that could happen would be to commoditize the delivery of bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make the tubes a commodity with a reliable profit margin and then allow everything else to build on top of that as long as they can pay for the bandwidth they use.
It is just common sense and YES it means we have to move more toward a model where you pay for what you use.
But really, is that SO scary?
Seriously, how much porn do you need to download.
How many movies do you need to download?
If the answer is "a lot" then yeah you should pay more.
So what.
At least if we can separate the physical layer from the more abstract layers there won't be incentives at the physical layer to throttle select services in favor of other services.
The best thing that could happen would be to commoditize the delivery of bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771223</id>
	<title>The worst part...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255720740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The worst part of US broadband is the fine print.  "UP TO Xmb for $50 a month"  when you rarely get even close to half of what they say you can get</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst part of US broadband is the fine print .
" UP TO Xmb for $ 50 a month " when you rarely get even close to half of what they say you can get</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst part of US broadband is the fine print.
"UP TO Xmb for $50 a month"  when you rarely get even close to half of what they say you can get</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769809</id>
	<title>Re:So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Alanbly</author>
	<datestamp>1255713780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the same. The telcos are given huge subsidies and exemptions to build those networks. the only reason for this is an expectation that with the monopoly that they are being given they will keep prices "reasonable." The Government (read the taxpayers) paid for the infrastructure, the FCC is given the authority to regulate it for that reason. ALL this does is promote competition and that's good for the consumer and the producer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the same .
The telcos are given huge subsidies and exemptions to build those networks .
the only reason for this is an expectation that with the monopoly that they are being given they will keep prices " reasonable .
" The Government ( read the taxpayers ) paid for the infrastructure , the FCC is given the authority to regulate it for that reason .
ALL this does is promote competition and that 's good for the consumer and the producer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the same.
The telcos are given huge subsidies and exemptions to build those networks.
the only reason for this is an expectation that with the monopoly that they are being given they will keep prices "reasonable.
" The Government (read the taxpayers) paid for the infrastructure, the FCC is given the authority to regulate it for that reason.
ALL this does is promote competition and that's good for the consumer and the producer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768477</id>
	<title>MIND BLOW!</title>
	<author>AtomicDevice</author>
	<datestamp>1255707240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So wait, what you're saying is that lines which were built with huge amounts of public money, by companies with a publicly mandated monopoly should be... open?  to the public?<br> <br>This is gonna blow my mind to chunks to the milky way. <br> <br> What we (the people) should do is tell comcast and ted turner to go suck a fat one, take back the lines that we paid for, and turn them over to co-ops who actually want to give us <em>better</em> service at a <em>lower</em> price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So wait , what you 're saying is that lines which were built with huge amounts of public money , by companies with a publicly mandated monopoly should be... open ? to the public ?
This is gon na blow my mind to chunks to the milky way .
What we ( the people ) should do is tell comcast and ted turner to go suck a fat one , take back the lines that we paid for , and turn them over to co-ops who actually want to give us better service at a lower price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wait, what you're saying is that lines which were built with huge amounts of public money, by companies with a publicly mandated monopoly should be... open?  to the public?
This is gonna blow my mind to chunks to the milky way.
What we (the people) should do is tell comcast and ted turner to go suck a fat one, take back the lines that we paid for, and turn them over to co-ops who actually want to give us better service at a lower price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767939</id>
	<title>I guess there's no tag for</title>
	<author>vekrander</author>
	<datestamp>1255704120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a-compelling-study-on-a-slow-moving-possible-future-outbreak-of-common-sense</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a-compelling-study-on-a-slow-moving-possible-future-outbreak-of-common-sense</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a-compelling-study-on-a-slow-moving-possible-future-outbreak-of-common-sense</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767915</id>
	<title>We've tried this before</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1255703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when AT&amp;T was forced to open its network up to Italians? That was when we started to get all kinds of nefarious Italian telemarketing which is the cause of 62\% of all suicides and nearly a third of rapes. I say keep the Italians in Mexico where they belong and restrict the Internet to Americans and our allies in the Free world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when AT&amp;T was forced to open its network up to Italians ?
That was when we started to get all kinds of nefarious Italian telemarketing which is the cause of 62 \ % of all suicides and nearly a third of rapes .
I say keep the Italians in Mexico where they belong and restrict the Internet to Americans and our allies in the Free world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when AT&amp;T was forced to open its network up to Italians?
That was when we started to get all kinds of nefarious Italian telemarketing which is the cause of 62\% of all suicides and nearly a third of rapes.
I say keep the Italians in Mexico where they belong and restrict the Internet to Americans and our allies in the Free world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768281</id>
	<title>Sometimes you have to regulate the market...</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1255706100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... to make it more effective.</p><p>Don't the telcos in the US wholesale their DSL business to third parties already?  Yes, I realise that DSL isn't the only way to connect to the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to make it more effective.Do n't the telcos in the US wholesale their DSL business to third parties already ?
Yes , I realise that DSL is n't the only way to connect to the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to make it more effective.Don't the telcos in the US wholesale their DSL business to third parties already?
Yes, I realise that DSL isn't the only way to connect to the net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768673</id>
	<title>Not quite</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255708260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>", but they lost revenue and increased expenses."</p><p>no, they got more revenue because you paid them 24 buck more per month(49 - 25). There expense went up, so there profits decreased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" , but they lost revenue and increased expenses .
" no , they got more revenue because you paid them 24 buck more per month ( 49 - 25 ) .
There expense went up , so there profits decreased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>", but they lost revenue and increased expenses.
"no, they got more revenue because you paid them 24 buck more per month(49 - 25).
There expense went up, so there profits decreased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771793</id>
	<title>DSL has to cable does not</title>
	<author>Sheik Yerbouti</author>
	<datestamp>1255723980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am suprised this hasn't been mentioned. But in fact there is a disparity in the regulations as they exist now. Telcos still do have to provide open access to competing DSL providers. Around here for example Front Range Internet is using that open access to sell DSL accounts. Cable companies do not have to abide by the same rules it was decided for whatever asinine reason (payoff) that cable companies would not be held to the same standard as their competitor. Of course Qwest here is pissed about it and as much as I generally despise Qwest they are right about that not being at all fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am suprised this has n't been mentioned .
But in fact there is a disparity in the regulations as they exist now .
Telcos still do have to provide open access to competing DSL providers .
Around here for example Front Range Internet is using that open access to sell DSL accounts .
Cable companies do not have to abide by the same rules it was decided for whatever asinine reason ( payoff ) that cable companies would not be held to the same standard as their competitor .
Of course Qwest here is pissed about it and as much as I generally despise Qwest they are right about that not being at all fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am suprised this hasn't been mentioned.
But in fact there is a disparity in the regulations as they exist now.
Telcos still do have to provide open access to competing DSL providers.
Around here for example Front Range Internet is using that open access to sell DSL accounts.
Cable companies do not have to abide by the same rules it was decided for whatever asinine reason (payoff) that cable companies would not be held to the same standard as their competitor.
Of course Qwest here is pissed about it and as much as I generally despise Qwest they are right about that not being at all fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768515</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure</title>
	<author>Dudeman\_Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1255707420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wrong context.  but consider back during the Ma Bell era when phone service was stupidly expensive for everyone and you had no choice in the matter at all.  a bill by actual usage plan probably made sense to alot of americans financially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wrong context .
but consider back during the Ma Bell era when phone service was stupidly expensive for everyone and you had no choice in the matter at all .
a bill by actual usage plan probably made sense to alot of americans financially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrong context.
but consider back during the Ma Bell era when phone service was stupidly expensive for everyone and you had no choice in the matter at all.
a bill by actual usage plan probably made sense to alot of americans financially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767947</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255704180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got to say that--for all the many, many other ways the Obama administration has disappointed me and failed to delivery--the recent changes at the FCC and it's new more pro-consumer bent has truly pleasantly surprised me. Between pro-consumer moves like this, their <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google10-2009oct10,0,4851845.story" title="latimes.com">slap down</a> [latimes.com] of Apple/AT&amp;T, and their <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc8-2009oct08,0,5502564.story" title="latimes.com">support</a> [latimes.com] of net neutrality, they're taking a remarkably progressive (and sorely needed) approach to communications issues. It's too bad the telecommunications giants will probably just bring in their many whores in Congress to pass laws to override the FCC in the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got to say that--for all the many , many other ways the Obama administration has disappointed me and failed to delivery--the recent changes at the FCC and it 's new more pro-consumer bent has truly pleasantly surprised me .
Between pro-consumer moves like this , their slap down [ latimes.com ] of Apple/AT&amp;T , and their support [ latimes.com ] of net neutrality , they 're taking a remarkably progressive ( and sorely needed ) approach to communications issues .
It 's too bad the telecommunications giants will probably just bring in their many whores in Congress to pass laws to override the FCC in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got to say that--for all the many, many other ways the Obama administration has disappointed me and failed to delivery--the recent changes at the FCC and it's new more pro-consumer bent has truly pleasantly surprised me.
Between pro-consumer moves like this, their slap down [latimes.com] of Apple/AT&amp;T, and their support [latimes.com] of net neutrality, they're taking a remarkably progressive (and sorely needed) approach to communications issues.
It's too bad the telecommunications giants will probably just bring in their many whores in Congress to pass laws to override the FCC in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29775805</id>
	<title>Re:Competition? Come On</title>
	<author>sounds</author>
	<datestamp>1255716900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears that you grossly misunderstand both the bedrock of our country and the principles of economics. There is nothing in the original Constitution which says that the federal government should try to intervene in economics.  More importantly, the principles of Austrian Economics show that a central authority cannot possibly have all of the information necessary to make the correct decisions when manipulating the economy.  Finally, we don't have monopolies because of economics, we have them because of legislation.  The cure for that is not MORE legislation, but LESS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that you grossly misunderstand both the bedrock of our country and the principles of economics .
There is nothing in the original Constitution which says that the federal government should try to intervene in economics .
More importantly , the principles of Austrian Economics show that a central authority can not possibly have all of the information necessary to make the correct decisions when manipulating the economy .
Finally , we do n't have monopolies because of economics , we have them because of legislation .
The cure for that is not MORE legislation , but LESS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that you grossly misunderstand both the bedrock of our country and the principles of economics.
There is nothing in the original Constitution which says that the federal government should try to intervene in economics.
More importantly, the principles of Austrian Economics show that a central authority cannot possibly have all of the information necessary to make the correct decisions when manipulating the economy.
Finally, we don't have monopolies because of economics, we have them because of legislation.
The cure for that is not MORE legislation, but LESS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768387</id>
	<title>A return to the way things were</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1255706820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me remind everyone of how things were back in the golden age of the internet.</p><p>You had dozens of ISPs to choose from.  In a major city, perhaps hundreds.  You could instruct your computer to connect to any one of those ISPs, regardless of who was your local telephone company.  If you didn't like your ISP, then you could switch to another one that same day.  No installers, no custom modems rented from the phone company or ISP.  Just a standard device.</p><p>Back then, we never worried about network neutrality, or traffic filtering, or censorship.  There were no sites like ESPN that could only be accessed by certain ISPs.  Internet was really really really cheap ($9.99) and "unlimited" really was unlimited.</p><p>The reason things changed is because when we used dial-up over telephones, phone companies were legally required to be neutral carriers.  When we switched to broadband that was no longer the case.  Basically, the phone companies found a legal loophole that killed competition.  It has taken congress and the FCC 10 years to understand this.  Hopefully they won't get lobbied by the new oligarchy and kill this proposal to fix things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me remind everyone of how things were back in the golden age of the internet.You had dozens of ISPs to choose from .
In a major city , perhaps hundreds .
You could instruct your computer to connect to any one of those ISPs , regardless of who was your local telephone company .
If you did n't like your ISP , then you could switch to another one that same day .
No installers , no custom modems rented from the phone company or ISP .
Just a standard device.Back then , we never worried about network neutrality , or traffic filtering , or censorship .
There were no sites like ESPN that could only be accessed by certain ISPs .
Internet was really really really cheap ( $ 9.99 ) and " unlimited " really was unlimited.The reason things changed is because when we used dial-up over telephones , phone companies were legally required to be neutral carriers .
When we switched to broadband that was no longer the case .
Basically , the phone companies found a legal loophole that killed competition .
It has taken congress and the FCC 10 years to understand this .
Hopefully they wo n't get lobbied by the new oligarchy and kill this proposal to fix things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me remind everyone of how things were back in the golden age of the internet.You had dozens of ISPs to choose from.
In a major city, perhaps hundreds.
You could instruct your computer to connect to any one of those ISPs, regardless of who was your local telephone company.
If you didn't like your ISP, then you could switch to another one that same day.
No installers, no custom modems rented from the phone company or ISP.
Just a standard device.Back then, we never worried about network neutrality, or traffic filtering, or censorship.
There were no sites like ESPN that could only be accessed by certain ISPs.
Internet was really really really cheap ($9.99) and "unlimited" really was unlimited.The reason things changed is because when we used dial-up over telephones, phone companies were legally required to be neutral carriers.
When we switched to broadband that was no longer the case.
Basically, the phone companies found a legal loophole that killed competition.
It has taken congress and the FCC 10 years to understand this.
Hopefully they won't get lobbied by the new oligarchy and kill this proposal to fix things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769763</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Heddahenrik</author>
	<datestamp>1255713600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you need net neutrality for if you can select between different companies? <p>

The only thing that is needed is good information about what minimum standard the ISP can provide when it comes to access to remote places, and then it's up to you to select if you want to pay for a 2009 or a 2012 quality Internet (With the same local speed), and maybe if you want extra fast Youtube or extra slow. Maybe you're totally OK with only 1Mbit for port 80, but instead get fast ping-times there and in WoW, while you get 80Mbit for your bittorrent traffic where the ping times become huge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you need net neutrality for if you can select between different companies ?
The only thing that is needed is good information about what minimum standard the ISP can provide when it comes to access to remote places , and then it 's up to you to select if you want to pay for a 2009 or a 2012 quality Internet ( With the same local speed ) , and maybe if you want extra fast Youtube or extra slow .
Maybe you 're totally OK with only 1Mbit for port 80 , but instead get fast ping-times there and in WoW , while you get 80Mbit for your bittorrent traffic where the ping times become huge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you need net neutrality for if you can select between different companies?
The only thing that is needed is good information about what minimum standard the ISP can provide when it comes to access to remote places, and then it's up to you to select if you want to pay for a 2009 or a 2012 quality Internet (With the same local speed), and maybe if you want extra fast Youtube or extra slow.
Maybe you're totally OK with only 1Mbit for port 80, but instead get fast ping-times there and in WoW, while you get 80Mbit for your bittorrent traffic where the ping times become huge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771699</id>
	<title>Re:Yes! PLEASE</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1255723320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Verizon installed a fiber node this past year in my neighborhood, yet I cannot get FiOS because "it's not done". </i></p><p>Around here they wouldn't even put DSLAM's in the FOX's.  Why?  "We don't do that".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon installed a fiber node this past year in my neighborhood , yet I can not get FiOS because " it 's not done " .
Around here they would n't even put DSLAM 's in the FOX 's .
Why ? " We do n't do that " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon installed a fiber node this past year in my neighborhood, yet I cannot get FiOS because "it's not done".
Around here they wouldn't even put DSLAM's in the FOX's.
Why?  "We don't do that".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769421</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>SuseLover</author>
	<datestamp>1255711860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least until they implement the Fairness Doctrine, broadcast flag, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least until they implement the Fairness Doctrine , broadcast flag , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least until they implement the Fairness Doctrine, broadcast flag, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769615</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1255712820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have open access in Britain on BT lines (but not Virgin Media, Kingston or Wight Cable lines), and it doesn't mean paying by the minute.  Some charge by the megabyte, but there are also unlimited plans available.  So, for example, you can get an unlimited plan from Telefonica O2 for &pound;7.34 over BT lines if you also have a cellphone plan with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have open access in Britain on BT lines ( but not Virgin Media , Kingston or Wight Cable lines ) , and it does n't mean paying by the minute .
Some charge by the megabyte , but there are also unlimited plans available .
So , for example , you can get an unlimited plan from Telefonica O2 for   7.34 over BT lines if you also have a cellphone plan with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have open access in Britain on BT lines (but not Virgin Media, Kingston or Wight Cable lines), and it doesn't mean paying by the minute.
Some charge by the megabyte, but there are also unlimited plans available.
So, for example, you can get an unlimited plan from Telefonica O2 for £7.34 over BT lines if you also have a cellphone plan with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769067</id>
	<title>Re:Monopoly vs. Balkanization</title>
	<author>pdabbadabba</author>
	<datestamp>1255710000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Balkanization please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Balkanization please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Balkanization please!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767907</id>
	<title>First post?</title>
	<author>GeorgeMonroy</author>
	<datestamp>1255703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You love me!  You really love me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You love me !
You really love me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You love me!
You really love me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770035</id>
	<title>Re:A return to the way things were</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>While you could choose between your ISP, you were still stuck with the same local telco to use to connect to that ISP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While you could choose between your ISP , you were still stuck with the same local telco to use to connect to that ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you could choose between your ISP, you were still stuck with the same local telco to use to connect to that ISP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29774311</id>
	<title>Re:So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1255696740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, rather than operate like a grocery store they should operate like a farmers market.  Space is provided by the operator of the farmers market for individual farmers to rent and sell their products to consumers.  The providers of the wires should be separate from the providers of the services delivered over those wires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , rather than operate like a grocery store they should operate like a farmers market .
Space is provided by the operator of the farmers market for individual farmers to rent and sell their products to consumers .
The providers of the wires should be separate from the providers of the services delivered over those wires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, rather than operate like a grocery store they should operate like a farmers market.
Space is provided by the operator of the farmers market for individual farmers to rent and sell their products to consumers.
The providers of the wires should be separate from the providers of the services delivered over those wires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770025</id>
	<title>public utility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our culture has evolved to the point where technology is almost required for daily living.  Kids in public schools get computer based homework in some areas.  That assumes all families in that area have computers and access, etc.  Online shopping is taking away from brick and mortar stores every year.  Online voting is getting noise in the news every election cycle. And on and on.</p><p>At some point information access will be on par with public utilities, such as water, waste, electric.  It should probably be structured in that fashion.  Who owns the gas lines, the electric grid, the water lines, and others?  It depends on the area, but network infrastructure should follow the pattern.</p><p>Personally, I think the local cities (in most suburban cases) should own the network and either lease it back to a provider(s) or provide access to the infrastructure (an access fee).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our culture has evolved to the point where technology is almost required for daily living .
Kids in public schools get computer based homework in some areas .
That assumes all families in that area have computers and access , etc .
Online shopping is taking away from brick and mortar stores every year .
Online voting is getting noise in the news every election cycle .
And on and on.At some point information access will be on par with public utilities , such as water , waste , electric .
It should probably be structured in that fashion .
Who owns the gas lines , the electric grid , the water lines , and others ?
It depends on the area , but network infrastructure should follow the pattern.Personally , I think the local cities ( in most suburban cases ) should own the network and either lease it back to a provider ( s ) or provide access to the infrastructure ( an access fee ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our culture has evolved to the point where technology is almost required for daily living.
Kids in public schools get computer based homework in some areas.
That assumes all families in that area have computers and access, etc.
Online shopping is taking away from brick and mortar stores every year.
Online voting is getting noise in the news every election cycle.
And on and on.At some point information access will be on par with public utilities, such as water, waste, electric.
It should probably be structured in that fashion.
Who owns the gas lines, the electric grid, the water lines, and others?
It depends on the area, but network infrastructure should follow the pattern.Personally, I think the local cities (in most suburban cases) should own the network and either lease it back to a provider(s) or provide access to the infrastructure (an access fee).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768473</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1255707240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do they need the warrant for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they need the warrant for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they need the warrant for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769389</id>
	<title>European Model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255711740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Sweden i have 100 mbit fibre.<br>And i have 8 provides i can choose to supply the bandwidth.</p><p>In addition, i have 5 suppliers for IPTV ( takes about 6 mb/sec for full HD).</p><p>And then thousands of voips for telephony of course.</p><p>The actual Ine is owned by a local company, that also runs the BigIron Rouetrs. SO the monthyl 250 sek ( about 20 USD) pays for the local wire AND the bandwith.</p><p>Its pretty simple and easy system, and you also get 5 static IP addresses.</p><p>Why the US has not moved to a model that separates the wire from the bandwidth i have no idea.</p><p>The same thing has happened with DSL, with any company being able to install their own DSLAM into the local telso building nearby</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Sweden i have 100 mbit fibre.And i have 8 provides i can choose to supply the bandwidth.In addition , i have 5 suppliers for IPTV ( takes about 6 mb/sec for full HD ) .And then thousands of voips for telephony of course.The actual Ine is owned by a local company , that also runs the BigIron Rouetrs .
SO the monthyl 250 sek ( about 20 USD ) pays for the local wire AND the bandwith.Its pretty simple and easy system , and you also get 5 static IP addresses.Why the US has not moved to a model that separates the wire from the bandwidth i have no idea.The same thing has happened with DSL , with any company being able to install their own DSLAM into the local telso building nearby</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Sweden i have 100 mbit fibre.And i have 8 provides i can choose to supply the bandwidth.In addition, i have 5 suppliers for IPTV ( takes about 6 mb/sec for full HD).And then thousands of voips for telephony of course.The actual Ine is owned by a local company, that also runs the BigIron Rouetrs.
SO the monthyl 250 sek ( about 20 USD) pays for the local wire AND the bandwith.Its pretty simple and easy system, and you also get 5 static IP addresses.Why the US has not moved to a model that separates the wire from the bandwidth i have no idea.The same thing has happened with DSL, with any company being able to install their own DSLAM into the local telso building nearby</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769159</id>
	<title>Re:Canada</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1255710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>having just read Atlas Shrugged</p></div><p>In how many years?
<br>
Ugh. What a book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>having just read Atlas ShruggedIn how many years ?
Ugh. What a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having just read Atlas ShruggedIn how many years?
Ugh. What a book.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769529</id>
	<title>This would be wonderful...</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1255712280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how it is for the rest of you, but 15 years ago I had about 3 companies (Covad, Birch, AT&amp;T, etc) that I could choose from to get a 1.5M SDSL line for roughly $60/month. Fast forward to today and I have a 768K for $60. Upgrade options? Sure I got em, I can get a 1M ADSL for $79 or a 1.5M fiber line with forced TV and Phone for over a $100. It's pathetic that over a 15 year period, not only do I lose speed, but I also have to pay more for essentially the same service. I hear about FiOS, but it's not offered where I'm at. I have one option and that's AT&amp;T.</p><p>I remember when the government removed the requirement that the telco's offer market rates to competitors and immediately I knew that this was a bad thing. I'm sure that the telco's cried about increased bandwidth, greases the right pockets, etc. But what it really boils down to is greed. So over a 15 year period, they CHOOSE not to upgrade the backbone, but instead they choose to put more restrictions on the customers.</p><p>I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. I hope the government bitch slaps them for what they have done. I keep hearing that the telco's received around $300 Billion to improve the system, but I don't see it. Where did that money go? How come this question isn't being persued. If AT&amp;T, Verizon or whoever, starts bitching about being forced to offer this, then I hope the FCC opens up a probe into where this money went and start demanding that they pay it back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how it is for the rest of you , but 15 years ago I had about 3 companies ( Covad , Birch , AT&amp;T , etc ) that I could choose from to get a 1.5M SDSL line for roughly $ 60/month .
Fast forward to today and I have a 768K for $ 60 .
Upgrade options ?
Sure I got em , I can get a 1M ADSL for $ 79 or a 1.5M fiber line with forced TV and Phone for over a $ 100 .
It 's pathetic that over a 15 year period , not only do I lose speed , but I also have to pay more for essentially the same service .
I hear about FiOS , but it 's not offered where I 'm at .
I have one option and that 's AT&amp;T.I remember when the government removed the requirement that the telco 's offer market rates to competitors and immediately I knew that this was a bad thing .
I 'm sure that the telco 's cried about increased bandwidth , greases the right pockets , etc .
But what it really boils down to is greed .
So over a 15 year period , they CHOOSE not to upgrade the backbone , but instead they choose to put more restrictions on the customers.I have no sympathy for them whatsoever .
I hope the government bitch slaps them for what they have done .
I keep hearing that the telco 's received around $ 300 Billion to improve the system , but I do n't see it .
Where did that money go ?
How come this question is n't being persued .
If AT&amp;T , Verizon or whoever , starts bitching about being forced to offer this , then I hope the FCC opens up a probe into where this money went and start demanding that they pay it back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how it is for the rest of you, but 15 years ago I had about 3 companies (Covad, Birch, AT&amp;T, etc) that I could choose from to get a 1.5M SDSL line for roughly $60/month.
Fast forward to today and I have a 768K for $60.
Upgrade options?
Sure I got em, I can get a 1M ADSL for $79 or a 1.5M fiber line with forced TV and Phone for over a $100.
It's pathetic that over a 15 year period, not only do I lose speed, but I also have to pay more for essentially the same service.
I hear about FiOS, but it's not offered where I'm at.
I have one option and that's AT&amp;T.I remember when the government removed the requirement that the telco's offer market rates to competitors and immediately I knew that this was a bad thing.
I'm sure that the telco's cried about increased bandwidth, greases the right pockets, etc.
But what it really boils down to is greed.
So over a 15 year period, they CHOOSE not to upgrade the backbone, but instead they choose to put more restrictions on the customers.I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.
I hope the government bitch slaps them for what they have done.
I keep hearing that the telco's received around $300 Billion to improve the system, but I don't see it.
Where did that money go?
How come this question isn't being persued.
If AT&amp;T, Verizon or whoever, starts bitching about being forced to offer this, then I hope the FCC opens up a probe into where this money went and start demanding that they pay it back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921</id>
	<title>Absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is bad enough that we pay astronomical amounts just for internet access.  This will be a great opportunity for competition, and an overall better product.
<br> <br>
The government has say in certain things like trash collection for efficiency.  Internet access has become such a commodity in the modern world that allowing competition can only broaden our capabilities.  Oh, and knock some off my bill every month!<br>
One question: who do the new warrants go to for interceptions? The provider or the infrastructure provider?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is bad enough that we pay astronomical amounts just for internet access .
This will be a great opportunity for competition , and an overall better product .
The government has say in certain things like trash collection for efficiency .
Internet access has become such a commodity in the modern world that allowing competition can only broaden our capabilities .
Oh , and knock some off my bill every month !
One question : who do the new warrants go to for interceptions ?
The provider or the infrastructure provider ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is bad enough that we pay astronomical amounts just for internet access.
This will be a great opportunity for competition, and an overall better product.
The government has say in certain things like trash collection for efficiency.
Internet access has become such a commodity in the modern world that allowing competition can only broaden our capabilities.
Oh, and knock some off my bill every month!
One question: who do the new warrants go to for interceptions?
The provider or the infrastructure provider?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768825</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1255708860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government has say in certain things like trash collection for efficiency.</p></div><p>You think government picking up the trash makes it <b>more</b> efficient?  What planet do you live on?
</p><p>My home town has a mixture of communities with public and private trash pick-up.  Follow the two garbage trucks around and you'll soon learn the difference between the two.  The public trucks require three men and plod along at a leisurely pace.  The driver sits in the cab the whole time and does nothing but drive.  The private trucks work with two men, the driver gets out and helps and they manage to move at a much quicker pace.
</p><p>Then there's the difference in pay.  The public guys start out at $18/hr with benefits that would make most private sector employees envious.  Now I don't want to knock the value of my friendly local sanitation engineers, but unless you are the garbage man from Dilbert you probably aren't worth $18/hr for driving a truck around and picking up garbage.
</p><p>More efficient?  Really?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has say in certain things like trash collection for efficiency.You think government picking up the trash makes it more efficient ?
What planet do you live on ?
My home town has a mixture of communities with public and private trash pick-up .
Follow the two garbage trucks around and you 'll soon learn the difference between the two .
The public trucks require three men and plod along at a leisurely pace .
The driver sits in the cab the whole time and does nothing but drive .
The private trucks work with two men , the driver gets out and helps and they manage to move at a much quicker pace .
Then there 's the difference in pay .
The public guys start out at $ 18/hr with benefits that would make most private sector employees envious .
Now I do n't want to knock the value of my friendly local sanitation engineers , but unless you are the garbage man from Dilbert you probably are n't worth $ 18/hr for driving a truck around and picking up garbage .
More efficient ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has say in certain things like trash collection for efficiency.You think government picking up the trash makes it more efficient?
What planet do you live on?
My home town has a mixture of communities with public and private trash pick-up.
Follow the two garbage trucks around and you'll soon learn the difference between the two.
The public trucks require three men and plod along at a leisurely pace.
The driver sits in the cab the whole time and does nothing but drive.
The private trucks work with two men, the driver gets out and helps and they manage to move at a much quicker pace.
Then there's the difference in pay.
The public guys start out at $18/hr with benefits that would make most private sector employees envious.
Now I don't want to knock the value of my friendly local sanitation engineers, but unless you are the garbage man from Dilbert you probably aren't worth $18/hr for driving a truck around and picking up garbage.
More efficient?
Really?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935</id>
	<title>Canada</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1255704120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a practice Canada currently uses. And we are ditching it. Estimates are that prices will almost double and dozens of companies will go broke as a bell monopoly forms and dominates the ISP market in Canada. Its like doomsday.<br> <br> I think it is safe to say that if the US implements it you will see lots of competition and halving of prices if this is implemented in the US. The idea that all countries don't do this is ridiculous. And the only people it hurts are entrenched corrupt monopolists. <br> <br>Which is why it probably won't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a practice Canada currently uses .
And we are ditching it .
Estimates are that prices will almost double and dozens of companies will go broke as a bell monopoly forms and dominates the ISP market in Canada .
Its like doomsday .
I think it is safe to say that if the US implements it you will see lots of competition and halving of prices if this is implemented in the US .
The idea that all countries do n't do this is ridiculous .
And the only people it hurts are entrenched corrupt monopolists .
Which is why it probably wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a practice Canada currently uses.
And we are ditching it.
Estimates are that prices will almost double and dozens of companies will go broke as a bell monopoly forms and dominates the ISP market in Canada.
Its like doomsday.
I think it is safe to say that if the US implements it you will see lots of competition and halving of prices if this is implemented in the US.
The idea that all countries don't do this is ridiculous.
And the only people it hurts are entrenched corrupt monopolists.
Which is why it probably won't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768351</id>
	<title>Competition? Come On</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1255706580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, who are you going to believe: Harvard, Adam Smith, and a bunch of empirical evidence, or the oligopolists who have monopoly rents to defend? Competition never did anything good for anyone who was in charge of an existing monopoly. Competition may be one of the fundamental tenets of free market capitalism, and may be a principle requirement for maximization of both GDP and a society's ability to satisfy wants, but it simply does not guarantee those who have attained wealth and power that they will be able to continue their acquisition of it without trying very hard.</p><p>Ask yourself what is really important here: The principles of economics which are supposed to be the bedrock of our superpower status, or the rights of a few CEOs to do a poor job and charge whatever they want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , who are you going to believe : Harvard , Adam Smith , and a bunch of empirical evidence , or the oligopolists who have monopoly rents to defend ?
Competition never did anything good for anyone who was in charge of an existing monopoly .
Competition may be one of the fundamental tenets of free market capitalism , and may be a principle requirement for maximization of both GDP and a society 's ability to satisfy wants , but it simply does not guarantee those who have attained wealth and power that they will be able to continue their acquisition of it without trying very hard.Ask yourself what is really important here : The principles of economics which are supposed to be the bedrock of our superpower status , or the rights of a few CEOs to do a poor job and charge whatever they want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, who are you going to believe: Harvard, Adam Smith, and a bunch of empirical evidence, or the oligopolists who have monopoly rents to defend?
Competition never did anything good for anyone who was in charge of an existing monopoly.
Competition may be one of the fundamental tenets of free market capitalism, and may be a principle requirement for maximization of both GDP and a society's ability to satisfy wants, but it simply does not guarantee those who have attained wealth and power that they will be able to continue their acquisition of it without trying very hard.Ask yourself what is really important here: The principles of economics which are supposed to be the bedrock of our superpower status, or the rights of a few CEOs to do a poor job and charge whatever they want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29788087</id>
	<title>Re:So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1255870140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My phone/DSL provider is a CLEC, operating on AT&amp;T's local infrastructure. Over the last decade, they found that the only way to stay in business was to hire really good, really expensive lawyers and keep taking AT&amp;T to court. Legally, the CLEC is forbidden from running any tests or performing any maintenance on AT&amp;T's lines, so getting AT&amp;T to simply cooperate with their technical needs required repeated judicial orders. AT&amp;T sorely abused their position as incumbent because they would take months to provision lines, sabotage repairs, and disconnect CLEC customers during their own routine maintenance. Any time I see an AT&amp;T van in the neighborhood I cringe and wonder if my dialtone is going to go away spontaneously again.</p><p>It got so bad that now, whenever the CLEC needs a line provisioned or repaired, AT&amp;T is required to not only have the technician sign off on the maintenance, but two of his supervisors have to inspect and sign off on the work as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My phone/DSL provider is a CLEC , operating on AT&amp;T 's local infrastructure .
Over the last decade , they found that the only way to stay in business was to hire really good , really expensive lawyers and keep taking AT&amp;T to court .
Legally , the CLEC is forbidden from running any tests or performing any maintenance on AT&amp;T 's lines , so getting AT&amp;T to simply cooperate with their technical needs required repeated judicial orders .
AT&amp;T sorely abused their position as incumbent because they would take months to provision lines , sabotage repairs , and disconnect CLEC customers during their own routine maintenance .
Any time I see an AT&amp;T van in the neighborhood I cringe and wonder if my dialtone is going to go away spontaneously again.It got so bad that now , whenever the CLEC needs a line provisioned or repaired , AT&amp;T is required to not only have the technician sign off on the maintenance , but two of his supervisors have to inspect and sign off on the work as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My phone/DSL provider is a CLEC, operating on AT&amp;T's local infrastructure.
Over the last decade, they found that the only way to stay in business was to hire really good, really expensive lawyers and keep taking AT&amp;T to court.
Legally, the CLEC is forbidden from running any tests or performing any maintenance on AT&amp;T's lines, so getting AT&amp;T to simply cooperate with their technical needs required repeated judicial orders.
AT&amp;T sorely abused their position as incumbent because they would take months to provision lines, sabotage repairs, and disconnect CLEC customers during their own routine maintenance.
Any time I see an AT&amp;T van in the neighborhood I cringe and wonder if my dialtone is going to go away spontaneously again.It got so bad that now, whenever the CLEC needs a line provisioned or repaired, AT&amp;T is required to not only have the technician sign off on the maintenance, but two of his supervisors have to inspect and sign off on the work as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767897</id>
	<title>Not sure</title>
	<author>mfh</author>
	<datestamp>1255703880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>so that independent ISPs could begin offering broadband, much in the way it was done back in the days of dialup access</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not sure that a charge-by-minute scenario for high-speed is really in my best interest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so that independent ISPs could begin offering broadband , much in the way it was done back in the days of dialup accessI 'm not sure that a charge-by-minute scenario for high-speed is really in my best interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so that independent ISPs could begin offering broadband, much in the way it was done back in the days of dialup accessI'm not sure that a charge-by-minute scenario for high-speed is really in my best interest.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768633</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure</title>
	<author>Orbijx</author>
	<datestamp>1255708020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would normally make a "You must be young here" joke, but...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I explicitly remember the days when AOL was 20 hours for $20 or so.<br>I also remember a few BBSes that were long distance, so because you had to direct dial them to get in, if you didn't have long distance then (my family didn't), you certainly did pay by the minute for being dialed in.</p><p>Then AOL started offering unlimited internets, and the need for those dialing numbers to BBSes started dropping.</p><p>Of course, without a credit card, AOL was a non-option to a barely pubescent geek. Coupled with the flipping out that the family did, on seeing these long distance charges... I got hooked on a bicycle floppy 'modem', with an 'uplink' to the public library that offered a half hour of free internet per session (and less family yelling).</p><p>Feel free to calculate this for bandwidth:<br>Distance traveled in each direction: 1.9 miles<br>Mode of personal transport: bicycle<br>Time consumed per direction: 15 minutes<br>Mode of data transport: floppy disk, 10 units<br>Volume of data transport: 1.38 MB per unit, formatted as FAT32<br>Number of discs that could be filled, average, per session: 4<br>Number of sessions per trip: 2</p><p>I must be olde.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would normally make a " You must be young here " joke , but... : ) I explicitly remember the days when AOL was 20 hours for $ 20 or so.I also remember a few BBSes that were long distance , so because you had to direct dial them to get in , if you did n't have long distance then ( my family did n't ) , you certainly did pay by the minute for being dialed in.Then AOL started offering unlimited internets , and the need for those dialing numbers to BBSes started dropping.Of course , without a credit card , AOL was a non-option to a barely pubescent geek .
Coupled with the flipping out that the family did , on seeing these long distance charges... I got hooked on a bicycle floppy 'modem ' , with an 'uplink ' to the public library that offered a half hour of free internet per session ( and less family yelling ) .Feel free to calculate this for bandwidth : Distance traveled in each direction : 1.9 milesMode of personal transport : bicycleTime consumed per direction : 15 minutesMode of data transport : floppy disk , 10 unitsVolume of data transport : 1.38 MB per unit , formatted as FAT32Number of discs that could be filled , average , per session : 4Number of sessions per trip : 2I must be olde .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would normally make a "You must be young here" joke, but... :)I explicitly remember the days when AOL was 20 hours for $20 or so.I also remember a few BBSes that were long distance, so because you had to direct dial them to get in, if you didn't have long distance then (my family didn't), you certainly did pay by the minute for being dialed in.Then AOL started offering unlimited internets, and the need for those dialing numbers to BBSes started dropping.Of course, without a credit card, AOL was a non-option to a barely pubescent geek.
Coupled with the flipping out that the family did, on seeing these long distance charges... I got hooked on a bicycle floppy 'modem', with an 'uplink' to the public library that offered a half hour of free internet per session (and less family yelling).Feel free to calculate this for bandwidth:Distance traveled in each direction: 1.9 milesMode of personal transport: bicycleTime consumed per direction: 15 minutesMode of data transport: floppy disk, 10 unitsVolume of data transport: 1.38 MB per unit, formatted as FAT32Number of discs that could be filled, average, per session: 4Number of sessions per trip: 2I must be olde.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770071</id>
	<title>Re:Canada</title>
	<author>kosty</author>
	<datestamp>1255715040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoth Idiomatick:     "Which is why it probably won't happen."</p><p>2010 election cycle already in gear.</p><p>Step 1:  Gin up the fund-raising machine and get those lobbyists to open their wallets.</p><p>Step 2: Introduce new threat to current price-gouging, consumer-raping, Thunderdome-like absence of reasonable regulation.</p><p>Step 3: Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoth Idiomatick : " Which is why it probably wo n't happen .
" 2010 election cycle already in gear.Step 1 : Gin up the fund-raising machine and get those lobbyists to open their wallets.Step 2 : Introduce new threat to current price-gouging , consumer-raping , Thunderdome-like absence of reasonable regulation.Step 3 : Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoth Idiomatick:     "Which is why it probably won't happen.
"2010 election cycle already in gear.Step 1:  Gin up the fund-raising machine and get those lobbyists to open their wallets.Step 2: Introduce new threat to current price-gouging, consumer-raping, Thunderdome-like absence of reasonable regulation.Step 3: Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29772919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29775805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29774311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29788087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1316213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29788013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29775805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29788013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29772919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29771699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29774311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29770869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29788087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29768903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1316213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29767933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1316213.29769067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
