<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_16_1555228</id>
	<title>Internet Traffic Shifting Away From Tier-1 Carriers</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255710060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>carusoj writes <i>'The way traffic moves over the Internet has changed radically in the last five years. Arbor Networks next week will present the results of a two-year study, drawing on more than 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data, which found that the bulk of international <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/lans/2009/101209lan2.html?ts">Internet traffic no longer moves across Tier-1 transit providers</a>. Instead, the traffic is handled directly by large content providers, content delivery networks, and consumer networks, and is handed off from one of these to another. You can probably guess what some of these companies are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook. Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30\% of all Internet traffic.'</i> Here is the <a href="http://www.arbornetworks.com/en/arbor-networks-the-university-of-michigan-and-merit-network-to-present-two-year-study-of-global-int-2.html">Arbor Networks press release</a> on the report.</htmltext>
<tokenext>carusoj writes 'The way traffic moves over the Internet has changed radically in the last five years .
Arbor Networks next week will present the results of a two-year study , drawing on more than 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data , which found that the bulk of international Internet traffic no longer moves across Tier-1 transit providers .
Instead , the traffic is handled directly by large content providers , content delivery networks , and consumer networks , and is handed off from one of these to another .
You can probably guess what some of these companies are : Google , Microsoft , Facebook .
Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant ' companies that generate and consume about 30 \ % of all Internet traffic .
' Here is the Arbor Networks press release on the report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>carusoj writes 'The way traffic moves over the Internet has changed radically in the last five years.
Arbor Networks next week will present the results of a two-year study, drawing on more than 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data, which found that the bulk of international Internet traffic no longer moves across Tier-1 transit providers.
Instead, the traffic is handled directly by large content providers, content delivery networks, and consumer networks, and is handed off from one of these to another.
You can probably guess what some of these companies are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook.
Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30\% of all Internet traffic.
' Here is the Arbor Networks press release on the report.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775133</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive.</i></p><p>And as soon as that happens searchers can point their browsers to other search engines.  Though I use mostly Google I still use Alta Vista.  I also use <a href="http://www.about.com/" title="about.com">About.com</a> [about.com], Teoma (now <a href="http://www.ask.com/?o=10182" title="ask.com">Ask.com</a> [ask.com]), <a href="http://www.cuil.com/" title="cuil.com">Cuil</a> [cuil.com], <a href="http://www.dmoz.org/" title="dmoz.org">DMoz</a> [dmoz.org], and <a href="http://www.mooter.com/" title="mooter.com">Mooter</a> [mooter.com].</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to your question " What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users ?
" is : restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive.And as soon as that happens searchers can point their browsers to other search engines .
Though I use mostly Google I still use Alta Vista .
I also use About.com [ about.com ] , Teoma ( now Ask.com [ ask.com ] ) , Cuil [ cuil.com ] , DMoz [ dmoz.org ] , and Mooter [ mooter.com ] .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?
" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive.And as soon as that happens searchers can point their browsers to other search engines.
Though I use mostly Google I still use Alta Vista.
I also use About.com [about.com], Teoma (now Ask.com [ask.com]), Cuil [cuil.com], DMoz [dmoz.org], and Mooter [mooter.com].
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770091</id>
	<title>What do the ISP's have to say?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255715100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always bothered me how much control ISP's have over the communication medium. I almost feel, in some ways, that internet access should be a utility as water or electricity is.</p><p>If the bulk (\%?) of internet traffic no longer moves between ISP's, but instead between major corporations like Google, Limelight, Microsoft, Facebook, etc, then why are we paying 100\% of the price to the ISP's?</p><p>network communication mediums should be made open for independent providers, like it used to be with dialup access. We should pay for a service plan to whatever ISP we choose (between what is best available and what we need/want), and a portion of that money should go to supporting whatever companies or organizations maintain the pathways, respectfully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always bothered me how much control ISP 's have over the communication medium .
I almost feel , in some ways , that internet access should be a utility as water or electricity is.If the bulk ( \ % ?
) of internet traffic no longer moves between ISP 's , but instead between major corporations like Google , Limelight , Microsoft , Facebook , etc , then why are we paying 100 \ % of the price to the ISP 's ? network communication mediums should be made open for independent providers , like it used to be with dialup access .
We should pay for a service plan to whatever ISP we choose ( between what is best available and what we need/want ) , and a portion of that money should go to supporting whatever companies or organizations maintain the pathways , respectfully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always bothered me how much control ISP's have over the communication medium.
I almost feel, in some ways, that internet access should be a utility as water or electricity is.If the bulk (\%?
) of internet traffic no longer moves between ISP's, but instead between major corporations like Google, Limelight, Microsoft, Facebook, etc, then why are we paying 100\% of the price to the ISP's?network communication mediums should be made open for independent providers, like it used to be with dialup access.
We should pay for a service plan to whatever ISP we choose (between what is best available and what we need/want), and a portion of that money should go to supporting whatever companies or organizations maintain the pathways, respectfully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771621</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1255722900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage.</p></div></blockquote><p>Capitalism does not route around the damage, it INSTALLS the damage. A monopoly is damage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism is just like the internet in that it " routes around " damage.Capitalism does not route around the damage , it INSTALLS the damage .
A monopoly is damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage.Capitalism does not route around the damage, it INSTALLS the damage.
A monopoly is damage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772729</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been doing research on congestion control for TCP (reaally old topic, and most people find it useless), since early 90s, people knew this kind of thing would happen for another reasons: while we (and also bandwidth customers like Google and Microsoft) were bitching about the lack of bandwidth, the companies decided to throw bandwidth at the problem and forget about complaints. <br> <br>
This is driving all the congestion to the edges, since TCP is not being modified and AQM is not being taken seriously, then Tiers don't see traffic because:<br>
1. Google and other companies have placed servers closer to users to circumvent the long haul issue.<br>
2. Access routers are now dropping the packets and doing the "congestion control" for TCP traffic.<br> <br>
Of course, as someone that designed an AQM algorithm, I would go all the way for implementing them in gateway routers. But since router manufacturers can still sell more equipment, MS doesn't really care about implementing other protocols, and people simply doesn't care, things will still go the same way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been doing research on congestion control for TCP ( reaally old topic , and most people find it useless ) , since early 90s , people knew this kind of thing would happen for another reasons : while we ( and also bandwidth customers like Google and Microsoft ) were bitching about the lack of bandwidth , the companies decided to throw bandwidth at the problem and forget about complaints .
This is driving all the congestion to the edges , since TCP is not being modified and AQM is not being taken seriously , then Tiers do n't see traffic because : 1 .
Google and other companies have placed servers closer to users to circumvent the long haul issue .
2. Access routers are now dropping the packets and doing the " congestion control " for TCP traffic .
Of course , as someone that designed an AQM algorithm , I would go all the way for implementing them in gateway routers .
But since router manufacturers can still sell more equipment , MS does n't really care about implementing other protocols , and people simply does n't care , things will still go the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been doing research on congestion control for TCP (reaally old topic, and most people find it useless), since early 90s, people knew this kind of thing would happen for another reasons: while we (and also bandwidth customers like Google and Microsoft) were bitching about the lack of bandwidth, the companies decided to throw bandwidth at the problem and forget about complaints.
This is driving all the congestion to the edges, since TCP is not being modified and AQM is not being taken seriously, then Tiers don't see traffic because:
1.
Google and other companies have placed servers closer to users to circumvent the long haul issue.
2. Access routers are now dropping the packets and doing the "congestion control" for TCP traffic.
Of course, as someone that designed an AQM algorithm, I would go all the way for implementing them in gateway routers.
But since router manufacturers can still sell more equipment, MS doesn't really care about implementing other protocols, and people simply doesn't care, things will still go the same way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771945</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1255724700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google? What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?</p></div><p>There was recently an article in the New Yorker that gave the following quote from Al Gore about a meeting he had with Sergey Brin and Larry Page: "They had to go to another meeting," Gore recalled, "and said, 'If you can stay, Al, we'd like to bring in the search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of the business.' Ten of them came in. Larry and Sergey left. I spent another three hours. And then, when it was over, I gave Larry and Sergey an oral report." Why are Goolge's "search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of this business" consulting with Al Gore? When that is combined with the fact that Google has a PAC that gave 98\% of its money to Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 election cycle and other activities indicating ties between Google and the Democratic Party it is cause to carefully watch their activities for signs that they are using their position as the search leader to skew results toward their political favorites. I am unaware of any evidence that they have done so at this point, but that doesn't mean that that won't change in the future.<br>
The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive. That they have not so far apparently acted on that motivation does not mean that they won't in the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google ?
What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users ? There was recently an article in the New Yorker that gave the following quote from Al Gore about a meeting he had with Sergey Brin and Larry Page : " They had to go to another meeting , " Gore recalled , " and said , 'If you can stay , Al , we 'd like to bring in the search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of the business .
' Ten of them came in .
Larry and Sergey left .
I spent another three hours .
And then , when it was over , I gave Larry and Sergey an oral report .
" Why are Goolge 's " search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of this business " consulting with Al Gore ?
When that is combined with the fact that Google has a PAC that gave 98 \ % of its money to Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 election cycle and other activities indicating ties between Google and the Democratic Party it is cause to carefully watch their activities for signs that they are using their position as the search leader to skew results toward their political favorites .
I am unaware of any evidence that they have done so at this point , but that does n't mean that that wo n't change in the future .
The answer to your question " What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users ?
" is : restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive .
That they have not so far apparently acted on that motivation does not mean that they wo n't in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google?
What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?There was recently an article in the New Yorker that gave the following quote from Al Gore about a meeting he had with Sergey Brin and Larry Page: "They had to go to another meeting," Gore recalled, "and said, 'If you can stay, Al, we'd like to bring in the search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of the business.
' Ten of them came in.
Larry and Sergey left.
I spent another three hours.
And then, when it was over, I gave Larry and Sergey an oral report.
" Why are Goolge's "search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of this business" consulting with Al Gore?
When that is combined with the fact that Google has a PAC that gave 98\% of its money to Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 election cycle and other activities indicating ties between Google and the Democratic Party it is cause to carefully watch their activities for signs that they are using their position as the search leader to skew results toward their political favorites.
I am unaware of any evidence that they have done so at this point, but that doesn't mean that that won't change in the future.
The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?
" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive.
That they have not so far apparently acted on that motivation does not mean that they won't in the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772563</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism doesn't create a monopoly, in fact Capitalism is damaged by monopolies.</p><p>The Government providing subsidies to industries with large financial barriers to entry (such as an ISP) is what contributes to the problem.  Whenever Government aids in a market, it no longer is Capitalism at work.</p><p>Capitalism is based on the assumption that people are greedy, therefore somebody, somewhere is going to find a way to make more money.  In most markets this creates competition, however when we have a monopolistic industry, it needs to be held back with regulation since Capitalism can't self regulate in monopolistic industries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism does n't create a monopoly , in fact Capitalism is damaged by monopolies.The Government providing subsidies to industries with large financial barriers to entry ( such as an ISP ) is what contributes to the problem .
Whenever Government aids in a market , it no longer is Capitalism at work.Capitalism is based on the assumption that people are greedy , therefore somebody , somewhere is going to find a way to make more money .
In most markets this creates competition , however when we have a monopolistic industry , it needs to be held back with regulation since Capitalism ca n't self regulate in monopolistic industries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism doesn't create a monopoly, in fact Capitalism is damaged by monopolies.The Government providing subsidies to industries with large financial barriers to entry (such as an ISP) is what contributes to the problem.
Whenever Government aids in a market, it no longer is Capitalism at work.Capitalism is based on the assumption that people are greedy, therefore somebody, somewhere is going to find a way to make more money.
In most markets this creates competition, however when we have a monopolistic industry, it needs to be held back with regulation since Capitalism can't self regulate in monopolistic industries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29782029</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA has won!</title>
	<author>Luyseyal</author>
	<datestamp>1255802940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, no iTunes option?</p><p>-l<br>
&nbsp; <br>/or Cowboy Neal...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , no iTunes option ? -l   /or Cowboy Neal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, no iTunes option?-l
  /or Cowboy Neal...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770689</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>geekmansworld</author>
	<datestamp>1255718100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WELL said, sir.</p><p>I have plenty of gripes about capitalism. But yes, it is AWESOME to see it work the way it's supposed to. Content providers have protected their interests by making an investment in network infrastructure. And by doing so, it makes the internet, and internet-related industries at large, more competitive, diverse, and structurally robust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WELL said , sir.I have plenty of gripes about capitalism .
But yes , it is AWESOME to see it work the way it 's supposed to .
Content providers have protected their interests by making an investment in network infrastructure .
And by doing so , it makes the internet , and internet-related industries at large , more competitive , diverse , and structurally robust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WELL said, sir.I have plenty of gripes about capitalism.
But yes, it is AWESOME to see it work the way it's supposed to.
Content providers have protected their interests by making an investment in network infrastructure.
And by doing so, it makes the internet, and internet-related industries at large, more competitive, diverse, and structurally robust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775163</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255706220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around.</i> </p><p>This only works if there is no monopoly.  How many choices do you have for cable?  DSL?  Any other broadband access?  Most people don't have a choice, many can't even get broadband.  At the sane tyme big businesses took hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out broadband but all they did with it was pad their pockets.  Besides the <a href="http://www.tispa.org/node/14" title="tispa.org">$200 Billion</a> [tispa.org] the feds gave them state and local governments gave them more.  As long as they took taxpayer money and have monopolies they should meet certain minimum requirements such as open access.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive , they will just be routed around .
This only works if there is no monopoly .
How many choices do you have for cable ?
DSL ? Any other broadband access ?
Most people do n't have a choice , many ca n't even get broadband .
At the sane tyme big businesses took hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out broadband but all they did with it was pad their pockets .
Besides the $ 200 Billion [ tispa.org ] the feds gave them state and local governments gave them more .
As long as they took taxpayer money and have monopolies they should meet certain minimum requirements such as open access .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around.
This only works if there is no monopoly.
How many choices do you have for cable?
DSL?  Any other broadband access?
Most people don't have a choice, many can't even get broadband.
At the sane tyme big businesses took hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out broadband but all they did with it was pad their pockets.
Besides the $200 Billion [tispa.org] the feds gave them state and local governments gave them more.
As long as they took taxpayer money and have monopolies they should meet certain minimum requirements such as open access.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771237</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>GigsVT</author>
	<datestamp>1255720800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not logical at all. Barriers would destroy the value of the Internet, and if any carrier were stupid enough to use them, people would scream bloody murder until they were removed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not logical at all .
Barriers would destroy the value of the Internet , and if any carrier were stupid enough to use them , people would scream bloody murder until they were removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not logical at all.
Barriers would destroy the value of the Internet, and if any carrier were stupid enough to use them, people would scream bloody murder until they were removed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770641</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>zappepcs</author>
	<datestamp>1255717860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a thought, capitalism is more like evolution than the Internet. It doesn't route around, it just allows bad ideas to fail. That said, the government(s) sometime stick their ho-ho grabbers in at the wrong places and we end up with life support systems woven into law for some business plans but not others. Evolution stops, and that's messing with nature man!  Yes, I just compared Tier 1 providers to Frankenstein in a roundabout way. If the last mile was forced open so anyone can play, those 30 would easily be buying up Tier 1 providers for augmenting their business plan, which gives us a different set of problems. Such as 'how long can Google avoid being evil?'</p><p>Oh sure, if we get rid of lobbyists, stock holders, dumbass legislators, and a few greedy groups of sharks like the RIAA et al, all will be good. The trouble is that every time I check the magic 8 ball on this it answers in negative tones.... WITH ALL CAPS too. If capitalistic growth happens, how do we prevent ending up with simply a different and more complex set of problems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a thought , capitalism is more like evolution than the Internet .
It does n't route around , it just allows bad ideas to fail .
That said , the government ( s ) sometime stick their ho-ho grabbers in at the wrong places and we end up with life support systems woven into law for some business plans but not others .
Evolution stops , and that 's messing with nature man !
Yes , I just compared Tier 1 providers to Frankenstein in a roundabout way .
If the last mile was forced open so anyone can play , those 30 would easily be buying up Tier 1 providers for augmenting their business plan , which gives us a different set of problems .
Such as 'how long can Google avoid being evil ?
'Oh sure , if we get rid of lobbyists , stock holders , dumbass legislators , and a few greedy groups of sharks like the RIAA et al , all will be good .
The trouble is that every time I check the magic 8 ball on this it answers in negative tones.... WITH ALL CAPS too .
If capitalistic growth happens , how do we prevent ending up with simply a different and more complex set of problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a thought, capitalism is more like evolution than the Internet.
It doesn't route around, it just allows bad ideas to fail.
That said, the government(s) sometime stick their ho-ho grabbers in at the wrong places and we end up with life support systems woven into law for some business plans but not others.
Evolution stops, and that's messing with nature man!
Yes, I just compared Tier 1 providers to Frankenstein in a roundabout way.
If the last mile was forced open so anyone can play, those 30 would easily be buying up Tier 1 providers for augmenting their business plan, which gives us a different set of problems.
Such as 'how long can Google avoid being evil?
'Oh sure, if we get rid of lobbyists, stock holders, dumbass legislators, and a few greedy groups of sharks like the RIAA et al, all will be good.
The trouble is that every time I check the magic 8 ball on this it answers in negative tones.... WITH ALL CAPS too.
If capitalistic growth happens, how do we prevent ending up with simply a different and more complex set of problems?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771529</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>rodgster</author>
	<datestamp>1255722420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if most of the traffic to Microsoft occurs around the 2nd Tuesday of every month.</p><p>&gt; Google, Microsoft, Facebook. Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30\% of all Internet traffic.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if most of the traffic to Microsoft occurs around the 2nd Tuesday of every month. &gt; Google , Microsoft , Facebook .
Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant ' companies that generate and consume about 30 \ % of all Internet traffic .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if most of the traffic to Microsoft occurs around the 2nd Tuesday of every month.&gt; Google, Microsoft, Facebook.
Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30\% of all Internet traffic.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770631</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>jlmale0</author>
	<datestamp>1255717800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>An interesting analysis.  However, I don't see the same conclusion.  These content providers are routing around the Tier 1 providers because they're too big.  Yes, it's the internet at work, routing around the inefficiencies, but not because of T1 business practices, but because they get better, cheaper service doing it themselves.<br> <br>These aren't new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers.  They're simply behemoths who've outgrown the playground.  They're not reselling their access, they're providing bridges into the other silos.  To me, this is a disheartening turn of events.  While I don't see any of these companies cutting off access to the other silos (becoming AOL 2.0), they're locking up access in direct business-to-business agreements.  If MS and Google decide to provide QoS on traffic X, or entirely block traffic Y, it's a matter between those two companies.  Whereas, should a T1 provider do the same thing, we'd all be up in arms.  Granted, The number of players makes these kinds of scenarios unlikely, but this direct linking starts to hide these kinds of concerns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An interesting analysis .
However , I do n't see the same conclusion .
These content providers are routing around the Tier 1 providers because they 're too big .
Yes , it 's the internet at work , routing around the inefficiencies , but not because of T1 business practices , but because they get better , cheaper service doing it themselves .
These are n't new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers .
They 're simply behemoths who 've outgrown the playground .
They 're not reselling their access , they 're providing bridges into the other silos .
To me , this is a disheartening turn of events .
While I do n't see any of these companies cutting off access to the other silos ( becoming AOL 2.0 ) , they 're locking up access in direct business-to-business agreements .
If MS and Google decide to provide QoS on traffic X , or entirely block traffic Y , it 's a matter between those two companies .
Whereas , should a T1 provider do the same thing , we 'd all be up in arms .
Granted , The number of players makes these kinds of scenarios unlikely , but this direct linking starts to hide these kinds of concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An interesting analysis.
However, I don't see the same conclusion.
These content providers are routing around the Tier 1 providers because they're too big.
Yes, it's the internet at work, routing around the inefficiencies, but not because of T1 business practices, but because they get better, cheaper service doing it themselves.
These aren't new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers.
They're simply behemoths who've outgrown the playground.
They're not reselling their access, they're providing bridges into the other silos.
To me, this is a disheartening turn of events.
While I don't see any of these companies cutting off access to the other silos (becoming AOL 2.0), they're locking up access in direct business-to-business agreements.
If MS and Google decide to provide QoS on traffic X, or entirely block traffic Y, it's a matter between those two companies.
Whereas, should a T1 provider do the same thing, we'd all be up in arms.
Granted, The number of players makes these kinds of scenarios unlikely, but this direct linking starts to hide these kinds of concerns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770577</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255717560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Until there are abuses, don't make laws.</i></p><p>So much for all those "There oughta be a law!" after-the-fact cries from folks who suffer injustice.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p><i>The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill. A law, any law, restricts freedom.. no matter it's intent.</i></p><p>That's a bit over-broad, doncha think?  Assuming you mean "freedom" in a non-legal handwavy sense, I think you'd agree that laws against murder, theft, prohibitions against race discrimination, or consumer protection legislation protecting the public from unsafe foods or products don't restrict freedom.</p><p>Either way, I'd suggest your caught in a uniquely American and mostly mythical notion of frontier freedom.  Governments in modern societies need to set some sort of public policy.  That policy, in turn, is typically implemented by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wait for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... passing laws.</p><p>I do agree with your general sentiment about there being too many laws.  The problem, I think, is that people are generally selfish or are otherwise assholes.  They don't just refuse norms of good or common sense behaviour, they often go to great lengths to find loopholes in or ways around existing laws.  That applies to the driver of a car who doesn't think it's worth his time to signal a lane change or slow down for a pedestrian, or a company discovering that bad behaviour can increase profits for its shareholders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until there are abuses , do n't make laws.So much for all those " There oughta be a law !
" after-the-fact cries from folks who suffer injustice .
; - ) The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill. A law , any law , restricts freedom.. no matter it 's intent.That 's a bit over-broad , doncha think ?
Assuming you mean " freedom " in a non-legal handwavy sense , I think you 'd agree that laws against murder , theft , prohibitions against race discrimination , or consumer protection legislation protecting the public from unsafe foods or products do n't restrict freedom.Either way , I 'd suggest your caught in a uniquely American and mostly mythical notion of frontier freedom .
Governments in modern societies need to set some sort of public policy .
That policy , in turn , is typically implemented by ... wait for it ... passing laws.I do agree with your general sentiment about there being too many laws .
The problem , I think , is that people are generally selfish or are otherwise assholes .
They do n't just refuse norms of good or common sense behaviour , they often go to great lengths to find loopholes in or ways around existing laws .
That applies to the driver of a car who does n't think it 's worth his time to signal a lane change or slow down for a pedestrian , or a company discovering that bad behaviour can increase profits for its shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until there are abuses, don't make laws.So much for all those "There oughta be a law!
" after-the-fact cries from folks who suffer injustice.
;-)The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill. A law, any law, restricts freedom.. no matter it's intent.That's a bit over-broad, doncha think?
Assuming you mean "freedom" in a non-legal handwavy sense, I think you'd agree that laws against murder, theft, prohibitions against race discrimination, or consumer protection legislation protecting the public from unsafe foods or products don't restrict freedom.Either way, I'd suggest your caught in a uniquely American and mostly mythical notion of frontier freedom.
Governments in modern societies need to set some sort of public policy.
That policy, in turn, is typically implemented by ... wait for it ... passing laws.I do agree with your general sentiment about there being too many laws.
The problem, I think, is that people are generally selfish or are otherwise assholes.
They don't just refuse norms of good or common sense behaviour, they often go to great lengths to find loopholes in or ways around existing laws.
That applies to the driver of a car who doesn't think it's worth his time to signal a lane change or slow down for a pedestrian, or a company discovering that bad behaviour can increase profits for its shareholders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770539</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>geekmansworld</author>
	<datestamp>1255717380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting back on TOPIC...</p><p>Original poster is spot on. The big telecomms like to argue that a tiered internet, where big content providers pay extra for better transport, is necessary (nay, crucial) because that traffic produced by the content providers is consuming so much bandwidth that major infrastructure upgrades are needed.</p><p>Instead, we see that big content is handling much of the fat transport by itself. So it seems to me that content providers have stepped up to the plate in terms of managing their own bandwidth usage.</p><p>Time for big telecomm to shit down, shut up, and eat crow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting back on TOPIC...Original poster is spot on .
The big telecomms like to argue that a tiered internet , where big content providers pay extra for better transport , is necessary ( nay , crucial ) because that traffic produced by the content providers is consuming so much bandwidth that major infrastructure upgrades are needed.Instead , we see that big content is handling much of the fat transport by itself .
So it seems to me that content providers have stepped up to the plate in terms of managing their own bandwidth usage.Time for big telecomm to shit down , shut up , and eat crow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting back on TOPIC...Original poster is spot on.
The big telecomms like to argue that a tiered internet, where big content providers pay extra for better transport, is necessary (nay, crucial) because that traffic produced by the content providers is consuming so much bandwidth that major infrastructure upgrades are needed.Instead, we see that big content is handling much of the fat transport by itself.
So it seems to me that content providers have stepped up to the plate in terms of managing their own bandwidth usage.Time for big telecomm to shit down, shut up, and eat crow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770463</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1255717020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around. Until that ability begins to erode, lets keep the law out of it!</i> <br> <br>
That's all well and good if you're in the middle of the network with several routes to choose from.  If you're on the periphery you've only got one route, through your ISP.  If they're the ones being disruptive, you're Straight Outta Luck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive , they will just be routed around .
Until that ability begins to erode , lets keep the law out of it !
That 's all well and good if you 're in the middle of the network with several routes to choose from .
If you 're on the periphery you 've only got one route , through your ISP .
If they 're the ones being disruptive , you 're Straight Outta Luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around.
Until that ability begins to erode, lets keep the law out of it!
That's all well and good if you're in the middle of the network with several routes to choose from.
If you're on the periphery you've only got one route, through your ISP.
If they're the ones being disruptive, you're Straight Outta Luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771583</id>
	<title>RIAA has won!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255722720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Arbor also notes that Internet applications used to use a more diverse set of application-specific protocols and communication stacks, but that has consolidated as well. Traffic these days is concentrated on a small number of Web and video protocols, <b>while peer-to-peer traffic has nosedived in the past two years.</b></p> </div><p>That leads to one of two conclusions:
</p><ol> <li>RIAA has won!  Suck on it NewYorkCountryLawyer and all those who doubted that suing your customers was the gateway to success.</li><li>RIAA overstated the problem in the first place.  Nah, couldn't be.....</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Arbor also notes that Internet applications used to use a more diverse set of application-specific protocols and communication stacks , but that has consolidated as well .
Traffic these days is concentrated on a small number of Web and video protocols , while peer-to-peer traffic has nosedived in the past two years .
That leads to one of two conclusions : RIAA has won !
Suck on it NewYorkCountryLawyer and all those who doubted that suing your customers was the gateway to success.RIAA overstated the problem in the first place .
Nah , could n't be.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:
Arbor also notes that Internet applications used to use a more diverse set of application-specific protocols and communication stacks, but that has consolidated as well.
Traffic these days is concentrated on a small number of Web and video protocols, while peer-to-peer traffic has nosedived in the past two years.
That leads to one of two conclusions:
 RIAA has won!
Suck on it NewYorkCountryLawyer and all those who doubted that suing your customers was the gateway to success.RIAA overstated the problem in the first place.
Nah, couldn't be.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771819</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA has won!</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1255724160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3. Peer-to-peer networks have gotten more efficient over the years.  Early implementations of Gnutilla, for example, generated something like 75\% of the Internet's traffic just holding itself together, about another 5\% moving search requests and results around, and 1\% transferring data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Peer-to-peer networks have gotten more efficient over the years .
Early implementations of Gnutilla , for example , generated something like 75 \ % of the Internet 's traffic just holding itself together , about another 5 \ % moving search requests and results around , and 1 \ % transferring data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Peer-to-peer networks have gotten more efficient over the years.
Early implementations of Gnutilla, for example, generated something like 75\% of the Internet's traffic just holding itself together, about another 5\% moving search requests and results around, and 1\% transferring data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769853</id>
	<title>It's as if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255713960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks.

And all is right in the world again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks .
And all is right in the world again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks.
And all is right in the world again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255715580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until there are abuses, don't make laws.  The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill.  A law, any law, restricts freedom.. no matter it's intent.  I can think of very few well meaning laws that haven't been used in a way that the writers didn't intend.</p><p>The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around.  Until that ability begins to erode, lets keep the law out of it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until there are abuses , do n't make laws .
The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill. A law , any law , restricts freedom.. no matter it 's intent .
I can think of very few well meaning laws that have n't been used in a way that the writers did n't intend.The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive , they will just be routed around .
Until that ability begins to erode , lets keep the law out of it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until there are abuses, don't make laws.
The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill.  A law, any law, restricts freedom.. no matter it's intent.
I can think of very few well meaning laws that haven't been used in a way that the writers didn't intend.The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around.
Until that ability begins to erode, lets keep the law out of it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771599</id>
	<title>Re:It's as if...</title>
	<author>Ponga</author>
	<datestamp>1255722780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks...</p></div><p>
It's actually a series of TUBES.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks.. . It 's actually a series of TUBES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks...
It's actually a series of TUBES.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775675</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255714620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent.</i></p><p>Net history has been rewritten but to say without that without the government there would not be a network like the internet is to ignore or be ignorant of history also.  That I know of, there may of been some earlier, the earliest network I known of was setup in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuServe" title="wikipedia.org">1969 as Compu-Serv Network, Inc.</a> [wikipedia.org] by an insurance company.  After the birth of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew\_Computer\_Club" title="wikipedia.org">homebrew</a> [wikipedia.org] computers or microcomputers in the 1970s  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBSes" title="wikipedia.org">bulletin board systems</a> [wikipedia.org] or BBSes started cropping up.  People, especially here on slashdot, complain how made up Mathew Broderick's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/" title="imdb.com">"WarGames"</a> [imdb.com] was but back then there were BBSes and people did <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_dialing" title="wikipedia.org">wardial</a> [wikipedia.org] looking for BBSes and any other computer connected to the phone lines. (Okay I know some people's complaint is about a thinking WOPR.)</p><p>Without government it would have taken longer but a network of networks would still have been developed.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet , or just got on it recently , have rewritten its history to such an extent.Net history has been rewritten but to say without that without the government there would not be a network like the internet is to ignore or be ignorant of history also .
That I know of , there may of been some earlier , the earliest network I known of was setup in 1969 as Compu-Serv Network , Inc. [ wikipedia.org ] by an insurance company .
After the birth of homebrew [ wikipedia.org ] computers or microcomputers in the 1970s bulletin board systems [ wikipedia.org ] or BBSes started cropping up .
People , especially here on slashdot , complain how made up Mathew Broderick 's " WarGames " [ imdb.com ] was but back then there were BBSes and people did wardial [ wikipedia.org ] looking for BBSes and any other computer connected to the phone lines .
( Okay I know some people 's complaint is about a thinking WOPR .
) Without government it would have taken longer but a network of networks would still have been developed .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent.Net history has been rewritten but to say without that without the government there would not be a network like the internet is to ignore or be ignorant of history also.
That I know of, there may of been some earlier, the earliest network I known of was setup in 1969 as Compu-Serv Network, Inc. [wikipedia.org] by an insurance company.
After the birth of homebrew [wikipedia.org] computers or microcomputers in the 1970s  bulletin board systems [wikipedia.org] or BBSes started cropping up.
People, especially here on slashdot, complain how made up Mathew Broderick's "WarGames" [imdb.com] was but back then there were BBSes and people did wardial [wikipedia.org] looking for BBSes and any other computer connected to the phone lines.
(Okay I know some people's complaint is about a thinking WOPR.
)Without government it would have taken longer but a network of networks would still have been developed.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769997</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows.</p></div><p>Actually, most of the motivation to erect additional barriers and artificial costs is the result of gatekeepers on users. What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google? What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?</p><p>This actually removes a potential problem, that being tier 1 providers using their position to extort money for not degrading performance to specific content providers. Still, I think the proposed network neutrality rules are important for network edge, last mile providers and it doesn't hurt to apply it across the board.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a few large , unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet 's traffic , the potential for self interested mischief grows.Actually , most of the motivation to erect additional barriers and artificial costs is the result of gatekeepers on users .
What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google ?
What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users ? This actually removes a potential problem , that being tier 1 providers using their position to extort money for not degrading performance to specific content providers .
Still , I think the proposed network neutrality rules are important for network edge , last mile providers and it does n't hurt to apply it across the board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows.Actually, most of the motivation to erect additional barriers and artificial costs is the result of gatekeepers on users.
What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google?
What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?This actually removes a potential problem, that being tier 1 providers using their position to extort money for not degrading performance to specific content providers.
Still, I think the proposed network neutrality rules are important for network edge, last mile providers and it doesn't hurt to apply it across the board.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771183</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>GigsVT</author>
	<datestamp>1255720500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Net neutrality laws proposed to date have been concerned with what happens in the middle.  None of them will do anything to solve the last mile natural monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality laws proposed to date have been concerned with what happens in the middle .
None of them will do anything to solve the last mile natural monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality laws proposed to date have been concerned with what happens in the middle.
None of them will do anything to solve the last mile natural monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897</id>
	<title>more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality rule</title>
	<author>virchull</author>
	<datestamp>1255714200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows.  The FCC needs to set rules that create a neutral, flat playing field for all agents on the Internet - regardless of size or their role.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a few large , unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet 's traffic , the potential for self interested mischief grows .
The FCC needs to set rules that create a neutral , flat playing field for all agents on the Internet - regardless of size or their role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows.
The FCC needs to set rules that create a neutral, flat playing field for all agents on the Internet - regardless of size or their role.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770573</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1255717560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some laws create freedom (even while taking it).  The laws against murder give us the freedom to live by discouraging murder (or even merely punishing it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some laws create freedom ( even while taking it ) .
The laws against murder give us the freedom to live by discouraging murder ( or even merely punishing it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some laws create freedom (even while taking it).
The laws against murder give us the freedom to live by discouraging murder (or even merely punishing it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770133</id>
	<title>Exabytes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255715340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats more troubling to me is the fact that somebody has 256 exabytes of saved internet traffic. Is this not a concern for anybody else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats more troubling to me is the fact that somebody has 256 exabytes of saved internet traffic .
Is this not a concern for anybody else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats more troubling to me is the fact that somebody has 256 exabytes of saved internet traffic.
Is this not a concern for anybody else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775697</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255714980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Capitalism does not route around the damage, it INSTALLS the damage. A monopoly is damage.</i></p><p>A monopoly is not capitalism, and capitalism does try to route around damage.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism does not route around the damage , it INSTALLS the damage .
A monopoly is damage.A monopoly is not capitalism , and capitalism does try to route around damage .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism does not route around the damage, it INSTALLS the damage.
A monopoly is damage.A monopoly is not capitalism, and capitalism does try to route around damage.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769799</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255713780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775319</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255708560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.</i></p><p>With such a network how do I visit Brazilian, Chinese, Danish, Joburg, and Sydney websites?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable , high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax , or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.With such a network how do I visit Brazilian , Chinese , Danish , Joburg , and Sydney websites ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.With such a network how do I visit Brazilian, Chinese, Danish, Joburg, and Sydney websites?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771275</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255721100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why America has the lowest broadband availability of any modern country! We're  number 26!</p><p>Who knows, one day our health care system might actually take care of everybody like in every other modern country. I wouldn't count on it but... capitalism sometimes means that you die if you are poor.</p><p>Insurance companies' massacre of the poor and middle class is really just a modern form of natural selection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why America has the lowest broadband availability of any modern country !
We 're number 26 ! Who knows , one day our health care system might actually take care of everybody like in every other modern country .
I would n't count on it but... capitalism sometimes means that you die if you are poor.Insurance companies ' massacre of the poor and middle class is really just a modern form of natural selection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why America has the lowest broadband availability of any modern country!
We're  number 26!Who knows, one day our health care system might actually take care of everybody like in every other modern country.
I wouldn't count on it but... capitalism sometimes means that you die if you are poor.Insurance companies' massacre of the poor and middle class is really just a modern form of natural selection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771881</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>br00tus</author>
	<datestamp>1255724460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ARPAnet went online in 1969, and there was no legal commercial activity on it until 1992 (and all barriers to commercial activity did not fall until 1995).  The creation and architecture of the Internet has nothing to do with the "free market" whatever that means (how is a market in the USA which uses dollars free while a market in the old USSR using rubles not free?).  It has to do with two decades of massive taxpayer investment in research and development for the Internet, which from 1992 to 1995 was handed over to corporations.</p><p>It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent.  I got on the Internet back when SRI-NIC was the root name server, I guess in the years ahead all of that will be washed away and the history of the creation of the Internet will be rewritten as a monument to free enterprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ARPAnet went online in 1969 , and there was no legal commercial activity on it until 1992 ( and all barriers to commercial activity did not fall until 1995 ) .
The creation and architecture of the Internet has nothing to do with the " free market " whatever that means ( how is a market in the USA which uses dollars free while a market in the old USSR using rubles not free ? ) .
It has to do with two decades of massive taxpayer investment in research and development for the Internet , which from 1992 to 1995 was handed over to corporations.It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet , or just got on it recently , have rewritten its history to such an extent .
I got on the Internet back when SRI-NIC was the root name server , I guess in the years ahead all of that will be washed away and the history of the creation of the Internet will be rewritten as a monument to free enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ARPAnet went online in 1969, and there was no legal commercial activity on it until 1992 (and all barriers to commercial activity did not fall until 1995).
The creation and architecture of the Internet has nothing to do with the "free market" whatever that means (how is a market in the USA which uses dollars free while a market in the old USSR using rubles not free?).
It has to do with two decades of massive taxpayer investment in research and development for the Internet, which from 1992 to 1995 was handed over to corporations.It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent.
I got on the Internet back when SRI-NIC was the root name server, I guess in the years ahead all of that will be washed away and the history of the creation of the Internet will be rewritten as a monument to free enterprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770975</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And often times that route is solely for the benefit of the company or business, while often times at a huge cost years down the road to the consumer.  I have a great idea, let me build the next iconic WiFi network (NetX) that allows Cell and PC's to use the frequency - only to find out that 5 years later it causes cancer, or impacts health somehow to the detrminent of tens of millions of Americans.<br>That's capitalism???? That's irresponsible and wrong.   That's what's happening in our country - we've lost touch on the impact my invention and eventually my company might have on others - So what if plastic bottles contain chemicals that are carcinogenic?  Getting water to millions who never had it is more important?  Wait - who decided that for all of those folks.<br>Same can be applied here - lock it down, cap the profit and gains that can be made. You run the company to do it right, do it well and know what the impact is - not to simply cast a blind eye while you<br>sit back and count the dough!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And often times that route is solely for the benefit of the company or business , while often times at a huge cost years down the road to the consumer .
I have a great idea , let me build the next iconic WiFi network ( NetX ) that allows Cell and PC 's to use the frequency - only to find out that 5 years later it causes cancer , or impacts health somehow to the detrminent of tens of millions of Americans.That 's capitalism ? ? ? ?
That 's irresponsible and wrong .
That 's what 's happening in our country - we 've lost touch on the impact my invention and eventually my company might have on others - So what if plastic bottles contain chemicals that are carcinogenic ?
Getting water to millions who never had it is more important ?
Wait - who decided that for all of those folks.Same can be applied here - lock it down , cap the profit and gains that can be made .
You run the company to do it right , do it well and know what the impact is - not to simply cast a blind eye while yousit back and count the dough !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And often times that route is solely for the benefit of the company or business, while often times at a huge cost years down the road to the consumer.
I have a great idea, let me build the next iconic WiFi network (NetX) that allows Cell and PC's to use the frequency - only to find out that 5 years later it causes cancer, or impacts health somehow to the detrminent of tens of millions of Americans.That's capitalism????
That's irresponsible and wrong.
That's what's happening in our country - we've lost touch on the impact my invention and eventually my company might have on others - So what if plastic bottles contain chemicals that are carcinogenic?
Getting water to millions who never had it is more important?
Wait - who decided that for all of those folks.Same can be applied here - lock it down, cap the profit and gains that can be made.
You run the company to do it right, do it well and know what the impact is - not to simply cast a blind eye while yousit back and count the dough!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</id>
	<title>Holy Fuck, the free market works!  Imagine that</title>
	<author>tacokill</author>
	<datestamp>1255716000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a great example of how the free market works best.   Years and years ago, we used to sit on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers and their business practices.   Fast-forward many moons and lo-and-behold, we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way.  Imagine that!
<br>
<br>
So what do the content providers do?  They simply route around the problem and do it themselves.  Do they go complain to the government and ask for subsidies?  No.  Do they ask for new laws (that benefit them to the detriment of everyone else)?  No.
<br>
<br>
This is <b>exactly</b> what should have happened in a capitalist economy.
<br>
<br>
For a bunch of internet geeks, I am surprised at how many anti-capitalists we have on this site.   Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage.   It used to be ruthlessly efficient back when we allowed companies to go bankrupt and customers to look elsewhere.   Now that the government is into so many industries, I am not sure if that is the case anymore...but that is another discussion.
<br>
<br>
I, for one, welcome our new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers.  They are shining example of what happens when a heavily regulated industry stops innovating and serving it's customers.   Eventually, another solution <b>will</b> be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be.   That's the free market at work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great example of how the free market works best .
Years and years ago , we used to sit on / .
and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers and their business practices .
Fast-forward many moons and lo-and-behold , we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way .
Imagine that !
So what do the content providers do ?
They simply route around the problem and do it themselves .
Do they go complain to the government and ask for subsidies ?
No. Do they ask for new laws ( that benefit them to the detriment of everyone else ) ?
No . This is exactly what should have happened in a capitalist economy .
For a bunch of internet geeks , I am surprised at how many anti-capitalists we have on this site .
Capitalism is just like the internet in that it " routes around " damage .
It used to be ruthlessly efficient back when we allowed companies to go bankrupt and customers to look elsewhere .
Now that the government is into so many industries , I am not sure if that is the case anymore...but that is another discussion .
I , for one , welcome our new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers .
They are shining example of what happens when a heavily regulated industry stops innovating and serving it 's customers .
Eventually , another solution will be found , if the government does n't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be .
That 's the free market at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great example of how the free market works best.
Years and years ago, we used to sit on /.
and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers and their business practices.
Fast-forward many moons and lo-and-behold, we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way.
Imagine that!
So what do the content providers do?
They simply route around the problem and do it themselves.
Do they go complain to the government and ask for subsidies?
No.  Do they ask for new laws (that benefit them to the detriment of everyone else)?
No.


This is exactly what should have happened in a capitalist economy.
For a bunch of internet geeks, I am surprised at how many anti-capitalists we have on this site.
Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage.
It used to be ruthlessly efficient back when we allowed companies to go bankrupt and customers to look elsewhere.
Now that the government is into so many industries, I am not sure if that is the case anymore...but that is another discussion.
I, for one, welcome our new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers.
They are shining example of what happens when a heavily regulated industry stops innovating and serving it's customers.
Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be.
That's the free market at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770159</id>
	<title>Tier-who?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1255715400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me a lot of the tier-1 providers stopped providing "internet" transit long ago, and now only provide transit to their customers (be it directly connected customers as per usual, or other web host services and data centers that are not real customers but are charged for the privileged.  Go go gadget net neutrality!)</p><p>Once they decided for me and my ISP what traffic is allowed to reach me and what isn't, they stopped being tier-1 providers by any definition the networking industry uses.</p><p>It's no wonder customer carrying ISPs, and content providing hosts alike, are finding ways around this.</p><p>The only one downside to the lack of free market, is that even if most ISPs and providers peer directly and bypass the old tier-1 providers for most traffic, the government will assure the markets voice is not heard and keep those companies in business.  Most of them are phone companies after all, and we already have provisions in law to pay phone companies that fail.</p><p>For all the idiots that think common carer status exists, that is one thing I wish really did exist for internet providers.  Being smacked down with unreasonable penalties is the only way to get a corporation to abide by those laws and not screw over customers in the name of profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me a lot of the tier-1 providers stopped providing " internet " transit long ago , and now only provide transit to their customers ( be it directly connected customers as per usual , or other web host services and data centers that are not real customers but are charged for the privileged .
Go go gadget net neutrality !
) Once they decided for me and my ISP what traffic is allowed to reach me and what is n't , they stopped being tier-1 providers by any definition the networking industry uses.It 's no wonder customer carrying ISPs , and content providing hosts alike , are finding ways around this.The only one downside to the lack of free market , is that even if most ISPs and providers peer directly and bypass the old tier-1 providers for most traffic , the government will assure the markets voice is not heard and keep those companies in business .
Most of them are phone companies after all , and we already have provisions in law to pay phone companies that fail.For all the idiots that think common carer status exists , that is one thing I wish really did exist for internet providers .
Being smacked down with unreasonable penalties is the only way to get a corporation to abide by those laws and not screw over customers in the name of profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me a lot of the tier-1 providers stopped providing "internet" transit long ago, and now only provide transit to their customers (be it directly connected customers as per usual, or other web host services and data centers that are not real customers but are charged for the privileged.
Go go gadget net neutrality!
)Once they decided for me and my ISP what traffic is allowed to reach me and what isn't, they stopped being tier-1 providers by any definition the networking industry uses.It's no wonder customer carrying ISPs, and content providing hosts alike, are finding ways around this.The only one downside to the lack of free market, is that even if most ISPs and providers peer directly and bypass the old tier-1 providers for most traffic, the government will assure the markets voice is not heard and keep those companies in business.
Most of them are phone companies after all, and we already have provisions in law to pay phone companies that fail.For all the idiots that think common carer status exists, that is one thing I wish really did exist for internet providers.
Being smacked down with unreasonable penalties is the only way to get a corporation to abide by those laws and not screw over customers in the name of profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772547</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>virchull</author>
	<datestamp>1255684980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until you are adequately informed, you should not comment on law or regulation.

It seems you haven't heard about various ISP's (particularly Charter) shutting down Torrents when they detect the data flow. They also have throttled various other applications at times when their network is not busy, so it is not "network management". So there have been abuses.  Wake up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you are adequately informed , you should not comment on law or regulation .
It seems you have n't heard about various ISP 's ( particularly Charter ) shutting down Torrents when they detect the data flow .
They also have throttled various other applications at times when their network is not busy , so it is not " network management " .
So there have been abuses .
Wake up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you are adequately informed, you should not comment on law or regulation.
It seems you haven't heard about various ISP's (particularly Charter) shutting down Torrents when they detect the data flow.
They also have throttled various other applications at times when their network is not busy, so it is not "network management".
So there have been abuses.
Wake up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770135</id>
	<title>P2P</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255715340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how can they use 30\% of the bandwidth if the internet-melting evil P2P stuff already uses 473\% of the bandwidth?</p><p>This article is obiously fake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how can they use 30 \ % of the bandwidth if the internet-melting evil P2P stuff already uses 473 \ % of the bandwidth ? This article is obiously fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how can they use 30\% of the bandwidth if the internet-melting evil P2P stuff already uses 473\% of the bandwidth?This article is obiously fake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770375</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1255716600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  If bandwidth capacity becomes concentrated upon the same entities that are content providers, then the next logical step is the erection of barriers to competing content.  It will be in their interest to create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth, either through network architecture or legislation, so that they can monopolize the delivery medium, much in the same way that TV networks and Radio stations were able to because of the real scarcity in the open-air EM spectrum.</p><p>All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.  This is because the FCC has demonstrated its vulnerability to capture by the entities it's supposed to be regulating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
If bandwidth capacity becomes concentrated upon the same entities that are content providers , then the next logical step is the erection of barriers to competing content .
It will be in their interest to create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth , either through network architecture or legislation , so that they can monopolize the delivery medium , much in the same way that TV networks and Radio stations were able to because of the real scarcity in the open-air EM spectrum.All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable , high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax , or something else not controlled by telcos and googles .
This is because the FCC has demonstrated its vulnerability to capture by the entities it 's supposed to be regulating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
If bandwidth capacity becomes concentrated upon the same entities that are content providers, then the next logical step is the erection of barriers to competing content.
It will be in their interest to create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth, either through network architecture or legislation, so that they can monopolize the delivery medium, much in the same way that TV networks and Radio stations were able to because of the real scarcity in the open-air EM spectrum.All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.
This is because the FCC has demonstrated its vulnerability to capture by the entities it's supposed to be regulating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770645</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1255717860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be. </i></p><p>But [...] child pornography [...] .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually , another solution will be found , if the government does n't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be .
But [ ... ] child pornography [ ... ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be.
But [...] child pornography [...] .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772717</id>
	<title>Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r</title>
	<author>diamondsw</author>
	<datestamp>1255685880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except there have been plenty of abuses, and typically at the last mile where there is no competition. If your area is only served by one pipe, good luck "routing around" that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except there have been plenty of abuses , and typically at the last mile where there is no competition .
If your area is only served by one pipe , good luck " routing around " that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except there have been plenty of abuses, and typically at the last mile where there is no competition.
If your area is only served by one pipe, good luck "routing around" that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29782029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1555228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1555228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1555228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1555228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29782029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1555228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770463
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29772547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771945
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29775319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29771529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1555228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29769799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1555228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1555228.29770091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
