<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_17_1321253</id>
	<title>Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255789260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>uuddlrlrab writes <i>"A group of 72 Democratic lawmakers is the latest to question the US Federal Communications Commission's move to create new net neutrality regulations. Democrats, including US President Barack Obama, have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content, but the group of 72 members of the House of Representatives <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/173847/some\_democrats\_minority\_groups\_question\_net\_neutrality.html">sent a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski</a>, saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks. A coalition of minority groups made their objections known as well, saying, 'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind.' This follows news from earlier in the week that <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/001254/Cisco-Motorola-and-Other-Companies-Take-Aim-At-Net-Neutrality-Rules">similar letters were sent</a> by a group of 44 tech companies and a group of 18 Republican senators."</i>
It's worth noting that the FCC is receiving letters in support of the net neutrality regulations as well. One such is from <a href="http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000625.html">a group of internet pioneers</a>, which includes Vint Cerf and Stephen Crocker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>uuddlrlrab writes " A group of 72 Democratic lawmakers is the latest to question the US Federal Communications Commission 's move to create new net neutrality regulations .
Democrats , including US President Barack Obama , have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content , but the group of 72 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski , saying they 're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks .
A coalition of minority groups made their objections known as well , saying , 'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could , as applied , inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind .
' This follows news from earlier in the week that similar letters were sent by a group of 44 tech companies and a group of 18 Republican senators .
" It 's worth noting that the FCC is receiving letters in support of the net neutrality regulations as well .
One such is from a group of internet pioneers , which includes Vint Cerf and Stephen Crocker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uuddlrlrab writes "A group of 72 Democratic lawmakers is the latest to question the US Federal Communications Commission's move to create new net neutrality regulations.
Democrats, including US President Barack Obama, have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content, but the group of 72 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks.
A coalition of minority groups made their objections known as well, saying, 'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind.
' This follows news from earlier in the week that similar letters were sent by a group of 44 tech companies and a group of 18 Republican senators.
"
It's worth noting that the FCC is receiving letters in support of the net neutrality regulations as well.
One such is from a group of internet pioneers, which includes Vint Cerf and Stephen Crocker.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779467</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255812720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Telephone network analogies aren't great because they are circuit switched networks as opposed to packet switched.</p><p>BTW, your example is flawed since net neutrality doesn't say (or shouldn't) how to treat different classes of data, just that all within the same class should be treated equally.  Thus me downloading from Youtube shouldn't be blocked or degraded just because they refuse to pay my ISPs an extortion tax.  Similarly, if my ISP offered VOIP or TVOIP, they should be on the same playing field as any other service I choose on the internet.</p><p>The term network neutrality has been appropriated by lots of people, but in the original context that was what started all of this.</p><p>Of course, it would be nice if they started investing in expanding bandwidth, stopped trying to block or degrade legitimate forms of traffic, and provided services with no caps, but those are separate issues (or at least should be) from net neutrality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Telephone network analogies are n't great because they are circuit switched networks as opposed to packet switched.BTW , your example is flawed since net neutrality does n't say ( or should n't ) how to treat different classes of data , just that all within the same class should be treated equally .
Thus me downloading from Youtube should n't be blocked or degraded just because they refuse to pay my ISPs an extortion tax .
Similarly , if my ISP offered VOIP or TVOIP , they should be on the same playing field as any other service I choose on the internet.The term network neutrality has been appropriated by lots of people , but in the original context that was what started all of this.Of course , it would be nice if they started investing in expanding bandwidth , stopped trying to block or degrade legitimate forms of traffic , and provided services with no caps , but those are separate issues ( or at least should be ) from net neutrality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telephone network analogies aren't great because they are circuit switched networks as opposed to packet switched.BTW, your example is flawed since net neutrality doesn't say (or shouldn't) how to treat different classes of data, just that all within the same class should be treated equally.
Thus me downloading from Youtube shouldn't be blocked or degraded just because they refuse to pay my ISPs an extortion tax.
Similarly, if my ISP offered VOIP or TVOIP, they should be on the same playing field as any other service I choose on the internet.The term network neutrality has been appropriated by lots of people, but in the original context that was what started all of this.Of course, it would be nice if they started investing in expanding bandwidth, stopped trying to block or degrade legitimate forms of traffic, and provided services with no caps, but those are separate issues (or at least should be) from net neutrality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777797</id>
	<title>Yes and no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255796700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Government parties against neutrality</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Who would have ever thought.</p></div><p>Yes and no.  The Obama Administration's official policy is <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the\_press\_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Securing-Our-Nations-Cyber-Infrastructure/" title="whitehouse.gov">strongly in favor</a> [whitehouse.gov] of <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nec/StrategyforAmericanInnovation/" title="whitehouse.gov">net neutrality</a> [whitehouse.gov].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government parties against neutralityWho would have ever thought.Yes and no .
The Obama Administration 's official policy is strongly in favor [ whitehouse.gov ] of net neutrality [ whitehouse.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government parties against neutralityWho would have ever thought.Yes and no.
The Obama Administration's official policy is strongly in favor [whitehouse.gov] of net neutrality [whitehouse.gov].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777441</id>
	<title>Har</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks</p></div><p>Any slower and the underground cables are going to start digging themselves up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>saying they 're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networksAny slower and the underground cables are going to start digging themselves up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networksAny slower and the underground cables are going to start digging themselves up.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777503</id>
	<title>Whew, close one</title>
	<author>cjfs</author>
	<datestamp>1255793640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Democrats, including U.S. President Barack Obama, have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content</p></div><p>It's okay, they still think the Internet is just the web.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democrats , including U.S. President Barack Obama , have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web contentIt 's okay , they still think the Internet is just the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democrats, including U.S. President Barack Obama, have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web contentIt's okay, they still think the Internet is just the web.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779443</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>nickmalthus</author>
	<datestamp>1255812480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your assumption is that a person in distress would first call EMS which is not always the case. Without network neutrality would the carries prefer to take on legal liability for delaying or blocking direct emergency communications between people that result in personal injury or property damage?

Additionally, who should decide what emergency calls are? A) The sender and receiver, who own the communication B) The government, consisting of elected representatives who presumably server the public interest C)  Carrier corporations who's sole existence is to maximize profit within legal, not ethical, boundaries?

Finally, DOS Attacks are illegal and are investigated and prosecuted by the FBI. If carriers wish to protect their customers from illegal attacks with the customers consent that is an entirely different issue apart from network neutrality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your assumption is that a person in distress would first call EMS which is not always the case .
Without network neutrality would the carries prefer to take on legal liability for delaying or blocking direct emergency communications between people that result in personal injury or property damage ?
Additionally , who should decide what emergency calls are ?
A ) The sender and receiver , who own the communication B ) The government , consisting of elected representatives who presumably server the public interest C ) Carrier corporations who 's sole existence is to maximize profit within legal , not ethical , boundaries ?
Finally , DOS Attacks are illegal and are investigated and prosecuted by the FBI .
If carriers wish to protect their customers from illegal attacks with the customers consent that is an entirely different issue apart from network neutrality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your assumption is that a person in distress would first call EMS which is not always the case.
Without network neutrality would the carries prefer to take on legal liability for delaying or blocking direct emergency communications between people that result in personal injury or property damage?
Additionally, who should decide what emergency calls are?
A) The sender and receiver, who own the communication B) The government, consisting of elected representatives who presumably server the public interest C)  Carrier corporations who's sole existence is to maximize profit within legal, not ethical, boundaries?
Finally, DOS Attacks are illegal and are investigated and prosecuted by the FBI.
If carriers wish to protect their customers from illegal attacks with the customers consent that is an entirely different issue apart from network neutrality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778039</id>
	<title>Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1255799040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pretty much guaranteed not to change just because companies will throttle bandwidth on small businesses. People in the middle of nowhere aren't profitable. They'll do anything to ignore them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty much guaranteed not to change just because companies will throttle bandwidth on small businesses .
People in the middle of nowhere are n't profitable .
They 'll do anything to ignore them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty much guaranteed not to change just because companies will throttle bandwidth on small businesses.
People in the middle of nowhere aren't profitable.
They'll do anything to ignore them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29793583</id>
	<title>Abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255964820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <br>
You are describing abuse.
<br> <br>

Its also abuse When Papa John's pizza pays
your ISP money so that you are charged more
for using Domino's.   The ISP wins both ways
and its both kinds of abuse that the FCC should stop.
<br> <br>
Its just as bad even that Domino's might be limited.
so that you favor a competitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are describing abuse .
Its also abuse When Papa John 's pizza pays your ISP money so that you are charged more for using Domino 's .
The ISP wins both ways and its both kinds of abuse that the FCC should stop .
Its just as bad even that Domino 's might be limited .
so that you favor a competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
You are describing abuse.
Its also abuse When Papa John's pizza pays
your ISP money so that you are charged more
for using Domino's.
The ISP wins both ways
and its both kinds of abuse that the FCC should stop.
Its just as bad even that Domino's might be limited.
so that you favor a competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459</id>
	<title>How will this slow down investment in BB networks?</title>
	<author>Bob-o-Matic!</author>
	<datestamp>1255793280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been a subscriber to Armstrong OneWire for cable internet for the last 5 years and the bandwidth has not changed at all.  You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.</p><p>Where I live in Ohio there is no incentive to invest in BB networks.  There is no real competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been a subscriber to Armstrong OneWire for cable internet for the last 5 years and the bandwidth has not changed at all .
You would think that the price would drop , but it has remained constant , too.Where I live in Ohio there is no incentive to invest in BB networks .
There is no real competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been a subscriber to Armstrong OneWire for cable internet for the last 5 years and the bandwidth has not changed at all.
You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.Where I live in Ohio there is no incentive to invest in BB networks.
There is no real competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777937</id>
	<title>Re:Headline != article</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255798200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"</i></p><p><i>Except that's not true. The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality.</i></p><p>Except it is true.  The third paragraph says this "Although the Congressional Black Caucus isn't traditionally against government regulation, some members are concerned that many African-Americans and other ethnic minorities lack access to broadband networks."  They are concerned that if net neutrality becomes enforcable broadband provider will not build out broadband.  I say this is hogwash.  In a free market, which we do not have, businesses would be compeating with each other for customers.  Instead of people not having broadband access they'd have choices as to whom they get it from.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Democrats , Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push " Except that 's not true .
The second sentence says that Democrats , including the President , generally support Net Neutrality.Except it is true .
The third paragraph says this " Although the Congressional Black Caucus is n't traditionally against government regulation , some members are concerned that many African-Americans and other ethnic minorities lack access to broadband networks .
" They are concerned that if net neutrality becomes enforcable broadband provider will not build out broadband .
I say this is hogwash .
In a free market , which we do not have , businesses would be compeating with each other for customers .
Instead of people not having broadband access they 'd have choices as to whom they get it from .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"Except that's not true.
The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality.Except it is true.
The third paragraph says this "Although the Congressional Black Caucus isn't traditionally against government regulation, some members are concerned that many African-Americans and other ethnic minorities lack access to broadband networks.
"  They are concerned that if net neutrality becomes enforcable broadband provider will not build out broadband.
I say this is hogwash.
In a free market, which we do not have, businesses would be compeating with each other for customers.
Instead of people not having broadband access they'd have choices as to whom they get it from.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778521</id>
	<title>I can see what they are worried about...</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1255803780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are their concerns: 1) net neutrality will make internet access more expensive and will cause the Telcos to slow roll-out to new locations; 2) net neutrality will prevent, say, Comcast from offering, say, Yahoo the chance to serve its content an additional 4 mbps faster to Comcast customers for a fee.  Both concerns are overblown.  While to a certain extent they are true in the long run slow incremental increases in the global quality of connectivity is highly preferred to localized improvements.  Basically, the Telco's lobbyists' fingerprints are all over this astroturf.  They feed these representatives a line with just enough truth to motivate them and lots of money and then watch them spinoff into a public frenzy spreading FUD everywhere.  As usual we see that politicians are idiots and lobbyists are scum bags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are their concerns : 1 ) net neutrality will make internet access more expensive and will cause the Telcos to slow roll-out to new locations ; 2 ) net neutrality will prevent , say , Comcast from offering , say , Yahoo the chance to serve its content an additional 4 mbps faster to Comcast customers for a fee .
Both concerns are overblown .
While to a certain extent they are true in the long run slow incremental increases in the global quality of connectivity is highly preferred to localized improvements .
Basically , the Telco 's lobbyists ' fingerprints are all over this astroturf .
They feed these representatives a line with just enough truth to motivate them and lots of money and then watch them spinoff into a public frenzy spreading FUD everywhere .
As usual we see that politicians are idiots and lobbyists are scum bags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are their concerns: 1) net neutrality will make internet access more expensive and will cause the Telcos to slow roll-out to new locations; 2) net neutrality will prevent, say, Comcast from offering, say, Yahoo the chance to serve its content an additional 4 mbps faster to Comcast customers for a fee.
Both concerns are overblown.
While to a certain extent they are true in the long run slow incremental increases in the global quality of connectivity is highly preferred to localized improvements.
Basically, the Telco's lobbyists' fingerprints are all over this astroturf.
They feed these representatives a line with just enough truth to motivate them and lots of money and then watch them spinoff into a public frenzy spreading FUD everywhere.
As usual we see that politicians are idiots and lobbyists are scum bags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1255801800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>However it would be wanted if you asked those same people:<br>
<br>
"Should calls to the emergency call center be of the same priority as calls from telemarketers?"<br>
<br>
Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>However it would be wanted if you asked those same people : " Should calls to the emergency call center be of the same priority as calls from telemarketers ?
" Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority , so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However it would be wanted if you asked those same people:

"Should calls to the emergency call center be of the same priority as calls from telemarketers?
"

Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777995</id>
	<title>Re:slow down investment in broadband</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255798680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition, and screw our own customers out of more money, we don't want any part of it'.</p><p>I hate to support the federal government, but that is what the FCC is there for, to watch out for us citizens, not the corporations.</p></div><p>Rather than get the federal government involved, though, I'd rather see an end to government-backed monopolies.  We need real competition in internet access.</p><p>--<br>"All we ask is to be let alone." --President Jefferson Davis</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition , and screw our own customers out of more money , we do n't want any part of it'.I hate to support the federal government , but that is what the FCC is there for , to watch out for us citizens , not the corporations.Rather than get the federal government involved , though , I 'd rather see an end to government-backed monopolies .
We need real competition in internet access.-- " All we ask is to be let alone .
" --President Jefferson Davis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition, and screw our own customers out of more money, we don't want any part of it'.I hate to support the federal government, but that is what the FCC is there for, to watch out for us citizens, not the corporations.Rather than get the federal government involved, though, I'd rather see an end to government-backed monopolies.
We need real competition in internet access.--"All we ask is to be let alone.
" --President Jefferson Davis
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780043</id>
	<title>Re:Government parties against neutrality</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1255775340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The motivations are different. Whereas the Republicans are instinctively against <em>any</em> regulation &mdash; even if they overcome that initial reaction often, the Democrats believe, a good Government regulation is the best solution to any problem.

</p><p>So Republicans were opposing "Net Neutrality" because it is <em>a</em> regulation. These Democrats oppose it, because it does not fit their goals.

</p><p>In addition to the "concerns for minorities" (the equivalent of Republican's "think of the children"!), it should be noted, that "Net Neutrality" will also impede implementation of the "Fairness Doctrine" online. And they will come to that right after imposing the said <a href="http://www.marclamonthill.com/why-i-support-the-fairness-doctrine-3366" title="marclamonthill.com" rel="nofollow">doctrine on the airwaves</a> [marclamonthill.com] &mdash; the same people, who want to shut up Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh (1st Amendment be damned), can't be happy about <a href="http://drudgereport.com/" title="drudgereport.com" rel="nofollow">Drudge's selection of headlines</a> [drudgereport.com]...

</p><p>Oh, and if you think, the doctrine is abandoned, think again. The above link is dated <a href="http://www.marclamonthill.com/why-i-support-the-fairness-doctrine-3366" title="marclamonthill.com" rel="nofollow">June 28, 2007</a> [marclamonthill.com]. But the same text was just republished as on op-ed word-to-word by a free daily newspaper on <a href="http://metro.us/us/article/2009/10/15/03/0855-82/index.xml" title="metro.us" rel="nofollow">October the 14th, 2009</a> [metro.us]. The author didn't even bother adjusting the wording, which &mdash; two years later &mdash; still refers to some events as "recent". Maybe, the professor is just cheating on the newspaper to augment his Columbia salary. More likely, this is the sign, the Left are giving up on trying to establish their own <em>talk</em>-shows, and want to use laws against <strong>the speech they don't like</strong>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The motivations are different .
Whereas the Republicans are instinctively against any regulation    even if they overcome that initial reaction often , the Democrats believe , a good Government regulation is the best solution to any problem .
So Republicans were opposing " Net Neutrality " because it is a regulation .
These Democrats oppose it , because it does not fit their goals .
In addition to the " concerns for minorities " ( the equivalent of Republican 's " think of the children " !
) , it should be noted , that " Net Neutrality " will also impede implementation of the " Fairness Doctrine " online .
And they will come to that right after imposing the said doctrine on the airwaves [ marclamonthill.com ]    the same people , who want to shut up Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh ( 1st Amendment be damned ) , ca n't be happy about Drudge 's selection of headlines [ drudgereport.com ] .. . Oh , and if you think , the doctrine is abandoned , think again .
The above link is dated June 28 , 2007 [ marclamonthill.com ] .
But the same text was just republished as on op-ed word-to-word by a free daily newspaper on October the 14th , 2009 [ metro.us ] .
The author did n't even bother adjusting the wording , which    two years later    still refers to some events as " recent " .
Maybe , the professor is just cheating on the newspaper to augment his Columbia salary .
More likely , this is the sign , the Left are giving up on trying to establish their own talk-shows , and want to use laws against the speech they do n't like.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The motivations are different.
Whereas the Republicans are instinctively against any regulation — even if they overcome that initial reaction often, the Democrats believe, a good Government regulation is the best solution to any problem.
So Republicans were opposing "Net Neutrality" because it is a regulation.
These Democrats oppose it, because it does not fit their goals.
In addition to the "concerns for minorities" (the equivalent of Republican's "think of the children"!
), it should be noted, that "Net Neutrality" will also impede implementation of the "Fairness Doctrine" online.
And they will come to that right after imposing the said doctrine on the airwaves [marclamonthill.com] — the same people, who want to shut up Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh (1st Amendment be damned), can't be happy about Drudge's selection of headlines [drudgereport.com]...

Oh, and if you think, the doctrine is abandoned, think again.
The above link is dated June 28, 2007 [marclamonthill.com].
But the same text was just republished as on op-ed word-to-word by a free daily newspaper on October the 14th, 2009 [metro.us].
The author didn't even bother adjusting the wording, which — two years later — still refers to some events as "recent".
Maybe, the professor is just cheating on the newspaper to augment his Columbia salary.
More likely, this is the sign, the Left are giving up on trying to establish their own talk-shows, and want to use laws against the speech they don't like...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778293</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality must be forced on companies</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1255801680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole problem with the internet is that there no where near enough competition already amongst ISPs. How is effectively killing competition amongst online businesses going to improve anything?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole problem with the internet is that there no where near enough competition already amongst ISPs .
How is effectively killing competition amongst online businesses going to improve anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole problem with the internet is that there no where near enough competition already amongst ISPs.
How is effectively killing competition amongst online businesses going to improve anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29785083</id>
	<title>where is the fucking relevance ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1255889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'you cannot discriminate against any other competitor or content provider' does NOT mean that 'you cant make money'.</p><p>its the fucking RULE of the free, competitive market for centuries anyway ? is any company allowed to block roads and prevent other companies from moving their truckfull of products over the areas they own ? is anyone allowed to block a higwhay because the highway was built on private land ? or, is a corporation that runs a bridge is allowed to block traffic of vehicles which belong to a company that is a competitor to its parent company ?</p><p>internet is just like roads, bridges. you can NOT allow anyone to claim lordship over ANY portion of it, because it would directly kill the flow of information and commerce by killing their competitors at their whim. leave aside 'nourishing it', as those morons posing as lawmakers claim.</p><p>those 72 'lawmakers' are either STUPID, or dont know shit about laissez faire economics or internet. i would assume both, plus they were possibly bought by big evil like at&amp;t, time warner etc.</p><p>use the roads and bridges example in every time you hear some moron says 'net neutrality hampers investment'. IF, they insist, ask them whether they would allow you to buy highways and decide who passes over them and who not, and charge whomever you want more than the others... they will probably shut the fuck up and get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'you can not discriminate against any other competitor or content provider ' does NOT mean that 'you cant make money'.its the fucking RULE of the free , competitive market for centuries anyway ?
is any company allowed to block roads and prevent other companies from moving their truckfull of products over the areas they own ?
is anyone allowed to block a higwhay because the highway was built on private land ?
or , is a corporation that runs a bridge is allowed to block traffic of vehicles which belong to a company that is a competitor to its parent company ? internet is just like roads , bridges .
you can NOT allow anyone to claim lordship over ANY portion of it , because it would directly kill the flow of information and commerce by killing their competitors at their whim .
leave aside 'nourishing it ' , as those morons posing as lawmakers claim.those 72 'lawmakers ' are either STUPID , or dont know shit about laissez faire economics or internet .
i would assume both , plus they were possibly bought by big evil like at&amp;t , time warner etc.use the roads and bridges example in every time you hear some moron says 'net neutrality hampers investment' .
IF , they insist , ask them whether they would allow you to buy highways and decide who passes over them and who not , and charge whomever you want more than the others... they will probably shut the fuck up and get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'you cannot discriminate against any other competitor or content provider' does NOT mean that 'you cant make money'.its the fucking RULE of the free, competitive market for centuries anyway ?
is any company allowed to block roads and prevent other companies from moving their truckfull of products over the areas they own ?
is anyone allowed to block a higwhay because the highway was built on private land ?
or, is a corporation that runs a bridge is allowed to block traffic of vehicles which belong to a company that is a competitor to its parent company ?internet is just like roads, bridges.
you can NOT allow anyone to claim lordship over ANY portion of it, because it would directly kill the flow of information and commerce by killing their competitors at their whim.
leave aside 'nourishing it', as those morons posing as lawmakers claim.those 72 'lawmakers' are either STUPID, or dont know shit about laissez faire economics or internet.
i would assume both, plus they were possibly bought by big evil like at&amp;t, time warner etc.use the roads and bridges example in every time you hear some moron says 'net neutrality hampers investment'.
IF, they insist, ask them whether they would allow you to buy highways and decide who passes over them and who not, and charge whomever you want more than the others... they will probably shut the fuck up and get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29787711</id>
	<title>objection by suspect organizational rabble rousers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255866180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who are being scripted to object probably have no idea what the 'issues' of net nuetraility are.<br>These people do what the ones who fund them tell them to do.<br>'people of something' ? 'people of so-and-so community'?  what a load of crock.</p><p>Organizational coupling of groups that are run by 'community organizers' get paid to rabble rouse for the cause that is funding them.  In this case we have people who are 'on the team'.  "yes they can'.  Why? Becasue they use bullying tactics to get their way.  Obviously the people who pay for these 'organizers' to 'protest' do it for very banel money-oriented reasons.  'people of such-and-such' group are of no concern.  Those people are merely the pawns.  If I was one of them it would bug me that this rabble claims to represent them.</p><p>Do the so-called organizers even realize how transparent their tactics have become?  Do they understand that they are slaves to the ones who fund them?  They say that slavery has been abolished and yet there are the 'organizers' jumping to attention with their stage show freak-show activism butting in where they have no idea what thye are talking about because their 'funding group' has a guy who calls and gives them the word.  What bigger kind of slave could you be?  What worse kind of slave?  A willing slave who doesn't even know that he works to try and enslave the rest of us all in the name of 'people of some group'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who are being scripted to object probably have no idea what the 'issues ' of net nuetraility are.These people do what the ones who fund them tell them to do .
'people of something ' ?
'people of so-and-so community ' ?
what a load of crock.Organizational coupling of groups that are run by 'community organizers ' get paid to rabble rouse for the cause that is funding them .
In this case we have people who are 'on the team' .
" yes they can' .
Why ? Becasue they use bullying tactics to get their way .
Obviously the people who pay for these 'organizers ' to 'protest ' do it for very banel money-oriented reasons .
'people of such-and-such ' group are of no concern .
Those people are merely the pawns .
If I was one of them it would bug me that this rabble claims to represent them.Do the so-called organizers even realize how transparent their tactics have become ?
Do they understand that they are slaves to the ones who fund them ?
They say that slavery has been abolished and yet there are the 'organizers ' jumping to attention with their stage show freak-show activism butting in where they have no idea what thye are talking about because their 'funding group ' has a guy who calls and gives them the word .
What bigger kind of slave could you be ?
What worse kind of slave ?
A willing slave who does n't even know that he works to try and enslave the rest of us all in the name of 'people of some group' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who are being scripted to object probably have no idea what the 'issues' of net nuetraility are.These people do what the ones who fund them tell them to do.
'people of something' ?
'people of so-and-so community'?
what a load of crock.Organizational coupling of groups that are run by 'community organizers' get paid to rabble rouse for the cause that is funding them.
In this case we have people who are 'on the team'.
"yes they can'.
Why? Becasue they use bullying tactics to get their way.
Obviously the people who pay for these 'organizers' to 'protest' do it for very banel money-oriented reasons.
'people of such-and-such' group are of no concern.
Those people are merely the pawns.
If I was one of them it would bug me that this rabble claims to represent them.Do the so-called organizers even realize how transparent their tactics have become?
Do they understand that they are slaves to the ones who fund them?
They say that slavery has been abolished and yet there are the 'organizers' jumping to attention with their stage show freak-show activism butting in where they have no idea what thye are talking about because their 'funding group' has a guy who calls and gives them the word.
What bigger kind of slave could you be?
What worse kind of slave?
A willing slave who doesn't even know that he works to try and enslave the rest of us all in the name of 'people of some group'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777879</id>
	<title>+YUO FA^IL IT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255797720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>goals I personally</htmltext>
<tokenext>goals I personally</tokentext>
<sentencetext>goals I personally</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778111</id>
	<title>Special Interests</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1255800000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes because catering to special interests is obviously in the best interest of the poor and disenfranchised.<br>Corporate America has only the people at heart when lobbying for legislation that benefits them. To do anything<br>but meet their demands is heartless and cruel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because catering to special interests is obviously in the best interest of the poor and disenfranchised.Corporate America has only the people at heart when lobbying for legislation that benefits them .
To do anythingbut meet their demands is heartless and cruel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because catering to special interests is obviously in the best interest of the poor and disenfranchised.Corporate America has only the people at heart when lobbying for legislation that benefits them.
To do anythingbut meet their demands is heartless and cruel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779243</id>
	<title>How much money did these 72  get from CableTelco?</title>
	<author>rberger</author>
	<datestamp>1255810500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be interesting to see how much AT&amp;T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner has contributed to these folks.</p><p>I would say that Internet first/last mile deployment and innovation stopped when it was re-oligopolized 10 years ago.</p><p>I still don't have ANY choice of ANY high speed Internet service in Saratoga, CA part of Silicon Valley. The best Internet connection I can get for my startup in Mountain View Callifornia, the heart of Silicon Valley is limited to 500Kbps upstream.</p><p>I would say that they are already doing a bad job with no net neutrality legislation and it will only get worse until we break them up. This time correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be interesting to see how much AT&amp;T , Verizon , Comcast and Time Warner has contributed to these folks.I would say that Internet first/last mile deployment and innovation stopped when it was re-oligopolized 10 years ago.I still do n't have ANY choice of ANY high speed Internet service in Saratoga , CA part of Silicon Valley .
The best Internet connection I can get for my startup in Mountain View Callifornia , the heart of Silicon Valley is limited to 500Kbps upstream.I would say that they are already doing a bad job with no net neutrality legislation and it will only get worse until we break them up .
This time correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be interesting to see how much AT&amp;T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner has contributed to these folks.I would say that Internet first/last mile deployment and innovation stopped when it was re-oligopolized 10 years ago.I still don't have ANY choice of ANY high speed Internet service in Saratoga, CA part of Silicon Valley.
The best Internet connection I can get for my startup in Mountain View Callifornia, the heart of Silicon Valley is limited to 500Kbps upstream.I would say that they are already doing a bad job with no net neutrality legislation and it will only get worse until we break them up.
This time correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29782513</id>
	<title>Net neutrality is the most dumbass geek pipe dream</title>
	<author>yeehaomgyay</author>
	<datestamp>1255897620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Supporters must all have been software pirates when they were kiddies.

If it could have been done without subsidies then it would have been done without subsidies.

You are all new-wave hippy idiots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Supporters must all have been software pirates when they were kiddies .
If it could have been done without subsidies then it would have been done without subsidies .
You are all new-wave hippy idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supporters must all have been software pirates when they were kiddies.
If it could have been done without subsidies then it would have been done without subsidies.
You are all new-wave hippy idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779519</id>
	<title>Re:Government parties against neutrality</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1255770120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, see, given the people Obama has surrounded himself with, I'd say there's a policy of "If it would be OK with Mao, it'll be good for Obama." Seriously! Something's wrong when American leaders are couched with people whose idols were hungry for the blood of their countrymen.  Stalin, Mao, Castro.</p><p>So it won't be any surprise when they make it so that only donors to the DNC will be permitted to have websites. (I wish I was kidding about this! Thankfully they don't have THAT much power, yet)</p><p>I'm tellin' ya guys: ask around. Watch an episode of Glenn Beck where he shows entire clips of these people claiming Mao and/or Stalin to be their political idols. Ed Asner feels this way, too.</p><p>So don't be thinking we're on some bee-line to networking utopia; if they can tax it or otherwise control it, there's pending legislation in Congress.  If it moves, tax it. If it doesn't, tax it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , see , given the people Obama has surrounded himself with , I 'd say there 's a policy of " If it would be OK with Mao , it 'll be good for Obama .
" Seriously !
Something 's wrong when American leaders are couched with people whose idols were hungry for the blood of their countrymen .
Stalin , Mao , Castro.So it wo n't be any surprise when they make it so that only donors to the DNC will be permitted to have websites .
( I wish I was kidding about this !
Thankfully they do n't have THAT much power , yet ) I 'm tellin ' ya guys : ask around .
Watch an episode of Glenn Beck where he shows entire clips of these people claiming Mao and/or Stalin to be their political idols .
Ed Asner feels this way , too.So do n't be thinking we 're on some bee-line to networking utopia ; if they can tax it or otherwise control it , there 's pending legislation in Congress .
If it moves , tax it .
If it does n't , tax it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, see, given the people Obama has surrounded himself with, I'd say there's a policy of "If it would be OK with Mao, it'll be good for Obama.
" Seriously!
Something's wrong when American leaders are couched with people whose idols were hungry for the blood of their countrymen.
Stalin, Mao, Castro.So it won't be any surprise when they make it so that only donors to the DNC will be permitted to have websites.
(I wish I was kidding about this!
Thankfully they don't have THAT much power, yet)I'm tellin' ya guys: ask around.
Watch an episode of Glenn Beck where he shows entire clips of these people claiming Mao and/or Stalin to be their political idols.
Ed Asner feels this way, too.So don't be thinking we're on some bee-line to networking utopia; if they can tax it or otherwise control it, there's pending legislation in Congress.
If it moves, tax it.
If it doesn't, tax it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777457</id>
	<title>slow down investment in broadband</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1255793280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition, and screw our own customers out of more money, we don't want any part of it'.</p><p>I hate to support the federal government, but that is what the FCC is there for, to watch out for us citizens, not the corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition , and screw our own customers out of more money , we do n't want any part of it'.I hate to support the federal government , but that is what the FCC is there for , to watch out for us citizens , not the corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition, and screw our own customers out of more money, we don't want any part of it'.I hate to support the federal government, but that is what the FCC is there for, to watch out for us citizens, not the corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777821</id>
	<title>Let's just bring back old-school AOL, then.</title>
	<author>dotfile</author>
	<datestamp>1255796940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind.'</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words, 'We want to make sure everyone is just as screwed as our constituents.  If they can't afford top-tier service, then no one else should be able to get it either.'  Or am I completely misunderstanding the logic here?
</p><p>God forbid we don't legislate absolute equality in every aspect of life for all our citizens; after all, look how well it worked out for China and the USSR.  I know some people are uncomfortable with the concept of poor people not being able to afford everything that's available to not quite as poor people, or people who live in the boonies not having their corner Starbucks and fiber connectivity.  But what they're bitching about is that if carriers aren't free to pick and choose what they deliver and how fast, you might have areas that lag behind the population centers.
</p><p>Well, yeah, no shit.  I suppose we could all go back to dialup service and AOL, then we'd all be on equal footing again.  Screwed completely, but equal, which I guess is OK with 72 of our elected morons and a few groups whoring for attention.  Of course then they'd be squealing about not all the phone lines in BFE supporting 56K, and the whole thing would start over again.
</p><p>Must we always seek the lowest common denominator?  Or could we maybe get comfortable with the simple fact that advanced services and technologies are pretty much always going to be available to employed people in population centers first, then spread as economy of scale comes into play?  Did none of these people ever read or go to school?  Jeez.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could , as applied , inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind .
'In other words , 'We want to make sure everyone is just as screwed as our constituents .
If they ca n't afford top-tier service , then no one else should be able to get it either .
' Or am I completely misunderstanding the logic here ?
God forbid we do n't legislate absolute equality in every aspect of life for all our citizens ; after all , look how well it worked out for China and the USSR .
I know some people are uncomfortable with the concept of poor people not being able to afford everything that 's available to not quite as poor people , or people who live in the boonies not having their corner Starbucks and fiber connectivity .
But what they 're bitching about is that if carriers are n't free to pick and choose what they deliver and how fast , you might have areas that lag behind the population centers .
Well , yeah , no shit .
I suppose we could all go back to dialup service and AOL , then we 'd all be on equal footing again .
Screwed completely , but equal , which I guess is OK with 72 of our elected morons and a few groups whoring for attention .
Of course then they 'd be squealing about not all the phone lines in BFE supporting 56K , and the whole thing would start over again .
Must we always seek the lowest common denominator ?
Or could we maybe get comfortable with the simple fact that advanced services and technologies are pretty much always going to be available to employed people in population centers first , then spread as economy of scale comes into play ?
Did none of these people ever read or go to school ?
Jeez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind.
'In other words, 'We want to make sure everyone is just as screwed as our constituents.
If they can't afford top-tier service, then no one else should be able to get it either.
'  Or am I completely misunderstanding the logic here?
God forbid we don't legislate absolute equality in every aspect of life for all our citizens; after all, look how well it worked out for China and the USSR.
I know some people are uncomfortable with the concept of poor people not being able to afford everything that's available to not quite as poor people, or people who live in the boonies not having their corner Starbucks and fiber connectivity.
But what they're bitching about is that if carriers aren't free to pick and choose what they deliver and how fast, you might have areas that lag behind the population centers.
Well, yeah, no shit.
I suppose we could all go back to dialup service and AOL, then we'd all be on equal footing again.
Screwed completely, but equal, which I guess is OK with 72 of our elected morons and a few groups whoring for attention.
Of course then they'd be squealing about not all the phone lines in BFE supporting 56K, and the whole thing would start over again.
Must we always seek the lowest common denominator?
Or could we maybe get comfortable with the simple fact that advanced services and technologies are pretty much always going to be available to employed people in population centers first, then spread as economy of scale comes into play?
Did none of these people ever read or go to school?
Jeez.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779055</id>
	<title>Re:slow down investment in broadband</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1255808760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the 'minority coalition' acorn? How much money did the corprats pay to get that sort of 'grass roots effort'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the 'minority coalition ' acorn ?
How much money did the corprats pay to get that sort of 'grass roots effort ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the 'minority coalition' acorn?
How much money did the corprats pay to get that sort of 'grass roots effort'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777747</id>
	<title>The perception of neutrality is "change"</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1255796100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Change we don't understand!"  The reality that the legislators need to understand is that new neutrality is what we have when people/parties aren't actively doing harm to the way the public internet was designed to work.  Net neutrality is what we have NOW.  The net neutrality legislation would merely be written to keep things as they are in terms of large players disabling other large player or preventing small players from existing or growing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Change we do n't understand !
" The reality that the legislators need to understand is that new neutrality is what we have when people/parties are n't actively doing harm to the way the public internet was designed to work .
Net neutrality is what we have NOW .
The net neutrality legislation would merely be written to keep things as they are in terms of large players disabling other large player or preventing small players from existing or growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Change we don't understand!
"  The reality that the legislators need to understand is that new neutrality is what we have when people/parties aren't actively doing harm to the way the public internet was designed to work.
Net neutrality is what we have NOW.
The net neutrality legislation would merely be written to keep things as they are in terms of large players disabling other large player or preventing small players from existing or growing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779561</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1255770480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Should calls to the emergency call center be of the same priority as calls from telemarketers?"</i></p><p>"Should AT&amp;T upgrade their network so that calls to the emergency call center can go through even if there are a ton of telemarketers on the phone?"</p><p>AT&amp;T's answer is no.  They would rather take the telemarketer's money and then spend considerable effort (that could have gone into upgrading the network) to mess with their calls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Should calls to the emergency call center be of the same priority as calls from telemarketers ?
" " Should AT&amp;T upgrade their network so that calls to the emergency call center can go through even if there are a ton of telemarketers on the phone ?
" AT&amp;T 's answer is no .
They would rather take the telemarketer 's money and then spend considerable effort ( that could have gone into upgrading the network ) to mess with their calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Should calls to the emergency call center be of the same priority as calls from telemarketers?
""Should AT&amp;T upgrade their network so that calls to the emergency call center can go through even if there are a ton of telemarketers on the phone?
"AT&amp;T's answer is no.
They would rather take the telemarketer's money and then spend considerable effort (that could have gone into upgrading the network) to mess with their calls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29782027</id>
	<title>Re:Yes and no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255802880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when has the Obama administration's publicly declared policies shown any resemblance to its actual intent and actions.</p><p>Example : the Obama administration supports organic farming and produce<br>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/dining/20garden.html</p><p>yet appoints Mr. Monsanto as the food czar<br>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea\_b\_243810.html</p><p>Obama has a habit of saying one thing to garner media and public support and doing the exact opposite to appease its financial and political supporters</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when has the Obama administration 's publicly declared policies shown any resemblance to its actual intent and actions.Example : the Obama administration supports organic farming and producehttp : //www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/dining/20garden.htmlyet appoints Mr. Monsanto as the food czarhttp : //www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea \ _b \ _243810.htmlObama has a habit of saying one thing to garner media and public support and doing the exact opposite to appease its financial and political supporters</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when has the Obama administration's publicly declared policies shown any resemblance to its actual intent and actions.Example : the Obama administration supports organic farming and producehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/dining/20garden.htmlyet appoints Mr. Monsanto as the food czarhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea\_b\_243810.htmlObama has a habit of saying one thing to garner media and public support and doing the exact opposite to appease its financial and political supporters</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778843</id>
	<title>i still don't understand the push for this</title>
	<author>j1mmy</author>
	<datestamp>1255806540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>government regulations have a long history of unintended consequences. it's good to see that these lawmakers recognize that.</p><p>furthermore, the internet has done exceptionally well so far without such rules. i think we're better off without them, in spite of the few incidences of filtering and blocking some providers have tried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>government regulations have a long history of unintended consequences .
it 's good to see that these lawmakers recognize that.furthermore , the internet has done exceptionally well so far without such rules .
i think we 're better off without them , in spite of the few incidences of filtering and blocking some providers have tried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>government regulations have a long history of unintended consequences.
it's good to see that these lawmakers recognize that.furthermore, the internet has done exceptionally well so far without such rules.
i think we're better off without them, in spite of the few incidences of filtering and blocking some providers have tried.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433</id>
	<title>Government parties against neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would have ever thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would have ever thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would have ever thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779331</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>hackiavelli</author>
	<datestamp>1255811340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I understand the rules allow ISPs to shape traffic, just not to the detriment of their competitors (e.g. providing fast video service while throttling Hulu).</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I understand the rules allow ISPs to shape traffic , just not to the detriment of their competitors ( e.g .
providing fast video service while throttling Hulu ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I understand the rules allow ISPs to shape traffic, just not to the detriment of their competitors (e.g.
providing fast video service while throttling Hulu).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777447</id>
	<title>Similarities?</title>
	<author>paintballer1087</author>
	<datestamp>1255793160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Enter the bureaucrats, the true rulers of the Republic, and on the payroll of the Trade Federation I might add. This is where Chancellor Valorum's strength will disappear."
<br>  Palpatine</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Enter the bureaucrats , the true rulers of the Republic , and on the payroll of the Trade Federation I might add .
This is where Chancellor Valorum 's strength will disappear .
" Palpatine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Enter the bureaucrats, the true rulers of the Republic, and on the payroll of the Trade Federation I might add.
This is where Chancellor Valorum's strength will disappear.
"
  Palpatine</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780653</id>
	<title>minority</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1255780860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what minority group? Asians?</p><p>hiding behind a generic 'minority' label, are you guys ashamed of your color or something? what a pussy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what minority group ?
Asians ? hiding behind a generic 'minority ' label , are you guys ashamed of your color or something ?
what a pussy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what minority group?
Asians?hiding behind a generic 'minority' label, are you guys ashamed of your color or something?
what a pussy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29785897</id>
	<title>Blocking</title>
	<author>ralph1</author>
	<datestamp>1255895820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>all this stupidity from something so simple dont sell more bandwidth than you can deliver.

I am entitled to every bit i pay for no matter what i use it for.

I will sue if i dont. End of story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>all this stupidity from something so simple dont sell more bandwidth than you can deliver .
I am entitled to every bit i pay for no matter what i use it for .
I will sue if i dont .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all this stupidity from something so simple dont sell more bandwidth than you can deliver.
I am entitled to every bit i pay for no matter what i use it for.
I will sue if i dont.
End of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777745</id>
	<title>Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255796040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.</p></div><p>The real price has dropped. The nominal price has not. What, do you think inflation doesn't exist?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would think that the price would drop , but it has remained constant , too.The real price has dropped .
The nominal price has not .
What , do you think inflation does n't exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.The real price has dropped.
The nominal price has not.
What, do you think inflation doesn't exist?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777699</id>
	<title>Don't worry, the government will make it better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255795620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSSUUURRREEE they will.</p><p>Believe that crap and I'll sell you a bridge.  And some swampland.</p><p>Giving the government more power so they can regulate the internet just means the government will attract that much more money from special interests and lobbyists trying to influence that power.</p><p>So the golden rule will apply:  those that have the gold make the rules.</p><p>Better to not give the government the power in the first place.  It's not like "We the people" will ever get it back.</p><p>Of course, Democrat voters always vote to give more power and money to the government, then for some strange reason act totally surprised when the government either fucks up or misuses or downright abuses that power.  If Democrat FDR hadn't set up massive federal police forces like the FBI and Democrat Harry Truman the CIA and the foundations of the NSA, those forces couldn't be used against the US populace under the Patriot Act.  Doh!  Maybe the "Dummycrat" epithet is well-earned.</p><p>Yeah, that may be flame-bait.  But it sure as shit is true:  Democrat voters vote for more taxes and power to the government, then they're the ones who act surprised that power and money get misused.</p><p>How about growing up and not expecting the government to hold your wee-wee and otherwise take care of you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSSUUURRREEE they will.Believe that crap and I 'll sell you a bridge .
And some swampland.Giving the government more power so they can regulate the internet just means the government will attract that much more money from special interests and lobbyists trying to influence that power.So the golden rule will apply : those that have the gold make the rules.Better to not give the government the power in the first place .
It 's not like " We the people " will ever get it back.Of course , Democrat voters always vote to give more power and money to the government , then for some strange reason act totally surprised when the government either fucks up or misuses or downright abuses that power .
If Democrat FDR had n't set up massive federal police forces like the FBI and Democrat Harry Truman the CIA and the foundations of the NSA , those forces could n't be used against the US populace under the Patriot Act .
Doh ! Maybe the " Dummycrat " epithet is well-earned.Yeah , that may be flame-bait .
But it sure as shit is true : Democrat voters vote for more taxes and power to the government , then they 're the ones who act surprised that power and money get misused.How about growing up and not expecting the government to hold your wee-wee and otherwise take care of you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSSUUURRREEE they will.Believe that crap and I'll sell you a bridge.
And some swampland.Giving the government more power so they can regulate the internet just means the government will attract that much more money from special interests and lobbyists trying to influence that power.So the golden rule will apply:  those that have the gold make the rules.Better to not give the government the power in the first place.
It's not like "We the people" will ever get it back.Of course, Democrat voters always vote to give more power and money to the government, then for some strange reason act totally surprised when the government either fucks up or misuses or downright abuses that power.
If Democrat FDR hadn't set up massive federal police forces like the FBI and Democrat Harry Truman the CIA and the foundations of the NSA, those forces couldn't be used against the US populace under the Patriot Act.
Doh!  Maybe the "Dummycrat" epithet is well-earned.Yeah, that may be flame-bait.
But it sure as shit is true:  Democrat voters vote for more taxes and power to the government, then they're the ones who act surprised that power and money get misused.How about growing up and not expecting the government to hold your wee-wee and otherwise take care of you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778351</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1255802100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not necessarily charging different rates, but rather enforced delay or blocking the site completely.</p><p>So to use your example, say a telco were to sign a deal with Papa John's that any of their customers who called Domino's would be put on hold for five minutes before being connected. Obviously this would severely cripple Domino's business.</p><p>The telco could take it one step further, and simply block any of their customers from calling Domino's. If there are only two telcos in town, this means that Domino's just lost about half of its delivery business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not necessarily charging different rates , but rather enforced delay or blocking the site completely.So to use your example , say a telco were to sign a deal with Papa John 's that any of their customers who called Domino 's would be put on hold for five minutes before being connected .
Obviously this would severely cripple Domino 's business.The telco could take it one step further , and simply block any of their customers from calling Domino 's .
If there are only two telcos in town , this means that Domino 's just lost about half of its delivery business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not necessarily charging different rates, but rather enforced delay or blocking the site completely.So to use your example, say a telco were to sign a deal with Papa John's that any of their customers who called Domino's would be put on hold for five minutes before being connected.
Obviously this would severely cripple Domino's business.The telco could take it one step further, and simply block any of their customers from calling Domino's.
If there are only two telcos in town, this means that Domino's just lost about half of its delivery business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779363</id>
	<title>Re:Headline != article</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1255811760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being the person who submitted the story, allow me to clarify that the input field for the title is a bit limited, thus necessitating that the original title be clipped a bit. Please forgive my editing skills, or lack thereof, when trying to shorten the headline as seen in the source article into something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would accept.
<br> <br>
Let it go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being the person who submitted the story , allow me to clarify that the input field for the title is a bit limited , thus necessitating that the original title be clipped a bit .
Please forgive my editing skills , or lack thereof , when trying to shorten the headline as seen in the source article into something / .
would accept .
Let it go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being the person who submitted the story, allow me to clarify that the input field for the title is a bit limited, thus necessitating that the original title be clipped a bit.
Please forgive my editing skills, or lack thereof, when trying to shorten the headline as seen in the source article into something /.
would accept.
Let it go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779179</id>
	<title>(hollywood)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255809900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/001254/Cisco-Motorola-and-Other-Companies-Take-Aim-At-Net-Neutrality-Rules" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">previous</a> [slashdot.org] Net Neutrality story appeared I was amused to read many comments along the lines; "if the Republicans are against it, it must be good," in reference to the 18 Republican senators cited in the story. There are many forces involved in monetizing the Internet. Among the wealthiest and best connected are the content producers, a.k.a Hollywood. With whom does Hollywood invest most of it's campaign contributions? Let us <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02" title="opensecrets.org" rel="nofollow">look</a> [opensecrets.org] and see if we can't discover what has motivated so many Democrats to 'question' the FCC.</p><p>Those of you that have allowed yourselves to be trained by your schools and your celebrities to suffer involuntary knee spasms on contact with all things Republican have been blinded to the larger picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the previous [ slashdot.org ] Net Neutrality story appeared I was amused to read many comments along the lines ; " if the Republicans are against it , it must be good , " in reference to the 18 Republican senators cited in the story .
There are many forces involved in monetizing the Internet .
Among the wealthiest and best connected are the content producers , a.k.a Hollywood .
With whom does Hollywood invest most of it 's campaign contributions ?
Let us look [ opensecrets.org ] and see if we ca n't discover what has motivated so many Democrats to 'question ' the FCC.Those of you that have allowed yourselves to be trained by your schools and your celebrities to suffer involuntary knee spasms on contact with all things Republican have been blinded to the larger picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the previous [slashdot.org] Net Neutrality story appeared I was amused to read many comments along the lines; "if the Republicans are against it, it must be good," in reference to the 18 Republican senators cited in the story.
There are many forces involved in monetizing the Internet.
Among the wealthiest and best connected are the content producers, a.k.a Hollywood.
With whom does Hollywood invest most of it's campaign contributions?
Let us look [opensecrets.org] and see if we can't discover what has motivated so many Democrats to 'question' the FCC.Those of you that have allowed yourselves to be trained by your schools and your celebrities to suffer involuntary knee spasms on contact with all things Republican have been blinded to the larger picture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777487</id>
	<title>Headline != article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"</p><p>Except that's not true.  The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality.  Also, the phrase "minority groups" is misleading because it is generally referred to groups of traditionally underrepresented peoples.</p><p>It's the equivalent of writing:</p><p>Slashdot supports Microsoft Windows 7 over Linux.</p><p>One of the people who works for Slashdot uses Windows 7 at home.  Here is his story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Democrats , Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push " Except that 's not true .
The second sentence says that Democrats , including the President , generally support Net Neutrality .
Also , the phrase " minority groups " is misleading because it is generally referred to groups of traditionally underrepresented peoples.It 's the equivalent of writing : Slashdot supports Microsoft Windows 7 over Linux.One of the people who works for Slashdot uses Windows 7 at home .
Here is his story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"Except that's not true.
The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality.
Also, the phrase "minority groups" is misleading because it is generally referred to groups of traditionally underrepresented peoples.It's the equivalent of writing:Slashdot supports Microsoft Windows 7 over Linux.One of the people who works for Slashdot uses Windows 7 at home.
Here is his story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29781467</id>
	<title>the letter shows concern, but not N-N disapproval</title>
	<author>keneng</author>
	<datestamp>1255791960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the October 14th, 2009 letter to Chairman Julius Genachowski, Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner Michael J. Copps, and Commissioner Robert M. McDowell regarding "Broadband Industry Practices (WC Docket No. 07-52), National Broadband Plan Notice of Inquiry (WC Docket 09-51)".</p><p>This letter shows concern about the net-neutrality policies and implementation rather than out and out disapproval.  The letter simply wants to delay any approval until the actual policies are clarified from what I understand.</p><p>Ok if that's the problem, to make everyone comfortable about net-neutrality, the pro net-neutrality gurus should respond with another letter proposing a vision showing the steps to spur off a business model which supports bridging the digital divide putting the minority groups on equal footing in terms of internet access, bandwidth and quality of service.</p><p>I think the best vision of what net-neutrality business model would look like is the google implementation which free-service in exchange for in-your-face advertising on your monitor.  You go to google for a search, google provides the information proxied through access and bandwidth paying advertising banners connections.</p><p>The trick here is that not only google is entitled to do this, but everybody is.  The only difference is instead of internet service providers going directly to the subscribers for internet access/bandwidth/quality of service fees, the government could instill a business model whereby the connection and hardware maintenance setups are all paid for by the government, the advertisement firms paying for the national internet bandwidth/quality of service structure in exchange for the privilege of proxying/framing all traffic content through advertising banner connections.  The advertising firms win with all the revenue generated by the loyal customers buying their products because they are thankful for their partnership in providing the synergetic-equal-opportunity-generating internet services.</p><p>I think google is very close to being "THE ONE" to make this happen.  Apart from the existence of google's awesome search engine achievements, they encourage the synergy of open-source software development demonstrating google's will to provide equal-opportunities for all and to encourage rewards for all based on merit.  That said, google can't be the only one to make net-neutrality happen.  All citizens should participate and encourage net-neutrality considering the importance to their future generations' opportunities.</p><p>The ad revenues from internet co-opete(coopetition) with the legacy media.  As a result, they all have an opportunity here to do the right thing and win business in return.<br>A government estabilished internet advertising monthly license fee could help build the infrastructure from scratch.  The added government internet advertising license could be encouraged by providing tax kickbacks somehow.  The trick here is that the actual license fee would need to be accessible for all keeping in mind all the little players wanting to get into the internet advertising business.</p><p>Are there any business-minded people here that could back all this up with numbers?  Any ways this is all just brainstorming to get your ideas rolling and making net-neutrality a reality without all the back-room secret government deals we've been seeing for the net-neutrality policies and the ACTA internet copyright infringement spying policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the October 14th , 2009 letter to Chairman Julius Genachowski , Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker , Commissioner Mignon Clyburn , Commissioner Michael J. Copps , and Commissioner Robert M. McDowell regarding " Broadband Industry Practices ( WC Docket No .
07-52 ) , National Broadband Plan Notice of Inquiry ( WC Docket 09-51 ) " .This letter shows concern about the net-neutrality policies and implementation rather than out and out disapproval .
The letter simply wants to delay any approval until the actual policies are clarified from what I understand.Ok if that 's the problem , to make everyone comfortable about net-neutrality , the pro net-neutrality gurus should respond with another letter proposing a vision showing the steps to spur off a business model which supports bridging the digital divide putting the minority groups on equal footing in terms of internet access , bandwidth and quality of service.I think the best vision of what net-neutrality business model would look like is the google implementation which free-service in exchange for in-your-face advertising on your monitor .
You go to google for a search , google provides the information proxied through access and bandwidth paying advertising banners connections.The trick here is that not only google is entitled to do this , but everybody is .
The only difference is instead of internet service providers going directly to the subscribers for internet access/bandwidth/quality of service fees , the government could instill a business model whereby the connection and hardware maintenance setups are all paid for by the government , the advertisement firms paying for the national internet bandwidth/quality of service structure in exchange for the privilege of proxying/framing all traffic content through advertising banner connections .
The advertising firms win with all the revenue generated by the loyal customers buying their products because they are thankful for their partnership in providing the synergetic-equal-opportunity-generating internet services.I think google is very close to being " THE ONE " to make this happen .
Apart from the existence of google 's awesome search engine achievements , they encourage the synergy of open-source software development demonstrating google 's will to provide equal-opportunities for all and to encourage rewards for all based on merit .
That said , google ca n't be the only one to make net-neutrality happen .
All citizens should participate and encourage net-neutrality considering the importance to their future generations ' opportunities.The ad revenues from internet co-opete ( coopetition ) with the legacy media .
As a result , they all have an opportunity here to do the right thing and win business in return.A government estabilished internet advertising monthly license fee could help build the infrastructure from scratch .
The added government internet advertising license could be encouraged by providing tax kickbacks somehow .
The trick here is that the actual license fee would need to be accessible for all keeping in mind all the little players wanting to get into the internet advertising business.Are there any business-minded people here that could back all this up with numbers ?
Any ways this is all just brainstorming to get your ideas rolling and making net-neutrality a reality without all the back-room secret government deals we 've been seeing for the net-neutrality policies and the ACTA internet copyright infringement spying policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the October 14th, 2009 letter to Chairman Julius Genachowski, Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner Michael J. Copps, and Commissioner Robert M. McDowell regarding "Broadband Industry Practices (WC Docket No.
07-52), National Broadband Plan Notice of Inquiry (WC Docket 09-51)".This letter shows concern about the net-neutrality policies and implementation rather than out and out disapproval.
The letter simply wants to delay any approval until the actual policies are clarified from what I understand.Ok if that's the problem, to make everyone comfortable about net-neutrality, the pro net-neutrality gurus should respond with another letter proposing a vision showing the steps to spur off a business model which supports bridging the digital divide putting the minority groups on equal footing in terms of internet access, bandwidth and quality of service.I think the best vision of what net-neutrality business model would look like is the google implementation which free-service in exchange for in-your-face advertising on your monitor.
You go to google for a search, google provides the information proxied through access and bandwidth paying advertising banners connections.The trick here is that not only google is entitled to do this, but everybody is.
The only difference is instead of internet service providers going directly to the subscribers for internet access/bandwidth/quality of service fees, the government could instill a business model whereby the connection and hardware maintenance setups are all paid for by the government, the advertisement firms paying for the national internet bandwidth/quality of service structure in exchange for the privilege of proxying/framing all traffic content through advertising banner connections.
The advertising firms win with all the revenue generated by the loyal customers buying their products because they are thankful for their partnership in providing the synergetic-equal-opportunity-generating internet services.I think google is very close to being "THE ONE" to make this happen.
Apart from the existence of google's awesome search engine achievements, they encourage the synergy of open-source software development demonstrating google's will to provide equal-opportunities for all and to encourage rewards for all based on merit.
That said, google can't be the only one to make net-neutrality happen.
All citizens should participate and encourage net-neutrality considering the importance to their future generations' opportunities.The ad revenues from internet co-opete(coopetition) with the legacy media.
As a result, they all have an opportunity here to do the right thing and win business in return.A government estabilished internet advertising monthly license fee could help build the infrastructure from scratch.
The added government internet advertising license could be encouraged by providing tax kickbacks somehow.
The trick here is that the actual license fee would need to be accessible for all keeping in mind all the little players wanting to get into the internet advertising business.Are there any business-minded people here that could back all this up with numbers?
Any ways this is all just brainstorming to get your ideas rolling and making net-neutrality a reality without all the back-room secret government deals we've been seeing for the net-neutrality policies and the ACTA internet copyright infringement spying policies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777453</id>
	<title>Oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C'mon now, "disenfranchised communities"?  How many minorities in the USA are unable to access the Internet because they have been actively disenfranchised from doing so?  It's really about as universal as it gets, the only reason anyone can't get it these days is because they can't afford it economically.</p><p>They should retitle these "minority groups" to "special interest racist groups" because that's what they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon now , " disenfranchised communities " ?
How many minorities in the USA are unable to access the Internet because they have been actively disenfranchised from doing so ?
It 's really about as universal as it gets , the only reason anyone ca n't get it these days is because they ca n't afford it economically.They should retitle these " minority groups " to " special interest racist groups " because that 's what they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon now, "disenfranchised communities"?
How many minorities in the USA are unable to access the Internet because they have been actively disenfranchised from doing so?
It's really about as universal as it gets, the only reason anyone can't get it these days is because they can't afford it economically.They should retitle these "minority groups" to "special interest racist groups" because that's what they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777467</id>
	<title>Write your congresscritters!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The signers*:<br>Michael Arcuri (NY-27), Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Sanford Bishop (GA-2), Tim Bishop (NY-1), Dan Boren (OK-2), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Allen Boyd (FL-2), Robert Brady (PA-1), Bobby Bright (AL-2), G.K. Butterfield (NC-1), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Russ Carnahan (MO-3), Christopher Carney  (PA-10), Travis Childers (MS-1), Donna Christensen (VI), William Lacy Clay (MO-1), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5), Jim Costa (CA-20), Joseph Crowley (NY-7), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Elijah Cummings (MD-7), Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA-3), Danny Davis (IL-7), Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Steve Driehaus (OH-1), Chaka Fattah (PA-2), Bill Foster (IL-14), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20), Al Green (TX-9), Gene Green (TX-29), Parker Griffith (AL-5), Debbie Halvorson (IL-11), Alcee Hastings (FL-23), Baron Hill (IN-9), Tim Holden (PA-17), Sheila Jackson<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,Lee (TX-18), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30), Hank Johnson (GA-4), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Frank Kratovil (MD-1), Rick Larsen (WA-2), Daniel Maffei (NY-25), Michael McMahon (NY-13), Gregory Meeks (NY-6), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Michael Michaud (ME-2), Walt Minnick (ID-1), Dennis Moore (KS-3), Glenn Nye (VA-2), Ed Pastor (AZ-4), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Ed Perlmutter (CO-7), Nick Rahall (WV-3), Jared Polis (CO-2), Silvestre Reyes (TX-16), Mike Ross (AR-4), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Kurt Schrader (OR-5), Allyson Schwartz (PA-13), David Scott (GA-13), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Albio Sires (NJ-13), Zachary Space (OH-18), John Spratt (SC-5), John Tanner (TN-8), Bennie Thompson (MS-2), Paul Tonko (NY-21), Ed Towns (NY-10), Peter Welch (VT), Charlie Wilson (OH-6)</p><p>*List retrieved from:<br><a href="http://www.precursorblog.com/content/72-house-democrats-letter-urges-fcc-avoid-tentative-conclusions-which-favor-government-regulation" title="precursorblog.com">http://www.precursorblog.com/content/72-house-democrats-letter-urges-fcc-avoid-tentative-conclusions-which-favor-government-regulation</a> [precursorblog.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The signers * : Michael Arcuri ( NY-27 ) , Joe Baca ( CA-43 ) , John Barrow ( GA-12 ) , Sanford Bishop ( GA-2 ) , Tim Bishop ( NY-1 ) , Dan Boren ( OK-2 ) , Leonard Boswell ( IA-3 ) , Allen Boyd ( FL-2 ) , Robert Brady ( PA-1 ) , Bobby Bright ( AL-2 ) , G.K. Butterfield ( NC-1 ) , Dennis Cardoza ( CA-18 ) , Russ Carnahan ( MO-3 ) , Christopher Carney ( PA-10 ) , Travis Childers ( MS-1 ) , Donna Christensen ( VI ) , William Lacy Clay ( MO-1 ) , Emanuel Cleaver ( MO-5 ) , Jim Costa ( CA-20 ) , Joseph Crowley ( NY-7 ) , Henry Cuellar ( TX-28 ) , Elijah Cummings ( MD-7 ) , Kathleen Dahlkemper ( PA-3 ) , Danny Davis ( IL-7 ) , Lincoln Davis ( TN-4 ) , Steve Driehaus ( OH-1 ) , Chaka Fattah ( PA-2 ) , Bill Foster ( IL-14 ) , Marcia Fudge ( OH-11 ) , Charlie Gonzalez ( TX-20 ) , Al Green ( TX-9 ) , Gene Green ( TX-29 ) , Parker Griffith ( AL-5 ) , Debbie Halvorson ( IL-11 ) , Alcee Hastings ( FL-23 ) , Baron Hill ( IN-9 ) , Tim Holden ( PA-17 ) , Sheila Jackson ,Lee ( TX-18 ) , Eddie Bernice Johnson ( TX-30 ) , Hank Johnson ( GA-4 ) , Suzanne Kosmas ( FL-24 ) , Frank Kratovil ( MD-1 ) , Rick Larsen ( WA-2 ) , Daniel Maffei ( NY-25 ) , Michael McMahon ( NY-13 ) , Gregory Meeks ( NY-6 ) , Charlie Melancon ( LA-3 ) , Michael Michaud ( ME-2 ) , Walt Minnick ( ID-1 ) , Dennis Moore ( KS-3 ) , Glenn Nye ( VA-2 ) , Ed Pastor ( AZ-4 ) , Solomon Ortiz ( TX-27 ) , Ed Perlmutter ( CO-7 ) , Nick Rahall ( WV-3 ) , Jared Polis ( CO-2 ) , Silvestre Reyes ( TX-16 ) , Mike Ross ( AR-4 ) , Loretta Sanchez ( CA-47 ) , Kurt Schrader ( OR-5 ) , Allyson Schwartz ( PA-13 ) , David Scott ( GA-13 ) , Heath Shuler ( NC-11 ) , Albio Sires ( NJ-13 ) , Zachary Space ( OH-18 ) , John Spratt ( SC-5 ) , John Tanner ( TN-8 ) , Bennie Thompson ( MS-2 ) , Paul Tonko ( NY-21 ) , Ed Towns ( NY-10 ) , Peter Welch ( VT ) , Charlie Wilson ( OH-6 ) * List retrieved from : http : //www.precursorblog.com/content/72-house-democrats-letter-urges-fcc-avoid-tentative-conclusions-which-favor-government-regulation [ precursorblog.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The signers*:Michael Arcuri (NY-27), Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Sanford Bishop (GA-2), Tim Bishop (NY-1), Dan Boren (OK-2), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Allen Boyd (FL-2), Robert Brady (PA-1), Bobby Bright (AL-2), G.K. Butterfield (NC-1), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Russ Carnahan (MO-3), Christopher Carney  (PA-10), Travis Childers (MS-1), Donna Christensen (VI), William Lacy Clay (MO-1), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5), Jim Costa (CA-20), Joseph Crowley (NY-7), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Elijah Cummings (MD-7), Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA-3), Danny Davis (IL-7), Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Steve Driehaus (OH-1), Chaka Fattah (PA-2), Bill Foster (IL-14), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20), Al Green (TX-9), Gene Green (TX-29), Parker Griffith (AL-5), Debbie Halvorson (IL-11), Alcee Hastings (FL-23), Baron Hill (IN-9), Tim Holden (PA-17), Sheila Jackson ,Lee (TX-18), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30), Hank Johnson (GA-4), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Frank Kratovil (MD-1), Rick Larsen (WA-2), Daniel Maffei (NY-25), Michael McMahon (NY-13), Gregory Meeks (NY-6), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Michael Michaud (ME-2), Walt Minnick (ID-1), Dennis Moore (KS-3), Glenn Nye (VA-2), Ed Pastor (AZ-4), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Ed Perlmutter (CO-7), Nick Rahall (WV-3), Jared Polis (CO-2), Silvestre Reyes (TX-16), Mike Ross (AR-4), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Kurt Schrader (OR-5), Allyson Schwartz (PA-13), David Scott (GA-13), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Albio Sires (NJ-13), Zachary Space (OH-18), John Spratt (SC-5), John Tanner (TN-8), Bennie Thompson (MS-2), Paul Tonko (NY-21), Ed Towns (NY-10), Peter Welch (VT), Charlie Wilson (OH-6)*List retrieved from:http://www.precursorblog.com/content/72-house-democrats-letter-urges-fcc-avoid-tentative-conclusions-which-favor-government-regulation [precursorblog.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779105</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1255809240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is a galaxy of difference between a contractual and requested prioritizing of traffic and an ISP shaping a network to block competing vendors services or interfering with traffic on the network.<br>examples<br>1 on my control panel i elect to have my VPN and VOIP be given a set amount of bandwidth --- this is requested<br>2 my isp decides to shape traffic so that third party VOIP and VPN services fail 85\% of the time --- this is not requested and should be illegal<br>3 my isp decides to flood the network with reset packets and false routing to jam Torrent and other P2P traffic or drops my IP address during ftp sessions ----- should be illegal</p><p>giving a customer what they want is one thing<br>trying to sell bundle services by degrading third parties is another<br>interfering with traffic just to cut costs and increase bonuses you need to have a 9 chevron address to get to</p><p>Network Nuetrality is at its core Function as an Internet Service Provider and keep out of what is on the network UNLESS IT IS PART OF THE CONTRACT (or flat out straight up illegal to be on the network and then provide LEOs with what they need)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a galaxy of difference between a contractual and requested prioritizing of traffic and an ISP shaping a network to block competing vendors services or interfering with traffic on the network.examples1 on my control panel i elect to have my VPN and VOIP be given a set amount of bandwidth --- this is requested2 my isp decides to shape traffic so that third party VOIP and VPN services fail 85 \ % of the time --- this is not requested and should be illegal3 my isp decides to flood the network with reset packets and false routing to jam Torrent and other P2P traffic or drops my IP address during ftp sessions ----- should be illegalgiving a customer what they want is one thingtrying to sell bundle services by degrading third parties is anotherinterfering with traffic just to cut costs and increase bonuses you need to have a 9 chevron address to get toNetwork Nuetrality is at its core Function as an Internet Service Provider and keep out of what is on the network UNLESS IT IS PART OF THE CONTRACT ( or flat out straight up illegal to be on the network and then provide LEOs with what they need )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a galaxy of difference between a contractual and requested prioritizing of traffic and an ISP shaping a network to block competing vendors services or interfering with traffic on the network.examples1 on my control panel i elect to have my VPN and VOIP be given a set amount of bandwidth --- this is requested2 my isp decides to shape traffic so that third party VOIP and VPN services fail 85\% of the time --- this is not requested and should be illegal3 my isp decides to flood the network with reset packets and false routing to jam Torrent and other P2P traffic or drops my IP address during ftp sessions ----- should be illegalgiving a customer what they want is one thingtrying to sell bundle services by degrading third parties is anotherinterfering with traffic just to cut costs and increase bonuses you need to have a 9 chevron address to get toNetwork Nuetrality is at its core Function as an Internet Service Provider and keep out of what is on the network UNLESS IT IS PART OF THE CONTRACT (or flat out straight up illegal to be on the network and then provide LEOs with what they need)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779413</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1255812120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not correct.  <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3458" title="govtrack.us">HR3458</a> [govtrack.us] does not propose ANY specific regulations.  It authorizes the FCC to create regulations and specifies a set of guiding principles for those regulations.</p><p>Further, it says that ISPs have the duty to:</p><blockquote><div><p>'(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any <b>lawful</b> content, application, or service through the Internet;</p></div></blockquote><p>Emphasis mine.  DOS attacks are presumptively not lawful until proven otherwise.</p><p>Finally, it leaves a specific exemption for any reasonable QoS.</p><blockquote><div><p>(d) Reasonable Network Management- <b>Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management</b> consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act. For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5), a network management practice is a reasonable practice only <b>if it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available</b>. In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable, the Commission shall consider, among other factors, the particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, emphasis mine.  You can pretty much skip everything not in bold and you'll get the gist of the paragraph.</p><p>In other words, injecting TCP resets into BitTorrent traffic: banned; throttling bandwidth of excessive users only during periods of heavy load on the network and only to the extent necessary to give reasonable bandwidth to people just browsing the web casually: allowed.  For once, the government got the regulation almost exactly right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority , so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.That 's not correct .
HR3458 [ govtrack.us ] does not propose ANY specific regulations .
It authorizes the FCC to create regulations and specifies a set of guiding principles for those regulations.Further , it says that ISPs have the duty to : ' ( 1 ) not block , interfere with , discriminate against , impair , or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service to access , use , send , post , receive , or offer any lawful content , application , or service through the Internet ; Emphasis mine .
DOS attacks are presumptively not lawful until proven otherwise.Finally , it leaves a specific exemption for any reasonable QoS .
( d ) Reasonable Network Management- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act .
For purposes of subsections ( b ) ( 1 ) and ( b ) ( 5 ) , a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically important interest , is narrowly tailored to further that interest , and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive , least discriminatory , and least constricting of consumer choice available .
In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable , the Commission shall consider , among other factors , the particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider.Again , emphasis mine .
You can pretty much skip everything not in bold and you 'll get the gist of the paragraph.In other words , injecting TCP resets into BitTorrent traffic : banned ; throttling bandwidth of excessive users only during periods of heavy load on the network and only to the extent necessary to give reasonable bandwidth to people just browsing the web casually : allowed .
For once , the government got the regulation almost exactly right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.That's not correct.
HR3458 [govtrack.us] does not propose ANY specific regulations.
It authorizes the FCC to create regulations and specifies a set of guiding principles for those regulations.Further, it says that ISPs have the duty to:'(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet;Emphasis mine.
DOS attacks are presumptively not lawful until proven otherwise.Finally, it leaves a specific exemption for any reasonable QoS.
(d) Reasonable Network Management- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act.
For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5), a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available.
In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable, the Commission shall consider, among other factors, the particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider.Again, emphasis mine.
You can pretty much skip everything not in bold and you'll get the gist of the paragraph.In other words, injecting TCP resets into BitTorrent traffic: banned; throttling bandwidth of excessive users only during periods of heavy load on the network and only to the extent necessary to give reasonable bandwidth to people just browsing the web casually: allowed.
For once, the government got the regulation almost exactly right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779005</id>
	<title>Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255808340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have been a subscriber to Armstrong OneWire for cable internet for the last 5 years and the bandwidth has not changed at all.  You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.</p></div><p>Armstrong is the lesser of two evils.  No setup or cancellation fees.  No charge to have a tech come out and fix things up for you.  But Armstrong OneWire definitely drags its feet when it comes to price and speed.</p><p>They do just enough to make Embarq look like thieves and thugs with their pricing in my area.  I thought the switch from Sprint to Embarq would yield better pricing, but that really hasn't been the case.  The low end seems competitive, but Embarq wants that contract with the typical fees the telcos are famous for.   The high-end is just laughable.</p><p>They even went so far as to charge $10 extra for Internet if you didn't have cable.  (I know Sprint/Embarq used to do the same.)  When I went to cancel my cable back in August, they told me there was no $10 surcharge any more and that it stopped a little over a year ago.  I wondered why.</p><p>The next day I got junk mail from CenturyLink claiming to provide naked DSL for $30/month.  Oh, that's why.  Too bad it's at 1.5mb speed only.  All the hype over how fast they are and that's the only option I get for signing up? Lame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been a subscriber to Armstrong OneWire for cable internet for the last 5 years and the bandwidth has not changed at all .
You would think that the price would drop , but it has remained constant , too.Armstrong is the lesser of two evils .
No setup or cancellation fees .
No charge to have a tech come out and fix things up for you .
But Armstrong OneWire definitely drags its feet when it comes to price and speed.They do just enough to make Embarq look like thieves and thugs with their pricing in my area .
I thought the switch from Sprint to Embarq would yield better pricing , but that really has n't been the case .
The low end seems competitive , but Embarq wants that contract with the typical fees the telcos are famous for .
The high-end is just laughable.They even went so far as to charge $ 10 extra for Internet if you did n't have cable .
( I know Sprint/Embarq used to do the same .
) When I went to cancel my cable back in August , they told me there was no $ 10 surcharge any more and that it stopped a little over a year ago .
I wondered why.The next day I got junk mail from CenturyLink claiming to provide naked DSL for $ 30/month .
Oh , that 's why .
Too bad it 's at 1.5mb speed only .
All the hype over how fast they are and that 's the only option I get for signing up ?
Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been a subscriber to Armstrong OneWire for cable internet for the last 5 years and the bandwidth has not changed at all.
You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.Armstrong is the lesser of two evils.
No setup or cancellation fees.
No charge to have a tech come out and fix things up for you.
But Armstrong OneWire definitely drags its feet when it comes to price and speed.They do just enough to make Embarq look like thieves and thugs with their pricing in my area.
I thought the switch from Sprint to Embarq would yield better pricing, but that really hasn't been the case.
The low end seems competitive, but Embarq wants that contract with the typical fees the telcos are famous for.
The high-end is just laughable.They even went so far as to charge $10 extra for Internet if you didn't have cable.
(I know Sprint/Embarq used to do the same.
)  When I went to cancel my cable back in August, they told me there was no $10 surcharge any more and that it stopped a little over a year ago.
I wondered why.The next day I got junk mail from CenturyLink claiming to provide naked DSL for $30/month.
Oh, that's why.
Too bad it's at 1.5mb speed only.
All the hype over how fast they are and that's the only option I get for signing up?
Lame.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780641</id>
	<title>Re:Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>slashqwerty</author>
	<datestamp>1255780800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real irony here is that the minorities opposed to network neutrality are the same people that will be discriminated against because of it.  Without network neutrality the NAACP may soon find people can't access their network because the NAACP hasn't paid extra dues to a dozen different service providers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real irony here is that the minorities opposed to network neutrality are the same people that will be discriminated against because of it .
Without network neutrality the NAACP may soon find people ca n't access their network because the NAACP has n't paid extra dues to a dozen different service providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real irony here is that the minorities opposed to network neutrality are the same people that will be discriminated against because of it.
Without network neutrality the NAACP may soon find people can't access their network because the NAACP hasn't paid extra dues to a dozen different service providers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777673</id>
	<title>How investment slows down...</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1255795380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We don't want to invest in speeding up the network, so if the government blocks us from investing in slowing down the network, no investment will get done!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We do n't want to invest in speeding up the network , so if the government blocks us from investing in slowing down the network , no investment will get done !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We don't want to invest in speeding up the network, so if the government blocks us from investing in slowing down the network, no investment will get done!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777805</id>
	<title>My letter to my congressmen.</title>
	<author>Logger</author>
	<datestamp>1255796700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to get off our collective butts.  Emails, Letters, and phone calls!  Keep it short, sweet, clean, well reasoned, and SIMPLE.  Remember their attention span isn't all that long.  Here's my letter I just fired off to my senators and congressman.</p><p>Senator/Congress(man/woman) --------,</p><p>Please support net-neutrality.</p><p>When Cisco and cable/phone companies say "innovation" it is not my idea of innovation.  Cisco means rather than competing with cheap, commodity hardware they can sell expensive traffic shaping hardware.  The cable/phone companies mean rather than expanding their networks, they can reap more profit from the existing network.  That may be an innovative way of generating profit, but it's not bringing innovative technology and services to the consumer.</p><p>Net-neutrality will protect truly innovative startup businesses like NetFlicks and Vonage from unfair and anti-competitive tatics by the cable/phone companies.  Please support net-neutrality.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>----------</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to get off our collective butts .
Emails , Letters , and phone calls !
Keep it short , sweet , clean , well reasoned , and SIMPLE .
Remember their attention span is n't all that long .
Here 's my letter I just fired off to my senators and congressman.Senator/Congress ( man/woman ) --------,Please support net-neutrality.When Cisco and cable/phone companies say " innovation " it is not my idea of innovation .
Cisco means rather than competing with cheap , commodity hardware they can sell expensive traffic shaping hardware .
The cable/phone companies mean rather than expanding their networks , they can reap more profit from the existing network .
That may be an innovative way of generating profit , but it 's not bringing innovative technology and services to the consumer.Net-neutrality will protect truly innovative startup businesses like NetFlicks and Vonage from unfair and anti-competitive tatics by the cable/phone companies .
Please support net-neutrality.Sincerely,----------</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to get off our collective butts.
Emails, Letters, and phone calls!
Keep it short, sweet, clean, well reasoned, and SIMPLE.
Remember their attention span isn't all that long.
Here's my letter I just fired off to my senators and congressman.Senator/Congress(man/woman) --------,Please support net-neutrality.When Cisco and cable/phone companies say "innovation" it is not my idea of innovation.
Cisco means rather than competing with cheap, commodity hardware they can sell expensive traffic shaping hardware.
The cable/phone companies mean rather than expanding their networks, they can reap more profit from the existing network.
That may be an innovative way of generating profit, but it's not bringing innovative technology and services to the consumer.Net-neutrality will protect truly innovative startup businesses like NetFlicks and Vonage from unfair and anti-competitive tatics by the cable/phone companies.
Please support net-neutrality.Sincerely,----------</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813</id>
	<title>Apt analogy using telcos</title>
	<author>taumeson</author>
	<datestamp>1255796760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case for Net Neutrality could easily be made by asking everyone opposed to it the following question:</p><p>"Do you support the ability for telephone companies to charge you different rates based on who you're calling instead of long distance charges?"</p><p>I would think it's a pretty obvious "no".  We don't want the telephone company charging us different rates for calling Papa John's pizza instead of Domino's, right?  We certainly don't want to get charged a different rate for calling one radio station over another (you know Clear Channel would want to work out some kind of deal).</p><p>Why does it seem logical to allow for broadband companies to pull this kind of stunt?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but the case for Net Neutrality could easily be made by asking everyone opposed to it the following question : " Do you support the ability for telephone companies to charge you different rates based on who you 're calling instead of long distance charges ?
" I would think it 's a pretty obvious " no " .
We do n't want the telephone company charging us different rates for calling Papa John 's pizza instead of Domino 's , right ?
We certainly do n't want to get charged a different rate for calling one radio station over another ( you know Clear Channel would want to work out some kind of deal ) .Why does it seem logical to allow for broadband companies to pull this kind of stunt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case for Net Neutrality could easily be made by asking everyone opposed to it the following question:"Do you support the ability for telephone companies to charge you different rates based on who you're calling instead of long distance charges?
"I would think it's a pretty obvious "no".
We don't want the telephone company charging us different rates for calling Papa John's pizza instead of Domino's, right?
We certainly don't want to get charged a different rate for calling one radio station over another (you know Clear Channel would want to work out some kind of deal).Why does it seem logical to allow for broadband companies to pull this kind of stunt?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780893</id>
	<title>Re:i still don't understand the push for this</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1255783980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>furthermore, the internet has done exceptionally well so far without such rules. i think we're better off without them, in spite of the few incidences of filtering and blocking some providers have tried.</p></div><p>The Internet has done exceptionall well so far <em> <strong>because of</strong> </em> such rules. It blossomed where other networks (AOL, CompuServe et alia) died on the vine precisely because it is an agnostic end-to-end network <em>by design</em>. Recently, in response to moves to subvert these fundamental elements of the Internet, the Obama administration has decided that this set of general principles deserves to be formalised at the regulatory level. They're not proposing anything new, they're simply recognising what makes the Internet what it is.</p><p>Recently telcos have begun to realise that collusive, predatory practices serve their short-term interests better than the current open regime. The rise of Google has put the fear into them because it makes it vividly apparent that, unless they actually begin to run their businesses efficiently, someone who gets this whole Open thing is going to come along and <em>eat their lunch</em>.</p><p> <strong>The telcos don't fear regulation. They fear competition.</strong> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>furthermore , the internet has done exceptionally well so far without such rules .
i think we 're better off without them , in spite of the few incidences of filtering and blocking some providers have tried.The Internet has done exceptionall well so far because of such rules .
It blossomed where other networks ( AOL , CompuServe et alia ) died on the vine precisely because it is an agnostic end-to-end network by design .
Recently , in response to moves to subvert these fundamental elements of the Internet , the Obama administration has decided that this set of general principles deserves to be formalised at the regulatory level .
They 're not proposing anything new , they 're simply recognising what makes the Internet what it is.Recently telcos have begun to realise that collusive , predatory practices serve their short-term interests better than the current open regime .
The rise of Google has put the fear into them because it makes it vividly apparent that , unless they actually begin to run their businesses efficiently , someone who gets this whole Open thing is going to come along and eat their lunch .
The telcos do n't fear regulation .
They fear competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>furthermore, the internet has done exceptionally well so far without such rules.
i think we're better off without them, in spite of the few incidences of filtering and blocking some providers have tried.The Internet has done exceptionall well so far  because of  such rules.
It blossomed where other networks (AOL, CompuServe et alia) died on the vine precisely because it is an agnostic end-to-end network by design.
Recently, in response to moves to subvert these fundamental elements of the Internet, the Obama administration has decided that this set of general principles deserves to be formalised at the regulatory level.
They're not proposing anything new, they're simply recognising what makes the Internet what it is.Recently telcos have begun to realise that collusive, predatory practices serve their short-term interests better than the current open regime.
The rise of Google has put the fear into them because it makes it vividly apparent that, unless they actually begin to run their businesses efficiently, someone who gets this whole Open thing is going to come along and eat their lunch.
The telcos don't fear regulation.
They fear competition. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778315</id>
	<title>no screw no investment</title>
	<author>dwreid</author>
	<datestamp>1255801800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if I understand the position of these legislators I could properly restate their postion as:
'The big companies pay us money and then tell us what to think. Therefore, we think that the big companies should be allowed to screw their customers anytime they want. If they are not allowed to screw their customers then they might stop investing in their core business. Since we are corrupt shills, we have agreed to support our corporate sponsors in defeating any regulation that might protect consumers from being screwed thus maximizing their profits and our contributions.'
There, that seems more clear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I understand the position of these legislators I could properly restate their postion as : 'The big companies pay us money and then tell us what to think .
Therefore , we think that the big companies should be allowed to screw their customers anytime they want .
If they are not allowed to screw their customers then they might stop investing in their core business .
Since we are corrupt shills , we have agreed to support our corporate sponsors in defeating any regulation that might protect consumers from being screwed thus maximizing their profits and our contributions .
' There , that seems more clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I understand the position of these legislators I could properly restate their postion as:
'The big companies pay us money and then tell us what to think.
Therefore, we think that the big companies should be allowed to screw their customers anytime they want.
If they are not allowed to screw their customers then they might stop investing in their core business.
Since we are corrupt shills, we have agreed to support our corporate sponsors in defeating any regulation that might protect consumers from being screwed thus maximizing their profits and our contributions.
'
There, that seems more clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780421</id>
	<title>HALF-ASSED LOGIC.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1255778640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but the group of 72 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks."</p><p>-How on Earth could this slow down investment in networks any more that it is NOW?!? This would force providers to invest in their networks, because not doing so would cause congestion problems, as is ALREADY EVIDENT!</p><p>Special Interest groups are like drugs to Politicians: They make politicians feel good, but turn them into complete idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but the group of 72 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski , saying they 're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks .
" -How on Earth could this slow down investment in networks any more that it is NOW ? ! ?
This would force providers to invest in their networks , because not doing so would cause congestion problems , as is ALREADY EVIDENT ! Special Interest groups are like drugs to Politicians : They make politicians feel good , but turn them into complete idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but the group of 72 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks.
"-How on Earth could this slow down investment in networks any more that it is NOW?!?
This would force providers to invest in their networks, because not doing so would cause congestion problems, as is ALREADY EVIDENT!Special Interest groups are like drugs to Politicians: They make politicians feel good, but turn them into complete idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777961</id>
	<title>In fact net neutrality forces companies to invest</title>
	<author>moxsam</author>
	<datestamp>1255798380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the exact opposite to what they claim. Net neutrality does not slow down investment in broadband networks, in fact massive QoS is the best tool to stall any investment in the infrastructure. If a network can work good enough at nearly 90-100\% utilization thanks to QoS even if it means that for example non-HTTP traffic is slowed down to the brink of uselessness, then why invest in faster links? And if every Telco is allowed to do it, then every Telco will do it, leaving the customers no choices.

Net neutrality is good for the competition, good for the market and good for the customers. It's a regulation to keep the market vivid and to weed out those companies that are unfit to compete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the exact opposite to what they claim .
Net neutrality does not slow down investment in broadband networks , in fact massive QoS is the best tool to stall any investment in the infrastructure .
If a network can work good enough at nearly 90-100 \ % utilization thanks to QoS even if it means that for example non-HTTP traffic is slowed down to the brink of uselessness , then why invest in faster links ?
And if every Telco is allowed to do it , then every Telco will do it , leaving the customers no choices .
Net neutrality is good for the competition , good for the market and good for the customers .
It 's a regulation to keep the market vivid and to weed out those companies that are unfit to compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the exact opposite to what they claim.
Net neutrality does not slow down investment in broadband networks, in fact massive QoS is the best tool to stall any investment in the infrastructure.
If a network can work good enough at nearly 90-100\% utilization thanks to QoS even if it means that for example non-HTTP traffic is slowed down to the brink of uselessness, then why invest in faster links?
And if every Telco is allowed to do it, then every Telco will do it, leaving the customers no choices.
Net neutrality is good for the competition, good for the market and good for the customers.
It's a regulation to keep the market vivid and to weed out those companies that are unfit to compete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777443</id>
	<title>Orwell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So all internet traffic is equal, but some traffic *should* be more equal than others?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So all internet traffic is equal , but some traffic * should * be more equal than others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all internet traffic is equal, but some traffic *should* be more equal than others?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778431</id>
	<title>Re:Government parties against neutrality</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1255802940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'...saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks.'</i></p><p>Call me cynical, but I suspect their concern is proportional to their bribes^wdonations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'...saying they 're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks .
'Call me cynical , but I suspect their concern is proportional to their bribes ^ wdonations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'...saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks.
'Call me cynical, but I suspect their concern is proportional to their bribes^wdonations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29831693</id>
	<title>Re:How much money did these 72 get from CableTelco</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1256143740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...is limited to 500Kbps upstream.</p></div><p>You need and must have Fiber, anything else is a waste of your time.

</p><p>I have basic cable, a promise of up to 8Mbps.  I am throttled and restricted back to less than 100Kbps downstream and less than 40Kbps upstream.  Its not the limit or the promise, its what they will guarantee you. The cable companies, neither Comcast nor TWC will promise anything.  In fact quite frequently a friend of mine and I are both shaped back to 0Kbps upstream.  Our upstream bandwidth bounces up to 40Kbps and back to 0Kbps, up and down, up and down, just enough to prevent you from watching any decent IP TV or video content.  My friend went for their "burst" service, however he is still throttled the same as he was with basic service.  While he is still trying to work with them, I am just about to give up.

</p><p>I am thinking two DSL providers, even though they promise less on the upside, either 1.5 Mbps or 3Mbps upstream, you are not sharing that pipe.  And if you get either 384Kbps or 758Kbps upstream consistently you will be able to watch any rich content, even high definition.  The upstream bandwidth is the true limiter of service based on what he and I have seen.  It sucks.

</p><p>You MUST have fiber, not just to the neighborhood, but into your house and to a fiber modem.  This is what gave Japanese customers 100Mb/100Mb in 2000 and 1Gb/1Gb in 2006.  They have the bandwidth to create jobs, develop rich content widgets and apps that require more bandwidth than a mere 100Kbps.  Americans do not.


</p><p>FYI Here is what the current American market is worth in billions;

</p><p>1GB/1GB Fiber ($52/mth) 40\% of 307,212,123 would be 122,884,849 subscribers or Revenue of $6,390,012,148 per month ($6.3B)

</p><p>1GB/1GB Fiber ($52/mth) Sales Rev $6,390,012,148 / mth; for a year: $76,680,145,776; a $76.6 Billion Company, Want to go into business?

</p><p>As they say on Survivor, worth playing for?

</p><p>Americans best and ONLY hopes are the following four:

</p><p>1) New competitor not related to any of the current telcos, going it alone, only with fiber.   40\% of the Internet Market in the US would be worth over $30Billion per month when charging customers rates of $52 per month for 1 Gbps / 1Gbps.

</p><p>2) Greenlight, the local politicians of Wilson N.C. invited them to come into town and run fiber to homes.  They did.  They charge $100 per month for 100Mbps / 100Mbps (synchronous) bandwidth.  I think 95\% of Americans would love for Greenlight to come to their town.  BTW: the Cable Cos and telcos are working the North Carolina legislature hard to stop Greenlight and prevent either them or other companies from offering service to other North Carolina communities.  See last legislative session and upcoming legislative session for details.  Probably what we can expect in D.C.  They are not spending over $1.8Million per week in DC to lay Fiber!

</p><p>3) Google, same reason as number 1, but Google, leveraging their data centers, undersea cables and running Fiber.  Please oh please this would be a dream come true. I am not aware of any plans for Google to enter the consumer marketplace, but it would be a public relations coupe!

</p><p>4) Our politicians to stop accepting bribes and de-regulate the telco / cable / wireless / wireline monopolies and oligopolies.  It was successful in Japan.  They actually have working competitive markets thanks to politicians deregulating NTT (tel co) and their Fiber.  By 2000, they had 100Mb / 100Mb for less than $55; in 2006 companies introduced 1GB / 1GB bandwidth for less than $52 per month. Prices actually went down due to a thriving competitive marketplace.  Both historical Republicans and historical Democrats would jump at this for different reasons, but neither party is like they use to be.  They both fail us.  I blame the Republicans more based on their bail out of the bands/financial institutions.  I will never, ever vote Republican again because of what they started and did via Bush.  The Democrats are no better, just look at Pelosi's history, just like the Republicans, she would rather play party politics then accomplish anything for her constituents.  It sad, it sucks.

</p><p>I do not see any other options to get us decent usable bandwidth!

</p><p>Start by bringing charges of "Fraud" against any provider who advertised high speed broadband but does not deliver a minimum bandwidth upstream and/or downstream of 768Kbps, the current FCC definition of what constitutes high speed broadband and go from there.  The 786Kbps standard is OVER 9 YEARS out of date based on other countries bandwidth levels as of 2009.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is limited to 500Kbps upstream.You need and must have Fiber , anything else is a waste of your time .
I have basic cable , a promise of up to 8Mbps .
I am throttled and restricted back to less than 100Kbps downstream and less than 40Kbps upstream .
Its not the limit or the promise , its what they will guarantee you .
The cable companies , neither Comcast nor TWC will promise anything .
In fact quite frequently a friend of mine and I are both shaped back to 0Kbps upstream .
Our upstream bandwidth bounces up to 40Kbps and back to 0Kbps , up and down , up and down , just enough to prevent you from watching any decent IP TV or video content .
My friend went for their " burst " service , however he is still throttled the same as he was with basic service .
While he is still trying to work with them , I am just about to give up .
I am thinking two DSL providers , even though they promise less on the upside , either 1.5 Mbps or 3Mbps upstream , you are not sharing that pipe .
And if you get either 384Kbps or 758Kbps upstream consistently you will be able to watch any rich content , even high definition .
The upstream bandwidth is the true limiter of service based on what he and I have seen .
It sucks .
You MUST have fiber , not just to the neighborhood , but into your house and to a fiber modem .
This is what gave Japanese customers 100Mb/100Mb in 2000 and 1Gb/1Gb in 2006 .
They have the bandwidth to create jobs , develop rich content widgets and apps that require more bandwidth than a mere 100Kbps .
Americans do not .
FYI Here is what the current American market is worth in billions ; 1GB/1GB Fiber ( $ 52/mth ) 40 \ % of 307,212,123 would be 122,884,849 subscribers or Revenue of $ 6,390,012,148 per month ( $ 6.3B ) 1GB/1GB Fiber ( $ 52/mth ) Sales Rev $ 6,390,012,148 / mth ; for a year : $ 76,680,145,776 ; a $ 76.6 Billion Company , Want to go into business ?
As they say on Survivor , worth playing for ?
Americans best and ONLY hopes are the following four : 1 ) New competitor not related to any of the current telcos , going it alone , only with fiber .
40 \ % of the Internet Market in the US would be worth over $ 30Billion per month when charging customers rates of $ 52 per month for 1 Gbps / 1Gbps .
2 ) Greenlight , the local politicians of Wilson N.C. invited them to come into town and run fiber to homes .
They did .
They charge $ 100 per month for 100Mbps / 100Mbps ( synchronous ) bandwidth .
I think 95 \ % of Americans would love for Greenlight to come to their town .
BTW : the Cable Cos and telcos are working the North Carolina legislature hard to stop Greenlight and prevent either them or other companies from offering service to other North Carolina communities .
See last legislative session and upcoming legislative session for details .
Probably what we can expect in D.C. They are not spending over $ 1.8Million per week in DC to lay Fiber !
3 ) Google , same reason as number 1 , but Google , leveraging their data centers , undersea cables and running Fiber .
Please oh please this would be a dream come true .
I am not aware of any plans for Google to enter the consumer marketplace , but it would be a public relations coupe !
4 ) Our politicians to stop accepting bribes and de-regulate the telco / cable / wireless / wireline monopolies and oligopolies .
It was successful in Japan .
They actually have working competitive markets thanks to politicians deregulating NTT ( tel co ) and their Fiber .
By 2000 , they had 100Mb / 100Mb for less than $ 55 ; in 2006 companies introduced 1GB / 1GB bandwidth for less than $ 52 per month .
Prices actually went down due to a thriving competitive marketplace .
Both historical Republicans and historical Democrats would jump at this for different reasons , but neither party is like they use to be .
They both fail us .
I blame the Republicans more based on their bail out of the bands/financial institutions .
I will never , ever vote Republican again because of what they started and did via Bush .
The Democrats are no better , just look at Pelosi 's history , just like the Republicans , she would rather play party politics then accomplish anything for her constituents .
It sad , it sucks .
I do not see any other options to get us decent usable bandwidth !
Start by bringing charges of " Fraud " against any provider who advertised high speed broadband but does not deliver a minimum bandwidth upstream and/or downstream of 768Kbps , the current FCC definition of what constitutes high speed broadband and go from there .
The 786Kbps standard is OVER 9 YEARS out of date based on other countries bandwidth levels as of 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...is limited to 500Kbps upstream.You need and must have Fiber, anything else is a waste of your time.
I have basic cable, a promise of up to 8Mbps.
I am throttled and restricted back to less than 100Kbps downstream and less than 40Kbps upstream.
Its not the limit or the promise, its what they will guarantee you.
The cable companies, neither Comcast nor TWC will promise anything.
In fact quite frequently a friend of mine and I are both shaped back to 0Kbps upstream.
Our upstream bandwidth bounces up to 40Kbps and back to 0Kbps, up and down, up and down, just enough to prevent you from watching any decent IP TV or video content.
My friend went for their "burst" service, however he is still throttled the same as he was with basic service.
While he is still trying to work with them, I am just about to give up.
I am thinking two DSL providers, even though they promise less on the upside, either 1.5 Mbps or 3Mbps upstream, you are not sharing that pipe.
And if you get either 384Kbps or 758Kbps upstream consistently you will be able to watch any rich content, even high definition.
The upstream bandwidth is the true limiter of service based on what he and I have seen.
It sucks.
You MUST have fiber, not just to the neighborhood, but into your house and to a fiber modem.
This is what gave Japanese customers 100Mb/100Mb in 2000 and 1Gb/1Gb in 2006.
They have the bandwidth to create jobs, develop rich content widgets and apps that require more bandwidth than a mere 100Kbps.
Americans do not.
FYI Here is what the current American market is worth in billions;

1GB/1GB Fiber ($52/mth) 40\% of 307,212,123 would be 122,884,849 subscribers or Revenue of $6,390,012,148 per month ($6.3B)

1GB/1GB Fiber ($52/mth) Sales Rev $6,390,012,148 / mth; for a year: $76,680,145,776; a $76.6 Billion Company, Want to go into business?
As they say on Survivor, worth playing for?
Americans best and ONLY hopes are the following four:

1) New competitor not related to any of the current telcos, going it alone, only with fiber.
40\% of the Internet Market in the US would be worth over $30Billion per month when charging customers rates of $52 per month for 1 Gbps / 1Gbps.
2) Greenlight, the local politicians of Wilson N.C. invited them to come into town and run fiber to homes.
They did.
They charge $100 per month for 100Mbps / 100Mbps (synchronous) bandwidth.
I think 95\% of Americans would love for Greenlight to come to their town.
BTW: the Cable Cos and telcos are working the North Carolina legislature hard to stop Greenlight and prevent either them or other companies from offering service to other North Carolina communities.
See last legislative session and upcoming legislative session for details.
Probably what we can expect in D.C.  They are not spending over $1.8Million per week in DC to lay Fiber!
3) Google, same reason as number 1, but Google, leveraging their data centers, undersea cables and running Fiber.
Please oh please this would be a dream come true.
I am not aware of any plans for Google to enter the consumer marketplace, but it would be a public relations coupe!
4) Our politicians to stop accepting bribes and de-regulate the telco / cable / wireless / wireline monopolies and oligopolies.
It was successful in Japan.
They actually have working competitive markets thanks to politicians deregulating NTT (tel co) and their Fiber.
By 2000, they had 100Mb / 100Mb for less than $55; in 2006 companies introduced 1GB / 1GB bandwidth for less than $52 per month.
Prices actually went down due to a thriving competitive marketplace.
Both historical Republicans and historical Democrats would jump at this for different reasons, but neither party is like they use to be.
They both fail us.
I blame the Republicans more based on their bail out of the bands/financial institutions.
I will never, ever vote Republican again because of what they started and did via Bush.
The Democrats are no better, just look at Pelosi's history, just like the Republicans, she would rather play party politics then accomplish anything for her constituents.
It sad, it sucks.
I do not see any other options to get us decent usable bandwidth!
Start by bringing charges of "Fraud" against any provider who advertised high speed broadband but does not deliver a minimum bandwidth upstream and/or downstream of 768Kbps, the current FCC definition of what constitutes high speed broadband and go from there.
The 786Kbps standard is OVER 9 YEARS out of date based on other countries bandwidth levels as of 2009.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779003</id>
	<title>Re:Government parties against neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255808340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who would have ever thought.</p></div><p>I guess I dont like Republicans or Democrats now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would have ever thought.I guess I dont like Republicans or Democrats now .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would have ever thought.I guess I dont like Republicans or Democrats now ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779337</id>
	<title>Compromise</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255811400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not a compromise that limits the bandwidth advantage a company can give to X percent? That way they can give their own content enough of a boost to justify investing in smaller towns etc., but not enough to throw rivals into pure molasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not a compromise that limits the bandwidth advantage a company can give to X percent ?
That way they can give their own content enough of a boost to justify investing in smaller towns etc. , but not enough to throw rivals into pure molasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not a compromise that limits the bandwidth advantage a company can give to X percent?
That way they can give their own content enough of a boost to justify investing in smaller towns etc., but not enough to throw rivals into pure molasses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780307</id>
	<title>Uh, US taxpayers paid for the internet</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1255777620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then let several big companies have exclusive monopolies.  And US taxpayers are paying to network upgrades.  How exactly is that going to slow investment?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then let several big companies have exclusive monopolies .
And US taxpayers are paying to network upgrades .
How exactly is that going to slow investment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then let several big companies have exclusive monopolies.
And US taxpayers are paying to network upgrades.
How exactly is that going to slow investment?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777649</id>
	<title>Investment?</title>
	<author>Dega704</author>
	<datestamp>1255795140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks."  Aka, the providers will hold our broadband future hostage if they don't get their way.  Craptastic.  With this many people pitching a fit perhaps they should come up with some other incentives to keep the telcos happy, although I have no idea what would be as tantalizing as being able to auction off their bandwidth to the highest bidders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" saying they 're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks .
" Aka , the providers will hold our broadband future hostage if they do n't get their way .
Craptastic. With this many people pitching a fit perhaps they should come up with some other incentives to keep the telcos happy , although I have no idea what would be as tantalizing as being able to auction off their bandwidth to the highest bidders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks.
"  Aka, the providers will hold our broadband future hostage if they don't get their way.
Craptastic.  With this many people pitching a fit perhaps they should come up with some other incentives to keep the telcos happy, although I have no idea what would be as tantalizing as being able to auction off their bandwidth to the highest bidders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777885</id>
	<title>Who has a copy of this letter, me the whole thing?</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1255797780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm only seeing a few quotes repeated in a few forms.</p><p>Given that there's a typo in the first line of the extract which is getting bandied about I'm especially uncomfortable calling/emailing/faxing my congresscritter to rip him a new one.</p><p>I want to see the whole thing, THEN I will rip him a new one.</p><p>Which would be a service to him, because apparently, his current one is plugged by the external sexual organs of our local ILEC and cable companies.</p><p>This is ultimately the reason why ILECs are so slow, bloated and inefficient.  The more people they have doing manual (both technical and paperwork) tasks, the less automation they have and the slower and less profitable they are, but conversely, the more votes they seem to control and the more they can enforce legislative support for archaic business models (monopolies wherever possible) and behaviors on the politicians in each state.  "If this passes, we'll have to lay people off.  We'll lay your district people off, and we'll blame you."  They repeat this threat over and over, like a monotone operator message recording.</p><p>Our congresspeople keep screwing us (and primarily their own district people) because they're frightened.  This is why you should always think very carefully before ever siding with an ILEC on ANYTHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm only seeing a few quotes repeated in a few forms.Given that there 's a typo in the first line of the extract which is getting bandied about I 'm especially uncomfortable calling/emailing/faxing my congresscritter to rip him a new one.I want to see the whole thing , THEN I will rip him a new one.Which would be a service to him , because apparently , his current one is plugged by the external sexual organs of our local ILEC and cable companies.This is ultimately the reason why ILECs are so slow , bloated and inefficient .
The more people they have doing manual ( both technical and paperwork ) tasks , the less automation they have and the slower and less profitable they are , but conversely , the more votes they seem to control and the more they can enforce legislative support for archaic business models ( monopolies wherever possible ) and behaviors on the politicians in each state .
" If this passes , we 'll have to lay people off .
We 'll lay your district people off , and we 'll blame you .
" They repeat this threat over and over , like a monotone operator message recording.Our congresspeople keep screwing us ( and primarily their own district people ) because they 're frightened .
This is why you should always think very carefully before ever siding with an ILEC on ANYTHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm only seeing a few quotes repeated in a few forms.Given that there's a typo in the first line of the extract which is getting bandied about I'm especially uncomfortable calling/emailing/faxing my congresscritter to rip him a new one.I want to see the whole thing, THEN I will rip him a new one.Which would be a service to him, because apparently, his current one is plugged by the external sexual organs of our local ILEC and cable companies.This is ultimately the reason why ILECs are so slow, bloated and inefficient.
The more people they have doing manual (both technical and paperwork) tasks, the less automation they have and the slower and less profitable they are, but conversely, the more votes they seem to control and the more they can enforce legislative support for archaic business models (monopolies wherever possible) and behaviors on the politicians in each state.
"If this passes, we'll have to lay people off.
We'll lay your district people off, and we'll blame you.
"  They repeat this threat over and over, like a monotone operator message recording.Our congresspeople keep screwing us (and primarily their own district people) because they're frightened.
This is why you should always think very carefully before ever siding with an ILEC on ANYTHING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777939</id>
	<title>Donations</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1255798200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check the recent campaign donations for all of those politicians. I suspect we'll see some notable opponents of net neutrality on the lists...<br> <br>
Sorry, but only idiots and those who make money from a lack of net neutrality would oppose it.<br> <br>
Wait... Maybe some of those politicians are just idiots...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check the recent campaign donations for all of those politicians .
I suspect we 'll see some notable opponents of net neutrality on the lists.. . Sorry , but only idiots and those who make money from a lack of net neutrality would oppose it .
Wait... Maybe some of those politicians are just idiots.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check the recent campaign donations for all of those politicians.
I suspect we'll see some notable opponents of net neutrality on the lists... 
Sorry, but only idiots and those who make money from a lack of net neutrality would oppose it.
Wait... Maybe some of those politicians are just idiots...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777947</id>
	<title>Re:Headline != article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255798260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, "minority" has been used to refer to a small group in congress for a lot longer than it has referred to racial/ethnic groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , " minority " has been used to refer to a small group in congress for a lot longer than it has referred to racial/ethnic groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, "minority" has been used to refer to a small group in congress for a lot longer than it has referred to racial/ethnic groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779687</id>
	<title>Re:Orwell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255771980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, the telcos are Stalinists!</p><p>--<br>posting as AC due to cookie cleaning and laziness of logging in<br>google is your friend</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , the telcos are Stalinists ! --posting as AC due to cookie cleaning and laziness of logging ingoogle is your friend</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, the telcos are Stalinists!--posting as AC due to cookie cleaning and laziness of logging ingoogle is your friend</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777861</id>
	<title>Problems with broandband</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255797480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It amazes me none of these people mention the root cause of the lack of broadband, there is no competition!</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It amazes me none of these people mention the root cause of the lack of broadband , there is no competition !
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It amazes me none of these people mention the root cause of the lack of broadband, there is no competition!
Falcon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777915</id>
	<title>What investment?!</title>
	<author>Dudeman\_Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1255797960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, what investment would this be slowing?  The Telcos already don't give a crap about the networks, that's how this whole disaster got started in the first place!  They didn't want to upgrade, in order to artificially stimulate demand and thus profits.  Cause and effect;  This group fails at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , what investment would this be slowing ?
The Telcos already do n't give a crap about the networks , that 's how this whole disaster got started in the first place !
They did n't want to upgrade , in order to artificially stimulate demand and thus profits .
Cause and effect ; This group fails at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, what investment would this be slowing?
The Telcos already don't give a crap about the networks, that's how this whole disaster got started in the first place!
They didn't want to upgrade, in order to artificially stimulate demand and thus profits.
Cause and effect;  This group fails at it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29831693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29782027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29793583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1321253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29782027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29831693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29793583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779331
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29780893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1321253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29778039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29777745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1321253.29779005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
