<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_21_2223229</id>
	<title>CRTC Issues Net Neutrality Rules</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256123400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The CRTC today <a href="http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2009/r091021.htm">introduced a new framework</a> to guide Internet service providers in their use of Internet traffic management practices. ISPs will be required to inform retail customers at least 30 days, and wholesale customers at least 60 days, before an Internet traffic management practice takes effect. At that time, ISPs will need to describe how the practice will affect their customers' service. The Commission encourages ISPs to make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible. However, the Commission realizes that ISPs may need other measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times. Technical means to manage traffic, such as traffic shaping, should only be employed as a last resort."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The CRTC today introduced a new framework to guide Internet service providers in their use of Internet traffic management practices .
ISPs will be required to inform retail customers at least 30 days , and wholesale customers at least 60 days , before an Internet traffic management practice takes effect .
At that time , ISPs will need to describe how the practice will affect their customers ' service .
The Commission encourages ISPs to make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible .
However , the Commission realizes that ISPs may need other measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times .
Technical means to manage traffic , such as traffic shaping , should only be employed as a last resort .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The CRTC today introduced a new framework to guide Internet service providers in their use of Internet traffic management practices.
ISPs will be required to inform retail customers at least 30 days, and wholesale customers at least 60 days, before an Internet traffic management practice takes effect.
At that time, ISPs will need to describe how the practice will affect their customers' service.
The Commission encourages ISPs to make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible.
However, the Commission realizes that ISPs may need other measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times.
Technical means to manage traffic, such as traffic shaping, should only be employed as a last resort.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831149</id>
	<title>Why does the army care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Freak</author>
	<datestamp>1256136840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, why would the U.S. Army's <a href="http://www.yuma.army.mil/tc\_crtc.shtml" title="army.mil">Cold Regions Test Center</a> [army.mil] give a rat's ass about net neutrality?</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>(aka: Watch when you use acronyms.  U.S.-centric acronyms are one thing,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers are used to it, but non-U.S. acronyms will be completely mis-construed by a vast majority of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , why would the U.S. Army 's Cold Regions Test Center [ army.mil ] give a rat 's ass about net neutrality ?
      ( aka : Watch when you use acronyms .
U.S.-centric acronyms are one thing , / .
readers are used to it , but non-U.S. acronyms will be completely mis-construed by a vast majority of /.ers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, why would the U.S. Army's Cold Regions Test Center [army.mil] give a rat's ass about net neutrality?
  
  
  (aka: Watch when you use acronyms.
U.S.-centric acronyms are one thing, /.
readers are used to it, but non-U.S. acronyms will be completely mis-construed by a vast majority of /.ers.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830337</id>
	<title>Re:Shaping vs Crippling</title>
	<author>thule</author>
	<datestamp>1256129460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you publish the list of ISP's that cripple people's connections?  That would be good information to know.  I personally have not heard of any ISP's in the US that have completely cut off specific protocols.  Lowering the priority of P2P connections doesn't count if the P2P app continues to function.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you publish the list of ISP 's that cripple people 's connections ?
That would be good information to know .
I personally have not heard of any ISP 's in the US that have completely cut off specific protocols .
Lowering the priority of P2P connections does n't count if the P2P app continues to function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you publish the list of ISP's that cripple people's connections?
That would be good information to know.
I personally have not heard of any ISP's in the US that have completely cut off specific protocols.
Lowering the priority of P2P connections doesn't count if the P2P app continues to function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831439</id>
	<title>Re:Useless</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1256140440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least it opens a debate.</p><p>A few months ago it was really unclear that the CRTC would ever lean ever so slightly in the direction of the consumer, all indicated the contrary.  A previous preliminary ruling for Bell traffic shaping of its wholesalers gave almost all authority in the hands of Bell.  I'm amongst what is I'm sure a lot of fellow Canadian slashdotters that petitioned against it.</p><p>Also remember that the CRTC is an old organization that is not very adapted nor flexible enough to take a real stand in modern communication issues.  I find it better that they keep a cautious neutral stand in slight favor of openess, net-neutrality and of consumers rights than simply closing their eyes like they used to do in the past years.</p><p>At least from now on we won't discover shaping practices by pure random amateur discovery but we will be notified and will be able to fully protest.  It also opens the debate in a language the media will be able to understand.</p><p>A good thing overall IMO - but we'll have to wait and see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it opens a debate.A few months ago it was really unclear that the CRTC would ever lean ever so slightly in the direction of the consumer , all indicated the contrary .
A previous preliminary ruling for Bell traffic shaping of its wholesalers gave almost all authority in the hands of Bell .
I 'm amongst what is I 'm sure a lot of fellow Canadian slashdotters that petitioned against it.Also remember that the CRTC is an old organization that is not very adapted nor flexible enough to take a real stand in modern communication issues .
I find it better that they keep a cautious neutral stand in slight favor of openess , net-neutrality and of consumers rights than simply closing their eyes like they used to do in the past years.At least from now on we wo n't discover shaping practices by pure random amateur discovery but we will be notified and will be able to fully protest .
It also opens the debate in a language the media will be able to understand.A good thing overall IMO - but we 'll have to wait and see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it opens a debate.A few months ago it was really unclear that the CRTC would ever lean ever so slightly in the direction of the consumer, all indicated the contrary.
A previous preliminary ruling for Bell traffic shaping of its wholesalers gave almost all authority in the hands of Bell.
I'm amongst what is I'm sure a lot of fellow Canadian slashdotters that petitioned against it.Also remember that the CRTC is an old organization that is not very adapted nor flexible enough to take a real stand in modern communication issues.
I find it better that they keep a cautious neutral stand in slight favor of openess, net-neutrality and of consumers rights than simply closing their eyes like they used to do in the past years.At least from now on we won't discover shaping practices by pure random amateur discovery but we will be notified and will be able to fully protest.
It also opens the debate in a language the media will be able to understand.A good thing overall IMO - but we'll have to wait and see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830953</id>
	<title>Re:The Fix is In</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256134320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, it just that the same poeple that own the 3 major ISPs in Canada happen to also control TV, radio and newspapers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , it just that the same poeple that own the 3 major ISPs in Canada happen to also control TV , radio and newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, it just that the same poeple that own the 3 major ISPs in Canada happen to also control TV, radio and newspapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831607</id>
	<title>Re:Subsidies for ip networks in Canada</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256142420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, I just posted exactly this question so my other post is redundant. Mod up the parent of this one and let us know if anyone has a source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , I just posted exactly this question so my other post is redundant .
Mod up the parent of this one and let us know if anyone has a source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, I just posted exactly this question so my other post is redundant.
Mod up the parent of this one and let us know if anyone has a source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830589</id>
	<title>First use noted: Geist sites unreachable!</title>
	<author>Obstin8</author>
	<datestamp>1256131200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't reach \_any\_ Michael Geist sites (from either my cable and DSL conns). Coincidence? I think not!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't reach \ _any \ _ Michael Geist sites ( from either my cable and DSL conns ) .
Coincidence ? I think not ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't reach \_any\_ Michael Geist sites (from either my cable and DSL conns).
Coincidence? I think not!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830089</id>
	<title>The Fix is In</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the Internet Town Hall Meeting in Halifax NS October 26th apparently can't get any mainstream press interest. Gee, guess there's nothing to see here, move along citizen, etc. Net Neutrality is getting covered there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the Internet Town Hall Meeting in Halifax NS October 26th apparently ca n't get any mainstream press interest .
Gee , guess there 's nothing to see here , move along citizen , etc .
Net Neutrality is getting covered there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the Internet Town Hall Meeting in Halifax NS October 26th apparently can't get any mainstream press interest.
Gee, guess there's nothing to see here, move along citizen, etc.
Net Neutrality is getting covered there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29836749</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm, no</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1256233320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm sorry, but I don't grok how a router can tell an IP packet has an illicit payload.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then perhaps you need to read <a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt" title="ietf.org">RFC 3514</a> [ietf.org] a little more closely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but I do n't grok how a router can tell an IP packet has an illicit payload.Then perhaps you need to read RFC 3514 [ ietf.org ] a little more closely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but I don't grok how a router can tell an IP packet has an illicit payload.Then perhaps you need to read RFC 3514 [ietf.org] a little more closely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830393</id>
	<title>traffic shaping as a last resort?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256129820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by last resort they mean the first thing you do, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by last resort they mean the first thing you do , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by last resort they mean the first thing you do, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833325</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1256211000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Really?  I sometimes consult with a small ISP and their pipes are their pipes.  Their transit is a fiber connection put in by a large ISP.

Everything is just fine most of the time.  The condo's are fed with large pipes.  Some of the condo's that this ISP services have pure Ethernet switches with no rate limiting per port.  It only takes one person will fire up their P2P program and suck up all the bandwidth to the building.  No biggie I say.  I don't really care until latency states taking a hit.  The ISP</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I sometimes consult with a small ISP and their pipes are their pipes .
Their transit is a fiber connection put in by a large ISP .
Everything is just fine most of the time .
The condo 's are fed with large pipes .
Some of the condo 's that this ISP services have pure Ethernet switches with no rate limiting per port .
It only takes one person will fire up their P2P program and suck up all the bandwidth to the building .
No biggie I say .
I do n't really care until latency states taking a hit .
The ISP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I sometimes consult with a small ISP and their pipes are their pipes.
Their transit is a fiber connection put in by a large ISP.
Everything is just fine most of the time.
The condo's are fed with large pipes.
Some of the condo's that this ISP services have pure Ethernet switches with no rate limiting per port.
It only takes one person will fire up their P2P program and suck up all the bandwidth to the building.
No biggie I say.
I don't really care until latency states taking a hit.
The ISP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834231</id>
	<title>I wonder if this means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256220300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this means that they will be disconnecting spammers since 80\% of all traffic is spam (when there's a call to stop spammers)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this means that they will be disconnecting spammers since 80 \ % of all traffic is spam ( when there 's a call to stop spammers ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this means that they will be disconnecting spammers since 80\% of all traffic is spam (when there's a call to stop spammers)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830355</id>
	<title>Blocking access?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hypothetical scenario: an ISP is under DDoS attack originating from some fixed foreign IP. Since it becomes impossible to "block access" without CRTC approval, does that mean the ISP has to take it like a bitch while waiting from the OK to have it blackholed? What about any other kinds of attacks? What about Spam filtering?</p><p>I really don't think the CRTC really understands the issue. I should know, I listened to some of the public hearings a few months back.</p><p>Disclaimer: I work for an affected ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypothetical scenario : an ISP is under DDoS attack originating from some fixed foreign IP .
Since it becomes impossible to " block access " without CRTC approval , does that mean the ISP has to take it like a bitch while waiting from the OK to have it blackholed ?
What about any other kinds of attacks ?
What about Spam filtering ? I really do n't think the CRTC really understands the issue .
I should know , I listened to some of the public hearings a few months back.Disclaimer : I work for an affected ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypothetical scenario: an ISP is under DDoS attack originating from some fixed foreign IP.
Since it becomes impossible to "block access" without CRTC approval, does that mean the ISP has to take it like a bitch while waiting from the OK to have it blackholed?
What about any other kinds of attacks?
What about Spam filtering?I really don't think the CRTC really understands the issue.
I should know, I listened to some of the public hearings a few months back.Disclaimer: I work for an affected ISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830205</id>
	<title>Thank you, CRTC</title>
	<author>yamfry</author>
	<datestamp>1256128440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We appreciate that you are encouraging the incumbent oligopolists to "make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible" by providing them with an incentive to do the exact opposite. I guess that's what happens when friends regulate friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We appreciate that you are encouraging the incumbent oligopolists to " make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible " by providing them with an incentive to do the exact opposite .
I guess that 's what happens when friends regulate friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We appreciate that you are encouraging the incumbent oligopolists to "make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible" by providing them with an incentive to do the exact opposite.
I guess that's what happens when friends regulate friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831803</id>
	<title>What everyone overlooks ...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1256145000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdotters see a "Net Neutrality" debate, which is a borrowed phrase that encompasses a lot more than "can an ISP use packet analysis to throttle BitTorrent", which is what Bell, Rogers, etc, customers see this as.</p><p>What this ruling is about, however, goes back to how smaller ISPs were created in the first place in Canada. Basically, the CRTC said, about 20 years ago, something that might be summed up as:</p><p>Because you (the Telecos) enjoy a Utility status you have to, at the same price it costs you to transmit data across your lines, sell connectivity to smaller ISPs across those same lines, and do so in a manner that doesn't discriminate against them to your competitive advantage.<br>You can't offer your own customers access to a pipe that you don't also offer these independents.<br>You cannot say no to an ISP who wants to set up shop and needs what is on your poles and cables.<br>We are making you do this because we made it easy for you to build those poles across public and private land a long time ago, so there is a public interest in that infrastructure.<br>We do this because we think competition amongst a large number of providers is better than handing you the whole shebang to screw with like you did the phone system for about a hundred years.</p><p>Come around 2007 or so, and these independent ISPs complain that the telecos are throttling the lines they sell to these independent ISPs by the use of packet sniffing technology hunting for P2P data, and they go to the CRTC, who sets these rules, and complain that the telecos are not living up to the bargain outlined above. What they wanted was for the CRTC to say the teleco can do whatever it wants to their own customers, but the pipe to the indy ISPs must be as fat and unencumbered as ever.</p><p>The telecos respond saying "we have to, or our network will be overwhelmed".</p><p>The indy ISPs did not get what they wanted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a ban on traffic shaping of any kind.</p><p>They did, however get what they were promised a few decades ago (see above). A lot of the noise over this last ruling comes from people who have accounts with ISPs and wanted a ruling saying "you can't throttle my BitTorrent traffic".</p><p>The fundamental issue, however, was addressed: This ruling says telecos cannot throttle anything they sell to these indy ISPs that they don't throttle to their own customers. They leave it up to the telecos to manage their network, but let it be known they won't tolerate the telecos doing something to the indy ISPs unless they also do it to themselves in exactly the same way and under exactly the same circumstances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdotters see a " Net Neutrality " debate , which is a borrowed phrase that encompasses a lot more than " can an ISP use packet analysis to throttle BitTorrent " , which is what Bell , Rogers , etc , customers see this as.What this ruling is about , however , goes back to how smaller ISPs were created in the first place in Canada .
Basically , the CRTC said , about 20 years ago , something that might be summed up as : Because you ( the Telecos ) enjoy a Utility status you have to , at the same price it costs you to transmit data across your lines , sell connectivity to smaller ISPs across those same lines , and do so in a manner that does n't discriminate against them to your competitive advantage.You ca n't offer your own customers access to a pipe that you do n't also offer these independents.You can not say no to an ISP who wants to set up shop and needs what is on your poles and cables.We are making you do this because we made it easy for you to build those poles across public and private land a long time ago , so there is a public interest in that infrastructure.We do this because we think competition amongst a large number of providers is better than handing you the whole shebang to screw with like you did the phone system for about a hundred years.Come around 2007 or so , and these independent ISPs complain that the telecos are throttling the lines they sell to these independent ISPs by the use of packet sniffing technology hunting for P2P data , and they go to the CRTC , who sets these rules , and complain that the telecos are not living up to the bargain outlined above .
What they wanted was for the CRTC to say the teleco can do whatever it wants to their own customers , but the pipe to the indy ISPs must be as fat and unencumbered as ever.The telecos respond saying " we have to , or our network will be overwhelmed " .The indy ISPs did not get what they wanted ... a ban on traffic shaping of any kind.They did , however get what they were promised a few decades ago ( see above ) .
A lot of the noise over this last ruling comes from people who have accounts with ISPs and wanted a ruling saying " you ca n't throttle my BitTorrent traffic " .The fundamental issue , however , was addressed : This ruling says telecos can not throttle anything they sell to these indy ISPs that they do n't throttle to their own customers .
They leave it up to the telecos to manage their network , but let it be known they wo n't tolerate the telecos doing something to the indy ISPs unless they also do it to themselves in exactly the same way and under exactly the same circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdotters see a "Net Neutrality" debate, which is a borrowed phrase that encompasses a lot more than "can an ISP use packet analysis to throttle BitTorrent", which is what Bell, Rogers, etc, customers see this as.What this ruling is about, however, goes back to how smaller ISPs were created in the first place in Canada.
Basically, the CRTC said, about 20 years ago, something that might be summed up as:Because you (the Telecos) enjoy a Utility status you have to, at the same price it costs you to transmit data across your lines, sell connectivity to smaller ISPs across those same lines, and do so in a manner that doesn't discriminate against them to your competitive advantage.You can't offer your own customers access to a pipe that you don't also offer these independents.You cannot say no to an ISP who wants to set up shop and needs what is on your poles and cables.We are making you do this because we made it easy for you to build those poles across public and private land a long time ago, so there is a public interest in that infrastructure.We do this because we think competition amongst a large number of providers is better than handing you the whole shebang to screw with like you did the phone system for about a hundred years.Come around 2007 or so, and these independent ISPs complain that the telecos are throttling the lines they sell to these independent ISPs by the use of packet sniffing technology hunting for P2P data, and they go to the CRTC, who sets these rules, and complain that the telecos are not living up to the bargain outlined above.
What they wanted was for the CRTC to say the teleco can do whatever it wants to their own customers, but the pipe to the indy ISPs must be as fat and unencumbered as ever.The telecos respond saying "we have to, or our network will be overwhelmed".The indy ISPs did not get what they wanted ... a ban on traffic shaping of any kind.They did, however get what they were promised a few decades ago (see above).
A lot of the noise over this last ruling comes from people who have accounts with ISPs and wanted a ruling saying "you can't throttle my BitTorrent traffic".The fundamental issue, however, was addressed: This ruling says telecos cannot throttle anything they sell to these indy ISPs that they don't throttle to their own customers.
They leave it up to the telecos to manage their network, but let it be known they won't tolerate the telecos doing something to the indy ISPs unless they also do it to themselves in exactly the same way and under exactly the same circumstances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29835893</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm, no</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1256229540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no.</p><p>Yes it is marginally better than what was, which was nothing. So better than nothing. AKA greater than zero. Not exactly an astounding success.</p><p>I read the ruling but not all the way through the policy, and in this the devil is in the details. Time will tell how this works out. However experience tells me from the very hearings put on by the CRTC that the telcos are quite willing to lie and BS about what is the current state and why they need to do what they say they need to do. It was already shown from Bell's own reports that the crap falling out of their mouths in protest about the need for file shaping due to potential network congestion was utter garbage.</p><p>So the question is who is going to monitor, force compliance, or enforce this? CRTC? So far they seem to have no teeth whatsoever.</p><p>As for the notice, because of the monopolies  this is mostly a joke. So what they give you notice before screwing you? Is that supposed to make you feel better, more engaged? "Oh by the way, we are going to screw you royally by this date and their is nothing you can do short of dropping us and not having internet access so too freaking bad" Why don't they just take a photocopy of some guy giving me the finger and mail that to me as notice for all the good it will do anyone.</p><p>Here is how I see it playing out.</p><p>Bell: "I need to slow peoples connections!"<br>CRTC: "Why?"<br>Bell: "Because we don't have enough capacity."<br>CRTC: "Why don't you build more?"<br>Bell: "Too expensive."<br>CRTC: "What do you propose?"<br>Bell: "Here is some reports we made up to support our decision."<br>CRTC: "OK."<br>Bell: "Exceelllleent!" (arching fingers)</p><p>Nothing will be independent. CRTC will depend on teleco expertise to TELL them what is required.</p><p>In a word. Lame.</p><p>It is better than what we had, and if we fight enough, perhaps just the first step to something more comprehensive. I noticed the other day that Finland just made internet access a "right". We will see how long the Canadian government continues to drop the ball.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no.Yes it is marginally better than what was , which was nothing .
So better than nothing .
AKA greater than zero .
Not exactly an astounding success.I read the ruling but not all the way through the policy , and in this the devil is in the details .
Time will tell how this works out .
However experience tells me from the very hearings put on by the CRTC that the telcos are quite willing to lie and BS about what is the current state and why they need to do what they say they need to do .
It was already shown from Bell 's own reports that the crap falling out of their mouths in protest about the need for file shaping due to potential network congestion was utter garbage.So the question is who is going to monitor , force compliance , or enforce this ?
CRTC ? So far they seem to have no teeth whatsoever.As for the notice , because of the monopolies this is mostly a joke .
So what they give you notice before screwing you ?
Is that supposed to make you feel better , more engaged ?
" Oh by the way , we are going to screw you royally by this date and their is nothing you can do short of dropping us and not having internet access so too freaking bad " Why do n't they just take a photocopy of some guy giving me the finger and mail that to me as notice for all the good it will do anyone.Here is how I see it playing out.Bell : " I need to slow peoples connections !
" CRTC : " Why ?
" Bell : " Because we do n't have enough capacity .
" CRTC : " Why do n't you build more ?
" Bell : " Too expensive .
" CRTC : " What do you propose ?
" Bell : " Here is some reports we made up to support our decision .
" CRTC : " OK. " Bell : " Exceelllleent !
" ( arching fingers ) Nothing will be independent .
CRTC will depend on teleco expertise to TELL them what is required.In a word .
Lame.It is better than what we had , and if we fight enough , perhaps just the first step to something more comprehensive .
I noticed the other day that Finland just made internet access a " right " .
We will see how long the Canadian government continues to drop the ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.Yes it is marginally better than what was, which was nothing.
So better than nothing.
AKA greater than zero.
Not exactly an astounding success.I read the ruling but not all the way through the policy, and in this the devil is in the details.
Time will tell how this works out.
However experience tells me from the very hearings put on by the CRTC that the telcos are quite willing to lie and BS about what is the current state and why they need to do what they say they need to do.
It was already shown from Bell's own reports that the crap falling out of their mouths in protest about the need for file shaping due to potential network congestion was utter garbage.So the question is who is going to monitor, force compliance, or enforce this?
CRTC? So far they seem to have no teeth whatsoever.As for the notice, because of the monopolies  this is mostly a joke.
So what they give you notice before screwing you?
Is that supposed to make you feel better, more engaged?
"Oh by the way, we are going to screw you royally by this date and their is nothing you can do short of dropping us and not having internet access so too freaking bad" Why don't they just take a photocopy of some guy giving me the finger and mail that to me as notice for all the good it will do anyone.Here is how I see it playing out.Bell: "I need to slow peoples connections!
"CRTC: "Why?
"Bell: "Because we don't have enough capacity.
"CRTC: "Why don't you build more?
"Bell: "Too expensive.
"CRTC: "What do you propose?
"Bell: "Here is some reports we made up to support our decision.
"CRTC: "OK."Bell: "Exceelllleent!
" (arching fingers)Nothing will be independent.
CRTC will depend on teleco expertise to TELL them what is required.In a word.
Lame.It is better than what we had, and if we fight enough, perhaps just the first step to something more comprehensive.
I noticed the other day that Finland just made internet access a "right".
We will see how long the Canadian government continues to drop the ball.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833437</id>
	<title>Re:Ownership</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256212440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their pipes, at least the expensive last-mile ones, generally run over (or, rather, under) ground that is owned by the people and controlled by the government on their behalf, for example streets.  They were permitted to lay these pipes to provide certain services because the government, on behalf of the people, felt that it was advantageous for them to do so.  They are allowed to exist as a corporation which exists because the government, acting on behalf of the people, awarded them a corporate charter, which exists for the sole reason that it was decided that their existence would benefit society.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their pipes , at least the expensive last-mile ones , generally run over ( or , rather , under ) ground that is owned by the people and controlled by the government on their behalf , for example streets .
They were permitted to lay these pipes to provide certain services because the government , on behalf of the people , felt that it was advantageous for them to do so .
They are allowed to exist as a corporation which exists because the government , acting on behalf of the people , awarded them a corporate charter , which exists for the sole reason that it was decided that their existence would benefit society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their pipes, at least the expensive last-mile ones, generally run over (or, rather, under) ground that is owned by the people and controlled by the government on their behalf, for example streets.
They were permitted to lay these pipes to provide certain services because the government, on behalf of the people, felt that it was advantageous for them to do so.
They are allowed to exist as a corporation which exists because the government, acting on behalf of the people, awarded them a corporate charter, which exists for the sole reason that it was decided that their existence would benefit society.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830039</id>
	<title>Spineless CRTC</title>
	<author>RedACE7500</author>
	<datestamp>1256127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And of course the big ISPs get what they want, all they have to do is tell us first. How is this net neutrality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course the big ISPs get what they want , all they have to do is tell us first .
How is this net neutrality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course the big ISPs get what they want, all they have to do is tell us first.
How is this net neutrality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831517</id>
	<title>Re:typical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256141520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bah, at least Videotron has fast Internet. They're just as big crooks as Bell and Rogers, but they give faster net. It's better than nothing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , at least Videotron has fast Internet .
They 're just as big crooks as Bell and Rogers , but they give faster net .
It 's better than nothing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, at least Videotron has fast Internet.
They're just as big crooks as Bell and Rogers, but they give faster net.
It's better than nothing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830127</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...</p><p>fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..</p><p>and of course.. FUCK!!</p></div><p>But how do you really feel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..and of course. .
FUCK ! ! But how do you really feel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..and of course..
FUCK!!But how do you really feel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29840855</id>
	<title>Re:typical</title>
	<author>Tim MacDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1256210160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cogeco doesn't throttle, or block, anything. They do have bandwidth caps, but they're soft, and they just charge $5/GB over the cap, to a maximum of $30 extra. Most people I know just factor the extra $30 into their bill.

Personally, I have never hit my cap, although it's a commercial cap. ^\_^ 200 GB/mo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cogeco does n't throttle , or block , anything .
They do have bandwidth caps , but they 're soft , and they just charge $ 5/GB over the cap , to a maximum of $ 30 extra .
Most people I know just factor the extra $ 30 into their bill .
Personally , I have never hit my cap , although it 's a commercial cap .
^ \ _ ^ 200 GB/mo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cogeco doesn't throttle, or block, anything.
They do have bandwidth caps, but they're soft, and they just charge $5/GB over the cap, to a maximum of $30 extra.
Most people I know just factor the extra $30 into their bill.
Personally, I have never hit my cap, although it's a commercial cap.
^\_^ 200 GB/mo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837409</id>
	<title>Re:Shaping vs Crippling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256236020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.dslreports.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.dslreports.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.dslreports.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833941</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm, no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256218320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the ruling to say that ITMPs that even *incidentally* affect VOIP or video conferencing are prohibited (at least without prior CRTC authorization). To wit,</p><blockquote><div><p>In the case of time-sensitive audio or video traffic (i.e. real-time audio or video such as video conferencing and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services), ITMPs that introduce delays or jitter15 are likely to cause degradation to the service. The Commission considers that when noticeable degradation occurs, it amounts to controlling the content and influencing the meaning and purpose of the telecommunications in question.</p></div></blockquote><p>So just wrap P2P traffic in encrypted video conferencing traffic. Problem solved. And the kicker? We didn't need any regulatory order because an ISP wouldn't dare blocking videoconferencing traffic. And if they did they really wouldn't risk blocking HTTP so we could use that.</p><p>We don't need to depend on the state to solve this problem, we can do it ourselves. Stop hoping that our rulers will do the right thing for you when only a modicum of effort will let us exercise our self-determination. Take control. Stop being helpless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the ruling to say that ITMPs that even * incidentally * affect VOIP or video conferencing are prohibited ( at least without prior CRTC authorization ) .
To wit,In the case of time-sensitive audio or video traffic ( i.e .
real-time audio or video such as video conferencing and voice over Internet Protocol ( VoIP ) services ) , ITMPs that introduce delays or jitter15 are likely to cause degradation to the service .
The Commission considers that when noticeable degradation occurs , it amounts to controlling the content and influencing the meaning and purpose of the telecommunications in question.So just wrap P2P traffic in encrypted video conferencing traffic .
Problem solved .
And the kicker ?
We did n't need any regulatory order because an ISP would n't dare blocking videoconferencing traffic .
And if they did they really would n't risk blocking HTTP so we could use that.We do n't need to depend on the state to solve this problem , we can do it ourselves .
Stop hoping that our rulers will do the right thing for you when only a modicum of effort will let us exercise our self-determination .
Take control .
Stop being helpless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the ruling to say that ITMPs that even *incidentally* affect VOIP or video conferencing are prohibited (at least without prior CRTC authorization).
To wit,In the case of time-sensitive audio or video traffic (i.e.
real-time audio or video such as video conferencing and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services), ITMPs that introduce delays or jitter15 are likely to cause degradation to the service.
The Commission considers that when noticeable degradation occurs, it amounts to controlling the content and influencing the meaning and purpose of the telecommunications in question.So just wrap P2P traffic in encrypted video conferencing traffic.
Problem solved.
And the kicker?
We didn't need any regulatory order because an ISP wouldn't dare blocking videoconferencing traffic.
And if they did they really wouldn't risk blocking HTTP so we could use that.We don't need to depend on the state to solve this problem, we can do it ourselves.
Stop hoping that our rulers will do the right thing for you when only a modicum of effort will let us exercise our self-determination.
Take control.
Stop being helpless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831061</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>cjfs</author>
	<datestamp>1256135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I trust you already contacted the CRTC and representatives in your area? Maybe made donations or volunteered for parties that oppose this? Perhaps started creating ways to convince the general population this is a bad idea?</p><p>Or did you just post 37 expletives and forget about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust you already contacted the CRTC and representatives in your area ?
Maybe made donations or volunteered for parties that oppose this ?
Perhaps started creating ways to convince the general population this is a bad idea ? Or did you just post 37 expletives and forget about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust you already contacted the CRTC and representatives in your area?
Maybe made donations or volunteered for parties that oppose this?
Perhaps started creating ways to convince the general population this is a bad idea?Or did you just post 37 expletives and forget about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830195</id>
	<title>What I expect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Notification from your ISP: We are screwing you.  You have 60 days to find a better ISP, oh wait we are the only one that offers a high speed connection in your area so you have no choice but to take it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Notification from your ISP : We are screwing you .
You have 60 days to find a better ISP , oh wait we are the only one that offers a high speed connection in your area so you have no choice but to take it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notification from your ISP: We are screwing you.
You have 60 days to find a better ISP, oh wait we are the only one that offers a high speed connection in your area so you have no choice but to take it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832009</id>
	<title>Re:typical</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256147940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.teksavvy.com/" title="teksavvy.com">http://www.teksavvy.com/</a> [teksavvy.com] <br> <br>You're welcome. Unfortunately... a crtc decision will soon doom these companies. Go here to complain: <a href="http://www.consumersforinternetcompetition.com/" title="consumersf...tition.com">http://www.consumersforinternetcompetition.com/</a> [consumersf...tition.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.teksavvy.com/ [ teksavvy.com ] You 're welcome .
Unfortunately... a crtc decision will soon doom these companies .
Go here to complain : http : //www.consumersforinternetcompetition.com/ [ consumersf...tition.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.teksavvy.com/ [teksavvy.com]  You're welcome.
Unfortunately... a crtc decision will soon doom these companies.
Go here to complain: http://www.consumersforinternetcompetition.com/ [consumersf...tition.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831147</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256136780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Malaysia: 220 people/sq mile<br>Japan: 870 people/sq mile<br>South Korea: 1260 people/sq mile</p><p>US: 80 people/sq mile<br>Canada: 7.8 people/sq mile</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Malaysia : 220 people/sq mileJapan : 870 people/sq mileSouth Korea : 1260 people/sq mileUS : 80 people/sq mileCanada : 7.8 people/sq mile</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malaysia: 220 people/sq mileJapan: 870 people/sq mileSouth Korea: 1260 people/sq mileUS: 80 people/sq mileCanada: 7.8 people/sq mile</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831437</id>
	<title>The smell of government corruption:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What government says: <i>"Blah, blah, blah... Let's pretend to the taxpayers we're doing something for them."</i>

<br> <br>What government actually means: <i>"Big companies can do exactly as they like, if they've contributed to the designated politicians."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>What government says : " Blah , blah , blah... Let 's pretend to the taxpayers we 're doing something for them .
" What government actually means : " Big companies can do exactly as they like , if they 've contributed to the designated politicians .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What government says: "Blah, blah, blah... Let's pretend to the taxpayers we're doing something for them.
"

 What government actually means: "Big companies can do exactly as they like, if they've contributed to the designated politicians.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830887</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada...</title>
	<author>Informative</author>
	<datestamp>1256133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...we're always fucked up every orifice we've got, so there's no surprise here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we 're always fucked up every orifice we 've got , so there 's no surprise here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we're always fucked up every orifice we've got, so there's no surprise here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831227</id>
	<title>Re:How is warning given?</title>
	<author>PFAK</author>
	<datestamp>1256137920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can forward shaw.ca e-mail addresses to your personal email elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can forward shaw.ca e-mail addresses to your personal email elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can forward shaw.ca e-mail addresses to your personal email elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831641</id>
	<title>Thanks for nothing CRTC...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256142840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ruling is a big fat nothing. No seriously CRTC, could you have made any ruling that said less than this one? "Do what you want, but we reserve the right to not like it. Just give your customers warning so that they can also not like it and not do anything about it."</p><p>At least they could have said, "we don't give a flying fuck about net neutrality one way or the other so we're not going to regulate," but they didn't. They simply tried to come as close as possible to not actually making a decision. Even if you choose wrong at least have the balls to decide something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ruling is a big fat nothing .
No seriously CRTC , could you have made any ruling that said less than this one ?
" Do what you want , but we reserve the right to not like it .
Just give your customers warning so that they can also not like it and not do anything about it .
" At least they could have said , " we do n't give a flying fuck about net neutrality one way or the other so we 're not going to regulate , " but they did n't .
They simply tried to come as close as possible to not actually making a decision .
Even if you choose wrong at least have the balls to decide something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ruling is a big fat nothing.
No seriously CRTC, could you have made any ruling that said less than this one?
"Do what you want, but we reserve the right to not like it.
Just give your customers warning so that they can also not like it and not do anything about it.
"At least they could have said, "we don't give a flying fuck about net neutrality one way or the other so we're not going to regulate," but they didn't.
They simply tried to come as close as possible to not actually making a decision.
Even if you choose wrong at least have the balls to decide something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832181</id>
	<title>Re:Ownership</title>
	<author>onemorechip</author>
	<datestamp>1256150820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In return for the privileges that corporations receive (and for the inherent power they gain over individuals), some price has to be paid. Regulating commerce is exactly one of the things we the people (in an enlightened liberal state) specifically empower government to do.</p><p>This would hold even if the pipes were not subsidized with public money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In return for the privileges that corporations receive ( and for the inherent power they gain over individuals ) , some price has to be paid .
Regulating commerce is exactly one of the things we the people ( in an enlightened liberal state ) specifically empower government to do.This would hold even if the pipes were not subsidized with public money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In return for the privileges that corporations receive (and for the inherent power they gain over individuals), some price has to be paid.
Regulating commerce is exactly one of the things we the people (in an enlightened liberal state) specifically empower government to do.This would hold even if the pipes were not subsidized with public money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830229</id>
	<title>Re:Useless</title>
	<author>butalearner</author>
	<datestamp>1256128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are quite entitled to make any protests in the appropriate time period.  Provided, of course, you visit the unlit cellar with broken stairs at the ISP offices, where you can find the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are quite entitled to make any protests in the appropriate time period .
Provided , of course , you visit the unlit cellar with broken stairs at the ISP offices , where you can find the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are quite entitled to make any protests in the appropriate time period.
Provided, of course, you visit the unlit cellar with broken stairs at the ISP offices, where you can find the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831095</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1256136120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the Canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved, they were not privately funded</p></div><p>Same here in the USA.  Since the 1990s, it has been estimated that the Telcos (&amp; Cable Companies) have received in excess of $200 Billion dollars, specifically for laying Fiber to yours and my home.  None of which was done.  The telcos made promises, in order to receive money + additional taxes on bills + additional fees on bills (<i>many of which, if not all fees &amp; taxes are still being collected</i>) that they would put fiber to our homes.

</p><p>Worth repeating, The telcos received American tax revenue to put fiber to our homes and apartments.  They have been receiving this money since the 1990s.  They still receive money today.

</p><p>Where's the Fiber?   (<i>Think 80s Wendy's commercial, Where's the Beef? and you have the right idea</i>)

</p><p>In addition, they spend in excess of $1.8 million per week to lobby our elected officials against net neutrality, to prevent being forced to run fiber to our homes, to prevent losing their monopoly/oligopoly tiered pricing system, to prevent being forced to provide enough upstream bandwidth so that Americans can watch IP TV, Videos and "rich" content via the Internet.  All because they want to force to you pay for content via their Cable system ONLY.

</p><p>This has been going on for over 20+ years.

</p><p>The telcos were asked to provide fiber to homes in Wilson N.C., but refused.  Based on their refusal the local politicians decided to get fiber for their community and invited Greenlight into the community. Greenlight put fiber to people's homes and charged $100 per month for 100Mbps / 100Mbps (synchronous, not throttled) service to their customers.

</p><p>The Cable Company / telco response was to lobby the state legislature in North Carolina in order to prevent Greenlight from doing business and to prevent other communities from providing decent fiber service to themselves.  The public record is there for all to see.  It started last session and will continue next session.  Citizens of North Carolina, do something before its too late, let your politicians know that they need to force open the market and invite businesses in to put fiber all the way to people's homes.  Nothing less is acceptable.

</p><p>It's been 20+ years if American providers wanted you to have fiber you would have had it by now.  Stop defending the FUD and them.  They do not deserve anything but your contempt.

</p><p>FIOS charges $119 for 50MB/5MB.  At least its Fiber.

</p><p>In Japan, they have had 100Mbps/100Mbps for less than $55 per month as of 2000, thanks to government deregulation of NTT and fiber to homes.  (<i>Americans would have had this had the telcos been prevented from watering down and making un enforceable, The "Telecommunications Act of 1996".  The telcos lobbyists were very effective.  One can only imagine the parties held at Cable Company / Telco boardrooms all across the country at putting one over on American citizens.</i>)

</p><p>In Japan, by 2006, those same consumers were getting 1 Gbps / 1 Gbps (<i>again synchronous service, not throttled or shaped</i>) for less than $52 per month.  Unlike in America where politicians (<i>primarily Republicans</i>) keep touting Market competition, it actually exists in Japan, not here in America.  In America corporate monopolies and oligopolies prevent competition.

</p><p>If the market would or could work, it would have.  Face facts Americans, the market is NOT working.  We have a 20 year proof and history.  Other markets that are not working are obvious as well...wake up Americans, its already too late!

</p><p>One might ask how the Japanese could give more bandwidth to consumers while lowering prices at the same time.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Very good question as here in America, the telcos/cable companies try to lie and tell Americans that bandwidth is scarce.  It is not. This is a lie, it is FUD.  Just look at the conversations they have with investors to get the truth of the matter.</i></p> </div><p>Here is the Answer: Many years ago (<i>pre 2000</i>) some very smart scientists discovered that they could multiplex laser light so that one strand of fiber, just one strand, can be increased from X1 to X1024.  All you have to do is trade out the modem in the person's home for a new hardware device if you want to increase your customers bandwidth. It is that simple.  Once fiber is in the ground, the largest cost is done.  Maintenance is minimal when compared to the cost of laying the fiber optic cable.  Its pretty much immune to lightning thus many large universities and companies have been interconnecting their buildings with fiber for years.  None of this is new to those of us in the field, but consumers are kept as clueless as possible.  If you understood the truth of how you are being taken advantage of, they would not be able to get away with it.  You see with fiber, bandwidth is truly unlimited!  Bandwidth scarcity is a myth, created by greedy businesses (<i>Cable Cos / telcos</i>) to raise your monthly rate for ever, even when it is economically unsound to raise rates, they do, can and state that fact to financial analysts.  (<i>They tell the analysts, "Look at what a great business we have, we can raise rates, bandwidth has gone down, not up and we can keep doing this forever, regardless of other economic uncertainties invest in us and we will give you a great return on your investment</i>.)  There is no other reason but GREED.

</p><p>Do you like liars?  They promised to Politicians (<i>and through them to us, the tax payers</i>) in the 1990s to give Americans fiber?  And they quickly developed amnesia, forgot their promises, paid politicians to forget them also and raised American's monthly rates.  Good for them, bad for everyone else.  These companies should have honored their promise and put fiber to our homes.  But they have not, they do not, they will not...and their 20+ year history, based solely on their inaction shows you all the proof you need to scream for political interdiction.  Sorry shills, its been over 20 years, their actions, rather lack thereof speak volumes to all reasonable Americans!

</p><p>Without politicians holding their feet to the fire, we will not have fiber in 10 years.  This is hurting America, costing Americans jobs and opportunity.  I call it un American.  I call it shameful to treat the sons and daughters of American service men &amp; women with such callous disrespect, many of whom gave their lives so their prodigy could be FREE.  Even our founding fathers would be horrified at the Corporate tyranny that has become American business.

</p><p>Everything we need to prevent this injustice is in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Force your politicians to enforce them, it works, but you must be vigilant and pay attention.  If not you fail yourself and your family.

</p><p>Start local.  Talk to your friends to tell their friends, get a group together and get in your local politicians face and tell them that your community MUST HAVE FIBER TO HOMES (<i>over the last mile</i>) to compete in the global economy.  It will cost money, but it will cost you so much more if you fail to get fiber to your homes.  If they will not fix the problem, vote them out and put someone in office that will.  Get people elected that care more about serving your local community than building a financial war chest to run for another office.  It happened in Wilson N.C., though they are trying to legislate it away.  It can happen in your area, do not take No for an answer.  Your children and their children's future is literally at stake!  Its about have access to resources, net neutrality, creating jobs, creating opportunities.

</p><p>Take up the call a friend of mine used first and I repeat here freely,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Give me Fiber or give me death!</p></div><p>The survival of American families depends on this.  Our ancestors fought for us to be FREE and that includes freedom from tyranny of any kind, religious, political, corporate, etc...  As many before us have said, freedom comes with a price...  left to the Cable companies that price will be $150 per month per customer for life with throttled, restricted, limited, unable to watch rich content because they want you to pay another $150 for that in addition to your Internet access and bandwidth capped to a level that guarantees you must pay additional charges.

</p><p>One last thought about bandwidth caps, back in 2006 they knew the typical household will need a minimum of 300GB of bandwidth per month.  I would suggest to you that the actual amount will be much higher than 300Gb of bandwidth per month.  They knew this in 2006.  What cap did they first recommend using: 50MB of bandwidth per month.  Their intentions are clear by their actions not their words.

</p><p>Wake up, pay attention and learn before its too late. You MUST have net neutrality!  Without it you lose your freedom.  You have to fight against over $1.8 million in lobbyist money <b>per week</b> (<i>how much fiber would that put in the ground each week?</i>) to keep you like mushrooms, in the crap and in the dark.  Do not let them.


</p><p>More importantly do not join the corporations against your own family, neighbors and friends.  I say this, an avowed capitalist, if corporations are doing it wrong, there is a board of directors that should be held accountable.  There are good companies out there, that care more about people than the bottom line.  Granted most of these are private as public entities maximize share holder value, as it should be.  If you do not like what a company is doing, stop purchasing goods and services from them.  Make it cost them.  When enough people are holding them accountable with their dollars, they will not have a choice but to take notice.  It is not easy, it is not quick, but if you stick to your principles it will work.  Just look at the number of counties across America that will NOT allow a big box store to open doors and kill local businesses.  They are out there.  The truth is out there.  Now force your politicians to give you and your family what you need to not just survive, but to thrive!  If you do not, its not me that will be holding you accountable, but your own children.  Daddy, mommy, what did you do to make sure that things were better for us.  Keep it simple.  As for Internet Access....</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Give me Fiber or give me death!</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved , they were not privately fundedSame here in the USA .
Since the 1990s , it has been estimated that the Telcos ( &amp; Cable Companies ) have received in excess of $ 200 Billion dollars , specifically for laying Fiber to yours and my home .
None of which was done .
The telcos made promises , in order to receive money + additional taxes on bills + additional fees on bills ( many of which , if not all fees &amp; taxes are still being collected ) that they would put fiber to our homes .
Worth repeating , The telcos received American tax revenue to put fiber to our homes and apartments .
They have been receiving this money since the 1990s .
They still receive money today .
Where 's the Fiber ?
( Think 80s Wendy 's commercial , Where 's the Beef ?
and you have the right idea ) In addition , they spend in excess of $ 1.8 million per week to lobby our elected officials against net neutrality , to prevent being forced to run fiber to our homes , to prevent losing their monopoly/oligopoly tiered pricing system , to prevent being forced to provide enough upstream bandwidth so that Americans can watch IP TV , Videos and " rich " content via the Internet .
All because they want to force to you pay for content via their Cable system ONLY .
This has been going on for over 20 + years .
The telcos were asked to provide fiber to homes in Wilson N.C. , but refused .
Based on their refusal the local politicians decided to get fiber for their community and invited Greenlight into the community .
Greenlight put fiber to people 's homes and charged $ 100 per month for 100Mbps / 100Mbps ( synchronous , not throttled ) service to their customers .
The Cable Company / telco response was to lobby the state legislature in North Carolina in order to prevent Greenlight from doing business and to prevent other communities from providing decent fiber service to themselves .
The public record is there for all to see .
It started last session and will continue next session .
Citizens of North Carolina , do something before its too late , let your politicians know that they need to force open the market and invite businesses in to put fiber all the way to people 's homes .
Nothing less is acceptable .
It 's been 20 + years if American providers wanted you to have fiber you would have had it by now .
Stop defending the FUD and them .
They do not deserve anything but your contempt .
FIOS charges $ 119 for 50MB/5MB .
At least its Fiber .
In Japan , they have had 100Mbps/100Mbps for less than $ 55 per month as of 2000 , thanks to government deregulation of NTT and fiber to homes .
( Americans would have had this had the telcos been prevented from watering down and making un enforceable , The " Telecommunications Act of 1996 " .
The telcos lobbyists were very effective .
One can only imagine the parties held at Cable Company / Telco boardrooms all across the country at putting one over on American citizens .
) In Japan , by 2006 , those same consumers were getting 1 Gbps / 1 Gbps ( again synchronous service , not throttled or shaped ) for less than $ 52 per month .
Unlike in America where politicians ( primarily Republicans ) keep touting Market competition , it actually exists in Japan , not here in America .
In America corporate monopolies and oligopolies prevent competition .
If the market would or could work , it would have .
Face facts Americans , the market is NOT working .
We have a 20 year proof and history .
Other markets that are not working are obvious as well...wake up Americans , its already too late !
One might ask how the Japanese could give more bandwidth to consumers while lowering prices at the same time .
Very good question as here in America , the telcos/cable companies try to lie and tell Americans that bandwidth is scarce .
It is not .
This is a lie , it is FUD .
Just look at the conversations they have with investors to get the truth of the matter .
Here is the Answer : Many years ago ( pre 2000 ) some very smart scientists discovered that they could multiplex laser light so that one strand of fiber , just one strand , can be increased from X1 to X1024 .
All you have to do is trade out the modem in the person 's home for a new hardware device if you want to increase your customers bandwidth .
It is that simple .
Once fiber is in the ground , the largest cost is done .
Maintenance is minimal when compared to the cost of laying the fiber optic cable .
Its pretty much immune to lightning thus many large universities and companies have been interconnecting their buildings with fiber for years .
None of this is new to those of us in the field , but consumers are kept as clueless as possible .
If you understood the truth of how you are being taken advantage of , they would not be able to get away with it .
You see with fiber , bandwidth is truly unlimited !
Bandwidth scarcity is a myth , created by greedy businesses ( Cable Cos / telcos ) to raise your monthly rate for ever , even when it is economically unsound to raise rates , they do , can and state that fact to financial analysts .
( They tell the analysts , " Look at what a great business we have , we can raise rates , bandwidth has gone down , not up and we can keep doing this forever , regardless of other economic uncertainties invest in us and we will give you a great return on your investment .
) There is no other reason but GREED .
Do you like liars ?
They promised to Politicians ( and through them to us , the tax payers ) in the 1990s to give Americans fiber ?
And they quickly developed amnesia , forgot their promises , paid politicians to forget them also and raised American 's monthly rates .
Good for them , bad for everyone else .
These companies should have honored their promise and put fiber to our homes .
But they have not , they do not , they will not...and their 20 + year history , based solely on their inaction shows you all the proof you need to scream for political interdiction .
Sorry shills , its been over 20 years , their actions , rather lack thereof speak volumes to all reasonable Americans !
Without politicians holding their feet to the fire , we will not have fiber in 10 years .
This is hurting America , costing Americans jobs and opportunity .
I call it un American .
I call it shameful to treat the sons and daughters of American service men &amp; women with such callous disrespect , many of whom gave their lives so their prodigy could be FREE .
Even our founding fathers would be horrified at the Corporate tyranny that has become American business .
Everything we need to prevent this injustice is in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights .
Force your politicians to enforce them , it works , but you must be vigilant and pay attention .
If not you fail yourself and your family .
Start local .
Talk to your friends to tell their friends , get a group together and get in your local politicians face and tell them that your community MUST HAVE FIBER TO HOMES ( over the last mile ) to compete in the global economy .
It will cost money , but it will cost you so much more if you fail to get fiber to your homes .
If they will not fix the problem , vote them out and put someone in office that will .
Get people elected that care more about serving your local community than building a financial war chest to run for another office .
It happened in Wilson N.C. , though they are trying to legislate it away .
It can happen in your area , do not take No for an answer .
Your children and their children 's future is literally at stake !
Its about have access to resources , net neutrality , creating jobs , creating opportunities .
Take up the call a friend of mine used first and I repeat here freely,Give me Fiber or give me death ! The survival of American families depends on this .
Our ancestors fought for us to be FREE and that includes freedom from tyranny of any kind , religious , political , corporate , etc... As many before us have said , freedom comes with a price... left to the Cable companies that price will be $ 150 per month per customer for life with throttled , restricted , limited , unable to watch rich content because they want you to pay another $ 150 for that in addition to your Internet access and bandwidth capped to a level that guarantees you must pay additional charges .
One last thought about bandwidth caps , back in 2006 they knew the typical household will need a minimum of 300GB of bandwidth per month .
I would suggest to you that the actual amount will be much higher than 300Gb of bandwidth per month .
They knew this in 2006 .
What cap did they first recommend using : 50MB of bandwidth per month .
Their intentions are clear by their actions not their words .
Wake up , pay attention and learn before its too late .
You MUST have net neutrality !
Without it you lose your freedom .
You have to fight against over $ 1.8 million in lobbyist money per week ( how much fiber would that put in the ground each week ?
) to keep you like mushrooms , in the crap and in the dark .
Do not let them .
More importantly do not join the corporations against your own family , neighbors and friends .
I say this , an avowed capitalist , if corporations are doing it wrong , there is a board of directors that should be held accountable .
There are good companies out there , that care more about people than the bottom line .
Granted most of these are private as public entities maximize share holder value , as it should be .
If you do not like what a company is doing , stop purchasing goods and services from them .
Make it cost them .
When enough people are holding them accountable with their dollars , they will not have a choice but to take notice .
It is not easy , it is not quick , but if you stick to your principles it will work .
Just look at the number of counties across America that will NOT allow a big box store to open doors and kill local businesses .
They are out there .
The truth is out there .
Now force your politicians to give you and your family what you need to not just survive , but to thrive !
If you do not , its not me that will be holding you accountable , but your own children .
Daddy , mommy , what did you do to make sure that things were better for us .
Keep it simple .
As for Internet Access....Give me Fiber or give me death !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved, they were not privately fundedSame here in the USA.
Since the 1990s, it has been estimated that the Telcos (&amp; Cable Companies) have received in excess of $200 Billion dollars, specifically for laying Fiber to yours and my home.
None of which was done.
The telcos made promises, in order to receive money + additional taxes on bills + additional fees on bills (many of which, if not all fees &amp; taxes are still being collected) that they would put fiber to our homes.
Worth repeating, The telcos received American tax revenue to put fiber to our homes and apartments.
They have been receiving this money since the 1990s.
They still receive money today.
Where's the Fiber?
(Think 80s Wendy's commercial, Where's the Beef?
and you have the right idea)

In addition, they spend in excess of $1.8 million per week to lobby our elected officials against net neutrality, to prevent being forced to run fiber to our homes, to prevent losing their monopoly/oligopoly tiered pricing system, to prevent being forced to provide enough upstream bandwidth so that Americans can watch IP TV, Videos and "rich" content via the Internet.
All because they want to force to you pay for content via their Cable system ONLY.
This has been going on for over 20+ years.
The telcos were asked to provide fiber to homes in Wilson N.C., but refused.
Based on their refusal the local politicians decided to get fiber for their community and invited Greenlight into the community.
Greenlight put fiber to people's homes and charged $100 per month for 100Mbps / 100Mbps (synchronous, not throttled) service to their customers.
The Cable Company / telco response was to lobby the state legislature in North Carolina in order to prevent Greenlight from doing business and to prevent other communities from providing decent fiber service to themselves.
The public record is there for all to see.
It started last session and will continue next session.
Citizens of North Carolina, do something before its too late, let your politicians know that they need to force open the market and invite businesses in to put fiber all the way to people's homes.
Nothing less is acceptable.
It's been 20+ years if American providers wanted you to have fiber you would have had it by now.
Stop defending the FUD and them.
They do not deserve anything but your contempt.
FIOS charges $119 for 50MB/5MB.
At least its Fiber.
In Japan, they have had 100Mbps/100Mbps for less than $55 per month as of 2000, thanks to government deregulation of NTT and fiber to homes.
(Americans would have had this had the telcos been prevented from watering down and making un enforceable, The "Telecommunications Act of 1996".
The telcos lobbyists were very effective.
One can only imagine the parties held at Cable Company / Telco boardrooms all across the country at putting one over on American citizens.
)

In Japan, by 2006, those same consumers were getting 1 Gbps / 1 Gbps (again synchronous service, not throttled or shaped) for less than $52 per month.
Unlike in America where politicians (primarily Republicans) keep touting Market competition, it actually exists in Japan, not here in America.
In America corporate monopolies and oligopolies prevent competition.
If the market would or could work, it would have.
Face facts Americans, the market is NOT working.
We have a 20 year proof and history.
Other markets that are not working are obvious as well...wake up Americans, its already too late!
One might ask how the Japanese could give more bandwidth to consumers while lowering prices at the same time.
Very good question as here in America, the telcos/cable companies try to lie and tell Americans that bandwidth is scarce.
It is not.
This is a lie, it is FUD.
Just look at the conversations they have with investors to get the truth of the matter.
Here is the Answer: Many years ago (pre 2000) some very smart scientists discovered that they could multiplex laser light so that one strand of fiber, just one strand, can be increased from X1 to X1024.
All you have to do is trade out the modem in the person's home for a new hardware device if you want to increase your customers bandwidth.
It is that simple.
Once fiber is in the ground, the largest cost is done.
Maintenance is minimal when compared to the cost of laying the fiber optic cable.
Its pretty much immune to lightning thus many large universities and companies have been interconnecting their buildings with fiber for years.
None of this is new to those of us in the field, but consumers are kept as clueless as possible.
If you understood the truth of how you are being taken advantage of, they would not be able to get away with it.
You see with fiber, bandwidth is truly unlimited!
Bandwidth scarcity is a myth, created by greedy businesses (Cable Cos / telcos) to raise your monthly rate for ever, even when it is economically unsound to raise rates, they do, can and state that fact to financial analysts.
(They tell the analysts, "Look at what a great business we have, we can raise rates, bandwidth has gone down, not up and we can keep doing this forever, regardless of other economic uncertainties invest in us and we will give you a great return on your investment.
)  There is no other reason but GREED.
Do you like liars?
They promised to Politicians (and through them to us, the tax payers) in the 1990s to give Americans fiber?
And they quickly developed amnesia, forgot their promises, paid politicians to forget them also and raised American's monthly rates.
Good for them, bad for everyone else.
These companies should have honored their promise and put fiber to our homes.
But they have not, they do not, they will not...and their 20+ year history, based solely on their inaction shows you all the proof you need to scream for political interdiction.
Sorry shills, its been over 20 years, their actions, rather lack thereof speak volumes to all reasonable Americans!
Without politicians holding their feet to the fire, we will not have fiber in 10 years.
This is hurting America, costing Americans jobs and opportunity.
I call it un American.
I call it shameful to treat the sons and daughters of American service men &amp; women with such callous disrespect, many of whom gave their lives so their prodigy could be FREE.
Even our founding fathers would be horrified at the Corporate tyranny that has become American business.
Everything we need to prevent this injustice is in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Force your politicians to enforce them, it works, but you must be vigilant and pay attention.
If not you fail yourself and your family.
Start local.
Talk to your friends to tell their friends, get a group together and get in your local politicians face and tell them that your community MUST HAVE FIBER TO HOMES (over the last mile) to compete in the global economy.
It will cost money, but it will cost you so much more if you fail to get fiber to your homes.
If they will not fix the problem, vote them out and put someone in office that will.
Get people elected that care more about serving your local community than building a financial war chest to run for another office.
It happened in Wilson N.C., though they are trying to legislate it away.
It can happen in your area, do not take No for an answer.
Your children and their children's future is literally at stake!
Its about have access to resources, net neutrality, creating jobs, creating opportunities.
Take up the call a friend of mine used first and I repeat here freely,Give me Fiber or give me death!The survival of American families depends on this.
Our ancestors fought for us to be FREE and that includes freedom from tyranny of any kind, religious, political, corporate, etc...  As many before us have said, freedom comes with a price...  left to the Cable companies that price will be $150 per month per customer for life with throttled, restricted, limited, unable to watch rich content because they want you to pay another $150 for that in addition to your Internet access and bandwidth capped to a level that guarantees you must pay additional charges.
One last thought about bandwidth caps, back in 2006 they knew the typical household will need a minimum of 300GB of bandwidth per month.
I would suggest to you that the actual amount will be much higher than 300Gb of bandwidth per month.
They knew this in 2006.
What cap did they first recommend using: 50MB of bandwidth per month.
Their intentions are clear by their actions not their words.
Wake up, pay attention and learn before its too late.
You MUST have net neutrality!
Without it you lose your freedom.
You have to fight against over $1.8 million in lobbyist money per week (how much fiber would that put in the ground each week?
) to keep you like mushrooms, in the crap and in the dark.
Do not let them.
More importantly do not join the corporations against your own family, neighbors and friends.
I say this, an avowed capitalist, if corporations are doing it wrong, there is a board of directors that should be held accountable.
There are good companies out there, that care more about people than the bottom line.
Granted most of these are private as public entities maximize share holder value, as it should be.
If you do not like what a company is doing, stop purchasing goods and services from them.
Make it cost them.
When enough people are holding them accountable with their dollars, they will not have a choice but to take notice.
It is not easy, it is not quick, but if you stick to your principles it will work.
Just look at the number of counties across America that will NOT allow a big box store to open doors and kill local businesses.
They are out there.
The truth is out there.
Now force your politicians to give you and your family what you need to not just survive, but to thrive!
If you do not, its not me that will be holding you accountable, but your own children.
Daddy, mommy, what did you do to make sure that things were better for us.
Keep it simple.
As for Internet Access....Give me Fiber or give me death!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831587</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256142300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved</i> </p><p>Can anyone provide a source for this. I said it in a previous thread and someone called me on it. The two of us couldn't find any real evidence that this is the case. Bell was a government sanctioned monopoly with complex ties to the (publicly funded) railways throughout it's history; but no direct subsidies. I think Rogers may have purchased some formerly public infrastructure but, so far as I can tell, it purchased it with straight up private funds and never got subsidies. Some of the smaller ISPs (eg. Sasktel) certainly do have publicly subsidized infrastructure but they buy bandwidth from the big guys for backbone connections and they're opposed to throttling.</p><p>If anyone has a source for the "public subsidy" argument, post it! I'd love to read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved Can anyone provide a source for this .
I said it in a previous thread and someone called me on it .
The two of us could n't find any real evidence that this is the case .
Bell was a government sanctioned monopoly with complex ties to the ( publicly funded ) railways throughout it 's history ; but no direct subsidies .
I think Rogers may have purchased some formerly public infrastructure but , so far as I can tell , it purchased it with straight up private funds and never got subsidies .
Some of the smaller ISPs ( eg .
Sasktel ) certainly do have publicly subsidized infrastructure but they buy bandwidth from the big guys for backbone connections and they 're opposed to throttling.If anyone has a source for the " public subsidy " argument , post it !
I 'd love to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved Can anyone provide a source for this.
I said it in a previous thread and someone called me on it.
The two of us couldn't find any real evidence that this is the case.
Bell was a government sanctioned monopoly with complex ties to the (publicly funded) railways throughout it's history; but no direct subsidies.
I think Rogers may have purchased some formerly public infrastructure but, so far as I can tell, it purchased it with straight up private funds and never got subsidies.
Some of the smaller ISPs (eg.
Sasktel) certainly do have publicly subsidized infrastructure but they buy bandwidth from the big guys for backbone connections and they're opposed to throttling.If anyone has a source for the "public subsidy" argument, post it!
I'd love to read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833445</id>
	<title>Re:Spineless CRTC</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1256212560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it weren't for oligopoly, publication of their rules would become a bargaining point that would allow us to shop around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were n't for oligopoly , publication of their rules would become a bargaining point that would allow us to shop around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it weren't for oligopoly, publication of their rules would become a bargaining point that would allow us to shop around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831979</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256147580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that it would appear that other companies did not build a neighborhood node structure.  This put them years behind the US in delivering the Internet but once they did it was a lot faster.  Problem in the US is we have 1000 homes hung off a single neighborhood node which is supplied by a fiber connection to the head end.  This pretty much is how both DSL and cable work.</p><p>So you can give the homes "up to 20Mbit" access because the fiber link was upgraded from 256Mbit to (maybe) 2Gb.  We are probably now at the limit of how fast you can link the neighborhood node to the head end.  Sure, the right way today might be a fiber for each house - probably how it was done in Japan and Korea.  But we did do it that way and to change now would be a complete re-do of the entire system.  My guess is that would take billions and they just spend tens of millions upgrading the fiber to the neighborhood nodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that it would appear that other companies did not build a neighborhood node structure .
This put them years behind the US in delivering the Internet but once they did it was a lot faster .
Problem in the US is we have 1000 homes hung off a single neighborhood node which is supplied by a fiber connection to the head end .
This pretty much is how both DSL and cable work.So you can give the homes " up to 20Mbit " access because the fiber link was upgraded from 256Mbit to ( maybe ) 2Gb .
We are probably now at the limit of how fast you can link the neighborhood node to the head end .
Sure , the right way today might be a fiber for each house - probably how it was done in Japan and Korea .
But we did do it that way and to change now would be a complete re-do of the entire system .
My guess is that would take billions and they just spend tens of millions upgrading the fiber to the neighborhood nodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that it would appear that other companies did not build a neighborhood node structure.
This put them years behind the US in delivering the Internet but once they did it was a lot faster.
Problem in the US is we have 1000 homes hung off a single neighborhood node which is supplied by a fiber connection to the head end.
This pretty much is how both DSL and cable work.So you can give the homes "up to 20Mbit" access because the fiber link was upgraded from 256Mbit to (maybe) 2Gb.
We are probably now at the limit of how fast you can link the neighborhood node to the head end.
Sure, the right way today might be a fiber for each house - probably how it was done in Japan and Korea.
But we did do it that way and to change now would be a complete re-do of the entire system.
My guess is that would take billions and they just spend tens of millions upgrading the fiber to the neighborhood nodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830475</id>
	<title>Re:Last resort</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1256130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Presumably, if that is actually written into the law, then it means that traffic shaping could never be used. After all, there is always something that could be done prior to a last resort. It's like that phrase "best efforts". I suppose now we'll see the ISPs hiring hit squads to silence zealous users as a possible recourse prior to traffic shaping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably , if that is actually written into the law , then it means that traffic shaping could never be used .
After all , there is always something that could be done prior to a last resort .
It 's like that phrase " best efforts " .
I suppose now we 'll see the ISPs hiring hit squads to silence zealous users as a possible recourse prior to traffic shaping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably, if that is actually written into the law, then it means that traffic shaping could never be used.
After all, there is always something that could be done prior to a last resort.
It's like that phrase "best efforts".
I suppose now we'll see the ISPs hiring hit squads to silence zealous users as a possible recourse prior to traffic shaping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831539</id>
	<title>Also, its Policy and NOT Legislation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256141700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing in this policy limits network providers from managing their networks in any manner they deem fit.  If anything, it could work to prevent complaints.  The complaint against Bell about P2P traffic management in a wholesale service fell through when it was determined that Bell had taken appropriate action and had not violated any rules.  If Bell had published the ITMP, the complaint would likely have been killed sooner with less publicity.</p><p>Also, this is policy and not legislation.  In Canada, government departments like to issue policies and then act as if it has force of law.  A policy can be challenged in court more easily than legislation and can often be ignored if there is no legislative weight behind it.  This policy seems to be full of ambiguity (eg: what exactly qualifies as an ITMP? does suppression of DoS traffic? How about filtering of individuals for EULA violations?  What about contract services where the provider specifically says they will use ITMPS? umm... or law enforcement requests?).</p><p>All the policy really does is:</p><p>* point at section 27.2 of the 1993 Telecommunications act.  er...  the "fairness" section<br>* ask network providers to publish ITMPs in advance (there is no penalty for not doing so, and no legislation to back this up).<br>* vaguely outlines the evaluation process the CRTC will go through to determine if the ITMP is fair, if the CRTC receives a complaint.  Lots of weasel words and motherhood statements.  Not a lot of meat.</p><p>I don't believe this policy changes anything; it does provide the appearance of doing something.</p><p>Now, now: play nicely everyone and don't bother the CRTC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing in this policy limits network providers from managing their networks in any manner they deem fit .
If anything , it could work to prevent complaints .
The complaint against Bell about P2P traffic management in a wholesale service fell through when it was determined that Bell had taken appropriate action and had not violated any rules .
If Bell had published the ITMP , the complaint would likely have been killed sooner with less publicity.Also , this is policy and not legislation .
In Canada , government departments like to issue policies and then act as if it has force of law .
A policy can be challenged in court more easily than legislation and can often be ignored if there is no legislative weight behind it .
This policy seems to be full of ambiguity ( eg : what exactly qualifies as an ITMP ?
does suppression of DoS traffic ?
How about filtering of individuals for EULA violations ?
What about contract services where the provider specifically says they will use ITMPS ?
umm... or law enforcement requests ?
) .All the policy really does is : * point at section 27.2 of the 1993 Telecommunications act .
er... the " fairness " section * ask network providers to publish ITMPs in advance ( there is no penalty for not doing so , and no legislation to back this up ) .
* vaguely outlines the evaluation process the CRTC will go through to determine if the ITMP is fair , if the CRTC receives a complaint .
Lots of weasel words and motherhood statements .
Not a lot of meat.I do n't believe this policy changes anything ; it does provide the appearance of doing something.Now , now : play nicely everyone and do n't bother the CRTC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing in this policy limits network providers from managing their networks in any manner they deem fit.
If anything, it could work to prevent complaints.
The complaint against Bell about P2P traffic management in a wholesale service fell through when it was determined that Bell had taken appropriate action and had not violated any rules.
If Bell had published the ITMP, the complaint would likely have been killed sooner with less publicity.Also, this is policy and not legislation.
In Canada, government departments like to issue policies and then act as if it has force of law.
A policy can be challenged in court more easily than legislation and can often be ignored if there is no legislative weight behind it.
This policy seems to be full of ambiguity (eg: what exactly qualifies as an ITMP?
does suppression of DoS traffic?
How about filtering of individuals for EULA violations?
What about contract services where the provider specifically says they will use ITMPS?
umm... or law enforcement requests?
).All the policy really does is:* point at section 27.2 of the 1993 Telecommunications act.
er...  the "fairness" section* ask network providers to publish ITMPs in advance (there is no penalty for not doing so, and no legislation to back this up).
* vaguely outlines the evaluation process the CRTC will go through to determine if the ITMP is fair, if the CRTC receives a complaint.
Lots of weasel words and motherhood statements.
Not a lot of meat.I don't believe this policy changes anything; it does provide the appearance of doing something.Now, now: play nicely everyone and don't bother the CRTC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830665</id>
	<title>Re:Useless</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1256131920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are quite entitled to make any protests in the appropriate time period. Provided, of course, you visit the unlit cellar with broken stairs at the ISP offices, where you can find the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.</p></div><p>You got that far? Wow. I couldn't get past the Bengal tiger at first level support!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are quite entitled to make any protests in the appropriate time period .
Provided , of course , you visit the unlit cellar with broken stairs at the ISP offices , where you can find the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.You got that far ?
Wow. I could n't get past the Bengal tiger at first level support !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are quite entitled to make any protests in the appropriate time period.
Provided, of course, you visit the unlit cellar with broken stairs at the ISP offices, where you can find the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.You got that far?
Wow. I couldn't get past the Bengal tiger at first level support!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834965</id>
	<title>Re:Useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256225400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever thought of going into Advertising?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever thought of going into Advertising ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever thought of going into Advertising?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830451</id>
	<title>Re:Last resort</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256130300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The rest of us could try kerosene and flame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of us could try kerosene and flame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of us could try kerosene and flame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832087</id>
	<title>Re:Shaping vs Crippling</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256149080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is a partial list: <a href="http://azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad\_ISPs" title="azureuswiki.com">http://azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad\_ISPs</a> [azureuswiki.com] <br> <br>ISPs that cripple torrents and sometimes how.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a partial list : http : //azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad \ _ISPs [ azureuswiki.com ] ISPs that cripple torrents and sometimes how .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a partial list: http://azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad\_ISPs [azureuswiki.com]  ISPs that cripple torrents and sometimes how.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830111</id>
	<title>Re:Ownership</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1256127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, just like the railroads in the 19th century that were paid for by the government. There's a reason we called the people who then refused to give any money back to the government or listen to government legislation about the railroads "robber barons." Fun fact: When this was going on, one of the strongest opponents of the robber barons was Ambrose Bierce whom you may know as the writer of an "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge" and "The Devil's Dictionary." If he were alive today he would likely be railing against this sort of poor treatment of net neutrality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , just like the railroads in the 19th century that were paid for by the government .
There 's a reason we called the people who then refused to give any money back to the government or listen to government legislation about the railroads " robber barons .
" Fun fact : When this was going on , one of the strongest opponents of the robber barons was Ambrose Bierce whom you may know as the writer of an " An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge " and " The Devil 's Dictionary .
" If he were alive today he would likely be railing against this sort of poor treatment of net neutrality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, just like the railroads in the 19th century that were paid for by the government.
There's a reason we called the people who then refused to give any money back to the government or listen to government legislation about the railroads "robber barons.
" Fun fact: When this was going on, one of the strongest opponents of the robber barons was Ambrose Bierce whom you may know as the writer of an "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge" and "The Devil's Dictionary.
" If he were alive today he would likely be railing against this sort of poor treatment of net neutrality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830227</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bitch, but its better than what you have now.  Right now they don't have to even tell you.</p><p>This doesn't seem to preclude having a different law requiring it to be fair.  This is just to make sure it is disclosed to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bitch , but its better than what you have now .
Right now they do n't have to even tell you.This does n't seem to preclude having a different law requiring it to be fair .
This is just to make sure it is disclosed to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bitch, but its better than what you have now.
Right now they don't have to even tell you.This doesn't seem to preclude having a different law requiring it to be fair.
This is just to make sure it is disclosed to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831239</id>
	<title>Re:Subsidies for ip networks in Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256138160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks"</p><p>OK...  I see this statement now and then but never with any support.  Does anyone have a specific reference for direct subsidies to BELL, Shaw, Rogers, TELUS, etc from govts to build their IP networks?</p><p>The POTS/TDM side was rooted in the natural monopoly system which saw large revenues from long distance get fed back into building of infrastructure.  We also, at one time, had government ownership in the public communications arena but that is long gone.  I can't find a good reference to a similar situation with IP networks.</p><p>So forgive me if I am not using the correct search terms.  Can anyone provide enlightenment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks " OK... I see this statement now and then but never with any support .
Does anyone have a specific reference for direct subsidies to BELL , Shaw , Rogers , TELUS , etc from govts to build their IP networks ? The POTS/TDM side was rooted in the natural monopoly system which saw large revenues from long distance get fed back into building of infrastructure .
We also , at one time , had government ownership in the public communications arena but that is long gone .
I ca n't find a good reference to a similar situation with IP networks.So forgive me if I am not using the correct search terms .
Can anyone provide enlightenment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks"OK...  I see this statement now and then but never with any support.
Does anyone have a specific reference for direct subsidies to BELL, Shaw, Rogers, TELUS, etc from govts to build their IP networks?The POTS/TDM side was rooted in the natural monopoly system which saw large revenues from long distance get fed back into building of infrastructure.
We also, at one time, had government ownership in the public communications arena but that is long gone.
I can't find a good reference to a similar situation with IP networks.So forgive me if I am not using the correct search terms.
Can anyone provide enlightenment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831397</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1256139900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> But how do you really feel.</p> </div><p>


I really feel you should have ended that sentence with a question mark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But how do you really feel .
I really feel you should have ended that sentence with a question mark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But how do you really feel.
I really feel you should have ended that sentence with a question mark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833663</id>
	<title>Re:Shaping traffic might be necessary...</title>
	<author>PsychoSlashDot</author>
	<datestamp>1256215860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is traffic-shaping necessary?  Oh, right... it's necessary when you have a bunch of customers you're selling 3Mbps DSL circuits to who are very nearly saturating your backbone architecture and maxing out your peering agreements THEN you decide to "upgrade" your customers to 4Mbps service.  You do that to "compete" with those other guys on cable who have just raised their advertised service rates.  Of course, you don't actually upgrade your back-end... that's expensive.  You just adjust a port rate limit at the CO and call it a day.  Things start to break because of all of those nasty customers using 25\% more bandwidth than you can support.  Poof, traffic-shaping and you're back to 3Mbps per customer on average.  Hey!  Now you can "upgrade" everyone to 5Mbps service!</p><p>I'd far rather have a slower rated link that's guaranteed not interfered with than a faster but shaped link.</p><p>Note: the "other guys" on cable are doing the same thing, over-selling their links.  This is just a circle-jerk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is traffic-shaping necessary ?
Oh , right... it 's necessary when you have a bunch of customers you 're selling 3Mbps DSL circuits to who are very nearly saturating your backbone architecture and maxing out your peering agreements THEN you decide to " upgrade " your customers to 4Mbps service .
You do that to " compete " with those other guys on cable who have just raised their advertised service rates .
Of course , you do n't actually upgrade your back-end... that 's expensive .
You just adjust a port rate limit at the CO and call it a day .
Things start to break because of all of those nasty customers using 25 \ % more bandwidth than you can support .
Poof , traffic-shaping and you 're back to 3Mbps per customer on average .
Hey ! Now you can " upgrade " everyone to 5Mbps service ! I 'd far rather have a slower rated link that 's guaranteed not interfered with than a faster but shaped link.Note : the " other guys " on cable are doing the same thing , over-selling their links .
This is just a circle-jerk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is traffic-shaping necessary?
Oh, right... it's necessary when you have a bunch of customers you're selling 3Mbps DSL circuits to who are very nearly saturating your backbone architecture and maxing out your peering agreements THEN you decide to "upgrade" your customers to 4Mbps service.
You do that to "compete" with those other guys on cable who have just raised their advertised service rates.
Of course, you don't actually upgrade your back-end... that's expensive.
You just adjust a port rate limit at the CO and call it a day.
Things start to break because of all of those nasty customers using 25\% more bandwidth than you can support.
Poof, traffic-shaping and you're back to 3Mbps per customer on average.
Hey!  Now you can "upgrade" everyone to 5Mbps service!I'd far rather have a slower rated link that's guaranteed not interfered with than a faster but shaped link.Note: the "other guys" on cable are doing the same thing, over-selling their links.
This is just a circle-jerk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830989</id>
	<title>Re:Elections</title>
	<author>cjfs</author>
	<datestamp>1256134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did this happen because I voted Conservative? Or, put another way, would this have happened if the Liberals were in power?</p></div><p>The liberals <a href="http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/15947\_liberals-speak-out-in-support-of-net-neutrality" title="liberal.ca">stated</a> [liberal.ca] their support of net neutrality earlier in the year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did this happen because I voted Conservative ?
Or , put another way , would this have happened if the Liberals were in power ? The liberals stated [ liberal.ca ] their support of net neutrality earlier in the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did this happen because I voted Conservative?
Or, put another way, would this have happened if the Liberals were in power?The liberals stated [liberal.ca] their support of net neutrality earlier in the year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the CRTC really proved who has the pants in the family.</p><p>effectively, the ruling says "all we have to do (as ISP's; and let's not forget there are really only 3 flavours here) is provide notice that we are doing...everything we are already doing, and can now do it in a more legitimized way. thanks CRTC, the cheque is in the mail."</p><p>this really doesn't bode well for any new competition in any communications arena, including cell phone services, as the only players are the one's mentioned above.</p><p>for anyone mentioning that 'they own the pipes, let them do what they want". the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved, they were not privately funded. at the same time, money provided via a service charges on all bills was to go into a further system upgrade. the money seems to have never made it, and the companies continued to charge the fee and pocket the money the entire time AFTER the goverment had told them to stop it. it finally took a supreme court decision (yep, they fought it the entire way) to force them to spend the money on more than just fresh decorating the their offices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the CRTC really proved who has the pants in the family.effectively , the ruling says " all we have to do ( as ISP 's ; and let 's not forget there are really only 3 flavours here ) is provide notice that we are doing...everything we are already doing , and can now do it in a more legitimized way .
thanks CRTC , the cheque is in the mail .
" this really does n't bode well for any new competition in any communications arena , including cell phone services , as the only players are the one 's mentioned above.for anyone mentioning that 'they own the pipes , let them do what they want " .
the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved , they were not privately funded .
at the same time , money provided via a service charges on all bills was to go into a further system upgrade .
the money seems to have never made it , and the companies continued to charge the fee and pocket the money the entire time AFTER the goverment had told them to stop it .
it finally took a supreme court decision ( yep , they fought it the entire way ) to force them to spend the money on more than just fresh decorating the their offices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the CRTC really proved who has the pants in the family.effectively, the ruling says "all we have to do (as ISP's; and let's not forget there are really only 3 flavours here) is provide notice that we are doing...everything we are already doing, and can now do it in a more legitimized way.
thanks CRTC, the cheque is in the mail.
"this really doesn't bode well for any new competition in any communications arena, including cell phone services, as the only players are the one's mentioned above.for anyone mentioning that 'they own the pipes, let them do what they want".
the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved, they were not privately funded.
at the same time, money provided via a service charges on all bills was to go into a further system upgrade.
the money seems to have never made it, and the companies continued to charge the fee and pocket the money the entire time AFTER the goverment had told them to stop it.
it finally took a supreme court decision (yep, they fought it the entire way) to force them to spend the money on more than just fresh decorating the their offices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830329</id>
	<title>Well you put it best.</title>
	<author>Wrexs0ul</author>
	<datestamp>1256129400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been following this and there's really no difference to what telco/cablecos are doing right now. It's all spin factor you see:</p><p>"We're adding* protective measures* to ensure your regular* internet use* remains at high level of quality you've come to expect from Bellusawtron."</p><p>* at at additional $1.99/mo to your bill<br>* that prevent legitimate technology use that might be used for criminal/copyright infringrment purposes... like your computer<br>* Checking your @Bellusawtron.com email and browsing the telco/cableco news potal<br>* Which is 3-4 times per week for less than 30 minutes per session</p><p>Simply put, nothing's changed. Companies are now required to provide the spin letters they've been doing for years. Service is being fundamentally limited, but in a way that a majority of users won't understand relates to the message sent.</p><p>The funny/sad part is the fiber market has both improved and dropped in price tremendously with competition where I'm from, but just you try getting above a 1mbit connection to your home, or even a 1mbit who's QoS doesn't go to crap when you hit 60\% usage.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been following this and there 's really no difference to what telco/cablecos are doing right now .
It 's all spin factor you see : " We 're adding * protective measures * to ensure your regular * internet use * remains at high level of quality you 've come to expect from Bellusawtron .
" * at at additional $ 1.99/mo to your bill * that prevent legitimate technology use that might be used for criminal/copyright infringrment purposes... like your computer * Checking your @ Bellusawtron.com email and browsing the telco/cableco news potal * Which is 3-4 times per week for less than 30 minutes per sessionSimply put , nothing 's changed .
Companies are now required to provide the spin letters they 've been doing for years .
Service is being fundamentally limited , but in a way that a majority of users wo n't understand relates to the message sent.The funny/sad part is the fiber market has both improved and dropped in price tremendously with competition where I 'm from , but just you try getting above a 1mbit connection to your home , or even a 1mbit who 's QoS does n't go to crap when you hit 60 \ % usage.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been following this and there's really no difference to what telco/cablecos are doing right now.
It's all spin factor you see:"We're adding* protective measures* to ensure your regular* internet use* remains at high level of quality you've come to expect from Bellusawtron.
"* at at additional $1.99/mo to your bill* that prevent legitimate technology use that might be used for criminal/copyright infringrment purposes... like your computer* Checking your @Bellusawtron.com email and browsing the telco/cableco news potal* Which is 3-4 times per week for less than 30 minutes per sessionSimply put, nothing's changed.
Companies are now required to provide the spin letters they've been doing for years.
Service is being fundamentally limited, but in a way that a majority of users won't understand relates to the message sent.The funny/sad part is the fiber market has both improved and dropped in price tremendously with competition where I'm from, but just you try getting above a 1mbit connection to your home, or even a 1mbit who's QoS doesn't go to crap when you hit 60\% usage.-Matt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830201</id>
	<title>How is warning given?</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1256128440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is warning given? One of my links at home is through shaw.ca, and the killer is that customer support can't email you at anything but a shaw.ca email address (I asked about an outage and was told an email was sent about the planned maintenance, I asked what address they had for me on file, they said none so I tried to give them kurt@seifried.org and they said sorry, we can't enter that into the system, it has to be a shaw.ca address). I suspect warning will consist of a printed notice being placed in a filing cabinet with a sign saying "beware the leopard" on the front of it. The reality is that most large ISP's in North America are going to screw customers as much as possible and reduce infrastructure development due to short sighted accounting practices (rather than take a long term approach that would benefit customers and their bottom line ultimately). Case in point: my shaw cablemodem service is only twice as fast when I first signed up about 10 years ago, and that's with bandwidth caps in place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is warning given ?
One of my links at home is through shaw.ca , and the killer is that customer support ca n't email you at anything but a shaw.ca email address ( I asked about an outage and was told an email was sent about the planned maintenance , I asked what address they had for me on file , they said none so I tried to give them kurt @ seifried.org and they said sorry , we ca n't enter that into the system , it has to be a shaw.ca address ) .
I suspect warning will consist of a printed notice being placed in a filing cabinet with a sign saying " beware the leopard " on the front of it .
The reality is that most large ISP 's in North America are going to screw customers as much as possible and reduce infrastructure development due to short sighted accounting practices ( rather than take a long term approach that would benefit customers and their bottom line ultimately ) .
Case in point : my shaw cablemodem service is only twice as fast when I first signed up about 10 years ago , and that 's with bandwidth caps in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is warning given?
One of my links at home is through shaw.ca, and the killer is that customer support can't email you at anything but a shaw.ca email address (I asked about an outage and was told an email was sent about the planned maintenance, I asked what address they had for me on file, they said none so I tried to give them kurt@seifried.org and they said sorry, we can't enter that into the system, it has to be a shaw.ca address).
I suspect warning will consist of a printed notice being placed in a filing cabinet with a sign saying "beware the leopard" on the front of it.
The reality is that most large ISP's in North America are going to screw customers as much as possible and reduce infrastructure development due to short sighted accounting practices (rather than take a long term approach that would benefit customers and their bottom line ultimately).
Case in point: my shaw cablemodem service is only twice as fast when I first signed up about 10 years ago, and that's with bandwidth caps in place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834513</id>
	<title>Fuck I hope I didn't throw out my dial up modem.</title>
	<author>Atrox666</author>
	<datestamp>1256222340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may need it for the speed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may need it for the speed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may need it for the speed</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830291</id>
	<title>Elections</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256129100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did this happen because I voted Conservative? Or, put another way, would this have happened if the Liberals were in power?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did this happen because I voted Conservative ?
Or , put another way , would this have happened if the Liberals were in power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did this happen because I voted Conservative?
Or, put another way, would this have happened if the Liberals were in power?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830663</id>
	<title>Re:Last resort</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256131920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot a few steps (at least for US-based ISPs):</p><p>1) Add more subscribers<br>2) Whine to congress about not enough bandwidth for subscriber-count<br>3) Get government handouts<br>4) Profit!!!<br>5) Pretend to upgrade network<br>6) Raise rates (ya know, for all the "upgrades")<br>7) Profit!!!<br>8) goto 1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot a few steps ( at least for US-based ISPs ) : 1 ) Add more subscribers2 ) Whine to congress about not enough bandwidth for subscriber-count3 ) Get government handouts4 ) Profit ! !
! 5 ) Pretend to upgrade network6 ) Raise rates ( ya know , for all the " upgrades " ) 7 ) Profit ! !
! 8 ) goto 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot a few steps (at least for US-based ISPs):1) Add more subscribers2) Whine to congress about not enough bandwidth for subscriber-count3) Get government handouts4) Profit!!
!5) Pretend to upgrade network6) Raise rates (ya know, for all the "upgrades")7) Profit!!
!8) goto 1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831513</id>
	<title>Re:Elections</title>
	<author>jeffstar</author>
	<datestamp>1256141460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>both parties are garbage.  You have to take the garbage out now and then or it really starts to stink.  The liberals got too smelly.</p><p>It shouldn't matter what party is in power when the  CRTC makes decisions?  I suppose the CBC should also be neutral instead of having a liberal slant as well.</p><p>I haven't read the ruling but it sounds like it is all you can expect. Some traffic *is* more important than other traffic and some people pay a premium for faster/lower latency connections.</p><p>At least the telcos aren't allowed to deliberately slow down VOIP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>both parties are garbage .
You have to take the garbage out now and then or it really starts to stink .
The liberals got too smelly.It should n't matter what party is in power when the CRTC makes decisions ?
I suppose the CBC should also be neutral instead of having a liberal slant as well.I have n't read the ruling but it sounds like it is all you can expect .
Some traffic * is * more important than other traffic and some people pay a premium for faster/lower latency connections.At least the telcos are n't allowed to deliberately slow down VOIP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>both parties are garbage.
You have to take the garbage out now and then or it really starts to stink.
The liberals got too smelly.It shouldn't matter what party is in power when the  CRTC makes decisions?
I suppose the CBC should also be neutral instead of having a liberal slant as well.I haven't read the ruling but it sounds like it is all you can expect.
Some traffic *is* more important than other traffic and some people pay a premium for faster/lower latency connections.At least the telcos aren't allowed to deliberately slow down VOIP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833991</id>
	<title>TANSTAFL - this is the real world</title>
	<author>volts</author>
	<datestamp>1256218680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Traffic management is necessary because bandwidth is less than infinite.  Extreme consumers will impair service to others if there is no mechanism to prevent this.  My company recently implemented bandwidth guarantees for VOIP traffic on the <em>fiber</em> between our buildings because file transfers were causing drop outs on phone calls.   In other words our routers throttle file transfers to provide decent QOS for voice.  I like the CRTC's approach because it provides transparency of ISPs QOS policies and creates an environment for competitive incentive to avoid abusive restrictions, with some fallback for adult supervision.</p><p>I'm a moderately heavy bittorent (Vuze) user.  My ISP is Rogers Cable, whose internet service is available in a <a href="http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?\_nfpb=true&amp;\_windowLabel=HiSpeedBrowse\_1\_2&amp;HiSpeedBrowse\_1\_2\_actionOverride=\%2Fportlets\%2Fconsumer\%2Finternet\%2Fbrowse\%2FhiSpeedCableBrowse\%2Fcompare&amp;HiSpeedBrowse\_1\_2productID=WAVE&amp;\_pageLabel=INTER\_HISPEED" title="rogers.com" rel="nofollow"> number of speeds/caps/pricing from $25 to $150 per month</a> [rogers.com].  Rogers has been reasonably open about its traffic management practices and is on record as throttling bittorrent on the upstream (from the house) because this is a scarce resource.  Problems for me - nil; obscure torrents with few peers/seeds run slowly, popular torrents download like sh** through a goose; surfing and Skype work smoothly even in peak periods. I left Bell Sympatico when my experience was the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Traffic management is necessary because bandwidth is less than infinite .
Extreme consumers will impair service to others if there is no mechanism to prevent this .
My company recently implemented bandwidth guarantees for VOIP traffic on the fiber between our buildings because file transfers were causing drop outs on phone calls .
In other words our routers throttle file transfers to provide decent QOS for voice .
I like the CRTC 's approach because it provides transparency of ISPs QOS policies and creates an environment for competitive incentive to avoid abusive restrictions , with some fallback for adult supervision.I 'm a moderately heavy bittorent ( Vuze ) user .
My ISP is Rogers Cable , whose internet service is available in a number of speeds/caps/pricing from $ 25 to $ 150 per month [ rogers.com ] .
Rogers has been reasonably open about its traffic management practices and is on record as throttling bittorrent on the upstream ( from the house ) because this is a scarce resource .
Problems for me - nil ; obscure torrents with few peers/seeds run slowly , popular torrents download like sh * * through a goose ; surfing and Skype work smoothly even in peak periods .
I left Bell Sympatico when my experience was the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traffic management is necessary because bandwidth is less than infinite.
Extreme consumers will impair service to others if there is no mechanism to prevent this.
My company recently implemented bandwidth guarantees for VOIP traffic on the fiber between our buildings because file transfers were causing drop outs on phone calls.
In other words our routers throttle file transfers to provide decent QOS for voice.
I like the CRTC's approach because it provides transparency of ISPs QOS policies and creates an environment for competitive incentive to avoid abusive restrictions, with some fallback for adult supervision.I'm a moderately heavy bittorent (Vuze) user.
My ISP is Rogers Cable, whose internet service is available in a  number of speeds/caps/pricing from $25 to $150 per month [rogers.com].
Rogers has been reasonably open about its traffic management practices and is on record as throttling bittorrent on the upstream (from the house) because this is a scarce resource.
Problems for me - nil; obscure torrents with few peers/seeds run slowly, popular torrents download like sh** through a goose; surfing and Skype work smoothly even in peak periods.
I left Bell Sympatico when my experience was the opposite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833897</id>
	<title>Re:The Fix is In</title>
	<author>Braedley</author>
	<datestamp>1256217900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, there's a town hall meeting in Halifax?  Why wasn't I informed of this earlier?

As a side note, at least the CRTC doesn't equate traffic shaping with throttling like a Reuters article I read earlier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , there 's a town hall meeting in Halifax ?
Why was n't I informed of this earlier ?
As a side note , at least the CRTC does n't equate traffic shaping with throttling like a Reuters article I read earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, there's a town hall meeting in Halifax?
Why wasn't I informed of this earlier?
As a side note, at least the CRTC doesn't equate traffic shaping with throttling like a Reuters article I read earlier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831167</id>
	<title>Re:typical</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1256137080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Videotron?</p><p>Okay, I'm kidding. I keep hearing about a nice local ISP in Toronto, forgot their name. I know Montreal and Southern Quebec has CoopTel which isn't too predatory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Videotron ? Okay , I 'm kidding .
I keep hearing about a nice local ISP in Toronto , forgot their name .
I know Montreal and Southern Quebec has CoopTel which is n't too predatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Videotron?Okay, I'm kidding.
I keep hearing about a nice local ISP in Toronto, forgot their name.
I know Montreal and Southern Quebec has CoopTel which isn't too predatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834985</id>
	<title>Re:Shaping vs Crippling</title>
	<author>dmatos</author>
	<datestamp>1256225640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd link you directly to the blog post by Michael Geist on this issue, but his blog site appears to be down right now.  Here's the rss feed through livejournal:</p><p><a href="http://syndicated.livejournal.com/michaelgeistrss/505360.html" title="livejournal.com">http://syndicated.livejournal.com/michaelgeistrss/505360.html</a> [livejournal.com]</p><p>A couple of excerpts of his analysis/summary that will interest you:</p><p>"traffic management that degrades or prefers one application over another may warrant investigation under section 27(2) of the Act."</p><p>"Even for non-sensitive traffic, the CRTC has ruled that it is possible to slow down to an extent that it amounts to blocking or controlling the content, therefore requiring prior approval."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd link you directly to the blog post by Michael Geist on this issue , but his blog site appears to be down right now .
Here 's the rss feed through livejournal : http : //syndicated.livejournal.com/michaelgeistrss/505360.html [ livejournal.com ] A couple of excerpts of his analysis/summary that will interest you : " traffic management that degrades or prefers one application over another may warrant investigation under section 27 ( 2 ) of the Act .
" " Even for non-sensitive traffic , the CRTC has ruled that it is possible to slow down to an extent that it amounts to blocking or controlling the content , therefore requiring prior approval .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd link you directly to the blog post by Michael Geist on this issue, but his blog site appears to be down right now.
Here's the rss feed through livejournal:http://syndicated.livejournal.com/michaelgeistrss/505360.html [livejournal.com]A couple of excerpts of his analysis/summary that will interest you:"traffic management that degrades or prefers one application over another may warrant investigation under section 27(2) of the Act.
""Even for non-sensitive traffic, the CRTC has ruled that it is possible to slow down to an extent that it amounts to blocking or controlling the content, therefore requiring prior approval.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</id>
	<title>As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...</p><p>fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..</p><p>and of course.. FUCK!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..and of course. .
FUCK ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..and of course..
FUCK!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831503</id>
	<title>damn you!</title>
	<author>gh0stee</author>
	<datestamp>1256141400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>wtf, I submitted this article like 10 hrs before this! Bastard!</htmltext>
<tokenext>wtf , I submitted this article like 10 hrs before this !
Bastard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wtf, I submitted this article like 10 hrs before this!
Bastard!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831233</id>
	<title>No big pipe protection?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1256137980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Primary ISPs generally submitted that for this reason, ITMPs designed to address congestion that are applied to their retail <br>services must also be applied to wholesale services provided to secondary ISPs."<br> <br>

Why could they not move to protect the ISP's who buy pipe space, best effort or dedicated bandwidth.<br>
So the Canadian gov can protect real bandwidth to paying customers ie other smaller regional or national ISP's.<br>
What a smaller regional ISP does with a pipe is of no real interest to a telco, the pipe is in place and if the ISP packs it, up and down , they paid for it.<br>
What the national networks do to their locked in consumers on their own networks is fine print.<br>
But to get a free pass to shape ISP's pipes must have taken some 'gifts'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Primary ISPs generally submitted that for this reason , ITMPs designed to address congestion that are applied to their retail services must also be applied to wholesale services provided to secondary ISPs .
" Why could they not move to protect the ISP 's who buy pipe space , best effort or dedicated bandwidth .
So the Canadian gov can protect real bandwidth to paying customers ie other smaller regional or national ISP 's .
What a smaller regional ISP does with a pipe is of no real interest to a telco , the pipe is in place and if the ISP packs it , up and down , they paid for it .
What the national networks do to their locked in consumers on their own networks is fine print .
But to get a free pass to shape ISP 's pipes must have taken some 'gifts' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Primary ISPs generally submitted that for this reason, ITMPs designed to address congestion that are applied to their retail services must also be applied to wholesale services provided to secondary ISPs.
" 

Why could they not move to protect the ISP's who buy pipe space, best effort or dedicated bandwidth.
So the Canadian gov can protect real bandwidth to paying customers ie other smaller regional or national ISP's.
What a smaller regional ISP does with a pipe is of no real interest to a telco, the pipe is in place and if the ISP packs it, up and down , they paid for it.
What the national networks do to their locked in consumers on their own networks is fine print.
But to get a free pass to shape ISP's pipes must have taken some 'gifts'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830407</id>
	<title>Business as usual</title>
	<author>GrBear</author>
	<datestamp>1256129940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're already traffic shaping, this just gives them an official OK..</p><p>Business as usual folks, nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're already traffic shaping , this just gives them an official OK..Business as usual folks , nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're already traffic shaping, this just gives them an official OK..Business as usual folks, nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830083</id>
	<title>Useless</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1256127480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>ISPs will be required to inform retail customers at least 30 days, and wholesale customers at least 60 days, before an Internet traffic management practice takes effect.</i></p><p>Most locales have de facto ISP monopolies. This ruling will just give customers 30 days warning of a rape, with no practical way to avoid it. Arguably better in theory, but no different in practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs will be required to inform retail customers at least 30 days , and wholesale customers at least 60 days , before an Internet traffic management practice takes effect.Most locales have de facto ISP monopolies .
This ruling will just give customers 30 days warning of a rape , with no practical way to avoid it .
Arguably better in theory , but no different in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs will be required to inform retail customers at least 30 days, and wholesale customers at least 60 days, before an Internet traffic management practice takes effect.Most locales have de facto ISP monopolies.
This ruling will just give customers 30 days warning of a rape, with no practical way to avoid it.
Arguably better in theory, but no different in practice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831255</id>
	<title>ISPs best get notices about spam filtering out</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1256138280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I suppose it's especially important that they reveal to customers they participate in the traffic management practice called "Spam and virus Filtering" or "Bulk Mail filtering",  including references to such things as spam folders, deletion/quarantine, etc, etc.
</p><p>
Otherwise, I see spammers going straight to the CRTC and raising complaints against ISPs for blocking or degrading their network performance (ability to deliver spam e-mail to their customers).
</p><p>
A similar issue exists for other types of internet abusers (that the ISP may blackhole or block access from to customers, for whatever reason)
</p><p>
Rulings in favor of  Net Neutrality don't just benefit content providers that customers <b>want</b> access to/from.
</p><p>
The <b>bad</b> guys  (even the ones offering spam, malware, viruses, adware, scams, etc)  are content providers also
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose it 's especially important that they reveal to customers they participate in the traffic management practice called " Spam and virus Filtering " or " Bulk Mail filtering " , including references to such things as spam folders , deletion/quarantine , etc , etc .
Otherwise , I see spammers going straight to the CRTC and raising complaints against ISPs for blocking or degrading their network performance ( ability to deliver spam e-mail to their customers ) .
A similar issue exists for other types of internet abusers ( that the ISP may blackhole or block access from to customers , for whatever reason ) Rulings in favor of Net Neutrality do n't just benefit content providers that customers want access to/from .
The bad guys ( even the ones offering spam , malware , viruses , adware , scams , etc ) are content providers also</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I suppose it's especially important that they reveal to customers they participate in the traffic management practice called "Spam and virus Filtering" or "Bulk Mail filtering",  including references to such things as spam folders, deletion/quarantine, etc, etc.
Otherwise, I see spammers going straight to the CRTC and raising complaints against ISPs for blocking or degrading their network performance (ability to deliver spam e-mail to their customers).
A similar issue exists for other types of internet abusers (that the ISP may blackhole or block access from to customers, for whatever reason)

Rulings in favor of  Net Neutrality don't just benefit content providers that customers want access to/from.
The bad guys  (even the ones offering spam, malware, viruses, adware, scams, etc)  are content providers also
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830375</id>
	<title>Re:Shaping vs Crippling - I have a  great idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about if a new p2p protocol was developed which embedded a time sensitive video feed into every packet (only a few bytes in each packet - make the video feed 10x10 pixels @ 20 fps or something).  The rest of the packets could then be devoted to transmitting actual useful data.  At 1 time sensitive video byte per 500 byte packet, that should guarantee about 1 Mb/s throughput.<br>Best part is that way the ISPs would need approval to degrade it (which they would no doubt get considering how useless the CRTC is, but at least it could slow them down).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about if a new p2p protocol was developed which embedded a time sensitive video feed into every packet ( only a few bytes in each packet - make the video feed 10x10 pixels @ 20 fps or something ) .
The rest of the packets could then be devoted to transmitting actual useful data .
At 1 time sensitive video byte per 500 byte packet , that should guarantee about 1 Mb/s throughput.Best part is that way the ISPs would need approval to degrade it ( which they would no doubt get considering how useless the CRTC is , but at least it could slow them down ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about if a new p2p protocol was developed which embedded a time sensitive video feed into every packet (only a few bytes in each packet - make the video feed 10x10 pixels @ 20 fps or something).
The rest of the packets could then be devoted to transmitting actual useful data.
At 1 time sensitive video byte per 500 byte packet, that should guarantee about 1 Mb/s throughput.Best part is that way the ISPs would need approval to degrade it (which they would no doubt get considering how useless the CRTC is, but at least it could slow them down).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830813</id>
	<title>Shaping traffic might be necessary...</title>
	<author>willy\_me</author>
	<datestamp>1256133240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But ISPs should be required to validate the shaping.  ISPs should be required to provide a web interface to allow users to see if shaping took place.  The amount of shaping, what traffic was shaped, and why it was required should also be provided upon request.  And overall statistics should be posted to ensure that the ISPs do not rely on shaping as a replacement for infrastructure investment (typically funded by the government).</p><p>
Without this information there is no way to keep the ISPs honest.  So require that is is available.  And the legal right for an ISP to shape traffic should be preserved just in case it is occasionally required.
</p><p>
As is stands, this is not required.  Net neutrality just died in Canada.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But ISPs should be required to validate the shaping .
ISPs should be required to provide a web interface to allow users to see if shaping took place .
The amount of shaping , what traffic was shaped , and why it was required should also be provided upon request .
And overall statistics should be posted to ensure that the ISPs do not rely on shaping as a replacement for infrastructure investment ( typically funded by the government ) .
Without this information there is no way to keep the ISPs honest .
So require that is is available .
And the legal right for an ISP to shape traffic should be preserved just in case it is occasionally required .
As is stands , this is not required .
Net neutrality just died in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But ISPs should be required to validate the shaping.
ISPs should be required to provide a web interface to allow users to see if shaping took place.
The amount of shaping, what traffic was shaped, and why it was required should also be provided upon request.
And overall statistics should be posted to ensure that the ISPs do not rely on shaping as a replacement for infrastructure investment (typically funded by the government).
Without this information there is no way to keep the ISPs honest.
So require that is is available.
And the legal right for an ISP to shape traffic should be preserved just in case it is occasionally required.
As is stands, this is not required.
Net neutrality just died in Canada.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830165</id>
	<title>Last resort</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We tried positive visualization, prayer beads, and yelling really loud at the routers.  Nothing worked.  I guess we'll have to implement traffic shaping now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We tried positive visualization , prayer beads , and yelling really loud at the routers .
Nothing worked .
I guess we 'll have to implement traffic shaping now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We tried positive visualization, prayer beads, and yelling really loud at the routers.
Nothing worked.
I guess we'll have to implement traffic shaping now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832753</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256203260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory\_capture" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">regulatory capture</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called regulatory capture [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called regulatory capture [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830681</id>
	<title>I'd like to see the CRTC come down hard on them</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1256132040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just once. <br> <br>And if the ISPs bitch too much, saying it's no longer profitable, then have the gov appropriate the "infrastructure upgrades" we paid for, and lease their use. Send 'em a bill for upgrade cash that wasn't spent on the network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just once .
And if the ISPs bitch too much , saying it 's no longer profitable , then have the gov appropriate the " infrastructure upgrades " we paid for , and lease their use .
Send 'em a bill for upgrade cash that was n't spent on the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just once.
And if the ISPs bitch too much, saying it's no longer profitable, then have the gov appropriate the "infrastructure upgrades" we paid for, and lease their use.
Send 'em a bill for upgrade cash that wasn't spent on the network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833933</id>
	<title>Re:billions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256218200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe 200 Billion over 20 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe 200 Billion over 20 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe 200 Billion over 20 years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837561</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm, no</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1256236620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's nice, a tiny victory for Net Neutrality..  however the other part of the CRTC's decision gave total control to the big 3 to charge resellers anything they want.
<br> <br>
Right now I have a 24MBit uncapped and unthrottled ASDL2+ connection for $39/month with a Bell reseller (colba.net). Yesterday I got a letter from my ISP telling me that under the new rules set by Bell, I was only really allowed to have 5-10GB a month, but that they would be so kind as to permit me to have 60GB a month at my current monthly rate. Every additional gigabyte would cost $0.75 to a maximum of $30. If I exceeded 300GB in a month I would then be DISCONNECTED until the end of the billing cycle.
<br> <br>
I don't know what asshat at the CRTC though that allowing Bell do charge whatever they want to the resellers would actually promote competition, but he/they should be shot out of a canon into a brick wall.

From their site:<blockquote><div><p>A retail customer is the end user who purchases access to the Internet.  The CRTC does not regulate rates, quality of service issues or business practices of Internet service providers as they relate to retail customers.  <b>This is because there is enough competition in the market that retail customers can shop around for service packages.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Thanks to this new ruling, the slim competition that existed will soon disappear; what reason do I have to use a reseller if they charge the same amount as Bell?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nice , a tiny victory for Net Neutrality.. however the other part of the CRTC 's decision gave total control to the big 3 to charge resellers anything they want .
Right now I have a 24MBit uncapped and unthrottled ASDL2 + connection for $ 39/month with a Bell reseller ( colba.net ) .
Yesterday I got a letter from my ISP telling me that under the new rules set by Bell , I was only really allowed to have 5-10GB a month , but that they would be so kind as to permit me to have 60GB a month at my current monthly rate .
Every additional gigabyte would cost $ 0.75 to a maximum of $ 30 .
If I exceeded 300GB in a month I would then be DISCONNECTED until the end of the billing cycle .
I do n't know what asshat at the CRTC though that allowing Bell do charge whatever they want to the resellers would actually promote competition , but he/they should be shot out of a canon into a brick wall .
From their site : A retail customer is the end user who purchases access to the Internet .
The CRTC does not regulate rates , quality of service issues or business practices of Internet service providers as they relate to retail customers .
This is because there is enough competition in the market that retail customers can shop around for service packages .
Thanks to this new ruling , the slim competition that existed will soon disappear ; what reason do I have to use a reseller if they charge the same amount as Bell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nice, a tiny victory for Net Neutrality..  however the other part of the CRTC's decision gave total control to the big 3 to charge resellers anything they want.
Right now I have a 24MBit uncapped and unthrottled ASDL2+ connection for $39/month with a Bell reseller (colba.net).
Yesterday I got a letter from my ISP telling me that under the new rules set by Bell, I was only really allowed to have 5-10GB a month, but that they would be so kind as to permit me to have 60GB a month at my current monthly rate.
Every additional gigabyte would cost $0.75 to a maximum of $30.
If I exceeded 300GB in a month I would then be DISCONNECTED until the end of the billing cycle.
I don't know what asshat at the CRTC though that allowing Bell do charge whatever they want to the resellers would actually promote competition, but he/they should be shot out of a canon into a brick wall.
From their site:A retail customer is the end user who purchases access to the Internet.
The CRTC does not regulate rates, quality of service issues or business practices of Internet service providers as they relate to retail customers.
This is because there is enough competition in the market that retail customers can shop around for service packages.
Thanks to this new ruling, the slim competition that existed will soon disappear; what reason do I have to use a reseller if they charge the same amount as Bell?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155</id>
	<title>typical</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1256128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Technical means to manage traffic, such as traffic shaping, should only be employed as a last resort</i>
<p>
And in this world, that means FIRST RESORT and STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.
</p><p>
Gutless gutless worthless CRTC.
</p><p>
<i> "Hey CRTC! Thanks for condemning Canada to third rate connectivity. Chintzing on the bandwidth saves the provider money - they have no incentive to provide better access, and since most people are tied into multi-year deals with their phone or cable service, a 30-day notice is fucking bullshit.</i>
</p><p>
FUCK CRTC and FUCK ROGERS and FUCK BELL CANADA. You people suck  great steaming tourdes out of my butthole you greedy pathetic scum sucking freaks.
</p><p>
Next question?
</p><p>
What real alternatives are there around here (Canada)?
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technical means to manage traffic , such as traffic shaping , should only be employed as a last resort And in this world , that means FIRST RESORT and STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE .
Gutless gutless worthless CRTC .
" Hey CRTC !
Thanks for condemning Canada to third rate connectivity .
Chintzing on the bandwidth saves the provider money - they have no incentive to provide better access , and since most people are tied into multi-year deals with their phone or cable service , a 30-day notice is fucking bullshit .
FUCK CRTC and FUCK ROGERS and FUCK BELL CANADA .
You people suck great steaming tourdes out of my butthole you greedy pathetic scum sucking freaks .
Next question ?
What real alternatives are there around here ( Canada ) ?
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technical means to manage traffic, such as traffic shaping, should only be employed as a last resort

And in this world, that means FIRST RESORT and STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.
Gutless gutless worthless CRTC.
"Hey CRTC!
Thanks for condemning Canada to third rate connectivity.
Chintzing on the bandwidth saves the provider money - they have no incentive to provide better access, and since most people are tied into multi-year deals with their phone or cable service, a 30-day notice is fucking bullshit.
FUCK CRTC and FUCK ROGERS and FUCK BELL CANADA.
You people suck  great steaming tourdes out of my butthole you greedy pathetic scum sucking freaks.
Next question?
What real alternatives are there around here (Canada)?
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831893</id>
	<title>As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1256146200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Honestly? I don't know the difference between WWW and the internet. I could guess, and I'd probably get close to correct, but how does it affect my every day browsing? I sure know what traffic shaping is though.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly ?
I do n't know the difference between WWW and the internet .
I could guess , and I 'd probably get close to correct , but how does it affect my every day browsing ?
I sure know what traffic shaping is though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly?
I don't know the difference between WWW and the internet.
I could guess, and I'd probably get close to correct, but how does it affect my every day browsing?
I sure know what traffic shaping is though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831647</id>
	<title>Pay as you go?</title>
	<author>Tijaska</author>
	<datestamp>1256143020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excuse my ignorance, I don't live in the USA so I'm not involved (yet), but doesn't the underlying problem stem from the fact that US ISPs aren't allowed to bill subscribers per megabyte of bandwidth consumed?  If subscribers paid for the bandwidth that they actually use, plus a fixed connection fee, the whole net neutrality debate might become totally irrelevant.  Users who want to download gigabytes per day would no longer be a problem, they would be an opportunity.  What's wrong with the old-fashioned idea of paying for what you use, rather than getting your neighbour to pay for it?  Or is it more complicated than that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse my ignorance , I do n't live in the USA so I 'm not involved ( yet ) , but does n't the underlying problem stem from the fact that US ISPs are n't allowed to bill subscribers per megabyte of bandwidth consumed ?
If subscribers paid for the bandwidth that they actually use , plus a fixed connection fee , the whole net neutrality debate might become totally irrelevant .
Users who want to download gigabytes per day would no longer be a problem , they would be an opportunity .
What 's wrong with the old-fashioned idea of paying for what you use , rather than getting your neighbour to pay for it ?
Or is it more complicated than that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse my ignorance, I don't live in the USA so I'm not involved (yet), but doesn't the underlying problem stem from the fact that US ISPs aren't allowed to bill subscribers per megabyte of bandwidth consumed?
If subscribers paid for the bandwidth that they actually use, plus a fixed connection fee, the whole net neutrality debate might become totally irrelevant.
Users who want to download gigabytes per day would no longer be a problem, they would be an opportunity.
What's wrong with the old-fashioned idea of paying for what you use, rather than getting your neighbour to pay for it?
Or is it more complicated than that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830243</id>
	<title>Re:Ownership</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256128740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can, if they don't want the benefits associated with being a carrier, and they'll have to make it clear they aren't an 'ISP' or something like that so people are not confused by it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can , if they do n't want the benefits associated with being a carrier , and they 'll have to make it clear they are n't an 'ISP ' or something like that so people are not confused by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can, if they don't want the benefits associated with being a carrier, and they'll have to make it clear they aren't an 'ISP' or something like that so people are not confused by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830569</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256131140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also live in Canada<br>I'm unsure exactly what part you are so upset about?</p><p>Content blocking is completely prohibited. Filtering of 'time sensitive' traffic requires CRTC approval.</p><p>I also don't see in any way how you were modded as insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also live in CanadaI 'm unsure exactly what part you are so upset about ? Content blocking is completely prohibited .
Filtering of 'time sensitive ' traffic requires CRTC approval.I also do n't see in any way how you were modded as insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also live in CanadaI'm unsure exactly what part you are so upset about?Content blocking is completely prohibited.
Filtering of 'time sensitive' traffic requires CRTC approval.I also don't see in any way how you were modded as insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831077</id>
	<title>As an American, I'm sorry.</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1256135820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Bush were still president, we'd invade and liberate your country. <p>You have oil. Canada is <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil\_gas/petroleum/data\_publications/company\_level\_imports/current/import.html" title="doe.gov" rel="nofollow">the largest exporters of oil to the US</a> [doe.gov].</p><p>Aye! We, the USA, must invade Canada and bring Democracy to your backward ways and of course to pay for that liberation, we'll have to run your oil fields. </p><p>You know, it's just not as funny with Obama as President.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Bush were still president , we 'd invade and liberate your country .
You have oil .
Canada is the largest exporters of oil to the US [ doe.gov ] .Aye !
We , the USA , must invade Canada and bring Democracy to your backward ways and of course to pay for that liberation , we 'll have to run your oil fields .
You know , it 's just not as funny with Obama as President .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Bush were still president, we'd invade and liberate your country.
You have oil.
Canada is the largest exporters of oil to the US [doe.gov].Aye!
We, the USA, must invade Canada and bring Democracy to your backward ways and of course to pay for that liberation, we'll have to run your oil fields.
You know, it's just not as funny with Obama as President.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831371</id>
	<title>Re:typical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget a FUCK TELUS in your rant. Telus is truly scum. Absolutely the worst customer service ever.</p><p>Telus sucks. It's true!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget a FUCK TELUS in your rant .
Telus is truly scum .
Absolutely the worst customer service ever.Telus sucks .
It 's true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget a FUCK TELUS in your rant.
Telus is truly scum.
Absolutely the worst customer service ever.Telus sucks.
It's true!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830223</id>
	<title>Amazing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US and Canada are so far behind in internet infrastructure it's pathetic. I forget the report I read recently but it said somthing like it would take 10 years or more for us to upgrade our infrastructure to even come close to Malaysia, South Korea, and Japan.</p><p>Many of these ISP's were subsidized by the government (at least in the USA) in agreement that they would upgrade their infrastructure so we could be on par with the rest of the world technologically. Many of our tax dollars paid for this 'upgrade' but in the end we got nothing. It is one of the biggest overlooked schemes ever.</p><p>The idea that traffic shaping should even be considered is total crap. North America should already have the infrastructure to handle the traffic at speeds far beyond what we're used to. I smell another 20 years of slow very incrimental speed increases all while we are sucked dry $49.00 a month for "High speed internet!! 50 times faster than dialup!!!!! Can't you believe that?? 50 times faster than DIALUP!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US and Canada are so far behind in internet infrastructure it 's pathetic .
I forget the report I read recently but it said somthing like it would take 10 years or more for us to upgrade our infrastructure to even come close to Malaysia , South Korea , and Japan.Many of these ISP 's were subsidized by the government ( at least in the USA ) in agreement that they would upgrade their infrastructure so we could be on par with the rest of the world technologically .
Many of our tax dollars paid for this 'upgrade ' but in the end we got nothing .
It is one of the biggest overlooked schemes ever.The idea that traffic shaping should even be considered is total crap .
North America should already have the infrastructure to handle the traffic at speeds far beyond what we 're used to .
I smell another 20 years of slow very incrimental speed increases all while we are sucked dry $ 49.00 a month for " High speed internet ! !
50 times faster than dialup ! ! ! ! !
Ca n't you believe that ? ?
50 times faster than DIALUP !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US and Canada are so far behind in internet infrastructure it's pathetic.
I forget the report I read recently but it said somthing like it would take 10 years or more for us to upgrade our infrastructure to even come close to Malaysia, South Korea, and Japan.Many of these ISP's were subsidized by the government (at least in the USA) in agreement that they would upgrade their infrastructure so we could be on par with the rest of the world technologically.
Many of our tax dollars paid for this 'upgrade' but in the end we got nothing.
It is one of the biggest overlooked schemes ever.The idea that traffic shaping should even be considered is total crap.
North America should already have the infrastructure to handle the traffic at speeds far beyond what we're used to.
I smell another 20 years of slow very incrimental speed increases all while we are sucked dry $49.00 a month for "High speed internet!!
50 times faster than dialup!!!!!
Can't you believe that??
50 times faster than DIALUP!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29840095</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1256205660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We REALLY need ALL your bandwidth every 45 seconds for about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.4 seconds.... sorry were you going to use VOIP, that's too bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We REALLY need ALL your bandwidth every 45 seconds for about .4 seconds.... sorry were you going to use VOIP , that 's too bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We REALLY need ALL your bandwidth every 45 seconds for about .4 seconds.... sorry were you going to use VOIP, that's too bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965</id>
	<title>Uhm, no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256134440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you read the ruling?<br> <br>

ISPs don't get to throttle at a whim. They <em>can</em> throttle, but if they do, they have to demonstrate to the CRTC that the throttling is as narrow as possible to solve the problem and, importantly, economic measures like tiers, or building capacity would not solve the problem. They're also not allowed to throttle any protocol so hard as to effectively block it, or throttle things like VOIP without advanced, explicit permission for the CRTC.<br> <br>That's a big <em>improvement</em> over the status quo at the moment, which has allowed the ISPs to throttle for years with no oversight for any reason they felt like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the ruling ?
ISPs do n't get to throttle at a whim .
They can throttle , but if they do , they have to demonstrate to the CRTC that the throttling is as narrow as possible to solve the problem and , importantly , economic measures like tiers , or building capacity would not solve the problem .
They 're also not allowed to throttle any protocol so hard as to effectively block it , or throttle things like VOIP without advanced , explicit permission for the CRTC .
That 's a big improvement over the status quo at the moment , which has allowed the ISPs to throttle for years with no oversight for any reason they felt like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the ruling?
ISPs don't get to throttle at a whim.
They can throttle, but if they do, they have to demonstrate to the CRTC that the throttling is as narrow as possible to solve the problem and, importantly, economic measures like tiers, or building capacity would not solve the problem.
They're also not allowed to throttle any protocol so hard as to effectively block it, or throttle things like VOIP without advanced, explicit permission for the CRTC.
That's a big improvement over the status quo at the moment, which has allowed the ISPs to throttle for years with no oversight for any reason they felt like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832133</id>
	<title>Re:Elections</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256149860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though that might not mean much it is certainly better than nothing. I believe obama has stated support for net neutrality as well.... but it hasn't so cleanly happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though that might not mean much it is certainly better than nothing .
I believe obama has stated support for net neutrality as well.... but it has n't so cleanly happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though that might not mean much it is certainly better than nothing.
I believe obama has stated support for net neutrality as well.... but it hasn't so cleanly happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831383</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm, no</title>
	<author>ptaff</author>
	<datestamp>1256139780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657: (emphasis mine)</p><blockquote><div><p>44. The Commission notes that Canadian ISPs have used certain ITMPs for the purposes of network security and integrity. Specifically, these ITMPs have been employed to protect users from network threats such as malicious software, spam, and <strong>distribution of illicit materials</strong>. In the Commission&rsquo;s view, such activities are unlikely to trigger complaints or concerns under the Act and are a necessary part of an ISP&rsquo;s network operations.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>45. <strong>The Commission is therefore not addressing, in this decision, ITMPs used only for the purpose of network security</strong>, nor those employed temporarily to address unpredictable traffic events (e.g. traffic surges due to global events and failures on part of an ISP&rsquo;s network) in order to protect network integrity.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sorry, but I don't grok how a router can tell an IP packet has an <em>illicit</em> payload.  Now wouldn't that be just what the ISP need to throttle any P2P protocol, in fact making all this &ldquo;warn before you harm&rdquo; policy moot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657 : ( emphasis mine ) 44 .
The Commission notes that Canadian ISPs have used certain ITMPs for the purposes of network security and integrity .
Specifically , these ITMPs have been employed to protect users from network threats such as malicious software , spam , and distribution of illicit materials .
In the Commission    s view , such activities are unlikely to trigger complaints or concerns under the Act and are a necessary part of an ISP    s network operations.45 .
The Commission is therefore not addressing , in this decision , ITMPs used only for the purpose of network security , nor those employed temporarily to address unpredictable traffic events ( e.g .
traffic surges due to global events and failures on part of an ISP    s network ) in order to protect network integrity.I 'm sorry , but I do n't grok how a router can tell an IP packet has an illicit payload .
Now would n't that be just what the ISP need to throttle any P2P protocol , in fact making all this    warn before you harm    policy moot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657: (emphasis mine)44.
The Commission notes that Canadian ISPs have used certain ITMPs for the purposes of network security and integrity.
Specifically, these ITMPs have been employed to protect users from network threats such as malicious software, spam, and distribution of illicit materials.
In the Commission’s view, such activities are unlikely to trigger complaints or concerns under the Act and are a necessary part of an ISP’s network operations.45.
The Commission is therefore not addressing, in this decision, ITMPs used only for the purpose of network security, nor those employed temporarily to address unpredictable traffic events (e.g.
traffic surges due to global events and failures on part of an ISP’s network) in order to protect network integrity.I'm sorry, but I don't grok how a router can tell an IP packet has an illicit payload.
Now wouldn't that be just what the ISP need to throttle any P2P protocol, in fact making all this “warn before you harm” policy moot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837425</id>
	<title>Re:Why does the army care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256236080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(aka: Watch when you use acronyms.  U.S.-centric acronyms are one thing,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers are used to it, but non-U.S. acronyms will be completely mis-construed by a vast majority of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers.)</p></div><p>We bow and humble ourselves.  Much shame that we have confused the ethno-centric US citizen with an acronym alias.  Even worse, it was done on an international scale, sort of (America junior).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( aka : Watch when you use acronyms .
U.S.-centric acronyms are one thing , / .
readers are used to it , but non-U.S. acronyms will be completely mis-construed by a vast majority of /.ers .
) We bow and humble ourselves .
Much shame that we have confused the ethno-centric US citizen with an acronym alias .
Even worse , it was done on an international scale , sort of ( America junior ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(aka: Watch when you use acronyms.
U.S.-centric acronyms are one thing, /.
readers are used to it, but non-U.S. acronyms will be completely mis-construed by a vast majority of /.ers.
)We bow and humble ourselves.
Much shame that we have confused the ethno-centric US citizen with an acronym alias.
Even worse, it was done on an international scale, sort of (America junior).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830919</id>
	<title>Re:The Fix is In</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256134080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sent Representative Steve King a letter about Net Neutrality and got a form letter back about having to pay state sales tax on internet purchases. His people obviously have no idea what the main idea behind Net Neutrality is or they've been lobbied into submission. Sad that such ignorant people are in charge of such things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sent Representative Steve King a letter about Net Neutrality and got a form letter back about having to pay state sales tax on internet purchases .
His people obviously have no idea what the main idea behind Net Neutrality is or they 've been lobbied into submission .
Sad that such ignorant people are in charge of such things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sent Representative Steve King a letter about Net Neutrality and got a form letter back about having to pay state sales tax on internet purchases.
His people obviously have no idea what the main idea behind Net Neutrality is or they've been lobbied into submission.
Sad that such ignorant people are in charge of such things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831995</id>
	<title>Re:As someone living in Canada..</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1256147700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>You:</b> fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck</p><p> <b>Eliza:</b> Please go on.</p><p> <tt># extra text to defeat repetition filter</tt> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You : fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck Eliza : Please go on .
# extra text to defeat repetition filter</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You: fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck Eliza: Please go on.
# extra text to defeat repetition filter </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031</id>
	<title>Ownership</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should anyone be required to do this.  It is their pipes.  They own it.  They run it.  They should be able to do what they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should anyone be required to do this .
It is their pipes .
They own it .
They run it .
They should be able to do what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should anyone be required to do this.
It is their pipes.
They own it.
They run it.
They should be able to do what they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831009</id>
	<title>Re:How is warning given?</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1256134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(rather than take a long term approach that would benefit customers and their bottom line ultimately)</p></div><p>Where's the goddamn Japanese when you need them! They operate in the long term. They'd show'em! If the ISPs dont' get it, well fuck'em! Just have a look at Detroit.</p><p>Wait a minute....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( rather than take a long term approach that would benefit customers and their bottom line ultimately ) Where 's the goddamn Japanese when you need them !
They operate in the long term .
They 'd show'em !
If the ISPs dont ' get it , well fuck'em !
Just have a look at Detroit.Wait a minute... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(rather than take a long term approach that would benefit customers and their bottom line ultimately)Where's the goddamn Japanese when you need them!
They operate in the long term.
They'd show'em!
If the ISPs dont' get it, well fuck'em!
Just have a look at Detroit.Wait a minute....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831275</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256138460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vancouver CANADA: 5,335 people/sq km<br>
Machida JAPAN: 5,772 people/sq km<br>
<br>
There are too many to choose from, but city densities are not quite so skewed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vancouver CANADA : 5,335 people/sq km Machida JAPAN : 5,772 people/sq km There are too many to choose from , but city densities are not quite so skewed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vancouver CANADA: 5,335 people/sq km
Machida JAPAN: 5,772 people/sq km

There are too many to choose from, but city densities are not quite so skewed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830217</id>
	<title>30/60 days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it's a little more than just a 30/60 day notification. They have to demonstrate to the CRTC that they have tried everything and still had to resort to traffic shaping in order to maintain quality of service.</p><p>One of the simple recommendations was to charge higher rates for high bandwith consumption. This isn't a blow for Net Neutrality but at the same time, they're not allowed to throttle for the next 30/60 days. Smaller ISPs will have to find other ways of competing other than offering unlimited bandwith for peanuts. It sucks but at least they have some avenues to pursue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it 's a little more than just a 30/60 day notification .
They have to demonstrate to the CRTC that they have tried everything and still had to resort to traffic shaping in order to maintain quality of service.One of the simple recommendations was to charge higher rates for high bandwith consumption .
This is n't a blow for Net Neutrality but at the same time , they 're not allowed to throttle for the next 30/60 days .
Smaller ISPs will have to find other ways of competing other than offering unlimited bandwith for peanuts .
It sucks but at least they have some avenues to pursue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it's a little more than just a 30/60 day notification.
They have to demonstrate to the CRTC that they have tried everything and still had to resort to traffic shaping in order to maintain quality of service.One of the simple recommendations was to charge higher rates for high bandwith consumption.
This isn't a blow for Net Neutrality but at the same time, they're not allowed to throttle for the next 30/60 days.
Smaller ISPs will have to find other ways of competing other than offering unlimited bandwith for peanuts.
It sucks but at least they have some avenues to pursue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175</id>
	<title>Shaping vs Crippling</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1256128200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>An ISP would therefore need to seek the Commission's approval before it implemented a practice that would:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * block the delivery of content to an end-user, or<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * slow down time-sensitive traffic, such as videoconferencing or Internet telephone (Voice over Internet Protocol) services, to the extent that the content is degraded.</p></div></blockquote><p>So ISPs can't slow down time-sensitive traffic without prior approval by the CRTC, but there's no restrictions on slowing down other kinds of traffi, perhaps even to the point where the link is useless without being completely blocked? That's exactly the reason why I fear traffic shaping. Far too often it's used as a way to cripple people's connections rather than provide clients with true "quality of service".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An ISP would therefore need to seek the Commission 's approval before it implemented a practice that would :         * block the delivery of content to an end-user , or         * slow down time-sensitive traffic , such as videoconferencing or Internet telephone ( Voice over Internet Protocol ) services , to the extent that the content is degraded.So ISPs ca n't slow down time-sensitive traffic without prior approval by the CRTC , but there 's no restrictions on slowing down other kinds of traffi , perhaps even to the point where the link is useless without being completely blocked ?
That 's exactly the reason why I fear traffic shaping .
Far too often it 's used as a way to cripple people 's connections rather than provide clients with true " quality of service " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An ISP would therefore need to seek the Commission's approval before it implemented a practice that would:
        * block the delivery of content to an end-user, or
        * slow down time-sensitive traffic, such as videoconferencing or Internet telephone (Voice over Internet Protocol) services, to the extent that the content is degraded.So ISPs can't slow down time-sensitive traffic without prior approval by the CRTC, but there's no restrictions on slowing down other kinds of traffi, perhaps even to the point where the link is useless without being completely blocked?
That's exactly the reason why I fear traffic shaping.
Far too often it's used as a way to cripple people's connections rather than provide clients with true "quality of service".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29835927</id>
	<title>Regulation vs. Competition</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1256229660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a lot of people saying that this law is useless.  On its own, with the market for service as limited as it is in many places, maybe that's so.</p><p>On the other hand, do you really want to start living with government-mandated network management policies?  Do you think they'll get it right?  Do you think political influences won't lead to regulations that require network management policies to suppress, say, p2p traffic?</p><p>Perhaps you wonder what's wrong with a law that says "all traffic must be treated as equal"?  Apart from the fact that this is bad network management policy, what's wrong is it will never happen.</p><p>Why do I say it's bad policy?  Well, spam is traffic.  Botnet c&amp;c is traffic.</p><p>Pretend we can write regulations that require all "legitimate" traffic to be treated as equal (and somehow define 'legitimate' in an appropraite way -- again, do you think p2p won't be slighted?)... now you're saying the <i>only</i> service that can be legally sold is flat bandwidth?  If I want to offer a service that reserves some of your bandwidth for VoIP or streaming media, I can't?  If I come up with some innovative new service that requires special network QoS treatment, it can never be marketed?</p><p>Ok, so maybe we say that you can <i>offer</i> traffic shaping, but you have to offer a flat bandwidth option as well.  I'm not sure this is technically feasible, and I have my doubts about letting regulators make that call, but we're getting close to the solutions I think are reasonable.</p><p>The key element is the involvement of consumer choice.  Consumer choice requires (1) that there be options, and (2) that the consumer be informed enough to choose among those options.  This law helps with the second point, so I'm not so sure it's useless... but it does leave the first point unaddressed.</p><p>In general, consumer choice does <i>not</i> require that any particular option you may want be available.  If there is true competition, then any option that "everybody wants" is going to be offered by someone.  Regulating an industry to ensure true competition isn't easy, though.</p><p>If you don't have true competition, what can you do?  Well, requiring everyone to offer a particular option amongst their offerings is one possibility.  It can get tricky.  ("Sure, we have a flat, unshaped 1Mbps option.")  I dislike the idea that to sell one thing I'd be required to also sell something else, as this could destroy legitimate niche business models.</p><p>Setting up a government-run option to compete with the private providers is another idea; the US is debating this approach to healthcare.  It's tricky to ensure the government provides just the right offering.  Ideally you want it to be good enough that it keeps the other guy honest, but not so good that people flock to it unless the other guy becomes dishonest.  It drags the government into lines of business many of us don't think they should be in.  It is subject to politics.  (Again, what happens when the government says "no p2p on <i>our</i> network"?)  And in the case of ISP service, you have to decide if you trust the government to handle all of your traffic; will they respect your privacy?</p><p>Overall, any solution that doesn't involve true competition is going to be a compromise, and true competition is going to be hard to get.  So, pick your poison and start pushing for whichever solution seems practical and acceptable to you.</p><p>But if you really look at it, any good solution is going to include keeping consumers more informed; so instead of wallowing in negativity about how this law doesn't solve the entire problem, you should consider it a positive first step and start doing something useful toward the next step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of people saying that this law is useless .
On its own , with the market for service as limited as it is in many places , maybe that 's so.On the other hand , do you really want to start living with government-mandated network management policies ?
Do you think they 'll get it right ?
Do you think political influences wo n't lead to regulations that require network management policies to suppress , say , p2p traffic ? Perhaps you wonder what 's wrong with a law that says " all traffic must be treated as equal " ?
Apart from the fact that this is bad network management policy , what 's wrong is it will never happen.Why do I say it 's bad policy ?
Well , spam is traffic .
Botnet c&amp;c is traffic.Pretend we can write regulations that require all " legitimate " traffic to be treated as equal ( and somehow define 'legitimate ' in an appropraite way -- again , do you think p2p wo n't be slighted ? ) .. .
now you 're saying the only service that can be legally sold is flat bandwidth ?
If I want to offer a service that reserves some of your bandwidth for VoIP or streaming media , I ca n't ?
If I come up with some innovative new service that requires special network QoS treatment , it can never be marketed ? Ok , so maybe we say that you can offer traffic shaping , but you have to offer a flat bandwidth option as well .
I 'm not sure this is technically feasible , and I have my doubts about letting regulators make that call , but we 're getting close to the solutions I think are reasonable.The key element is the involvement of consumer choice .
Consumer choice requires ( 1 ) that there be options , and ( 2 ) that the consumer be informed enough to choose among those options .
This law helps with the second point , so I 'm not so sure it 's useless... but it does leave the first point unaddressed.In general , consumer choice does not require that any particular option you may want be available .
If there is true competition , then any option that " everybody wants " is going to be offered by someone .
Regulating an industry to ensure true competition is n't easy , though.If you do n't have true competition , what can you do ?
Well , requiring everyone to offer a particular option amongst their offerings is one possibility .
It can get tricky .
( " Sure , we have a flat , unshaped 1Mbps option .
" ) I dislike the idea that to sell one thing I 'd be required to also sell something else , as this could destroy legitimate niche business models.Setting up a government-run option to compete with the private providers is another idea ; the US is debating this approach to healthcare .
It 's tricky to ensure the government provides just the right offering .
Ideally you want it to be good enough that it keeps the other guy honest , but not so good that people flock to it unless the other guy becomes dishonest .
It drags the government into lines of business many of us do n't think they should be in .
It is subject to politics .
( Again , what happens when the government says " no p2p on our network " ?
) And in the case of ISP service , you have to decide if you trust the government to handle all of your traffic ; will they respect your privacy ? Overall , any solution that does n't involve true competition is going to be a compromise , and true competition is going to be hard to get .
So , pick your poison and start pushing for whichever solution seems practical and acceptable to you.But if you really look at it , any good solution is going to include keeping consumers more informed ; so instead of wallowing in negativity about how this law does n't solve the entire problem , you should consider it a positive first step and start doing something useful toward the next step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of people saying that this law is useless.
On its own, with the market for service as limited as it is in many places, maybe that's so.On the other hand, do you really want to start living with government-mandated network management policies?
Do you think they'll get it right?
Do you think political influences won't lead to regulations that require network management policies to suppress, say, p2p traffic?Perhaps you wonder what's wrong with a law that says "all traffic must be treated as equal"?
Apart from the fact that this is bad network management policy, what's wrong is it will never happen.Why do I say it's bad policy?
Well, spam is traffic.
Botnet c&amp;c is traffic.Pretend we can write regulations that require all "legitimate" traffic to be treated as equal (and somehow define 'legitimate' in an appropraite way -- again, do you think p2p won't be slighted?)...
now you're saying the only service that can be legally sold is flat bandwidth?
If I want to offer a service that reserves some of your bandwidth for VoIP or streaming media, I can't?
If I come up with some innovative new service that requires special network QoS treatment, it can never be marketed?Ok, so maybe we say that you can offer traffic shaping, but you have to offer a flat bandwidth option as well.
I'm not sure this is technically feasible, and I have my doubts about letting regulators make that call, but we're getting close to the solutions I think are reasonable.The key element is the involvement of consumer choice.
Consumer choice requires (1) that there be options, and (2) that the consumer be informed enough to choose among those options.
This law helps with the second point, so I'm not so sure it's useless... but it does leave the first point unaddressed.In general, consumer choice does not require that any particular option you may want be available.
If there is true competition, then any option that "everybody wants" is going to be offered by someone.
Regulating an industry to ensure true competition isn't easy, though.If you don't have true competition, what can you do?
Well, requiring everyone to offer a particular option amongst their offerings is one possibility.
It can get tricky.
("Sure, we have a flat, unshaped 1Mbps option.
")  I dislike the idea that to sell one thing I'd be required to also sell something else, as this could destroy legitimate niche business models.Setting up a government-run option to compete with the private providers is another idea; the US is debating this approach to healthcare.
It's tricky to ensure the government provides just the right offering.
Ideally you want it to be good enough that it keeps the other guy honest, but not so good that people flock to it unless the other guy becomes dishonest.
It drags the government into lines of business many of us don't think they should be in.
It is subject to politics.
(Again, what happens when the government says "no p2p on our network"?
)  And in the case of ISP service, you have to decide if you trust the government to handle all of your traffic; will they respect your privacy?Overall, any solution that doesn't involve true competition is going to be a compromise, and true competition is going to be hard to get.
So, pick your poison and start pushing for whichever solution seems practical and acceptable to you.But if you really look at it, any good solution is going to include keeping consumers more informed; so instead of wallowing in negativity about how this law doesn't solve the entire problem, you should consider it a positive first step and start doing something useful toward the next step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831519</id>
	<title>Re:Blocking access?</title>
	<author>jeffstar</author>
	<datestamp>1256141520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i didn't read the ruling, and apparently neither did you, but from a post above it says you can block DDOS attacks and take measures in the event of outages or other 'network security'/malware etc events</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i did n't read the ruling , and apparently neither did you , but from a post above it says you can block DDOS attacks and take measures in the event of outages or other 'network security'/malware etc events</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i didn't read the ruling, and apparently neither did you, but from a post above it says you can block DDOS attacks and take measures in the event of outages or other 'network security'/malware etc events</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832735</id>
	<title>All the naysaying... WTF?</title>
	<author>RobbieCrash</author>
	<datestamp>1256203020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is fantastic. Now we actually have a way to find out WHAT they are doing and complain about it. There's no more "I think this is what's happening and it sucks." Now it's "I think this is what is happening, and it sucks... Is this the case?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Yeah? WHY? Fuck you, give me what I pay for."
<p>
Rogers, especially, has been advertising how you can download an HD movie in 2.3 seconds on their max best super ultra service. But they don't tell you that it's only if you do it from an authorized partner while using their DNS hijacking. Fuck them, it's my bandwidth, let me do it how I want. Now they have to tell us. </p><p> While it's not endgame, it's at least a step in the right direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is fantastic .
Now we actually have a way to find out WHAT they are doing and complain about it .
There 's no more " I think this is what 's happening and it sucks .
" Now it 's " I think this is what is happening , and it sucks... Is this the case ?
... Yeah ?
WHY ? Fuck you , give me what I pay for .
" Rogers , especially , has been advertising how you can download an HD movie in 2.3 seconds on their max best super ultra service .
But they do n't tell you that it 's only if you do it from an authorized partner while using their DNS hijacking .
Fuck them , it 's my bandwidth , let me do it how I want .
Now they have to tell us .
While it 's not endgame , it 's at least a step in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is fantastic.
Now we actually have a way to find out WHAT they are doing and complain about it.
There's no more "I think this is what's happening and it sucks.
" Now it's "I think this is what is happening, and it sucks... Is this the case?
... Yeah?
WHY? Fuck you, give me what I pay for.
"

Rogers, especially, has been advertising how you can download an HD movie in 2.3 seconds on their max best super ultra service.
But they don't tell you that it's only if you do it from an authorized partner while using their DNS hijacking.
Fuck them, it's my bandwidth, let me do it how I want.
Now they have to tell us.
While it's not endgame, it's at least a step in the right direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29836749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29835893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29840095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29840855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_2223229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29840855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29840095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830965
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833941
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831383
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29836749
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831437
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29835893
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831239
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29834985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29832133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29830813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29833663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_2223229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29831149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_2223229.29837425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
