<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_2313206</id>
	<title>Obama Looks Down Under For Broadband Plan</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256745960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>oranghutan writes <i>"The Obama administration is looking to the <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/324041/obama\_telecommunications\_advisor\_keen\_nbn\_detail?fp=16&amp;fpid=1">southern hemisphere for tips on how to improve the broadband situation in the US</a>. The key telco adviser to the president, Sarah Crawford, has met with Australian telco analysts recently to find out how the Aussies are rolling out their $40 billion+ national broadband network. It is also rumored that the Obama administration is looking to the Dutch and New Zealand situations for inspiration too. The article quotes an Aussie analyst as saying: 'There needs to be a multiplier effect in the investment you make in telecoms &mdash; it should not just be limited to high-speed Internet. That is pretty new and in the US it is nearly communism, that sort of thinking. They are not used to that level of sharing and going away from free-market politics to a situation whereby you are looking at the national interest. In all my 30 years in the industry, this is the first time America is interested in listening to people like myself from outside.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>oranghutan writes " The Obama administration is looking to the southern hemisphere for tips on how to improve the broadband situation in the US .
The key telco adviser to the president , Sarah Crawford , has met with Australian telco analysts recently to find out how the Aussies are rolling out their $ 40 billion + national broadband network .
It is also rumored that the Obama administration is looking to the Dutch and New Zealand situations for inspiration too .
The article quotes an Aussie analyst as saying : 'There needs to be a multiplier effect in the investment you make in telecoms    it should not just be limited to high-speed Internet .
That is pretty new and in the US it is nearly communism , that sort of thinking .
They are not used to that level of sharing and going away from free-market politics to a situation whereby you are looking at the national interest .
In all my 30 years in the industry , this is the first time America is interested in listening to people like myself from outside .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oranghutan writes "The Obama administration is looking to the southern hemisphere for tips on how to improve the broadband situation in the US.
The key telco adviser to the president, Sarah Crawford, has met with Australian telco analysts recently to find out how the Aussies are rolling out their $40 billion+ national broadband network.
It is also rumored that the Obama administration is looking to the Dutch and New Zealand situations for inspiration too.
The article quotes an Aussie analyst as saying: 'There needs to be a multiplier effect in the investment you make in telecoms — it should not just be limited to high-speed Internet.
That is pretty new and in the US it is nearly communism, that sort of thinking.
They are not used to that level of sharing and going away from free-market politics to a situation whereby you are looking at the national interest.
In all my 30 years in the industry, this is the first time America is interested in listening to people like myself from outside.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906759</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256752500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now consider what the bandwidth of the NBN will be used for.  TV, Telephone, Internet, Video Calls, remote diagnosis by doctors, huge benifits for schools, library's, research institutions, small/medium/large businesses and more.
<br> <br>
The NBN will form the backbone of Australian communications for many many decades to come.  The return on investment will take many years, but this is a long term project that will eventually be extremely profitable as well as hugely benificial to all Australians.
<br> <br>
I work in the Comms industry.  We have been crying out for this for years.  Coupled with a split of Telstra into Wholesale and Retail, this is a brilliant project for Australia.
<br> <br>
The US should follow our example, we have similar geographical problems and everyone who knows anything about communications agrees this is technically a great idea.  Some may be skeptical about the $, but all agree it's technically a brilliant idea.
<br> <br>
And using the term "our dear leader" shows your foolishness.  Do you understand communications technology at all, or are you just repeating something someone told you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now consider what the bandwidth of the NBN will be used for .
TV , Telephone , Internet , Video Calls , remote diagnosis by doctors , huge benifits for schools , library 's , research institutions , small/medium/large businesses and more .
The NBN will form the backbone of Australian communications for many many decades to come .
The return on investment will take many years , but this is a long term project that will eventually be extremely profitable as well as hugely benificial to all Australians .
I work in the Comms industry .
We have been crying out for this for years .
Coupled with a split of Telstra into Wholesale and Retail , this is a brilliant project for Australia .
The US should follow our example , we have similar geographical problems and everyone who knows anything about communications agrees this is technically a great idea .
Some may be skeptical about the $ , but all agree it 's technically a brilliant idea .
And using the term " our dear leader " shows your foolishness .
Do you understand communications technology at all , or are you just repeating something someone told you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now consider what the bandwidth of the NBN will be used for.
TV, Telephone, Internet, Video Calls, remote diagnosis by doctors, huge benifits for schools, library's, research institutions, small/medium/large businesses and more.
The NBN will form the backbone of Australian communications for many many decades to come.
The return on investment will take many years, but this is a long term project that will eventually be extremely profitable as well as hugely benificial to all Australians.
I work in the Comms industry.
We have been crying out for this for years.
Coupled with a split of Telstra into Wholesale and Retail, this is a brilliant project for Australia.
The US should follow our example, we have similar geographical problems and everyone who knows anything about communications agrees this is technically a great idea.
Some may be skeptical about the $, but all agree it's technically a brilliant idea.
And using the term "our dear leader" shows your foolishness.
Do you understand communications technology at all, or are you just repeating something someone told you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907371</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>dakameleon</author>
	<datestamp>1256759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, are you assuming it'll need to pay itself off in a year? That's not how long term projects work. I'd suggest it's probably going to be targeted for 20 - 30 year return period, so you'd be looking at a far different cost base.</p><p>The reason the government is doing it is because they're the only ones that can take a 20 - 30 year timescale. It's called building infrastructure, and it's what governments are supposed <em>to do</em> with our taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , are you assuming it 'll need to pay itself off in a year ?
That 's not how long term projects work .
I 'd suggest it 's probably going to be targeted for 20 - 30 year return period , so you 'd be looking at a far different cost base.The reason the government is doing it is because they 're the only ones that can take a 20 - 30 year timescale .
It 's called building infrastructure , and it 's what governments are supposed to do with our taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, are you assuming it'll need to pay itself off in a year?
That's not how long term projects work.
I'd suggest it's probably going to be targeted for 20 - 30 year return period, so you'd be looking at a far different cost base.The reason the government is doing it is because they're the only ones that can take a 20 - 30 year timescale.
It's called building infrastructure, and it's what governments are supposed to do with our taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907135</id>
	<title>Net Importers (excuse the pun)</title>
	<author>Niobe</author>
	<datestamp>1256757360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A national broadband network is one thing, but Australian consumers will continue to lament the high price of traffic compared to, basically, the rest of the developed world. To this day we pay many many times the price per GB of the US and Europe - and fibre to the node won't help that one iota.

As far as I can tell, this predicament is almost entirely a function of geography. The sheer cost of laying cable across large hemisphere-spanning oceans somewhat affects the delivery cost. And who is willing to invest? Not that someone didn't try. The mixed success of the Southern Cross venture (successful in the sense of increase substantially increasing aggregrate bandwidth into Oz, failed in the sense of not being profitable for it's shareholders) pretty much deters any ideas along these lines in the current climate.

That is of course unless the government steps in...anyone for an INTERnational Broadband Network?

A national pr0n filter would probably accomplish the same thing..</htmltext>
<tokenext>A national broadband network is one thing , but Australian consumers will continue to lament the high price of traffic compared to , basically , the rest of the developed world .
To this day we pay many many times the price per GB of the US and Europe - and fibre to the node wo n't help that one iota .
As far as I can tell , this predicament is almost entirely a function of geography .
The sheer cost of laying cable across large hemisphere-spanning oceans somewhat affects the delivery cost .
And who is willing to invest ?
Not that someone did n't try .
The mixed success of the Southern Cross venture ( successful in the sense of increase substantially increasing aggregrate bandwidth into Oz , failed in the sense of not being profitable for it 's shareholders ) pretty much deters any ideas along these lines in the current climate .
That is of course unless the government steps in...anyone for an INTERnational Broadband Network ?
A national pr0n filter would probably accomplish the same thing. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A national broadband network is one thing, but Australian consumers will continue to lament the high price of traffic compared to, basically, the rest of the developed world.
To this day we pay many many times the price per GB of the US and Europe - and fibre to the node won't help that one iota.
As far as I can tell, this predicament is almost entirely a function of geography.
The sheer cost of laying cable across large hemisphere-spanning oceans somewhat affects the delivery cost.
And who is willing to invest?
Not that someone didn't try.
The mixed success of the Southern Cross venture (successful in the sense of increase substantially increasing aggregrate bandwidth into Oz, failed in the sense of not being profitable for it's shareholders) pretty much deters any ideas along these lines in the current climate.
That is of course unless the government steps in...anyone for an INTERnational Broadband Network?
A national pr0n filter would probably accomplish the same thing..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907149</id>
	<title>Aren't AT&amp;T and Verizon already working on thi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do we really need the government involved with this?  I have fiber to my house.  How can you get better than that?  Verizon is spending a huge amount of money on their fiber network.  AT&amp;T is going about it in a slightly more conservative way.  They are putting in fiber to the neighborhood.  That seems like progress to me.  I live in Los Angles,  It is dense, but HUGE.  Lots and lots of square mileage to cover.  Rural areas will always be difficult, but eventually those areas will be covered also.<br> <br>
The office building I'm working in is now lit.  We can get anywhere from 2mbit to 1000mbit service.  I can subscribe to a point to point Ethernet connection to any other of the ISP's lit buildings.  Pretty nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need the government involved with this ?
I have fiber to my house .
How can you get better than that ?
Verizon is spending a huge amount of money on their fiber network .
AT&amp;T is going about it in a slightly more conservative way .
They are putting in fiber to the neighborhood .
That seems like progress to me .
I live in Los Angles , It is dense , but HUGE .
Lots and lots of square mileage to cover .
Rural areas will always be difficult , but eventually those areas will be covered also .
The office building I 'm working in is now lit .
We can get anywhere from 2mbit to 1000mbit service .
I can subscribe to a point to point Ethernet connection to any other of the ISP 's lit buildings .
Pretty nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need the government involved with this?
I have fiber to my house.
How can you get better than that?
Verizon is spending a huge amount of money on their fiber network.
AT&amp;T is going about it in a slightly more conservative way.
They are putting in fiber to the neighborhood.
That seems like progress to me.
I live in Los Angles,  It is dense, but HUGE.
Lots and lots of square mileage to cover.
Rural areas will always be difficult, but eventually those areas will be covered also.
The office building I'm working in is now lit.
We can get anywhere from 2mbit to 1000mbit service.
I can subscribe to a point to point Ethernet connection to any other of the ISP's lit buildings.
Pretty nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907783</id>
	<title>Re:As an Australian living in Australia....</title>
	<author>amiga500</author>
	<datestamp>1256809800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Telstra also offers it's iPhone plans starting with 2.5MB of data per month. <a href="http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/phones/iphone/pricing.html" title="telstra.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/phones/iphone/pricing.html</a> [telstra.com.au]

* Pay As You Go rate is $2 per MB</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telstra also offers it 's iPhone plans starting with 2.5MB of data per month .
http : //www.telstra.com.au/mobile/phones/iphone/pricing.html [ telstra.com.au ] * Pay As You Go rate is $ 2 per MB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telstra also offers it's iPhone plans starting with 2.5MB of data per month.
http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/phones/iphone/pricing.html [telstra.com.au]

* Pay As You Go rate is $2 per MB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907361</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Broadband is easily fixed with updated infrastructure.</p><p>Clearly not a risk item for an advanced country like Australia.</p><p>However the censorship of Australia should not be emulated.</p><p>Actually I take that back,  Australians must not see any boobies.</p><p>Clearly Internet censorship is justified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Broadband is easily fixed with updated infrastructure.Clearly not a risk item for an advanced country like Australia.However the censorship of Australia should not be emulated.Actually I take that back , Australians must not see any boobies.Clearly Internet censorship is justified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Broadband is easily fixed with updated infrastructure.Clearly not a risk item for an advanced country like Australia.However the censorship of Australia should not be emulated.Actually I take that back,  Australians must not see any boobies.Clearly Internet censorship is justified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906637</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>NZ too, but TBH, i think the idea of "unlimited" internet transfer is unrealistic. I much prefer the 'truth' of a Pay as you consume model, versus all sorts network shaping and service slowdowns. I get around 4Mbps (DSL), but get free off-peak, in which i achieve around 3.5Mbps, and across all other hours of the rest of they day, data is just $1 per gig. I don't find that unreasonable.*


* i seed on a vps account which is much much cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NZ too , but TBH , i think the idea of " unlimited " internet transfer is unrealistic .
I much prefer the 'truth ' of a Pay as you consume model , versus all sorts network shaping and service slowdowns .
I get around 4Mbps ( DSL ) , but get free off-peak , in which i achieve around 3.5Mbps , and across all other hours of the rest of they day , data is just $ 1 per gig .
I do n't find that unreasonable .
* * i seed on a vps account which is much much cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NZ too, but TBH, i think the idea of "unlimited" internet transfer is unrealistic.
I much prefer the 'truth' of a Pay as you consume model, versus all sorts network shaping and service slowdowns.
I get around 4Mbps (DSL), but get free off-peak, in which i achieve around 3.5Mbps, and across all other hours of the rest of they day, data is just $1 per gig.
I don't find that unreasonable.
*


* i seed on a vps account which is much much cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29920667</id>
	<title>Re:A short history of Australian telco stuff</title>
	<author>double07</author>
	<datestamp>1256838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Biggest. Haiku. Ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggest .
Haiku. Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggest.
Haiku. Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29929579</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>AUX4Ever</author>
	<datestamp>1256901900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor baby...</p><p>Here in semi-rural Alaska (US), on the highway system, its $65USD/Mo + 22\% in taxes for 512kb/512kb DSL with an incredible allowance of 2GB for data transfer, $20 each additional or fraction thereof.  I can get 1024/512, still with 2gb for $100/mo.  They havent been enforcing the caps too strictly of late since the cable co now offers 10mbit/1mbit for $500/month -- yes five hundred dollars.  Email and html web browsing are the only 'approved' uses according to the TOS for both vendors.</p><p>Add port blocks and throttling and forget about streaming anything no matter what service your on.</p><p>I have no sympathy for you....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor baby...Here in semi-rural Alaska ( US ) , on the highway system , its $ 65USD/Mo + 22 \ % in taxes for 512kb/512kb DSL with an incredible allowance of 2GB for data transfer , $ 20 each additional or fraction thereof .
I can get 1024/512 , still with 2gb for $ 100/mo .
They havent been enforcing the caps too strictly of late since the cable co now offers 10mbit/1mbit for $ 500/month -- yes five hundred dollars .
Email and html web browsing are the only 'approved ' uses according to the TOS for both vendors.Add port blocks and throttling and forget about streaming anything no matter what service your on.I have no sympathy for you... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor baby...Here in semi-rural Alaska (US), on the highway system, its $65USD/Mo + 22\% in taxes for 512kb/512kb DSL with an incredible allowance of 2GB for data transfer, $20 each additional or fraction thereof.
I can get 1024/512, still with 2gb for $100/mo.
They havent been enforcing the caps too strictly of late since the cable co now offers 10mbit/1mbit for $500/month -- yes five hundred dollars.
Email and html web browsing are the only 'approved' uses according to the TOS for both vendors.Add port blocks and throttling and forget about streaming anything no matter what service your on.I have no sympathy for you....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29910405</id>
	<title>Broadband Solution</title>
	<author>sadler121</author>
	<datestamp>1256831460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Net Neutrality is the last mile. Thus instead of adding more regulation in the form of Net Neutrality, the government needs to address the issue of government granted monopolies on the last mile. Once that is addressed, Net Neutrality issues will fade away. But Net Neutrality can be used as a stick to get more competition in the last mile.</p><p>What needs to happen is the Federal government needs to tally up how much tax payer money has gone to the telecoms, add interest, and then tell the telecoms that they need to pay back X billion dollars, once they have done that, they will own outright their own network. The money paid back to the government goes into a fund available to other ISP's that want to lay their own fiber.</p><p>Local municipalities would build, if they haven't already, a pipe in the right of ways in front of every house, going to every house. This pipe is what competing ISP&rsquo;s would use to lay cable in, instead of having to dig separate trenches themselves. The local government would charge a minimal maintenance fee to any ISP who wants to lay cable in the pipe. The telecoms would also pay the same fee, even if they are not using the pipe, which would be for access to the right of way in front of, and through people&rsquo;s property. This way the construction and maintenance of the pipe is guaranteed without any higher taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Net Neutrality is the last mile .
Thus instead of adding more regulation in the form of Net Neutrality , the government needs to address the issue of government granted monopolies on the last mile .
Once that is addressed , Net Neutrality issues will fade away .
But Net Neutrality can be used as a stick to get more competition in the last mile.What needs to happen is the Federal government needs to tally up how much tax payer money has gone to the telecoms , add interest , and then tell the telecoms that they need to pay back X billion dollars , once they have done that , they will own outright their own network .
The money paid back to the government goes into a fund available to other ISP 's that want to lay their own fiber.Local municipalities would build , if they have n't already , a pipe in the right of ways in front of every house , going to every house .
This pipe is what competing ISP    s would use to lay cable in , instead of having to dig separate trenches themselves .
The local government would charge a minimal maintenance fee to any ISP who wants to lay cable in the pipe .
The telecoms would also pay the same fee , even if they are not using the pipe , which would be for access to the right of way in front of , and through people    s property .
This way the construction and maintenance of the pipe is guaranteed without any higher taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Net Neutrality is the last mile.
Thus instead of adding more regulation in the form of Net Neutrality, the government needs to address the issue of government granted monopolies on the last mile.
Once that is addressed, Net Neutrality issues will fade away.
But Net Neutrality can be used as a stick to get more competition in the last mile.What needs to happen is the Federal government needs to tally up how much tax payer money has gone to the telecoms, add interest, and then tell the telecoms that they need to pay back X billion dollars, once they have done that, they will own outright their own network.
The money paid back to the government goes into a fund available to other ISP's that want to lay their own fiber.Local municipalities would build, if they haven't already, a pipe in the right of ways in front of every house, going to every house.
This pipe is what competing ISP’s would use to lay cable in, instead of having to dig separate trenches themselves.
The local government would charge a minimal maintenance fee to any ISP who wants to lay cable in the pipe.
The telecoms would also pay the same fee, even if they are not using the pipe, which would be for access to the right of way in front of, and through people’s property.
This way the construction and maintenance of the pipe is guaranteed without any higher taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911409</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1256835240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DigiShaman believes that he alone has all the answers.  He believe he know what people like Obama thinks because he watches Fox News and listens to Rush Limbaugh.  DigiShaman doesn't care about facts or research because that has nothing to do with being right, he knows he is right if he believes it really hard.  More right than anyone on Slashdot.<br> <br>Is DigiShaman mad?  Nope.  Well, not any more than all the other people screaming about how socialism is the root of all evil, how Obama isn't an American, and how deep down they can't stand that someone who isn't white is president.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DigiShaman believes that he alone has all the answers .
He believe he know what people like Obama thinks because he watches Fox News and listens to Rush Limbaugh .
DigiShaman does n't care about facts or research because that has nothing to do with being right , he knows he is right if he believes it really hard .
More right than anyone on Slashdot .
Is DigiShaman mad ?
Nope. Well , not any more than all the other people screaming about how socialism is the root of all evil , how Obama is n't an American , and how deep down they ca n't stand that someone who is n't white is president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DigiShaman believes that he alone has all the answers.
He believe he know what people like Obama thinks because he watches Fox News and listens to Rush Limbaugh.
DigiShaman doesn't care about facts or research because that has nothing to do with being right, he knows he is right if he believes it really hard.
More right than anyone on Slashdot.
Is DigiShaman mad?
Nope.  Well, not any more than all the other people screaming about how socialism is the root of all evil, how Obama isn't an American, and how deep down they can't stand that someone who isn't white is president.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907017</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your dear leader, maybe. I voted for Kodos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your dear leader , maybe .
I voted for Kodos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your dear leader, maybe.
I voted for Kodos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906571</id>
	<title>Re: Obama ... the Replete Paranoid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama-dearist is displaying paranoia.</p><p>Good!</p><p>Perhaps, before his mis-bigotten days as the "Emperior in Chief" end in nuclear confligration, he will kill himself, just like dearist friend Adolf, and save the USA and the Russian Red Army, the bloody trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama-dearist is displaying paranoia.Good ! Perhaps , before his mis-bigotten days as the " Emperior in Chief " end in nuclear confligration , he will kill himself , just like dearist friend Adolf , and save the USA and the Russian Red Army , the bloody trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama-dearist is displaying paranoia.Good!Perhaps, before his mis-bigotten days as the "Emperior in Chief" end in nuclear confligration, he will kill himself, just like dearist friend Adolf, and save the USA and the Russian Red Army, the bloody trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907957</id>
	<title>Have you tried thinking for yourself?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256812560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see that you've been sucked into the conservative "everything is too expensive" propaganda or you're a Telstra shareholder.  Even if you accept that the actual provision of service will lose money, which I don't, there will be other economic spinoff benefits that will allow the government to claw back revenue.  The economic importance of the internet is too critical to allow the entire country to be held to ransom by one company.</p><p>The Australian broadband plan is one of the best things any Australian government has done since the introduction of Medicare.  Telstra has held this country by the balls ever since it was privatised by the previous conservative government so their mates could get even richer. They have no motivation to improve services or lower costs because their is no competition.  Their will never be any competition unless the government acts to remove Telstras monopoly. The destruction of the Telstra monoply will save consumers thousands of dollars and dramatically improve services, if it was left to Telstra we would still be paying $133pm for a 1.5mps service, which isn't that far off what I'm currently paying.  If I'm going to pay $133 for an internet service, I'd rather it was 100mps+ thanks.</p><p>Fibre to the home will be a game changer, it will be like LCD to cathode ray. Ask yourself if you will stick on a 10mps after all your mates are on 100mps or better, downloading movies in minutes? I doubt it very much. In a couple of years of introduction, uptake will be near 100\%, which completely blows your pessimistic economic model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see that you 've been sucked into the conservative " everything is too expensive " propaganda or you 're a Telstra shareholder .
Even if you accept that the actual provision of service will lose money , which I do n't , there will be other economic spinoff benefits that will allow the government to claw back revenue .
The economic importance of the internet is too critical to allow the entire country to be held to ransom by one company.The Australian broadband plan is one of the best things any Australian government has done since the introduction of Medicare .
Telstra has held this country by the balls ever since it was privatised by the previous conservative government so their mates could get even richer .
They have no motivation to improve services or lower costs because their is no competition .
Their will never be any competition unless the government acts to remove Telstras monopoly .
The destruction of the Telstra monoply will save consumers thousands of dollars and dramatically improve services , if it was left to Telstra we would still be paying $ 133pm for a 1.5mps service , which is n't that far off what I 'm currently paying .
If I 'm going to pay $ 133 for an internet service , I 'd rather it was 100mps + thanks.Fibre to the home will be a game changer , it will be like LCD to cathode ray .
Ask yourself if you will stick on a 10mps after all your mates are on 100mps or better , downloading movies in minutes ?
I doubt it very much .
In a couple of years of introduction , uptake will be near 100 \ % , which completely blows your pessimistic economic model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see that you've been sucked into the conservative "everything is too expensive" propaganda or you're a Telstra shareholder.
Even if you accept that the actual provision of service will lose money, which I don't, there will be other economic spinoff benefits that will allow the government to claw back revenue.
The economic importance of the internet is too critical to allow the entire country to be held to ransom by one company.The Australian broadband plan is one of the best things any Australian government has done since the introduction of Medicare.
Telstra has held this country by the balls ever since it was privatised by the previous conservative government so their mates could get even richer.
They have no motivation to improve services or lower costs because their is no competition.
Their will never be any competition unless the government acts to remove Telstras monopoly.
The destruction of the Telstra monoply will save consumers thousands of dollars and dramatically improve services, if it was left to Telstra we would still be paying $133pm for a 1.5mps service, which isn't that far off what I'm currently paying.
If I'm going to pay $133 for an internet service, I'd rather it was 100mps+ thanks.Fibre to the home will be a game changer, it will be like LCD to cathode ray.
Ask yourself if you will stick on a 10mps after all your mates are on 100mps or better, downloading movies in minutes?
I doubt it very much.
In a couple of years of introduction, uptake will be near 100\%, which completely blows your pessimistic economic model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908379</id>
	<title>Re:As an Australian living in Australia....</title>
	<author>anarche</author>
	<datestamp>1256818980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please come back and let us know how that goes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please come back and let us know how that goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please come back and let us know how that goes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907759</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Idea</title>
	<author>anticharisma</author>
	<datestamp>1256809320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thats right! here in oz...the wifi in starbucks in central melbourne is not free. this small detail sums up the current aussie internrt situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>thats right !
here in oz...the wifi in starbucks in central melbourne is not free .
this small detail sums up the current aussie internrt situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thats right!
here in oz...the wifi in starbucks in central melbourne is not free.
this small detail sums up the current aussie internrt situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906555</id>
	<title>Why is broadband a priority?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously one can think of some useful applications like telemedicine, but by and large it seems that having big fat pipes into every home would just accelerate the trend of making us fatter and dumber than we are already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously one can think of some useful applications like telemedicine , but by and large it seems that having big fat pipes into every home would just accelerate the trend of making us fatter and dumber than we are already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously one can think of some useful applications like telemedicine, but by and large it seems that having big fat pipes into every home would just accelerate the trend of making us fatter and dumber than we are already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907535</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>Sassinak</author>
	<datestamp>1256848680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem everyone is complaining about is not the crux of the.. Obama is not looking at NZ, Australia, or any other location and say, hey, lets get the same crappy service there.. what he is looking at is the network deployment with population densities similar to locations within (and in the case of some countries) as the US.  Though the article mentions specifically some countries, I am sure he is also looking at other countries with faster connections (ie: Japan) to get a complete picture.</p><p>Lets all not get the guns because 1 article mentions someone is looking at the rest of the world.  Given the US has been in a semi-Xenophobic stance for a number of years.. having someone that is looking at what the world is doing (both the good and the bad) so we DON'T make the same mistakes or emulate what actually works is a great thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem everyone is complaining about is not the crux of the.. Obama is not looking at NZ , Australia , or any other location and say , hey , lets get the same crappy service there.. what he is looking at is the network deployment with population densities similar to locations within ( and in the case of some countries ) as the US .
Though the article mentions specifically some countries , I am sure he is also looking at other countries with faster connections ( ie : Japan ) to get a complete picture.Lets all not get the guns because 1 article mentions someone is looking at the rest of the world .
Given the US has been in a semi-Xenophobic stance for a number of years.. having someone that is looking at what the world is doing ( both the good and the bad ) so we DO N'T make the same mistakes or emulate what actually works is a great thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem everyone is complaining about is not the crux of the.. Obama is not looking at NZ, Australia, or any other location and say, hey, lets get the same crappy service there.. what he is looking at is the network deployment with population densities similar to locations within (and in the case of some countries) as the US.
Though the article mentions specifically some countries, I am sure he is also looking at other countries with faster connections (ie: Japan) to get a complete picture.Lets all not get the guns because 1 article mentions someone is looking at the rest of the world.
Given the US has been in a semi-Xenophobic stance for a number of years.. having someone that is looking at what the world is doing (both the good and the bad) so we DON'T make the same mistakes or emulate what actually works is a great thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906537</id>
	<title>Awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is good news. We all hate Americans so it seems good to hear that while we're screwing ourselves we're screwing you too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is good news .
We all hate Americans so it seems good to hear that while we 're screwing ourselves we 're screwing you too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is good news.
We all hate Americans so it seems good to hear that while we're screwing ourselves we're screwing you too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906835</id>
	<title>Gah, this is so simple!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Internet access in the USA is the local mono/duopolies. There is no reason whatsoever why Internet access should not be the fastest and cheapest found anywhere in the world in the dense population centers.  Although many people will say: "but what about the rural areas" -- the reality is that most people live in densely populated areas.</p><p>So, what to do about the local mono/dupolies? The obvious place to start is to allow cities to build their own last-mile connections to houses and rent these out to whoever (don't let states pass laws to stop this). Putting in the back-haul is far less expensive so one could expect multiple suppliers to offer services and actually compete with each other.</p><p>I am skeptical that forcing a Comcast or AT&amp;T to share wires (allow other companies to run services down the wires) will never work. These companies will make it more expensive or less reliable to use a competitor. A few years ago, I was moving house and wanted to switch phone company at the same time. In the end, I did not change phone company at that time -- why not? Comcast would not release my phone number.</p><p>As an alternative to cities putting in the last mile, a private company could do this -- as long as this company is not allowed to ollowed to offer services beyond the last mile.  There was a reason that AT&amp;T was split up and I don't believe that the reasons for it no longer exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Internet access in the USA is the local mono/duopolies .
There is no reason whatsoever why Internet access should not be the fastest and cheapest found anywhere in the world in the dense population centers .
Although many people will say : " but what about the rural areas " -- the reality is that most people live in densely populated areas.So , what to do about the local mono/dupolies ?
The obvious place to start is to allow cities to build their own last-mile connections to houses and rent these out to whoever ( do n't let states pass laws to stop this ) .
Putting in the back-haul is far less expensive so one could expect multiple suppliers to offer services and actually compete with each other.I am skeptical that forcing a Comcast or AT&amp;T to share wires ( allow other companies to run services down the wires ) will never work .
These companies will make it more expensive or less reliable to use a competitor .
A few years ago , I was moving house and wanted to switch phone company at the same time .
In the end , I did not change phone company at that time -- why not ?
Comcast would not release my phone number.As an alternative to cities putting in the last mile , a private company could do this -- as long as this company is not allowed to ollowed to offer services beyond the last mile .
There was a reason that AT&amp;T was split up and I do n't believe that the reasons for it no longer exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Internet access in the USA is the local mono/duopolies.
There is no reason whatsoever why Internet access should not be the fastest and cheapest found anywhere in the world in the dense population centers.
Although many people will say: "but what about the rural areas" -- the reality is that most people live in densely populated areas.So, what to do about the local mono/dupolies?
The obvious place to start is to allow cities to build their own last-mile connections to houses and rent these out to whoever (don't let states pass laws to stop this).
Putting in the back-haul is far less expensive so one could expect multiple suppliers to offer services and actually compete with each other.I am skeptical that forcing a Comcast or AT&amp;T to share wires (allow other companies to run services down the wires) will never work.
These companies will make it more expensive or less reliable to use a competitor.
A few years ago, I was moving house and wanted to switch phone company at the same time.
In the end, I did not change phone company at that time -- why not?
Comcast would not release my phone number.As an alternative to cities putting in the last mile, a private company could do this -- as long as this company is not allowed to ollowed to offer services beyond the last mile.
There was a reason that AT&amp;T was split up and I don't believe that the reasons for it no longer exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29910273</id>
	<title>Political move</title>
	<author>moogoogaipan</author>
	<datestamp>1256831040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is nothing but a political move. We're asking for help but are we going to follow it, I am not so sure. It does not hurt to ask in this case. To me, Obama knows what he is doing in regard of establishing good relationships globally. I am sure Australia is feeling pretty good about this at this moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is nothing but a political move .
We 're asking for help but are we going to follow it , I am not so sure .
It does not hurt to ask in this case .
To me , Obama knows what he is doing in regard of establishing good relationships globally .
I am sure Australia is feeling pretty good about this at this moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is nothing but a political move.
We're asking for help but are we going to follow it, I am not so sure.
It does not hurt to ask in this case.
To me, Obama knows what he is doing in regard of establishing good relationships globally.
I am sure Australia is feeling pretty good about this at this moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907671</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1256807880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why aren't they looking to places where they actually have good broadband? Like Sweden or Finland? I mean come on, Australia? I have a good friend who lived there for almost 5 years and he had horrible broadband. Slow transfers, dropped connections, download caps, poor customer service, took 3 months to get service installed, you name it. Here in Finland we have 100Mb connections at a reasonable price. Sweden has had 100Mb even longer and they pay a lot less. Recently, Finland even established the right of all citizens to 100Mb broadband access by 2012. The infrastructure here is already well on the way to meeting that today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are n't they looking to places where they actually have good broadband ?
Like Sweden or Finland ?
I mean come on , Australia ?
I have a good friend who lived there for almost 5 years and he had horrible broadband .
Slow transfers , dropped connections , download caps , poor customer service , took 3 months to get service installed , you name it .
Here in Finland we have 100Mb connections at a reasonable price .
Sweden has had 100Mb even longer and they pay a lot less .
Recently , Finland even established the right of all citizens to 100Mb broadband access by 2012 .
The infrastructure here is already well on the way to meeting that today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why aren't they looking to places where they actually have good broadband?
Like Sweden or Finland?
I mean come on, Australia?
I have a good friend who lived there for almost 5 years and he had horrible broadband.
Slow transfers, dropped connections, download caps, poor customer service, took 3 months to get service installed, you name it.
Here in Finland we have 100Mb connections at a reasonable price.
Sweden has had 100Mb even longer and they pay a lot less.
Recently, Finland even established the right of all citizens to 100Mb broadband access by 2012.
The infrastructure here is already well on the way to meeting that today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906513</id>
	<title>Good luck with that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't see this going well for everyone in the USA - hope your government makes a national government owned telco (which they proceed to privatise) that has a monopoly and sues anyone who tries to make them not, that cries every time the government tries to assert control but still wants them to pay for half their expenses.<br>Unless they're looking at the Australian telco situation to know what NOT to do, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see this going well for everyone in the USA - hope your government makes a national government owned telco ( which they proceed to privatise ) that has a monopoly and sues anyone who tries to make them not , that cries every time the government tries to assert control but still wants them to pay for half their expenses.Unless they 're looking at the Australian telco situation to know what NOT to do , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see this going well for everyone in the USA - hope your government makes a national government owned telco (which they proceed to privatise) that has a monopoly and sues anyone who tries to make them not, that cries every time the government tries to assert control but still wants them to pay for half their expenses.Unless they're looking at the Australian telco situation to know what NOT to do, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906713</id>
	<title>Re:As an Australian living in Australia....</title>
	<author>socceroos</author>
	<datestamp>1256751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>You</b> may not see it in a decade. <i>I</i>, on the other hand, will be using the new NBN within 18 months thanks to their idea of beta testing on Tasmania. I'm looking forward to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may not see it in a decade .
I , on the other hand , will be using the new NBN within 18 months thanks to their idea of beta testing on Tasmania .
I 'm looking forward to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may not see it in a decade.
I, on the other hand, will be using the new NBN within 18 months thanks to their idea of beta testing on Tasmania.
I'm looking forward to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317</id>
	<title>No kidding...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Obama believes that the federal gov (not free market supply/demand) has all the answers. He believes that people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all of his Tsars are the all-knowing solution providers that know what's best for the rest of us. Yes, even smarter than everyone here on Slashdot.</p></div></blockquote><p>It is not only that, but also the belief (sincere or not) that <em>equality</em> ought to trump quality... Government-provided schools, clinics, roads, subways, postal service, inevitably suck, but they suck <em>equally</em> for all &mdash; rich and poor &mdash; except, maybe, for the <em>super</em>rich like the politicians, who view themselves as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal\_Farm#Plot\_summary" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">more equal than others</a> [wikipedia.org] and send <em>their own</em> children to very expensive private schools.

</p><p>To the holders of this opinion, the fact that parts of the country can get an ultra-fast optical connection (without government's subsidy), and that there is not a person any more, who can't get a high-speed dial-up (without government's subsidy), is nothing compared to the inequality between the two extremes.

</p><p>The trouble with this attitude is that it is impossible to make things equally <em>good</em> for all people. So all attempts to do so end up making things equally <em>bad</em>. Equality is achieved, and quality was secondary anyway.

</p><p>It is this crusaders for equality, who keep bringing up "growing income disparity" &mdash; and advocate taxation and regulation to make things "fair". Why they haven't yet thought of amputating a limb of Michael Phelps &mdash; to "level the playing field" between him and other swimmers &mdash; is beyond me... Clearly, his 8 Olympic gold medals is grossly unfair towards the rest of the swimmers, who swam the same distance at <em>nearly</em> the same times, but got no or one gold medal only.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama believes that the federal gov ( not free market supply/demand ) has all the answers .
He believes that people like Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi and all of his Tsars are the all-knowing solution providers that know what 's best for the rest of us .
Yes , even smarter than everyone here on Slashdot.It is not only that , but also the belief ( sincere or not ) that equality ought to trump quality... Government-provided schools , clinics , roads , subways , postal service , inevitably suck , but they suck equally for all    rich and poor    except , maybe , for the superrich like the politicians , who view themselves as more equal than others [ wikipedia.org ] and send their own children to very expensive private schools .
To the holders of this opinion , the fact that parts of the country can get an ultra-fast optical connection ( without government 's subsidy ) , and that there is not a person any more , who ca n't get a high-speed dial-up ( without government 's subsidy ) , is nothing compared to the inequality between the two extremes .
The trouble with this attitude is that it is impossible to make things equally good for all people .
So all attempts to do so end up making things equally bad .
Equality is achieved , and quality was secondary anyway .
It is this crusaders for equality , who keep bringing up " growing income disparity "    and advocate taxation and regulation to make things " fair " .
Why they have n't yet thought of amputating a limb of Michael Phelps    to " level the playing field " between him and other swimmers    is beyond me... Clearly , his 8 Olympic gold medals is grossly unfair towards the rest of the swimmers , who swam the same distance at nearly the same times , but got no or one gold medal only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama believes that the federal gov (not free market supply/demand) has all the answers.
He believes that people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all of his Tsars are the all-knowing solution providers that know what's best for the rest of us.
Yes, even smarter than everyone here on Slashdot.It is not only that, but also the belief (sincere or not) that equality ought to trump quality... Government-provided schools, clinics, roads, subways, postal service, inevitably suck, but they suck equally for all — rich and poor — except, maybe, for the superrich like the politicians, who view themselves as more equal than others [wikipedia.org] and send their own children to very expensive private schools.
To the holders of this opinion, the fact that parts of the country can get an ultra-fast optical connection (without government's subsidy), and that there is not a person any more, who can't get a high-speed dial-up (without government's subsidy), is nothing compared to the inequality between the two extremes.
The trouble with this attitude is that it is impossible to make things equally good for all people.
So all attempts to do so end up making things equally bad.
Equality is achieved, and quality was secondary anyway.
It is this crusaders for equality, who keep bringing up "growing income disparity" — and advocate taxation and regulation to make things "fair".
Why they haven't yet thought of amputating a limb of Michael Phelps — to "level the playing field" between him and other swimmers — is beyond me... Clearly, his 8 Olympic gold medals is grossly unfair towards the rest of the swimmers, who swam the same distance at nearly the same times, but got no or one gold medal only.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906593</id>
	<title>As an Australian living in Australia....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Obama is asking Telstra / Australia or the Australian government ANYTHING about broadband than my American friends, I am very very very sorry for you, quite sincerely - this can not end well at all.<br>Telstra is one of the most vile companies in existence, Microsoft may get mocked a lot here but that's only because the evils of Telstra are not known internationally. (We're talking about a company that first introduced Bigpond cable with a 100mbyte per MONTH limit, no - I'm not joking)</p><p>As for the broadband network, it's a load of cobblers, we won't see it for a decade at least, it's one of those dopey empty promises which mean absoloutely nothing (no, I'm not a liberal, not even close)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Obama is asking Telstra / Australia or the Australian government ANYTHING about broadband than my American friends , I am very very very sorry for you , quite sincerely - this can not end well at all.Telstra is one of the most vile companies in existence , Microsoft may get mocked a lot here but that 's only because the evils of Telstra are not known internationally .
( We 're talking about a company that first introduced Bigpond cable with a 100mbyte per MONTH limit , no - I 'm not joking ) As for the broadband network , it 's a load of cobblers , we wo n't see it for a decade at least , it 's one of those dopey empty promises which mean absoloutely nothing ( no , I 'm not a liberal , not even close )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Obama is asking Telstra / Australia or the Australian government ANYTHING about broadband than my American friends, I am very very very sorry for you, quite sincerely - this can not end well at all.Telstra is one of the most vile companies in existence, Microsoft may get mocked a lot here but that's only because the evils of Telstra are not known internationally.
(We're talking about a company that first introduced Bigpond cable with a 100mbyte per MONTH limit, no - I'm not joking)As for the broadband network, it's a load of cobblers, we won't see it for a decade at least, it's one of those dopey empty promises which mean absoloutely nothing (no, I'm not a liberal, not even close)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29909227</id>
	<title>It's not the system, it's attitude</title>
	<author>jtheisen</author>
	<datestamp>1256826480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the system that makes broadband good or bad, it's the attitude of the people living in the respective country. Germans (I'm German myself) and Japanese, for example, have a high regard for "doing things properly" and that's why the cars are good, the broadband works and their carpets are clean. English people (I lived in the UK for a couple of years), on the other hand, just don't care so much when the light goes out once a year, the heating needs fixing before every winter and the broadband works only so-and-so-good. However, England has better movies, series, music and universities.

I suppose America is England coming from Germany and a bit further. The "system" has only a limited effect on what countries are capable of. The peoples attitutes count much more.

That's why looking for inspiration in other countries is not really as helpful as one might initially think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the system that makes broadband good or bad , it 's the attitude of the people living in the respective country .
Germans ( I 'm German myself ) and Japanese , for example , have a high regard for " doing things properly " and that 's why the cars are good , the broadband works and their carpets are clean .
English people ( I lived in the UK for a couple of years ) , on the other hand , just do n't care so much when the light goes out once a year , the heating needs fixing before every winter and the broadband works only so-and-so-good .
However , England has better movies , series , music and universities .
I suppose America is England coming from Germany and a bit further .
The " system " has only a limited effect on what countries are capable of .
The peoples attitutes count much more .
That 's why looking for inspiration in other countries is not really as helpful as one might initially think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the system that makes broadband good or bad, it's the attitude of the people living in the respective country.
Germans (I'm German myself) and Japanese, for example, have a high regard for "doing things properly" and that's why the cars are good, the broadband works and their carpets are clean.
English people (I lived in the UK for a couple of years), on the other hand, just don't care so much when the light goes out once a year, the heating needs fixing before every winter and the broadband works only so-and-so-good.
However, England has better movies, series, music and universities.
I suppose America is England coming from Germany and a bit further.
The "system" has only a limited effect on what countries are capable of.
The peoples attitutes count much more.
That's why looking for inspiration in other countries is not really as helpful as one might initially think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801</id>
	<title>You don't have to look outside the USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a town in <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/want-50mbps-internet-in-your-town-threaten-to-roll-out-your-own.ars" title="arstechnica.com">Minnesota</a> [arstechnica.com] discovered, all you have to do is threaten to roll your own.  Suddenly 50Mb/s for $50/month is available.</p><p>The problem isn't technology, population density or land area.  The problem is that local government provide a monopoly (or oligopoly), so there is no incentive to truly cut margins and invest in infrastructure.  Stop that, and companies will find a way to keep getting that check in the mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a town in Minnesota [ arstechnica.com ] discovered , all you have to do is threaten to roll your own .
Suddenly 50Mb/s for $ 50/month is available.The problem is n't technology , population density or land area .
The problem is that local government provide a monopoly ( or oligopoly ) , so there is no incentive to truly cut margins and invest in infrastructure .
Stop that , and companies will find a way to keep getting that check in the mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a town in Minnesota [arstechnica.com] discovered, all you have to do is threaten to roll your own.
Suddenly 50Mb/s for $50/month is available.The problem isn't technology, population density or land area.
The problem is that local government provide a monopoly (or oligopoly), so there is no incentive to truly cut margins and invest in infrastructure.
Stop that, and companies will find a way to keep getting that check in the mail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907179</id>
	<title>1Mb Broadband Access - Legal Right In Finland</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1256757900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/2229231/1Mb-Broadband-Access-Becomes-Legal-Right-In-Finland" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/2229231/1Mb-Broadband-Access-Becomes-Legal-Right-In-Finland</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/2229231/1Mb-Broadband-Access-Becomes-Legal-Right-In-Finland [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/2229231/1Mb-Broadband-Access-Becomes-Legal-Right-In-Finland [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29913609</id>
	<title>Re:A short history of Australian telco stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256843340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Long long ago</p></div></blockquote><p>I just thought you should know that when I read this, I thought of "A long, long time ago" and then read your entire post to the tune of American Pie.  It was awesome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long long agoI just thought you should know that when I read this , I thought of " A long , long time ago " and then read your entire post to the tune of American Pie .
It was awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long long agoI just thought you should know that when I read this, I thought of "A long, long time ago" and then read your entire post to the tune of American Pie.
It was awesome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907757</id>
	<title>NZ broadband is completely useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in the biggest city in new zealand and our broadband is terrible. Seems america wants to go backwards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in the biggest city in new zealand and our broadband is terrible .
Seems america wants to go backwards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in the biggest city in new zealand and our broadband is terrible.
Seems america wants to go backwards</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29916885</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>typidemon</author>
	<datestamp>1256812440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we make up some numbers, and insist on the network paying for itself immediately then it doesn't look financially impressive. WOW I'M SHOCKED!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we make up some numbers , and insist on the network paying for itself immediately then it does n't look financially impressive .
WOW I 'M SHOCKED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we make up some numbers, and insist on the network paying for itself immediately then it doesn't look financially impressive.
WOW I'M SHOCKED!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906511</id>
	<title>Bad Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in Australia. Our broadband *sucks*. Try Korean or Japan if you're after inspiration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Australia .
Our broadband * sucks * .
Try Korean or Japan if you 're after inspiration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Australia.
Our broadband *sucks*.
Try Korean or Japan if you're after inspiration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</id>
	<title>Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is Obama going mad?

Here in NZ we have one of the WORST internet "solutions" in the world!

Its:

-Slow
-VERY expensive
-Lots of area's don't even have access to internet
-Heavily Data Capped (I pay $120 NZ for 10mbit (which is more like 7mbit) with only 40GB of data!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Obama going mad ?
Here in NZ we have one of the WORST internet " solutions " in the world !
Its : -Slow -VERY expensive -Lots of area 's do n't even have access to internet -Heavily Data Capped ( I pay $ 120 NZ for 10mbit ( which is more like 7mbit ) with only 40GB of data !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Obama going mad?
Here in NZ we have one of the WORST internet "solutions" in the world!
Its:

-Slow
-VERY expensive
-Lots of area's don't even have access to internet
-Heavily Data Capped (I pay $120 NZ for 10mbit (which is more like 7mbit) with only 40GB of data!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906847</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1256753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So it will cost $1600/annum or $133/month before we add any data costs.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That obviously isn't true because at that price no one (who had an option) would take it up. Whatever it costs to build access to it will have to be priced according to what the market will bear. Obviously that means someone (presumably the taxpayer) taking a hosing but that's where infrastructure usually comes from.
<br> <br>
Australia is probably a worst case scenario for internet access. We have a low population density, our population centres are vast distances apart, our absolute population is pretty low and we don't have a lot of neighbour countries<br> <br>
With that in mind I don't think our access is all that bad. I can get 100gigs of ADSL2+ for $50 a month which isn't too bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it will cost $ 1600/annum or $ 133/month before we add any data costs .
That obviously is n't true because at that price no one ( who had an option ) would take it up .
Whatever it costs to build access to it will have to be priced according to what the market will bear .
Obviously that means someone ( presumably the taxpayer ) taking a hosing but that 's where infrastructure usually comes from .
Australia is probably a worst case scenario for internet access .
We have a low population density , our population centres are vast distances apart , our absolute population is pretty low and we do n't have a lot of neighbour countries With that in mind I do n't think our access is all that bad .
I can get 100gigs of ADSL2 + for $ 50 a month which is n't too bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it will cost $1600/annum or $133/month before we add any data costs.
That obviously isn't true because at that price no one (who had an option) would take it up.
Whatever it costs to build access to it will have to be priced according to what the market will bear.
Obviously that means someone (presumably the taxpayer) taking a hosing but that's where infrastructure usually comes from.
Australia is probably a worst case scenario for internet access.
We have a low population density, our population centres are vast distances apart, our absolute population is pretty low and we don't have a lot of neighbour countries 
With that in mind I don't think our access is all that bad.
I can get 100gigs of ADSL2+ for $50 a month which isn't too bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907037</id>
	<title>Call for desperate measures</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1256756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need to be taking our examples from better sources, so this calls for drastic measures before it is too late. We must declare war on Japan, then immediately surrender to them. They will have no choice but to occupy us to ensure a safe recovery from the war, especially with reconstruction. When the Japanese realize our horrible internet situation, they will declare a humanitarian emergency. This should secure us UN funding to upgrade our networks while ATT and Comcast have sanctions imposed against them. Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to be taking our examples from better sources , so this calls for drastic measures before it is too late .
We must declare war on Japan , then immediately surrender to them .
They will have no choice but to occupy us to ensure a safe recovery from the war , especially with reconstruction .
When the Japanese realize our horrible internet situation , they will declare a humanitarian emergency .
This should secure us UN funding to upgrade our networks while ATT and Comcast have sanctions imposed against them .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to be taking our examples from better sources, so this calls for drastic measures before it is too late.
We must declare war on Japan, then immediately surrender to them.
They will have no choice but to occupy us to ensure a safe recovery from the war, especially with reconstruction.
When the Japanese realize our horrible internet situation, they will declare a humanitarian emergency.
This should secure us UN funding to upgrade our networks while ATT and Comcast have sanctions imposed against them.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906797</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>KiwiSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1256752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO, New Zealand is pretty good with broadband coverage. NZ currently have ADSL coverage to over 70\% of the population and UMTS (3G broadband) coverage to 97\% of the population with two different carriers providing that service. We might not have the best speeds et al but a much higher proportion of the population can actually get broadband compared to the US.</p><p>The US current approach is odd -- they're rolling out fibre to the home in some areas, despite the fact a large proportion of the US population is still stuck on dial-up and 2G mobile coverage. If they had followed the NZ approach they would have invested the money allocated to FTTH to expanding baseline broadband and/or 3G coverage instead.</p><p>I think for rural areas there needs to be a shift away from ADSL/Cable style services to 3G broadband services. They are more cheaper to operate and provide better service.</p><p>I do agree the US should also look to Asia/Europe for inspiration -- however their population distribution doesn't really make Asia/Europe a viable model for the US to follow. Australia (and to a lesser extent, New Zealand) would probably give the US a better idea of how to develop their broadband networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , New Zealand is pretty good with broadband coverage .
NZ currently have ADSL coverage to over 70 \ % of the population and UMTS ( 3G broadband ) coverage to 97 \ % of the population with two different carriers providing that service .
We might not have the best speeds et al but a much higher proportion of the population can actually get broadband compared to the US.The US current approach is odd -- they 're rolling out fibre to the home in some areas , despite the fact a large proportion of the US population is still stuck on dial-up and 2G mobile coverage .
If they had followed the NZ approach they would have invested the money allocated to FTTH to expanding baseline broadband and/or 3G coverage instead.I think for rural areas there needs to be a shift away from ADSL/Cable style services to 3G broadband services .
They are more cheaper to operate and provide better service.I do agree the US should also look to Asia/Europe for inspiration -- however their population distribution does n't really make Asia/Europe a viable model for the US to follow .
Australia ( and to a lesser extent , New Zealand ) would probably give the US a better idea of how to develop their broadband networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, New Zealand is pretty good with broadband coverage.
NZ currently have ADSL coverage to over 70\% of the population and UMTS (3G broadband) coverage to 97\% of the population with two different carriers providing that service.
We might not have the best speeds et al but a much higher proportion of the population can actually get broadband compared to the US.The US current approach is odd -- they're rolling out fibre to the home in some areas, despite the fact a large proportion of the US population is still stuck on dial-up and 2G mobile coverage.
If they had followed the NZ approach they would have invested the money allocated to FTTH to expanding baseline broadband and/or 3G coverage instead.I think for rural areas there needs to be a shift away from ADSL/Cable style services to 3G broadband services.
They are more cheaper to operate and provide better service.I do agree the US should also look to Asia/Europe for inspiration -- however their population distribution doesn't really make Asia/Europe a viable model for the US to follow.
Australia (and to a lesser extent, New Zealand) would probably give the US a better idea of how to develop their broadband networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908331</id>
	<title>Obama At Work</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1256818260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama's in New South Wales<br>Cause DSL sucks, and so does cable<br>He said "can you fix my bandwidth?"<br>Execs just smiled and handed him a vegemite sandwich</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's in New South WalesCause DSL sucks , and so does cableHe said " can you fix my bandwidth ?
" Execs just smiled and handed him a vegemite sandwich</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's in New South WalesCause DSL sucks, and so does cableHe said "can you fix my bandwidth?
"Execs just smiled and handed him a vegemite sandwich</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907487</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256847660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So very true.. I'm on the best residential plan available here in NZ, and I pay $230 a month for 25mbit/2mbit with a 120g cap, (not to mention the inevitable extra $50 or so from going over, at $3 per 2G), and that is the fastest, and highest capped plan available to residential customers by an immense margin, and even that is only available in some parts of 3 cities.. Our broadband is absolutely shocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So very true.. I 'm on the best residential plan available here in NZ , and I pay $ 230 a month for 25mbit/2mbit with a 120g cap , ( not to mention the inevitable extra $ 50 or so from going over , at $ 3 per 2G ) , and that is the fastest , and highest capped plan available to residential customers by an immense margin , and even that is only available in some parts of 3 cities.. Our broadband is absolutely shocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So very true.. I'm on the best residential plan available here in NZ, and I pay $230 a month for 25mbit/2mbit with a 120g cap, (not to mention the inevitable extra $50 or so from going over, at $3 per 2G), and that is the fastest, and highest capped plan available to residential customers by an immense margin, and even that is only available in some parts of 3 cities.. Our broadband is absolutely shocking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906823</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>fabs64</author>
	<datestamp>1256753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell?</p><p>All of that nonsense relies on the absurd assumption that the NBN will be some side by side competitor with the existing ADSL network.<br>FTTN refers to running fibre lines to the very nodes where the ADSL network currently has copper, do you really believe we're going to keep maintaining the copper wires sitting next to the fibre?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell ? All of that nonsense relies on the absurd assumption that the NBN will be some side by side competitor with the existing ADSL network.FTTN refers to running fibre lines to the very nodes where the ADSL network currently has copper , do you really believe we 're going to keep maintaining the copper wires sitting next to the fibre ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell?All of that nonsense relies on the absurd assumption that the NBN will be some side by side competitor with the existing ADSL network.FTTN refers to running fibre lines to the very nodes where the ADSL network currently has copper, do you really believe we're going to keep maintaining the copper wires sitting next to the fibre?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908317</id>
	<title>Now I'm glad I moved to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chattanooga, TN, where the local Electric Power Board is...putting up fiber to all its customers.</p><p>http://epbfi.com/</p><p>Sometime later today, the tech will show up, and hook me back into the internets!</p><p>And yes, Comcast did sue to try to prevent it.</p><p>Ok, sure, the 50 Mbs option is a bit pricey, I'm hoping that as they get the system in, and technology advances, that price drops, and their upper-end service levels increase.</p><p>Of course, I also hope Comcast, AT&amp;T and whoever else provides broadband around here decides to compete as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chattanooga , TN , where the local Electric Power Board is...putting up fiber to all its customers.http : //epbfi.com/Sometime later today , the tech will show up , and hook me back into the internets ! And yes , Comcast did sue to try to prevent it.Ok , sure , the 50 Mbs option is a bit pricey , I 'm hoping that as they get the system in , and technology advances , that price drops , and their upper-end service levels increase.Of course , I also hope Comcast , AT&amp;T and whoever else provides broadband around here decides to compete as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chattanooga, TN, where the local Electric Power Board is...putting up fiber to all its customers.http://epbfi.com/Sometime later today, the tech will show up, and hook me back into the internets!And yes, Comcast did sue to try to prevent it.Ok, sure, the 50 Mbs option is a bit pricey, I'm hoping that as they get the system in, and technology advances, that price drops, and their upper-end service levels increase.Of course, I also hope Comcast, AT&amp;T and whoever else provides broadband around here decides to compete as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906763</id>
	<title>Nothing I'd rather have the government doing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256752560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can certainly think of a lot of things the government should be doing, but socializing network access isn't one of them. Why not try clamping down on fraudulent advertising that claims unlimited service for a fixed fee or abuse of monopoly power or patent reform? Government shouldn't be telling industry what to do (or trying to do it via some "public option"). Rather than telling industry what to do, it should telling them what not to do. The role of government is punishing those whose behavior encroaches on the rights of others, not trying to predict and preempt bad behavior &mdash; that's like trying to legislate utopia and it's got us to a place where the government dictates policy by throwing cash prizes out to a few huge and largely unaccountable companies implement it. Not good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can certainly think of a lot of things the government should be doing , but socializing network access is n't one of them .
Why not try clamping down on fraudulent advertising that claims unlimited service for a fixed fee or abuse of monopoly power or patent reform ?
Government should n't be telling industry what to do ( or trying to do it via some " public option " ) .
Rather than telling industry what to do , it should telling them what not to do .
The role of government is punishing those whose behavior encroaches on the rights of others , not trying to predict and preempt bad behavior    that 's like trying to legislate utopia and it 's got us to a place where the government dictates policy by throwing cash prizes out to a few huge and largely unaccountable companies implement it .
Not good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can certainly think of a lot of things the government should be doing, but socializing network access isn't one of them.
Why not try clamping down on fraudulent advertising that claims unlimited service for a fixed fee or abuse of monopoly power or patent reform?
Government shouldn't be telling industry what to do (or trying to do it via some "public option").
Rather than telling industry what to do, it should telling them what not to do.
The role of government is punishing those whose behavior encroaches on the rights of others, not trying to predict and preempt bad behavior — that's like trying to legislate utopia and it's got us to a place where the government dictates policy by throwing cash prizes out to a few huge and largely unaccountable companies implement it.
Not good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908415</id>
	<title>Complaining Aussies</title>
	<author>anarche</author>
	<datestamp>1256819460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its funny reading all these comments from Aussies complaining about Rudd's plan. It reminds me of a time when everyone in WA complained about the cost of rolling out water to a couple of thousand people in the desert. A place called Kalgoorlie, that went on to start our first (gold-based) mineral boom.<br> <br>Wouldnt have happened without the Government backing a grossly over-expensive ambitious (and quite frankly absurd) plan...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its funny reading all these comments from Aussies complaining about Rudd 's plan .
It reminds me of a time when everyone in WA complained about the cost of rolling out water to a couple of thousand people in the desert .
A place called Kalgoorlie , that went on to start our first ( gold-based ) mineral boom .
Wouldnt have happened without the Government backing a grossly over-expensive ambitious ( and quite frankly absurd ) plan.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its funny reading all these comments from Aussies complaining about Rudd's plan.
It reminds me of a time when everyone in WA complained about the cost of rolling out water to a couple of thousand people in the desert.
A place called Kalgoorlie, that went on to start our first (gold-based) mineral boom.
Wouldnt have happened without the Government backing a grossly over-expensive ambitious (and quite frankly absurd) plan...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29935233</id>
	<title>In Mao's image</title>
	<author>nickrao</author>
	<datestamp>1257010680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Telstra is the Australian monopoly that provides the backbone for their internet.  Is O'bama proposing a monopoly?  NO!  He intends to nationalize our telecom infrastructure?  Maybe.  These thoughts would have seemed outrageous a year ago but do not seem extreme with the O'Bamaists in power.  Think of the control of media and commerce the government would have.  Let's get these socialists out of government before we have a Chavez like government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telstra is the Australian monopoly that provides the backbone for their internet .
Is O'bama proposing a monopoly ?
NO ! He intends to nationalize our telecom infrastructure ?
Maybe. These thoughts would have seemed outrageous a year ago but do not seem extreme with the O'Bamaists in power .
Think of the control of media and commerce the government would have .
Let 's get these socialists out of government before we have a Chavez like government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telstra is the Australian monopoly that provides the backbone for their internet.
Is O'bama proposing a monopoly?
NO!  He intends to nationalize our telecom infrastructure?
Maybe.  These thoughts would have seemed outrageous a year ago but do not seem extreme with the O'Bamaists in power.
Think of the control of media and commerce the government would have.
Let's get these socialists out of government before we have a Chavez like government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906561</id>
	<title>Sharing</title>
	<author>allknowingfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1256750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that America is largely founded on the principle of figuring things our for ourselves and believing that everything we have or do is the best. Also, we believe that sharing is for the weak...and communists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that America is largely founded on the principle of figuring things our for ourselves and believing that everything we have or do is the best .
Also , we believe that sharing is for the weak...and communists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that America is largely founded on the principle of figuring things our for ourselves and believing that everything we have or do is the best.
Also, we believe that sharing is for the weak...and communists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906889</id>
	<title>Before you bash him...</title>
	<author>The Dancing Panda</author>
	<datestamp>1256754060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What am I saying, this is slashdot, bash away before thinking about it...<br> <br>
But honestly, Nowhere does it say "Obama has hired Austrailian Telco Analysts", or "Obama is modelling the effort after the Austrailian effort". Looking for inspiration means asking around and picking up ideas. Just like a software engineer who goes to Google to look for inspiration. The bad ones just copy and paste, but the average and above just look at the other results and try to mold a better solution. I would say this is allegorical. We'll see what happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What am I saying , this is slashdot , bash away before thinking about it.. . But honestly , Nowhere does it say " Obama has hired Austrailian Telco Analysts " , or " Obama is modelling the effort after the Austrailian effort " .
Looking for inspiration means asking around and picking up ideas .
Just like a software engineer who goes to Google to look for inspiration .
The bad ones just copy and paste , but the average and above just look at the other results and try to mold a better solution .
I would say this is allegorical .
We 'll see what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What am I saying, this is slashdot, bash away before thinking about it... 
But honestly, Nowhere does it say "Obama has hired Austrailian Telco Analysts", or "Obama is modelling the effort after the Austrailian effort".
Looking for inspiration means asking around and picking up ideas.
Just like a software engineer who goes to Google to look for inspiration.
The bad ones just copy and paste, but the average and above just look at the other results and try to mold a better solution.
I would say this is allegorical.
We'll see what happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29910443</id>
	<title>Wha?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1256831580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much everything I have heard about AU internet experience has been bad. Not to mention all the censorship I hear they deal with.</p><p>Seeing as I live in Canada and pretty much adopt or do whatever the heck the US does, this news doesn't exactly thrill me.</p><p>I was reading the other day about Finland's plans to ensure all their people have broadband access since they have made internet access a basic human right there. It seems to me that their model might be a better fit. They are also a pretty large country with a large rural decentralized population to deal with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much everything I have heard about AU internet experience has been bad .
Not to mention all the censorship I hear they deal with.Seeing as I live in Canada and pretty much adopt or do whatever the heck the US does , this news does n't exactly thrill me.I was reading the other day about Finland 's plans to ensure all their people have broadband access since they have made internet access a basic human right there .
It seems to me that their model might be a better fit .
They are also a pretty large country with a large rural decentralized population to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much everything I have heard about AU internet experience has been bad.
Not to mention all the censorship I hear they deal with.Seeing as I live in Canada and pretty much adopt or do whatever the heck the US does, this news doesn't exactly thrill me.I was reading the other day about Finland's plans to ensure all their people have broadband access since they have made internet access a basic human right there.
It seems to me that their model might be a better fit.
They are also a pretty large country with a large rural decentralized population to deal with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906575</id>
	<title>WTF!!!</title>
	<author>thatkid\_2002</author>
	<datestamp>1256750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Worst. Idea. Ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Worst .
Idea. Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worst.
Idea. Ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29920821</id>
	<title>The Dinner Party and Taxes</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1256840520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Note: I don't take credit for this. This analogy has been floating around in e-mail for some time.</i></p><p>10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be, $10.00, each. The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay. Using an agreed upon formula the following payment arraignment was worked out based upon income.</p><p>Men 1-4 who made the least amount of money paid nothing.</p><p>Man 5 paid $ 1.00</p><p>Man 6 paid $ 3.00</p><p>Man 7 paid $ 7.00</p><p>Man 8 paid $12.00</p><p>Man 9 paid $18.00</p><p>Man 10 paid $59.00</p><p>After several weeks the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00. Their delimina was how to divide up the, $20.00. If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back but they never paid anything for the dinners. After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.</p><p>Original Payment New Payment $ Amount Saved \% Saved</p><p>Men 1-4 paid $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00 0\%</p><p>Man 5 paid $ 1.00 $ 0.00 $1.00 100\%</p><p>Man 6 paid $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $1.00 33\%</p><p>Man 7 paid $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $2.00 28\%</p><p>Man 8 paid $12.00 $ 9.00 $3.00 25\%</p><p>Man 9 paid $18.00 $14.00 $4.00 22\%</p><p>Man 10 paid $59.00 $50.00 $9.00 15\%</p><p>Once out side the men began to argue about the settlement. Man 5 said he only got, $1.00, while Man 10 received, $9.00. Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing. They said that the cut only benefited the rich and the poor got nothing. They were upset so they beat up Man 10 and left him. The next week they met for lunch as usual except man 10 did not show up. When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay even half of the bill.</p><p>In this story we see a simplified version of the Federal Income Tax. According to an article in the "New York Times" 80\% of the taxes are paid by 20\% of the people highest income people. Any time you have a tax cut the people who pay taxes are going to get the money. The next time you hear of a tax cut and the media tells you that the wealthy are getting all the money, remember they are paying the taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note : I do n't take credit for this .
This analogy has been floating around in e-mail for some time.10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week .
They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always , $ 100.00 , for all 10 men .
If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be , $ 10.00 , each .
The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay .
Using an agreed upon formula the following payment arraignment was worked out based upon income.Men 1-4 who made the least amount of money paid nothing.Man 5 paid $ 1.00Man 6 paid $ 3.00Man 7 paid $ 7.00Man 8 paid $ 12.00Man 9 paid $ 18.00Man 10 paid $ 59.00After several weeks the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $ 20.00 .
Their delimina was how to divide up the , $ 20.00 .
If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back but they never paid anything for the dinners .
After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.Original Payment New Payment $ Amount Saved \ % SavedMen 1-4 paid $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 \ % Man 5 paid $ 1.00 $ 0.00 $ 1.00 100 \ % Man 6 paid $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $ 1.00 33 \ % Man 7 paid $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $ 2.00 28 \ % Man 8 paid $ 12.00 $ 9.00 $ 3.00 25 \ % Man 9 paid $ 18.00 $ 14.00 $ 4.00 22 \ % Man 10 paid $ 59.00 $ 50.00 $ 9.00 15 \ % Once out side the men began to argue about the settlement .
Man 5 said he only got , $ 1.00 , while Man 10 received , $ 9.00 .
Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing .
They said that the cut only benefited the rich and the poor got nothing .
They were upset so they beat up Man 10 and left him .
The next week they met for lunch as usual except man 10 did not show up .
When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay even half of the bill.In this story we see a simplified version of the Federal Income Tax .
According to an article in the " New York Times " 80 \ % of the taxes are paid by 20 \ % of the people highest income people .
Any time you have a tax cut the people who pay taxes are going to get the money .
The next time you hear of a tax cut and the media tells you that the wealthy are getting all the money , remember they are paying the taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note: I don't take credit for this.
This analogy has been floating around in e-mail for some time.10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week.
They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men.
If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be, $10.00, each.
The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay.
Using an agreed upon formula the following payment arraignment was worked out based upon income.Men 1-4 who made the least amount of money paid nothing.Man 5 paid $ 1.00Man 6 paid $ 3.00Man 7 paid $ 7.00Man 8 paid $12.00Man 9 paid $18.00Man 10 paid $59.00After several weeks the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00.
Their delimina was how to divide up the, $20.00.
If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back but they never paid anything for the dinners.
After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.Original Payment New Payment $ Amount Saved \% SavedMen 1-4 paid $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00 0\%Man 5 paid $ 1.00 $ 0.00 $1.00 100\%Man 6 paid $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $1.00 33\%Man 7 paid $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $2.00 28\%Man 8 paid $12.00 $ 9.00 $3.00 25\%Man 9 paid $18.00 $14.00 $4.00 22\%Man 10 paid $59.00 $50.00 $9.00 15\%Once out side the men began to argue about the settlement.
Man 5 said he only got, $1.00, while Man 10 received, $9.00.
Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing.
They said that the cut only benefited the rich and the poor got nothing.
They were upset so they beat up Man 10 and left him.
The next week they met for lunch as usual except man 10 did not show up.
When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay even half of the bill.In this story we see a simplified version of the Federal Income Tax.
According to an article in the "New York Times" 80\% of the taxes are paid by 20\% of the people highest income people.
Any time you have a tax cut the people who pay taxes are going to get the money.
The next time you hear of a tax cut and the media tells you that the wealthy are getting all the money, remember they are paying the taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911193</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256834460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, as with Olympic swimming competition, all markets - including essential services - is a competition like we're all scavanging beasts living like animals competing with each other for essential resources so that only the strong survive and the weak (or merely uncompetitive) die out in an evolutionary game of MINE MINE MINE, ME ME ME!</p><p>Maybe if internet was a luxury, like the telephone or electricity, I'd agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , as with Olympic swimming competition , all markets - including essential services - is a competition like we 're all scavanging beasts living like animals competing with each other for essential resources so that only the strong survive and the weak ( or merely uncompetitive ) die out in an evolutionary game of MINE MINE MINE , ME ME ME ! Maybe if internet was a luxury , like the telephone or electricity , I 'd agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, as with Olympic swimming competition, all markets - including essential services - is a competition like we're all scavanging beasts living like animals competing with each other for essential resources so that only the strong survive and the weak (or merely uncompetitive) die out in an evolutionary game of MINE MINE MINE, ME ME ME!Maybe if internet was a luxury, like the telephone or electricity, I'd agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907405</id>
	<title>Re:You don't have to look outside the USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256846520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that local government provide a monopoly (or oligopoly), so there is no incentive to truly cut margins and invest in infrastructure</p></div><p> Let me guess, the lowest bidder won the contract and suddenly, there were additional costs? As a citizen of the glorious EU, I can tell you that the government monopolies are a big no-no here these days. Roll your own would seem like a proper American style solution but the running cost, complexity, the lack of capital in some areas and the legislation and regulations could hamper most implementations, which is too bad, in my opinion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that local government provide a monopoly ( or oligopoly ) , so there is no incentive to truly cut margins and invest in infrastructure Let me guess , the lowest bidder won the contract and suddenly , there were additional costs ?
As a citizen of the glorious EU , I can tell you that the government monopolies are a big no-no here these days .
Roll your own would seem like a proper American style solution but the running cost , complexity , the lack of capital in some areas and the legislation and regulations could hamper most implementations , which is too bad , in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that local government provide a monopoly (or oligopoly), so there is no incentive to truly cut margins and invest in infrastructure Let me guess, the lowest bidder won the contract and suddenly, there were additional costs?
As a citizen of the glorious EU, I can tell you that the government monopolies are a big no-no here these days.
Roll your own would seem like a proper American style solution but the running cost, complexity, the lack of capital in some areas and the legislation and regulations could hamper most implementations, which is too bad, in my opinion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906687</id>
	<title>Susan, not Sarah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The key telco adviser to the president, <strong>Sarah Crawford</strong>...</p></div></blockquote><p>It's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan\_P.\_Crawford" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Susan Crawford</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key telco adviser to the president , Sarah Crawford...It 's Susan Crawford [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key telco adviser to the president, Sarah Crawford...It's Susan Crawford [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906781</id>
	<title>Look to South Africa</title>
	<author>retech</author>
	<datestamp>1256752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Foolish man Obama looking to Oz and NZ when South Africa has it all wrapped up. No infrastructure, no data lines, hubs, switches or routers to support. They just use data pigeons! Not only are they cheap, they're as fast as broadband and they appease the tree huggers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Foolish man Obama looking to Oz and NZ when South Africa has it all wrapped up .
No infrastructure , no data lines , hubs , switches or routers to support .
They just use data pigeons !
Not only are they cheap , they 're as fast as broadband and they appease the tree huggers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foolish man Obama looking to Oz and NZ when South Africa has it all wrapped up.
No infrastructure, no data lines, hubs, switches or routers to support.
They just use data pigeons!
Not only are they cheap, they're as fast as broadband and they appease the tree huggers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906467</id>
	<title>Search for More Democratic Victories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't stop voting out Republican hypocrites until we get our country back. That means more than 60 votes in the Senate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't stop voting out Republican hypocrites until we get our country back .
That means more than 60 votes in the Senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't stop voting out Republican hypocrites until we get our country back.
That means more than 60 votes in the Senate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911991</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1256837340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20\% troll, you dittoheads crack me up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 \ % troll , you dittoheads crack me up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20\% troll, you dittoheads crack me up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906677</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes but most of NZ has access to this type of speed. NZ is also getting VDSL2+ in the near future which will provide up to 100mbps.

The problem with NZ/AU is while internal bandwidth is plentiful and fast; the countries connections to the rest of the world have nowhere near the physical capability the users (you and me) have on the 'internal' connections to the ISP.

Whereas, USA already has massive extenal bandwidth and they are looking to build it up internally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but most of NZ has access to this type of speed .
NZ is also getting VDSL2 + in the near future which will provide up to 100mbps .
The problem with NZ/AU is while internal bandwidth is plentiful and fast ; the countries connections to the rest of the world have nowhere near the physical capability the users ( you and me ) have on the 'internal ' connections to the ISP .
Whereas , USA already has massive extenal bandwidth and they are looking to build it up internally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but most of NZ has access to this type of speed.
NZ is also getting VDSL2+ in the near future which will provide up to 100mbps.
The problem with NZ/AU is while internal bandwidth is plentiful and fast; the countries connections to the rest of the world have nowhere near the physical capability the users (you and me) have on the 'internal' connections to the ISP.
Whereas, USA already has massive extenal bandwidth and they are looking to build it up internally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29909295</id>
	<title>well it's either Oz ...</title>
	<author>IchBinEinPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1256826780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>or China if you want to learn about Internet censorship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>or China if you want to learn about Internet censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or China if you want to learn about Internet censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907387</id>
	<title>Re:You don't have to look outside the USA</title>
	<author>klui</author>
	<datestamp>1256846400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much is Verizon or AT&amp;T charging for their fiber connections? $100-200 or something like that? Reading the article, I got the impression TDS was charging $50 for 25Mbps downstream and they just doubled the speed without raising the rates. Not seeing the terms of service, it appears they have a nice cushion for their profit margin.</p><p>Imagine how much broadband would really cost consumers if 3 or 4 companies really competed on service. None of this mono/duopoly bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is Verizon or AT&amp;T charging for their fiber connections ?
$ 100-200 or something like that ?
Reading the article , I got the impression TDS was charging $ 50 for 25Mbps downstream and they just doubled the speed without raising the rates .
Not seeing the terms of service , it appears they have a nice cushion for their profit margin.Imagine how much broadband would really cost consumers if 3 or 4 companies really competed on service .
None of this mono/duopoly bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is Verizon or AT&amp;T charging for their fiber connections?
$100-200 or something like that?
Reading the article, I got the impression TDS was charging $50 for 25Mbps downstream and they just doubled the speed without raising the rates.
Not seeing the terms of service, it appears they have a nice cushion for their profit margin.Imagine how much broadband would really cost consumers if 3 or 4 companies really competed on service.
None of this mono/duopoly bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907449</id>
	<title>Good thing it's Australia!</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256847240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And not some country where the government wants to censor the internet on a perpetual basis, for the greater good (THE GREATER GOOD)!</p><p>Because that would be wrong!</p><p>timothy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And not some country where the government wants to censor the internet on a perpetual basis , for the greater good ( THE GREATER GOOD ) ! Because that would be wrong ! timothy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not some country where the government wants to censor the internet on a perpetual basis, for the greater good (THE GREATER GOOD)!Because that would be wrong!timothy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908493</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256820300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Worst in the world", eh? In India we're paying INR 3000 ($87 NZ) for 1 mbit, which is more like 512 Kbps.<br>Some people</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Worst in the world " , eh ?
In India we 're paying INR 3000 ( $ 87 NZ ) for 1 mbit , which is more like 512 Kbps.Some people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Worst in the world", eh?
In India we're paying INR 3000 ($87 NZ) for 1 mbit, which is more like 512 Kbps.Some people</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29909311</id>
	<title>Don't worry!</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1256826840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're not really looking for advice from Australia.  We're just scoping out the Aussie infrastructure for our upcoming invasion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not really looking for advice from Australia .
We 're just scoping out the Aussie infrastructure for our upcoming invasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not really looking for advice from Australia.
We're just scoping out the Aussie infrastructure for our upcoming invasion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29909471</id>
	<title>why look at anyone?</title>
	<author>j1mmy</author>
	<datestamp>1256827620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wasn't aware it was the responsibility of the federal government to deal in internet access</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i was n't aware it was the responsibility of the federal government to deal in internet access</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wasn't aware it was the responsibility of the federal government to deal in internet access</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</id>
	<title>Don't follow us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goodness, the $40B broadband plan will be a disaster.<br>Lets see.<br>About 10 Million possible connection points (Business + Households) with say 25\% takeup (after they will still be competing with ADSL/Cable which is already &gt; 10 Mbits/sec to most)<br>Thats $16k per connection. Lets assume cost of capital (6\%) + maintainence(4\%) is 10\%/annum.<br>So it will cost $1600/annum or $133/month before we add any data costs.</p><p>So USA, don't follow our example.<br>Our dear leader K.Rudd is intent on sending us as broke as you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goodness , the $ 40B broadband plan will be a disaster.Lets see.About 10 Million possible connection points ( Business + Households ) with say 25 \ % takeup ( after they will still be competing with ADSL/Cable which is already &gt; 10 Mbits/sec to most ) Thats $ 16k per connection .
Lets assume cost of capital ( 6 \ % ) + maintainence ( 4 \ % ) is 10 \ % /annum.So it will cost $ 1600/annum or $ 133/month before we add any data costs.So USA , do n't follow our example.Our dear leader K.Rudd is intent on sending us as broke as you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goodness, the $40B broadband plan will be a disaster.Lets see.About 10 Million possible connection points (Business + Households) with say 25\% takeup (after they will still be competing with ADSL/Cable which is already &gt; 10 Mbits/sec to most)Thats $16k per connection.
Lets assume cost of capital (6\%) + maintainence(4\%) is 10\%/annum.So it will cost $1600/annum or $133/month before we add any data costs.So USA, don't follow our example.Our dear leader K.Rudd is intent on sending us as broke as you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911271</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding...</title>
	<author>Deus777</author>
	<datestamp>1256834760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>high-speed dial-up (without government's subsidy)</p></div><p>
I was taking you seriously until I got to this.  There may be something called "high-speed dial-up", I don't know, but even at the fastest speeds, dial-up is not "high-speed" for any reasonable definition.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure that I understand you completely here, because of the phrasing and double negatives, but are you saying that you can get a dial-up connection without government subsidy?  Dial-up requires a phone line, which in some areas is subsidized by the Universal Service Fee.  Even though we pay this fee to the phone company instead of the government and pay via phone bill instead of taxes, the fee was set up by the government and is basically a subsidy of phone service by everyone who has a phone (ie, almost everyone).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>high-speed dial-up ( without government 's subsidy ) I was taking you seriously until I got to this .
There may be something called " high-speed dial-up " , I do n't know , but even at the fastest speeds , dial-up is not " high-speed " for any reasonable definition .
I 'm not sure that I understand you completely here , because of the phrasing and double negatives , but are you saying that you can get a dial-up connection without government subsidy ?
Dial-up requires a phone line , which in some areas is subsidized by the Universal Service Fee .
Even though we pay this fee to the phone company instead of the government and pay via phone bill instead of taxes , the fee was set up by the government and is basically a subsidy of phone service by everyone who has a phone ( ie , almost everyone ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>high-speed dial-up (without government's subsidy)
I was taking you seriously until I got to this.
There may be something called "high-speed dial-up", I don't know, but even at the fastest speeds, dial-up is not "high-speed" for any reasonable definition.
I'm not sure that I understand you completely here, because of the phrasing and double negatives, but are you saying that you can get a dial-up connection without government subsidy?
Dial-up requires a phone line, which in some areas is subsidized by the Universal Service Fee.
Even though we pay this fee to the phone company instead of the government and pay via phone bill instead of taxes, the fee was set up by the government and is basically a subsidy of phone service by everyone who has a phone (ie, almost everyone).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29916799</id>
	<title>Are you serious?</title>
	<author>soundsketcher</author>
	<datestamp>1256812080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm still battling to get ADSL (1) here in Victoria!!! What could Australia possibly teach about an outdated service which they have not yet been able to deploy responsibly!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still battling to get ADSL ( 1 ) here in Victoria ! ! !
What could Australia possibly teach about an outdated service which they have not yet been able to deploy responsibly ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still battling to get ADSL (1) here in Victoria!!!
What could Australia possibly teach about an outdated service which they have not yet been able to deploy responsibly!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906673</id>
	<title>Prediction</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1256751480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dozens of dittoheads will pan this without even considering that it's worth talking to people who built national broadband networks so that we don't repeat their mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dozens of dittoheads will pan this without even considering that it 's worth talking to people who built national broadband networks so that we do n't repeat their mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dozens of dittoheads will pan this without even considering that it's worth talking to people who built national broadband networks so that we don't repeat their mistakes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908427</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding...</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1256819640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is not only that, but also the belief (sincere or not) that equality ought to trump quality... Government-provided schools, clinics, roads, subways, postal service, inevitably suck, but they suck equally for all  rich and poor  except, maybe, for the superrich like the politicians, who view themselves as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal\_Farm#Plot\_summary" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">more equal than others</a> [wikipedia.org] and send their own children to very expensive private schools.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's some great logic.  Obama pushes for better schools, roads, etc, so he's for equality, not quality.  And then when, this being a capitalistic society, he chooses to spend his money to obtain a superior education for his children, he's just not being communistic enough?  You do realize, btw, that Animal Farm is about communism, right?</p><blockquote><div><p>To the holders of this opinion, the fact that parts of the country can get an ultra-fast optical connection (without government's subsidy), and that there is not a person any more, who can't get a high-speed dial-up (without government's subsidy), is nothing compared to the inequality between the two extremes.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wrong on so many levels.  As others have noted, the right-of-way areas used to lay those "ultra-fast optical connection"s and that "high speed dial-up" telephone wire was the result of a government subsidy to telecommunication companies to avoid having to negotiate and settle with whatever deal they could get from the millions of property owners to lay their wires.  Besides that, there is no guarantee of "high-speed dial-up" unless you consider "high-speed dial-up" equivalent to 9600 baud.</p><blockquote><div><p>The trouble with this attitude is that it is impossible to make things equally good for all people. So all attempts to do so end up making things equally bad. Equality is achieved, and quality was secondary anyway.</p></div></blockquote><p>And this misses the point entirely.  The objective isn't to make things equally good for all people.  The objective is, as stated, to give better opportunities to people.  This involves providing for a better minimal education, a better minimal transportation network, a better minimal communication network, etc.  The important words here are "better minimal".  If you wish to argue that a "better minimal" is not possible, then how do you explain Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc which do seem to have better minimals?</p><blockquote><div><p>It is this crusaders for equality, who keep bringing up "growing income disparity"  and advocate taxation and regulation to make things "fair".</p></div></blockquote><p>And advocate taxation and regulation to make and enforce laws against theft, murder, and fraud to make things "fair".  No, let's not dare tax the "superrich" a penny so that their society that maintains their wealth and position continues to exist.  I'm sure they'll have enough money left over to buy up security squads to kill all those that oppose them.  If nothing else, that system might be cheaper, and clearly any system advocated that costs more than the cheapest method must be advocated by "crusaders for equality".</p><blockquote><div><p>Why they haven't yet thought of amputating a limb of Michael Phelps  to "level the playing field" between him and other swimmers  is beyond me... Clearly, his 8 Olympic gold medals is grossly unfair towards the rest of the swimmers, who swam the same distance at nearly the same times, but got no or one gold medal only.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps you should read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison\_Bergeron#Plot\_summary" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Harrison Bergeron</a> [wikipedia.org].  No, not even the pigs of Animal Farm wanted to amputate their most gifted animals (or the Soviets their most gifted Olympic athletes).  Yes, there is certainly a danger to the rhetoric for those few who do wish to limit the most gifted precisely because they're gifted.  But, the other extreme is to allow those who are gifted to create dynasties where others equally or more gifted are oppressed under the weight of the power of the ruling elite; ie, to propose that being gifted gives you free reign to ignore the consequences of one's actions on others.</p><p>Clearly, we're no where near that.  Nor are we near nor is Obama proposing the opposition position.  To point out the most extreme result of the slippery slope of an action to justify inaction is absurd.  Yes, we should be weary where many actions can lead and prevent those results.  But, what part of building out a better, more substantial telecommunication networks results in Michael Phelps being amputated?</p><p>PS - If you generally think that a better, more substantial telecommunication network isn't appropriate (possibly for now or possibly ever), then I can see a legitimate complaint against Obama's plans.  That's a difference of opinion.  Trying to paint Obama as an extreme-communist with amputation tendencies, though, is just ad hominem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not only that , but also the belief ( sincere or not ) that equality ought to trump quality... Government-provided schools , clinics , roads , subways , postal service , inevitably suck , but they suck equally for all rich and poor except , maybe , for the superrich like the politicians , who view themselves as more equal than others [ wikipedia.org ] and send their own children to very expensive private schools.That 's some great logic .
Obama pushes for better schools , roads , etc , so he 's for equality , not quality .
And then when , this being a capitalistic society , he chooses to spend his money to obtain a superior education for his children , he 's just not being communistic enough ?
You do realize , btw , that Animal Farm is about communism , right ? To the holders of this opinion , the fact that parts of the country can get an ultra-fast optical connection ( without government 's subsidy ) , and that there is not a person any more , who ca n't get a high-speed dial-up ( without government 's subsidy ) , is nothing compared to the inequality between the two extremes.Wrong on so many levels .
As others have noted , the right-of-way areas used to lay those " ultra-fast optical connection " s and that " high speed dial-up " telephone wire was the result of a government subsidy to telecommunication companies to avoid having to negotiate and settle with whatever deal they could get from the millions of property owners to lay their wires .
Besides that , there is no guarantee of " high-speed dial-up " unless you consider " high-speed dial-up " equivalent to 9600 baud.The trouble with this attitude is that it is impossible to make things equally good for all people .
So all attempts to do so end up making things equally bad .
Equality is achieved , and quality was secondary anyway.And this misses the point entirely .
The objective is n't to make things equally good for all people .
The objective is , as stated , to give better opportunities to people .
This involves providing for a better minimal education , a better minimal transportation network , a better minimal communication network , etc .
The important words here are " better minimal " .
If you wish to argue that a " better minimal " is not possible , then how do you explain Sweden , Norway , Japan , etc which do seem to have better minimals ? It is this crusaders for equality , who keep bringing up " growing income disparity " and advocate taxation and regulation to make things " fair " .And advocate taxation and regulation to make and enforce laws against theft , murder , and fraud to make things " fair " .
No , let 's not dare tax the " superrich " a penny so that their society that maintains their wealth and position continues to exist .
I 'm sure they 'll have enough money left over to buy up security squads to kill all those that oppose them .
If nothing else , that system might be cheaper , and clearly any system advocated that costs more than the cheapest method must be advocated by " crusaders for equality " .Why they have n't yet thought of amputating a limb of Michael Phelps to " level the playing field " between him and other swimmers is beyond me... Clearly , his 8 Olympic gold medals is grossly unfair towards the rest of the swimmers , who swam the same distance at nearly the same times , but got no or one gold medal only.Perhaps you should read Harrison Bergeron [ wikipedia.org ] .
No , not even the pigs of Animal Farm wanted to amputate their most gifted animals ( or the Soviets their most gifted Olympic athletes ) .
Yes , there is certainly a danger to the rhetoric for those few who do wish to limit the most gifted precisely because they 're gifted .
But , the other extreme is to allow those who are gifted to create dynasties where others equally or more gifted are oppressed under the weight of the power of the ruling elite ; ie , to propose that being gifted gives you free reign to ignore the consequences of one 's actions on others.Clearly , we 're no where near that .
Nor are we near nor is Obama proposing the opposition position .
To point out the most extreme result of the slippery slope of an action to justify inaction is absurd .
Yes , we should be weary where many actions can lead and prevent those results .
But , what part of building out a better , more substantial telecommunication networks results in Michael Phelps being amputated ? PS - If you generally think that a better , more substantial telecommunication network is n't appropriate ( possibly for now or possibly ever ) , then I can see a legitimate complaint against Obama 's plans .
That 's a difference of opinion .
Trying to paint Obama as an extreme-communist with amputation tendencies , though , is just ad hominem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not only that, but also the belief (sincere or not) that equality ought to trump quality... Government-provided schools, clinics, roads, subways, postal service, inevitably suck, but they suck equally for all  rich and poor  except, maybe, for the superrich like the politicians, who view themselves as more equal than others [wikipedia.org] and send their own children to very expensive private schools.That's some great logic.
Obama pushes for better schools, roads, etc, so he's for equality, not quality.
And then when, this being a capitalistic society, he chooses to spend his money to obtain a superior education for his children, he's just not being communistic enough?
You do realize, btw, that Animal Farm is about communism, right?To the holders of this opinion, the fact that parts of the country can get an ultra-fast optical connection (without government's subsidy), and that there is not a person any more, who can't get a high-speed dial-up (without government's subsidy), is nothing compared to the inequality between the two extremes.Wrong on so many levels.
As others have noted, the right-of-way areas used to lay those "ultra-fast optical connection"s and that "high speed dial-up" telephone wire was the result of a government subsidy to telecommunication companies to avoid having to negotiate and settle with whatever deal they could get from the millions of property owners to lay their wires.
Besides that, there is no guarantee of "high-speed dial-up" unless you consider "high-speed dial-up" equivalent to 9600 baud.The trouble with this attitude is that it is impossible to make things equally good for all people.
So all attempts to do so end up making things equally bad.
Equality is achieved, and quality was secondary anyway.And this misses the point entirely.
The objective isn't to make things equally good for all people.
The objective is, as stated, to give better opportunities to people.
This involves providing for a better minimal education, a better minimal transportation network, a better minimal communication network, etc.
The important words here are "better minimal".
If you wish to argue that a "better minimal" is not possible, then how do you explain Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc which do seem to have better minimals?It is this crusaders for equality, who keep bringing up "growing income disparity"  and advocate taxation and regulation to make things "fair".And advocate taxation and regulation to make and enforce laws against theft, murder, and fraud to make things "fair".
No, let's not dare tax the "superrich" a penny so that their society that maintains their wealth and position continues to exist.
I'm sure they'll have enough money left over to buy up security squads to kill all those that oppose them.
If nothing else, that system might be cheaper, and clearly any system advocated that costs more than the cheapest method must be advocated by "crusaders for equality".Why they haven't yet thought of amputating a limb of Michael Phelps  to "level the playing field" between him and other swimmers  is beyond me... Clearly, his 8 Olympic gold medals is grossly unfair towards the rest of the swimmers, who swam the same distance at nearly the same times, but got no or one gold medal only.Perhaps you should read Harrison Bergeron [wikipedia.org].
No, not even the pigs of Animal Farm wanted to amputate their most gifted animals (or the Soviets their most gifted Olympic athletes).
Yes, there is certainly a danger to the rhetoric for those few who do wish to limit the most gifted precisely because they're gifted.
But, the other extreme is to allow those who are gifted to create dynasties where others equally or more gifted are oppressed under the weight of the power of the ruling elite; ie, to propose that being gifted gives you free reign to ignore the consequences of one's actions on others.Clearly, we're no where near that.
Nor are we near nor is Obama proposing the opposition position.
To point out the most extreme result of the slippery slope of an action to justify inaction is absurd.
Yes, we should be weary where many actions can lead and prevent those results.
But, what part of building out a better, more substantial telecommunication networks results in Michael Phelps being amputated?PS - If you generally think that a better, more substantial telecommunication network isn't appropriate (possibly for now or possibly ever), then I can see a legitimate complaint against Obama's plans.
That's a difference of opinion.
Trying to paint Obama as an extreme-communist with amputation tendencies, though, is just ad hominem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29925403</id>
	<title>The Ausies?</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1256923860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just so we don't catch any of that internet fascism that is rampant "down under"..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just so we do n't catch any of that internet fascism that is rampant " down under " . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just so we don't catch any of that internet fascism that is rampant "down under"..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906695</id>
	<title>Markets work, when you let them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blogs.broughturner.com/2009/03/shareholders-should-demand-phone-companies-open-their-fiber-networks.html" title="broughturner.com" rel="nofollow"> Read this</a> [broughturner.com]
<br>
He explains that networks would make more cash by opening their networks to smaller individual ISPs. Markets work when they are unencumbered. I can't even begin to describe how the telecom situation in the US is so far from a free market it's not even funny.
<br>
No I'm not postulating de-regulation but simply regulation where it counts and none where we don't need it. Our current regulatory structure in the US is stuck in the 50's. As long as it stays there the only way to bring us forward is with a gov't solution. Otherwise we could always update the laws and see what happens but that would like, you know, be asking politicians to think like engineers (i.e. with their heads)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read this [ broughturner.com ] He explains that networks would make more cash by opening their networks to smaller individual ISPs .
Markets work when they are unencumbered .
I ca n't even begin to describe how the telecom situation in the US is so far from a free market it 's not even funny .
No I 'm not postulating de-regulation but simply regulation where it counts and none where we do n't need it .
Our current regulatory structure in the US is stuck in the 50 's .
As long as it stays there the only way to bring us forward is with a gov't solution .
Otherwise we could always update the laws and see what happens but that would like , you know , be asking politicians to think like engineers ( i.e .
with their heads )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Read this [broughturner.com]

He explains that networks would make more cash by opening their networks to smaller individual ISPs.
Markets work when they are unencumbered.
I can't even begin to describe how the telecom situation in the US is so far from a free market it's not even funny.
No I'm not postulating de-regulation but simply regulation where it counts and none where we don't need it.
Our current regulatory structure in the US is stuck in the 50's.
As long as it stays there the only way to bring us forward is with a gov't solution.
Otherwise we could always update the laws and see what happens but that would like, you know, be asking politicians to think like engineers (i.e.
with their heads)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908831</id>
	<title>Re:You don't have to look outside the USA</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1256823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The city of Burlington, Vermont is currently embroiled in a battle over local telecommunications.  As in the parent post, when the commercial outfits wouldn't do the desired job, Burlington Telecom was formed, and rolled out fiber for reasonable prices.  Unfortunately, somewhere in the process a secret $16 million loan was taken out, which was recently discovered, and now the hunt is on for heads to send rolling.</p><p>I don't live in the city, so I can't have the service and can't comment on it.  A friend has it, and was extremely happy after getting it, and the right router that could handle the fact that they sent out TV over multicast.  Later he commented on administrative problems, perhaps related to the current mess, but I haven't heard him complain about the technical service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The city of Burlington , Vermont is currently embroiled in a battle over local telecommunications .
As in the parent post , when the commercial outfits would n't do the desired job , Burlington Telecom was formed , and rolled out fiber for reasonable prices .
Unfortunately , somewhere in the process a secret $ 16 million loan was taken out , which was recently discovered , and now the hunt is on for heads to send rolling.I do n't live in the city , so I ca n't have the service and ca n't comment on it .
A friend has it , and was extremely happy after getting it , and the right router that could handle the fact that they sent out TV over multicast .
Later he commented on administrative problems , perhaps related to the current mess , but I have n't heard him complain about the technical service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The city of Burlington, Vermont is currently embroiled in a battle over local telecommunications.
As in the parent post, when the commercial outfits wouldn't do the desired job, Burlington Telecom was formed, and rolled out fiber for reasonable prices.
Unfortunately, somewhere in the process a secret $16 million loan was taken out, which was recently discovered, and now the hunt is on for heads to send rolling.I don't live in the city, so I can't have the service and can't comment on it.
A friend has it, and was extremely happy after getting it, and the right router that could handle the fact that they sent out TV over multicast.
Later he commented on administrative problems, perhaps related to the current mess, but I haven't heard him complain about the technical service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908103</id>
	<title>Advisor is confused</title>
	<author>fredrickleo</author>
	<datestamp>1256814780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Australia has great single payer healthcare but terrible broadband!

How did she get these two mixed up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia has great single payer healthcare but terrible broadband !
How did she get these two mixed up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia has great single payer healthcare but terrible broadband!
How did she get these two mixed up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908263</id>
	<title>Re:As an Australian living in Australia....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256817240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't a limit.  100 MB was what you got for free, after that it was $0.19 AUD/MB.  There were quite a few news stories about people seeing their first bill in the $25,000-$80,000 range after firing up a p2p client or downloading movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't a limit .
100 MB was what you got for free , after that it was $ 0.19 AUD/MB .
There were quite a few news stories about people seeing their first bill in the $ 25,000- $ 80,000 range after firing up a p2p client or downloading movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't a limit.
100 MB was what you got for free, after that it was $0.19 AUD/MB.
There were quite a few news stories about people seeing their first bill in the $25,000-$80,000 range after firing up a p2p client or downloading movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907553</id>
	<title>dutch situation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256849040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here every company is allowed on 'the last mile' to the client (ADSL), whoever owns that infrastructure, for 'a resonable cost'. Gouvernment overseers constantly watch that fee, and whether the owner complies. The effects are that I can choose from many companies, some in a death spiral to the lowest cost, some striving for better services.</p><p>Two months ago that same law is now in effect for television-cable, and the first companies are offering internet through that channel (on the competitors infra).</p><p>Of course the telco's have been fighting these laws with all their might, and they lost.</p><p>So I think I could very well serve as an example for you in the states, to break the monopoly/duopoly state you are in.</p><p>Watch the current ADSL state; some are only adsl, some with telephone, some with TV; and usually no download caps: http://www.shopadsl.nl/adsl-aanbiedingen/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here every company is allowed on 'the last mile ' to the client ( ADSL ) , whoever owns that infrastructure , for 'a resonable cost' .
Gouvernment overseers constantly watch that fee , and whether the owner complies .
The effects are that I can choose from many companies , some in a death spiral to the lowest cost , some striving for better services.Two months ago that same law is now in effect for television-cable , and the first companies are offering internet through that channel ( on the competitors infra ) .Of course the telco 's have been fighting these laws with all their might , and they lost.So I think I could very well serve as an example for you in the states , to break the monopoly/duopoly state you are in.Watch the current ADSL state ; some are only adsl , some with telephone , some with TV ; and usually no download caps : http : //www.shopadsl.nl/adsl-aanbiedingen/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here every company is allowed on 'the last mile' to the client (ADSL), whoever owns that infrastructure, for 'a resonable cost'.
Gouvernment overseers constantly watch that fee, and whether the owner complies.
The effects are that I can choose from many companies, some in a death spiral to the lowest cost, some striving for better services.Two months ago that same law is now in effect for television-cable, and the first companies are offering internet through that channel (on the competitors infra).Of course the telco's have been fighting these laws with all their might, and they lost.So I think I could very well serve as an example for you in the states, to break the monopoly/duopoly state you are in.Watch the current ADSL state; some are only adsl, some with telephone, some with TV; and usually no download caps: http://www.shopadsl.nl/adsl-aanbiedingen/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911945</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding...</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1256837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh God, your arguments are just stupid.  Wealth disparity is actually a huge issue.  An economy which has the wealth concentrated in the few is going to suffer because it has a poorer middle class.  The middle class are the consumers.  If you weaken them by concentrating all the wealth at the top, it means less money for them to buy the products that companies produce.  But when you allow the rich to control the government, you get what we are getting now.  The rich get richer and the rest of us gets poorer.  The rich reduce taxes on themselves so as to burden it more on the middle class.  The rich control their salaries so they get paid millions and millions of dollars even if their companies fail miserably.<br> <br>No one is saying that we all should get paid the same for doing different work.  That is the argument that the weak minded use as a straw man.  What we need is a strong middle class.  But we are going in the opposite direction because the rich control a lot of the media.  They own Fox News and Limbaugh.  They tell you that government is the root of all evil so you hate them.  At the same time the pay off government to make them be taxed less and have tax loopholes so that they can fleece more money from the rest of us.<br> <br>You cry "oh, but the rich, look at their tax rate, it is so unfair!".  But you don't see the effective tax rate they are paying in the end.  Turns out they get taxed much less than someone in the middle class like me.<br> <br>You ignore facts that some public schools are actually very good.  It really more depends on the neighborhood than it does on the fact that it is socialism.  If the public school system didn't exist, then some would get no education at all which would have an extremely negative impact on society.  You have to wake up and understand that all countries blend different philosophies.  Pure capitalism and pure socialism would both be disasters.  While having a single payer health insurance plan is socialism, it would be positive for this country since it would remove profit from the equation and would be better since insurance works best when it is over a larger population.  But because it is socialism, people stop using their brain and say how horrible it is.  Look what capitalism is doing.  Record profits for people who tell you you can't have insurance because you are pregnant or you were raped.  People not being able to afford insurance and having to go to the ER (the most expensive care) and being unable to pay causing our premiums to go up when they could have solved the problem with a doctor's visit.  Insurance company boards telling people they can't get treatment their doctor recommends condemning them to death or debt (while they get a nice fat bonus for doing it).<br> <br>Capitalism and socialism are not inherently good or evil.  There are ways to use either that are positive and negative.  We need to reward those people who work hard and that compete better than others.  Pure socialism removes any incentives to work hard.  But pure capitalism has its pit falls as well.  Companies that get so large that their failure would destroy the economy of a nation.  Companies that are so rich they control the government and stifle any innovation in an area thus removing any incentive to try to start a business in that area.<br> <br>Equality taken to extremes is bad.  But making equality seem like it is evil in all cases is dangerously stupid and extreme.  Should women not be treated equally?  Should you not be treated equally because of your skin color?  Your religion?  If you are talented, none of that stuff should matter and you should be allowed to compete along with other things.  <br> <br>When people fight for equality, it is not to make us all the same, it is to make things fair.  We don't want to cut off Phelps arm to make him slower.  We want to make sure that if there is some minority kid out there that is faster than him, that he gets that same chance to compete.  That's equality and that's American.  That no matter who you are, you are given a chance to make the most of yourself.  It is not at all about trying to get in the way of others.  You listen to way too much garbage if you believe that is what equality is about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh God , your arguments are just stupid .
Wealth disparity is actually a huge issue .
An economy which has the wealth concentrated in the few is going to suffer because it has a poorer middle class .
The middle class are the consumers .
If you weaken them by concentrating all the wealth at the top , it means less money for them to buy the products that companies produce .
But when you allow the rich to control the government , you get what we are getting now .
The rich get richer and the rest of us gets poorer .
The rich reduce taxes on themselves so as to burden it more on the middle class .
The rich control their salaries so they get paid millions and millions of dollars even if their companies fail miserably .
No one is saying that we all should get paid the same for doing different work .
That is the argument that the weak minded use as a straw man .
What we need is a strong middle class .
But we are going in the opposite direction because the rich control a lot of the media .
They own Fox News and Limbaugh .
They tell you that government is the root of all evil so you hate them .
At the same time the pay off government to make them be taxed less and have tax loopholes so that they can fleece more money from the rest of us .
You cry " oh , but the rich , look at their tax rate , it is so unfair ! " .
But you do n't see the effective tax rate they are paying in the end .
Turns out they get taxed much less than someone in the middle class like me .
You ignore facts that some public schools are actually very good .
It really more depends on the neighborhood than it does on the fact that it is socialism .
If the public school system did n't exist , then some would get no education at all which would have an extremely negative impact on society .
You have to wake up and understand that all countries blend different philosophies .
Pure capitalism and pure socialism would both be disasters .
While having a single payer health insurance plan is socialism , it would be positive for this country since it would remove profit from the equation and would be better since insurance works best when it is over a larger population .
But because it is socialism , people stop using their brain and say how horrible it is .
Look what capitalism is doing .
Record profits for people who tell you you ca n't have insurance because you are pregnant or you were raped .
People not being able to afford insurance and having to go to the ER ( the most expensive care ) and being unable to pay causing our premiums to go up when they could have solved the problem with a doctor 's visit .
Insurance company boards telling people they ca n't get treatment their doctor recommends condemning them to death or debt ( while they get a nice fat bonus for doing it ) .
Capitalism and socialism are not inherently good or evil .
There are ways to use either that are positive and negative .
We need to reward those people who work hard and that compete better than others .
Pure socialism removes any incentives to work hard .
But pure capitalism has its pit falls as well .
Companies that get so large that their failure would destroy the economy of a nation .
Companies that are so rich they control the government and stifle any innovation in an area thus removing any incentive to try to start a business in that area .
Equality taken to extremes is bad .
But making equality seem like it is evil in all cases is dangerously stupid and extreme .
Should women not be treated equally ?
Should you not be treated equally because of your skin color ?
Your religion ?
If you are talented , none of that stuff should matter and you should be allowed to compete along with other things .
When people fight for equality , it is not to make us all the same , it is to make things fair .
We do n't want to cut off Phelps arm to make him slower .
We want to make sure that if there is some minority kid out there that is faster than him , that he gets that same chance to compete .
That 's equality and that 's American .
That no matter who you are , you are given a chance to make the most of yourself .
It is not at all about trying to get in the way of others .
You listen to way too much garbage if you believe that is what equality is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh God, your arguments are just stupid.
Wealth disparity is actually a huge issue.
An economy which has the wealth concentrated in the few is going to suffer because it has a poorer middle class.
The middle class are the consumers.
If you weaken them by concentrating all the wealth at the top, it means less money for them to buy the products that companies produce.
But when you allow the rich to control the government, you get what we are getting now.
The rich get richer and the rest of us gets poorer.
The rich reduce taxes on themselves so as to burden it more on the middle class.
The rich control their salaries so they get paid millions and millions of dollars even if their companies fail miserably.
No one is saying that we all should get paid the same for doing different work.
That is the argument that the weak minded use as a straw man.
What we need is a strong middle class.
But we are going in the opposite direction because the rich control a lot of the media.
They own Fox News and Limbaugh.
They tell you that government is the root of all evil so you hate them.
At the same time the pay off government to make them be taxed less and have tax loopholes so that they can fleece more money from the rest of us.
You cry "oh, but the rich, look at their tax rate, it is so unfair!".
But you don't see the effective tax rate they are paying in the end.
Turns out they get taxed much less than someone in the middle class like me.
You ignore facts that some public schools are actually very good.
It really more depends on the neighborhood than it does on the fact that it is socialism.
If the public school system didn't exist, then some would get no education at all which would have an extremely negative impact on society.
You have to wake up and understand that all countries blend different philosophies.
Pure capitalism and pure socialism would both be disasters.
While having a single payer health insurance plan is socialism, it would be positive for this country since it would remove profit from the equation and would be better since insurance works best when it is over a larger population.
But because it is socialism, people stop using their brain and say how horrible it is.
Look what capitalism is doing.
Record profits for people who tell you you can't have insurance because you are pregnant or you were raped.
People not being able to afford insurance and having to go to the ER (the most expensive care) and being unable to pay causing our premiums to go up when they could have solved the problem with a doctor's visit.
Insurance company boards telling people they can't get treatment their doctor recommends condemning them to death or debt (while they get a nice fat bonus for doing it).
Capitalism and socialism are not inherently good or evil.
There are ways to use either that are positive and negative.
We need to reward those people who work hard and that compete better than others.
Pure socialism removes any incentives to work hard.
But pure capitalism has its pit falls as well.
Companies that get so large that their failure would destroy the economy of a nation.
Companies that are so rich they control the government and stifle any innovation in an area thus removing any incentive to try to start a business in that area.
Equality taken to extremes is bad.
But making equality seem like it is evil in all cases is dangerously stupid and extreme.
Should women not be treated equally?
Should you not be treated equally because of your skin color?
Your religion?
If you are talented, none of that stuff should matter and you should be allowed to compete along with other things.
When people fight for equality, it is not to make us all the same, it is to make things fair.
We don't want to cut off Phelps arm to make him slower.
We want to make sure that if there is some minority kid out there that is faster than him, that he gets that same chance to compete.
That's equality and that's American.
That no matter who you are, you are given a chance to make the most of yourself.
It is not at all about trying to get in the way of others.
You listen to way too much garbage if you believe that is what equality is about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906863</id>
	<title>Look to the local talent</title>
	<author>Raidion</author>
	<datestamp>1256753820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There has been several cases where Broadband quality has been drastically improved when the local governments get fed up with the slow speeds and move to install new networks of their own. The Telcoms either jump to provide better service or the residents get better service from a local government run Telcom. It's a win-win situation: nothing like a little competition  (especially in a near monopoly) to shake up the status quo and get the results we want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There has been several cases where Broadband quality has been drastically improved when the local governments get fed up with the slow speeds and move to install new networks of their own .
The Telcoms either jump to provide better service or the residents get better service from a local government run Telcom .
It 's a win-win situation : nothing like a little competition ( especially in a near monopoly ) to shake up the status quo and get the results we want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has been several cases where Broadband quality has been drastically improved when the local governments get fed up with the slow speeds and move to install new networks of their own.
The Telcoms either jump to provide better service or the residents get better service from a local government run Telcom.
It's a win-win situation: nothing like a little competition  (especially in a near monopoly) to shake up the status quo and get the results we want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908029</id>
	<title>Re:You don't have to look outside the USA</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256813460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. The solution is to stop pushing top-down deployments and start encouraging bottom-up development.  Let people own the cable going from their house to the curb.  Let neighbourhoods deploy and own fibre connecting them all together.  And then let them ask for bids from network providers to connect them up to the backbones.  If there has to be a geographical monopoly on the last mile (which, for various reasons, there probably does) then it should be owned by the people served by it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The solution is to stop pushing top-down deployments and start encouraging bottom-up development .
Let people own the cable going from their house to the curb .
Let neighbourhoods deploy and own fibre connecting them all together .
And then let them ask for bids from network providers to connect them up to the backbones .
If there has to be a geographical monopoly on the last mile ( which , for various reasons , there probably does ) then it should be owned by the people served by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The solution is to stop pushing top-down deployments and start encouraging bottom-up development.
Let people own the cable going from their house to the curb.
Let neighbourhoods deploy and own fibre connecting them all together.
And then let them ask for bids from network providers to connect them up to the backbones.
If there has to be a geographical monopoly on the last mile (which, for various reasons, there probably does) then it should be owned by the people served by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907143</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>nickd</author>
	<datestamp>1256757420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because all internet connections need a person at the other end ?</p><p>Those data centres with redundant suppliers going into the buildings (not to mention aggregated multiple connections for throughput) through to those remote security cameras and kiosks etc - they all use internet connections and have nothing to do with our population density.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because all internet connections need a person at the other end ? Those data centres with redundant suppliers going into the buildings ( not to mention aggregated multiple connections for throughput ) through to those remote security cameras and kiosks etc - they all use internet connections and have nothing to do with our population density .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because all internet connections need a person at the other end ?Those data centres with redundant suppliers going into the buildings (not to mention aggregated multiple connections for throughput) through to those remote security cameras and kiosks etc - they all use internet connections and have nothing to do with our population density.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama believes that the federal gov (not free market supply/demand) has all the answers. He believes that people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all of his Tsars are the all-knowing solution providers that know what's best for the rest of us. Yes, even smarter than everyone here on Slashdot.</p><p>So is Obama mad? Nope. He's being EXACTLY who he is. Half the country elected him because of his philosophies and worldviews, right?! Surely it couldn't have been because of his speeches of baseless and empty platitudes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama believes that the federal gov ( not free market supply/demand ) has all the answers .
He believes that people like Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi and all of his Tsars are the all-knowing solution providers that know what 's best for the rest of us .
Yes , even smarter than everyone here on Slashdot.So is Obama mad ?
Nope. He 's being EXACTLY who he is .
Half the country elected him because of his philosophies and worldviews , right ? !
Surely it could n't have been because of his speeches of baseless and empty platitudes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama believes that the federal gov (not free market supply/demand) has all the answers.
He believes that people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all of his Tsars are the all-knowing solution providers that know what's best for the rest of us.
Yes, even smarter than everyone here on Slashdot.So is Obama mad?
Nope. He's being EXACTLY who he is.
Half the country elected him because of his philosophies and worldviews, right?!
Surely it couldn't have been because of his speeches of baseless and empty platitudes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907645</id>
	<title>broadband is cheaper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have dial-up and the bill is ~$80 per month for internet, phone, and some callerid, extended area calling, etc.<br>99\% of the time it's just 56k internet(I don't really use the phone part of the service). I believe broadband is something like $15 a month, and you might be able to have it without also paying for the phone service. They really don't have much incentive to provide broadband anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have dial-up and the bill is ~ $ 80 per month for internet , phone , and some callerid , extended area calling , etc.99 \ % of the time it 's just 56k internet ( I do n't really use the phone part of the service ) .
I believe broadband is something like $ 15 a month , and you might be able to have it without also paying for the phone service .
They really do n't have much incentive to provide broadband anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have dial-up and the bill is ~$80 per month for internet, phone, and some callerid, extended area calling, etc.99\% of the time it's just 56k internet(I don't really use the phone part of the service).
I believe broadband is something like $15 a month, and you might be able to have it without also paying for the phone service.
They really don't have much incentive to provide broadband anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907659</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1256807640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say business will pick up a lot of the bill, because they're willing to pay more for premium service that doesn't actually cost that much more to provide. Even with the costs of the premium services, the NBN will still be a great deal for businesses compared to the cost of getting similar services now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say business will pick up a lot of the bill , because they 're willing to pay more for premium service that does n't actually cost that much more to provide .
Even with the costs of the premium services , the NBN will still be a great deal for businesses compared to the cost of getting similar services now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say business will pick up a lot of the bill, because they're willing to pay more for premium service that doesn't actually cost that much more to provide.
Even with the costs of the premium services, the NBN will still be a great deal for businesses compared to the cost of getting similar services now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908411</id>
	<title>An empirical counterpoint</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1256819460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an empirical counterpoint:</p><p>Denmark has the second most equal distribution of income[1].  It's also the country where people are the most happy about their lives[2].</p><p>What does this prove?  Well, I'm probably guilty of cherry-picking evidence, and correlation isn't necessarily causation, but I think it suggests that equality doesn't ruin our lives (yes, I'm probably also biased, being a Dane).</p><p>That certainly matches my personal experience.  Free medical care, free education, well-stocked public libraries, a postal service I was happy to use (and still am, I just use it much less), the state even gives you money while you're studying and you can life off of it if you're a bit frugal.  Sure, you get to pay a lot of taxes, but I'm happy to do that, seeing how I'm getting my money's worth for it.</p><p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_income\_equality" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_income\_equality</a> [wikipedia.org] (sort by "CIA Gini").<br>[2] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction\_with\_Life\_Index" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction\_with\_Life\_Index</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>(note that [2] doesn't say that life satisfaction correlates with income equality, nor that it doesn't.  Make of that what you want.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an empirical counterpoint : Denmark has the second most equal distribution of income [ 1 ] .
It 's also the country where people are the most happy about their lives [ 2 ] .What does this prove ?
Well , I 'm probably guilty of cherry-picking evidence , and correlation is n't necessarily causation , but I think it suggests that equality does n't ruin our lives ( yes , I 'm probably also biased , being a Dane ) .That certainly matches my personal experience .
Free medical care , free education , well-stocked public libraries , a postal service I was happy to use ( and still am , I just use it much less ) , the state even gives you money while you 're studying and you can life off of it if you 're a bit frugal .
Sure , you get to pay a lot of taxes , but I 'm happy to do that , seeing how I 'm getting my money 's worth for it .
[ 1 ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _countries \ _by \ _income \ _equality [ wikipedia.org ] ( sort by " CIA Gini " ) .
[ 2 ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction \ _with \ _Life \ _Index [ wikipedia.org ] ( note that [ 2 ] does n't say that life satisfaction correlates with income equality , nor that it does n't .
Make of that what you want .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an empirical counterpoint:Denmark has the second most equal distribution of income[1].
It's also the country where people are the most happy about their lives[2].What does this prove?
Well, I'm probably guilty of cherry-picking evidence, and correlation isn't necessarily causation, but I think it suggests that equality doesn't ruin our lives (yes, I'm probably also biased, being a Dane).That certainly matches my personal experience.
Free medical care, free education, well-stocked public libraries, a postal service I was happy to use (and still am, I just use it much less), the state even gives you money while you're studying and you can life off of it if you're a bit frugal.
Sure, you get to pay a lot of taxes, but I'm happy to do that, seeing how I'm getting my money's worth for it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_income\_equality [wikipedia.org] (sort by "CIA Gini").
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction\_with\_Life\_Index [wikipedia.org](note that [2] doesn't say that life satisfaction correlates with income equality, nor that it doesn't.
Make of that what you want.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29912871</id>
	<title>Re:Before you bash him...</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1256840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!</p><p>The other reason the administration's going to Aus (for you Hanlon's razor holders out there) is that of all the industrialized nations with "high-speed" internet, Australia is reasonably close to the US geographically. I'm sure they're taking a look at how Canada did their Internets as well. One counter-reason tossed around against the "why don't we do it like {geographically small / population-dense country here}??" is that we have huge open spaces where we have to route things like fiber backbone, and remote places that could really benefit from being online, but is insanely expensive to deploy to. I don't think that's an unreasonable objection, and if we can find a cost-effective way to solve those problems that improves on how everyone (US, Aus, Canada, etc.) does it, that's a huge win in my book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ding ding ding ding !
We have a winner ! The other reason the administration 's going to Aus ( for you Hanlon 's razor holders out there ) is that of all the industrialized nations with " high-speed " internet , Australia is reasonably close to the US geographically .
I 'm sure they 're taking a look at how Canada did their Internets as well .
One counter-reason tossed around against the " why do n't we do it like { geographically small / population-dense country here } ? ?
" is that we have huge open spaces where we have to route things like fiber backbone , and remote places that could really benefit from being online , but is insanely expensive to deploy to .
I do n't think that 's an unreasonable objection , and if we can find a cost-effective way to solve those problems that improves on how everyone ( US , Aus , Canada , etc .
) does it , that 's a huge win in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ding ding ding ding!
We have a winner!The other reason the administration's going to Aus (for you Hanlon's razor holders out there) is that of all the industrialized nations with "high-speed" internet, Australia is reasonably close to the US geographically.
I'm sure they're taking a look at how Canada did their Internets as well.
One counter-reason tossed around against the "why don't we do it like {geographically small / population-dense country here}??
" is that we have huge open spaces where we have to route things like fiber backbone, and remote places that could really benefit from being online, but is insanely expensive to deploy to.
I don't think that's an unreasonable objection, and if we can find a cost-effective way to solve those problems that improves on how everyone (US, Aus, Canada, etc.
) does it, that's a huge win in my book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907395</id>
	<title>Re:Don't follow us</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1256846460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copper is finished. Who will maintain copper and TV coax when everyone has fibre? But as you've shown, fibre is too expensive to be run by a commercial entity hoping to make profit. This was also the case for copper, remember Telecom was a government body.</p><p>Like the copper network before it, this will require the resources and investment only the government can provide. Do you complain about the government building other infrastructure like roads? Australia needs this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copper is finished .
Who will maintain copper and TV coax when everyone has fibre ?
But as you 've shown , fibre is too expensive to be run by a commercial entity hoping to make profit .
This was also the case for copper , remember Telecom was a government body.Like the copper network before it , this will require the resources and investment only the government can provide .
Do you complain about the government building other infrastructure like roads ?
Australia needs this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copper is finished.
Who will maintain copper and TV coax when everyone has fibre?
But as you've shown, fibre is too expensive to be run by a commercial entity hoping to make profit.
This was also the case for copper, remember Telecom was a government body.Like the copper network before it, this will require the resources and investment only the government can provide.
Do you complain about the government building other infrastructure like roads?
Australia needs this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907273</id>
	<title>A short history of Australian telco stuff</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1256758800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Long long ago, Australia worked out that nobody would wire them up.<br>
So they rolled out their own.  Not too private, not to public.<br>
Just pay for the wire, make a profit to pay back cost and future needs.<br>Jobs for life, cheap local calls, $ for anything else, early with pure digital networking.<br>
A big Bell, but you could make calls, send faxes, enjoy dial up and pay huge amounts for data services.<br>
Then Australia sort of got a bit lost/crazy with its cash flow in the 1980's/90's.<br>We where going to be pulled into the 20C and had to sell it all, sort of.<br>
So on top of this sold off, own it all Bell giant, all other isp's had to make a profit.<br>
They also controlled the pipe/s out of Australia and ran an ISP.<br>
So for a decade Australia was in telco hell, for profit and gov backed, brainwashed into thinking every packet was golden as we where so far away and unique due to population density.<br>
Australia now has another pipe to the outside world, but still has the old cartel pricing, why change a good thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) <br>
Our federal gov has basically said they will roll out optical and out flank the existing Bell copper, exchanges, lawyers ect.<br>
What is a greedy cash crazed Bell to do?  Lobby, bribe, PR smear, grass roots astro turf?<br>
Well that does not work as they are pure evil.<br>
What can the US learn?<br>
Roll your own optical and set a few 10's of telcos free on top.<br>
Let the ISP's pay a basic access fee to keep the network working and then sell any mix of services they like.<br>From all you can eat, no tech support, to pick up on 3rd ring to a real person for $$$.<br>
Connect your schools, hospitals, tv, radio, universities and enter the 21C with something useful.  Understand what John D. Rockefeller was taking about when he said 'Competition is a sin." and nail your demands to a town hall doors.<br>
Roll your own and take back your local community from the optical barons and then get your local data to an area where you can play the telcos off against each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long long ago , Australia worked out that nobody would wire them up .
So they rolled out their own .
Not too private , not to public .
Just pay for the wire , make a profit to pay back cost and future needs.Jobs for life , cheap local calls , $ for anything else , early with pure digital networking .
A big Bell , but you could make calls , send faxes , enjoy dial up and pay huge amounts for data services .
Then Australia sort of got a bit lost/crazy with its cash flow in the 1980 's/90 's.We where going to be pulled into the 20C and had to sell it all , sort of .
So on top of this sold off , own it all Bell giant , all other isp 's had to make a profit .
They also controlled the pipe/s out of Australia and ran an ISP .
So for a decade Australia was in telco hell , for profit and gov backed , brainwashed into thinking every packet was golden as we where so far away and unique due to population density .
Australia now has another pipe to the outside world , but still has the old cartel pricing , why change a good thing ; ) Our federal gov has basically said they will roll out optical and out flank the existing Bell copper , exchanges , lawyers ect .
What is a greedy cash crazed Bell to do ?
Lobby , bribe , PR smear , grass roots astro turf ?
Well that does not work as they are pure evil .
What can the US learn ?
Roll your own optical and set a few 10 's of telcos free on top .
Let the ISP 's pay a basic access fee to keep the network working and then sell any mix of services they like.From all you can eat , no tech support , to pick up on 3rd ring to a real person for $ $ $ .
Connect your schools , hospitals , tv , radio , universities and enter the 21C with something useful .
Understand what John D. Rockefeller was taking about when he said 'Competition is a sin .
" and nail your demands to a town hall doors .
Roll your own and take back your local community from the optical barons and then get your local data to an area where you can play the telcos off against each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long long ago, Australia worked out that nobody would wire them up.
So they rolled out their own.
Not too private, not to public.
Just pay for the wire, make a profit to pay back cost and future needs.Jobs for life, cheap local calls, $ for anything else, early with pure digital networking.
A big Bell, but you could make calls, send faxes, enjoy dial up and pay huge amounts for data services.
Then Australia sort of got a bit lost/crazy with its cash flow in the 1980's/90's.We where going to be pulled into the 20C and had to sell it all, sort of.
So on top of this sold off, own it all Bell giant, all other isp's had to make a profit.
They also controlled the pipe/s out of Australia and ran an ISP.
So for a decade Australia was in telco hell, for profit and gov backed, brainwashed into thinking every packet was golden as we where so far away and unique due to population density.
Australia now has another pipe to the outside world, but still has the old cartel pricing, why change a good thing ;) 
Our federal gov has basically said they will roll out optical and out flank the existing Bell copper, exchanges, lawyers ect.
What is a greedy cash crazed Bell to do?
Lobby, bribe, PR smear, grass roots astro turf?
Well that does not work as they are pure evil.
What can the US learn?
Roll your own optical and set a few 10's of telcos free on top.
Let the ISP's pay a basic access fee to keep the network working and then sell any mix of services they like.From all you can eat, no tech support, to pick up on 3rd ring to a real person for $$$.
Connect your schools, hospitals, tv, radio, universities and enter the 21C with something useful.
Understand what John D. Rockefeller was taking about when he said 'Competition is a sin.
" and nail your demands to a town hall doors.
Roll your own and take back your local community from the optical barons and then get your local data to an area where you can play the telcos off against each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908007</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?!</title>
	<author>jeffstar</author>
	<datestamp>1256813220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i was at fox glacier and needed a copy of the ubuntu alternate CD and the best solution for me was to have someone in nelson burn it and courier it down. I could not download it from fox. sickening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i was at fox glacier and needed a copy of the ubuntu alternate CD and the best solution for me was to have someone in nelson burn it and courier it down .
I could not download it from fox .
sickening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was at fox glacier and needed a copy of the ubuntu alternate CD and the best solution for me was to have someone in nelson burn it and courier it down.
I could not download it from fox.
sickening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906473</id>
	<title>We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadband</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh good lord.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh good lord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh good lord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911541</id>
	<title>Canada?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256835660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about looking to Canada?  I live in Saskatchewan and I think we have great service.  We have fibre to towns as small as 200 to provide hs, as well as wireless hs towers to cover smaller towns and areas.  And in the next few years almost all schools, libraries, and hospitals/health centers will have fibre right to the building.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about looking to Canada ?
I live in Saskatchewan and I think we have great service .
We have fibre to towns as small as 200 to provide hs , as well as wireless hs towers to cover smaller towns and areas .
And in the next few years almost all schools , libraries , and hospitals/health centers will have fibre right to the building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about looking to Canada?
I live in Saskatchewan and I think we have great service.
We have fibre to towns as small as 200 to provide hs, as well as wireless hs towers to cover smaller towns and areas.
And in the next few years almost all schools, libraries, and hospitals/health centers will have fibre right to the building.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906629</id>
	<title>Planned, not actioned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; the Aussies are rolling out their $40 billion+ national broadband network</p><p>This hasn't started yet.  Its just a promise made by a politician, so far, which is hardly the most reliable promise to be made.  Its certainly a long way from reality.<br>If this network does ever get built, I'd expect it to go live in no less than 75 year's time, but maybe I'm just a pessimist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the Aussies are rolling out their $ 40 billion + national broadband networkThis has n't started yet .
Its just a promise made by a politician , so far , which is hardly the most reliable promise to be made .
Its certainly a long way from reality.If this network does ever get built , I 'd expect it to go live in no less than 75 year 's time , but maybe I 'm just a pessimist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the Aussies are rolling out their $40 billion+ national broadband networkThis hasn't started yet.
Its just a promise made by a politician, so far, which is hardly the most reliable promise to be made.
Its certainly a long way from reality.If this network does ever get built, I'd expect it to go live in no less than 75 year's time, but maybe I'm just a pessimist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906769</id>
	<title>It is quite simple really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the problem as I see it.</p><p>We need true internet providers that do not have conflicts of interest in giving us high speed low latency internet.</p><p>The phone company will put its self out of business if it gives you the internet service it is capable of. Think voip service.</p><p>The cable company doesn't want to cut into its profits as well.  They are scared to death that content will be available on demand over the internet as the customer wants it, thus negating the need for cable in the first place. (think netflix, hulu, blockbuster) Why do you need cable if you can watch any movie or tv show you want over the internet?</p><p>As long as the two dominant internet providers in the country are the cable company and the phone company, don't expect any kind of amazing blazingly fast low latency internet service.</p><p>Of course this is all just my opinion, but it is about the simplest answer for why we are so far behind other countries in decent internet connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the problem as I see it.We need true internet providers that do not have conflicts of interest in giving us high speed low latency internet.The phone company will put its self out of business if it gives you the internet service it is capable of .
Think voip service.The cable company does n't want to cut into its profits as well .
They are scared to death that content will be available on demand over the internet as the customer wants it , thus negating the need for cable in the first place .
( think netflix , hulu , blockbuster ) Why do you need cable if you can watch any movie or tv show you want over the internet ? As long as the two dominant internet providers in the country are the cable company and the phone company , do n't expect any kind of amazing blazingly fast low latency internet service.Of course this is all just my opinion , but it is about the simplest answer for why we are so far behind other countries in decent internet connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the problem as I see it.We need true internet providers that do not have conflicts of interest in giving us high speed low latency internet.The phone company will put its self out of business if it gives you the internet service it is capable of.
Think voip service.The cable company doesn't want to cut into its profits as well.
They are scared to death that content will be available on demand over the internet as the customer wants it, thus negating the need for cable in the first place.
(think netflix, hulu, blockbuster) Why do you need cable if you can watch any movie or tv show you want over the internet?As long as the two dominant internet providers in the country are the cable company and the phone company, don't expect any kind of amazing blazingly fast low latency internet service.Of course this is all just my opinion, but it is about the simplest answer for why we are so far behind other countries in decent internet connections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29929579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29920667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29909227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29912871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29916885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29913609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29920821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2313206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29916885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29910405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29910443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29929579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907317
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911945
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29920821
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911271
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911193
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908427
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29912871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29909227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29909471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29920667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29913609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29908379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29906673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29911991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2313206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2313206.29907135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
