<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_08_1754203</id>
	<title>Court Unfriendly To FCC's Internet Slap At Comcast</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262940420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Several sources are reporting that federal judges have been harsh in their <a href="http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201001081217dowjonesdjonline000464&amp;title=update-court-unfriendly-to-fccs-internet-slap-at-comcast">examination of the FCC's action against Comcast</a> in 2008 for the throttling of Internet traffic from high-bandwidth file-sharing services.  <i>"'You can't get an unbridled, roving commission to go about doing good,' said US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Chief Judge David Sentelle during an oral argument.  The three-judge panel grilled FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick on the parts of communications law it could cite to justify the Comcast punishment. The FCC argues that it was enforcing an open Internet policy implicit in the law.  Judge A. Raymond Randolph repeatedly said the legal provisions cited by the FCC were mere policy statements that by themselves can't justify the commission's action. 'You have yet to identify a specific statute,' he said.  The judges' decision in the case could throw into question the FCC's authority to impose open Internet rules."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several sources are reporting that federal judges have been harsh in their examination of the FCC 's action against Comcast in 2008 for the throttling of Internet traffic from high-bandwidth file-sharing services .
" 'You ca n't get an unbridled , roving commission to go about doing good, ' said US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Chief Judge David Sentelle during an oral argument .
The three-judge panel grilled FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick on the parts of communications law it could cite to justify the Comcast punishment .
The FCC argues that it was enforcing an open Internet policy implicit in the law .
Judge A. Raymond Randolph repeatedly said the legal provisions cited by the FCC were mere policy statements that by themselves ca n't justify the commission 's action .
'You have yet to identify a specific statute, ' he said .
The judges ' decision in the case could throw into question the FCC 's authority to impose open Internet rules .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several sources are reporting that federal judges have been harsh in their examination of the FCC's action against Comcast in 2008 for the throttling of Internet traffic from high-bandwidth file-sharing services.
"'You can't get an unbridled, roving commission to go about doing good,' said US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Chief Judge David Sentelle during an oral argument.
The three-judge panel grilled FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick on the parts of communications law it could cite to justify the Comcast punishment.
The FCC argues that it was enforcing an open Internet policy implicit in the law.
Judge A. Raymond Randolph repeatedly said the legal provisions cited by the FCC were mere policy statements that by themselves can't justify the commission's action.
'You have yet to identify a specific statute,' he said.
The judges' decision in the case could throw into question the FCC's authority to impose open Internet rules.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701854</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262953680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it works the same way as the health care reform legislation then you'll be limited to choosing a list of internet packages that were pre-approved by the FCC or some other Federal bureaucracy.</p></div><p>This sounds bogus, do you have a reference for it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it works the same way as the health care reform legislation then you 'll be limited to choosing a list of internet packages that were pre-approved by the FCC or some other Federal bureaucracy.This sounds bogus , do you have a reference for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it works the same way as the health care reform legislation then you'll be limited to choosing a list of internet packages that were pre-approved by the FCC or some other Federal bureaucracy.This sounds bogus, do you have a reference for it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700338</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1262946420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you do agree to be throttled, please take precautions to make sure you don't end up like David Carradine.</p><p>Too soon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do agree to be throttled , please take precautions to make sure you do n't end up like David Carradine.Too soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you do agree to be throttled, please take precautions to make sure you don't end up like David Carradine.Too soon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30706560</id>
	<title>WHY IS FCC ON NETWORKS!?</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1263043020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are fucking supposed to be dealing with power and frequency!  THEY HAVE NO FUCKING BUSINESS FUCKING WITH THE WEB!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are fucking supposed to be dealing with power and frequency !
THEY HAVE NO FUCKING BUSINESS FUCKING WITH THE WEB !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are fucking supposed to be dealing with power and frequency!
THEY HAVE NO FUCKING BUSINESS FUCKING WITH THE WEB!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701026</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262949780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahem, NO!  Speak with your feet.  Is a service you're paying for not doing what you want? DON'T PAY FOR IT!  Guess what, buddy.. this internet is not a right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahem , NO !
Speak with your feet .
Is a service you 're paying for not doing what you want ?
DO N'T PAY FOR IT !
Guess what , buddy.. this internet is not a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahem, NO!
Speak with your feet.
Is a service you're paying for not doing what you want?
DON'T PAY FOR IT!
Guess what, buddy.. this internet is not a right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700290</id>
	<title>Re:There's a lesson here</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1262946240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, the last such attempt died a gooey death.</p></div><p>That's one of the best and most concise descriptions of the lawmaking process I've seen to date.  Well done.</p><p>"Laws are like sausages.  You might like 'em, you might dislike 'em, but you do not want to know what went in to making 'em."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the last such attempt died a gooey death.That 's one of the best and most concise descriptions of the lawmaking process I 've seen to date .
Well done .
" Laws are like sausages .
You might like 'em , you might dislike 'em , but you do not want to know what went in to making 'em .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the last such attempt died a gooey death.That's one of the best and most concise descriptions of the lawmaking process I've seen to date.
Well done.
"Laws are like sausages.
You might like 'em, you might dislike 'em, but you do not want to know what went in to making 'em.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701816</id>
	<title>What the summary title should be</title>
	<author>paragon1</author>
	<datestamp>1262953440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Crooked Judge Bribed By Comcast"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Crooked Judge Bribed By Comcast "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Crooked Judge Bribed By Comcast"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699890</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1262944560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING!</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm curious too.  Let me go ask the lobbyists who draft our legislation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING ! I 'm curious too .
Let me go ask the lobbyists who draft our legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING!I'm curious too.
Let me go ask the lobbyists who draft our legislation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699872</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>FlightTest</author>
	<datestamp>1262944500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all the unrelated pork-barrel is added?  Thousands of pages, I'm sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all the unrelated pork-barrel is added ?
Thousands of pages , I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all the unrelated pork-barrel is added?
Thousands of pages, I'm sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700202</id>
	<title>Re:No Suprise here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262945880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Both Judges have a history of defending big buisness.  This comes as no suprise that they would rule in favor of corporate interest.</p></div><p>Actually, they are ruling in the favor of law. Just because you happen to agree with the FCC doesn't make what they did right.</p><p>Imagine the FCC thought throttling was fine, and created policies that punished content providers who didn't properly mark their high-bandwidth traffic. You'd be begging the court for relief for this exact same decision instead of calling them corporate shills.</p><p>Even though throttling is bad, the FCC making up their own rules as they go along is worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Judges have a history of defending big buisness .
This comes as no suprise that they would rule in favor of corporate interest.Actually , they are ruling in the favor of law .
Just because you happen to agree with the FCC does n't make what they did right.Imagine the FCC thought throttling was fine , and created policies that punished content providers who did n't properly mark their high-bandwidth traffic .
You 'd be begging the court for relief for this exact same decision instead of calling them corporate shills.Even though throttling is bad , the FCC making up their own rules as they go along is worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Judges have a history of defending big buisness.
This comes as no suprise that they would rule in favor of corporate interest.Actually, they are ruling in the favor of law.
Just because you happen to agree with the FCC doesn't make what they did right.Imagine the FCC thought throttling was fine, and created policies that punished content providers who didn't properly mark their high-bandwidth traffic.
You'd be begging the court for relief for this exact same decision instead of calling them corporate shills.Even though throttling is bad, the FCC making up their own rules as they go along is worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700322</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1262946360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if I want to pay for a 'lazy' broadband package, where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded, in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy?</p></div><p>If it works the same way as the health care reform legislation then you'll be limited to choosing a list of internet packages that were pre-approved by the FCC or some other Federal bureaucracy.  This may or may not include one that meets your needs and provides you with the most value for your hard earned money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I want to pay for a 'lazy ' broadband package , where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded , in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy ? If it works the same way as the health care reform legislation then you 'll be limited to choosing a list of internet packages that were pre-approved by the FCC or some other Federal bureaucracy .
This may or may not include one that meets your needs and provides you with the most value for your hard earned money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I want to pay for a 'lazy' broadband package, where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded, in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy?If it works the same way as the health care reform legislation then you'll be limited to choosing a list of internet packages that were pre-approved by the FCC or some other Federal bureaucracy.
This may or may not include one that meets your needs and provides you with the most value for your hard earned money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30706212</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263037680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we need new laws. New laws every year. More laws! More laws!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we need new laws .
New laws every year .
More laws !
More laws !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we need new laws.
New laws every year.
More laws!
More laws!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30702494</id>
	<title>Re:Except for the takings clause of the Constituti</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1262956560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhhh...dude? I hate to break the news to you, but <a href="http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm" title="newnetworks.com">We, The People</a> [newnetworks.com] actually paid for those networks to the tune of 200 Billion (with a B) + in tax breaks and other incentives, and all we got in return was a fart in our general direction. Look up the telecommunications act of 1996 if you want to read the whole bill, but we gave over 200 billion in breaks and payouts for 45Mb nationwide broadband. What we got was the finger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhh...dude ?
I hate to break the news to you , but We , The People [ newnetworks.com ] actually paid for those networks to the tune of 200 Billion ( with a B ) + in tax breaks and other incentives , and all we got in return was a fart in our general direction .
Look up the telecommunications act of 1996 if you want to read the whole bill , but we gave over 200 billion in breaks and payouts for 45Mb nationwide broadband .
What we got was the finger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhh...dude?
I hate to break the news to you, but We, The People [newnetworks.com] actually paid for those networks to the tune of 200 Billion (with a B) + in tax breaks and other incentives, and all we got in return was a fart in our general direction.
Look up the telecommunications act of 1996 if you want to read the whole bill, but we gave over 200 billion in breaks and payouts for 45Mb nationwide broadband.
What we got was the finger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700358</id>
	<title>Except for the takings clause of the Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262946480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whinge all you want about "subsidized telcos", but the fact is it's the telcos that got billions of dollars in loans to build out their networks, and it's a <b>FACT</b> that the telcos own those networks.</p><p>The government coming in and saying they can't charge others to send traffic across their property almost certainly violates the takings clause of the Constitution.</p><p>Deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whinge all you want about " subsidized telcos " , but the fact is it 's the telcos that got billions of dollars in loans to build out their networks , and it 's a FACT that the telcos own those networks.The government coming in and saying they ca n't charge others to send traffic across their property almost certainly violates the takings clause of the Constitution.Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whinge all you want about "subsidized telcos", but the fact is it's the telcos that got billions of dollars in loans to build out their networks, and it's a FACT that the telcos own those networks.The government coming in and saying they can't charge others to send traffic across their property almost certainly violates the takings clause of the Constitution.Deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699796</id>
	<title>No Suprise here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262944260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both Judges have a history of defending big buisness.  This comes as no suprise that they would rule in favor of corporate interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Judges have a history of defending big buisness .
This comes as no suprise that they would rule in favor of corporate interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Judges have a history of defending big buisness.
This comes as no suprise that they would rule in favor of corporate interest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700586</id>
	<title>Comcast must have made good arguments...</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1262947740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or a few thousand of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a few thousand of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a few thousand of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699806</id>
	<title>There's a lesson here</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1262944320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because something is good policy doesn't mean a given implementation of it is legal. This is the reverse of the common rule that stupid laws aren't necessarily unconstitutional. The solution here is to get Congress to pass explicit net neutrality legislation. Unfortunately, the last such attempt died a gooey death.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because something is good policy does n't mean a given implementation of it is legal .
This is the reverse of the common rule that stupid laws are n't necessarily unconstitutional .
The solution here is to get Congress to pass explicit net neutrality legislation .
Unfortunately , the last such attempt died a gooey death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because something is good policy doesn't mean a given implementation of it is legal.
This is the reverse of the common rule that stupid laws aren't necessarily unconstitutional.
The solution here is to get Congress to pass explicit net neutrality legislation.
Unfortunately, the last such attempt died a gooey death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700138</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>TheReverandND</author>
	<datestamp>1262945580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What Comcast did isn't throttling. They engaged in willful packet tampering, by replacing seed packets with reset packets, and that IS already illegal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Comcast did is n't throttling .
They engaged in willful packet tampering , by replacing seed packets with reset packets , and that IS already illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Comcast did isn't throttling.
They engaged in willful packet tampering, by replacing seed packets with reset packets, and that IS already illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699832</id>
	<title>Sounds more like a firing squad than a "slap"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262944440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the 2.5 paragraphs I could read without subscribing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the 2.5 paragraphs I could read without subscribing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the 2.5 paragraphs I could read without subscribing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700356</id>
	<title>Government isn't allowed to do good.  Nice to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262946480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't get an unbridled, roving commission to go about doing good,' said U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Chief Judge David Sentelle during an oral argument.</p></div><p>But one CAN get unbridled roving commission to go about doing evil!  Judges allow that all the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't get an unbridled , roving commission to go about doing good, ' said U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Chief Judge David Sentelle during an oral argument.But one CAN get unbridled roving commission to go about doing evil !
Judges allow that all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't get an unbridled, roving commission to go about doing good,' said U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Chief Judge David Sentelle during an oral argument.But one CAN get unbridled roving commission to go about doing evil!
Judges allow that all the time.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699962</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262944800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if I want to pay for a 'lazy' broadband package, where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded, in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I want to pay for a 'lazy ' broadband package , where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded , in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I want to pay for a 'lazy' broadband package, where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded, in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701482</id>
	<title>Re:No Suprise here</title>
	<author>apez1267</author>
	<datestamp>1262951880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what , so i can sell my kids to walmart , or would you perfer to legalize kidnaping , if there are no laws on busnesses then i can kidnap someone and when the police can come but all i will have to say is , its a busness so leve me alone.


ps , i live in maryland and i literaly have 2 choices dile up , and comcast and my work requires me to have a high speed concetion to my work so i dont have a choice at all</htmltext>
<tokenext>what , so i can sell my kids to walmart , or would you perfer to legalize kidnaping , if there are no laws on busnesses then i can kidnap someone and when the police can come but all i will have to say is , its a busness so leve me alone .
ps , i live in maryland and i literaly have 2 choices dile up , and comcast and my work requires me to have a high speed concetion to my work so i dont have a choice at all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what , so i can sell my kids to walmart , or would you perfer to legalize kidnaping , if there are no laws on busnesses then i can kidnap someone and when the police can come but all i will have to say is , its a busness so leve me alone.
ps , i live in maryland and i literaly have 2 choices dile up , and comcast and my work requires me to have a high speed concetion to my work so i dont have a choice at all</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</id>
	<title>Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1262944260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So all that needs to happen is a law must be passed.  I can't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So all that needs to happen is a law must be passed .
I ca n't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all that needs to happen is a law must be passed.
I can't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30705014</id>
	<title>NOT THROTTLING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262976300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Have people forgotten already?  Comcast was not fined and chastised for throttling, they were inserting false reset packets, forcing people's data connections to close.  Then lying about it and either telling customers they weren't doing anything, or lying and telling them they were only throttling when in fact they were inserting false packets onto the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have people forgotten already ?
Comcast was not fined and chastised for throttling , they were inserting false reset packets , forcing people 's data connections to close .
Then lying about it and either telling customers they were n't doing anything , or lying and telling them they were only throttling when in fact they were inserting false packets onto the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Have people forgotten already?
Comcast was not fined and chastised for throttling, they were inserting false reset packets, forcing people's data connections to close.
Then lying about it and either telling customers they weren't doing anything, or lying and telling them they were only throttling when in fact they were inserting false packets onto the line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701216</id>
	<title>Terrible internet access</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262950560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My internet service of late has been awful. It's not Comcast; some little small local ISP. I called them today and the response I got was that they had oversold bandwidth and they would have my awful 500 ping, sub 1 mb connection, etc fixed "within a week."</p><p>Wasn't the FCC originally going after Comcast for overselling bandwidth in much the same way? How fitting I would read about this today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My internet service of late has been awful .
It 's not Comcast ; some little small local ISP .
I called them today and the response I got was that they had oversold bandwidth and they would have my awful 500 ping , sub 1 mb connection , etc fixed " within a week .
" Was n't the FCC originally going after Comcast for overselling bandwidth in much the same way ?
How fitting I would read about this today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My internet service of late has been awful.
It's not Comcast; some little small local ISP.
I called them today and the response I got was that they had oversold bandwidth and they would have my awful 500 ping, sub 1 mb connection, etc fixed "within a week.
"Wasn't the FCC originally going after Comcast for overselling bandwidth in much the same way?
How fitting I would read about this today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701642</id>
	<title>Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene?  Check!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1262952660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; udge A. Raymond Randolph repeatedly said the legal provisions cited by the FCC were<br>&gt; <b>mere policy statements</b> that by themselves can't justify the commission's<br>&gt; action. 'You have yet to identify a specific statute,' he said.</p><p>Wait, I feel about this...uhh.</p><p>I have to first figure out whether I'm for this issue or not before I can decide whether I like the idea of a roving band of officials whose word is the power of law, rather than an actual law.</p><p>Political philosophy follows the ideas you want to impose on others, and not from first principles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; udge A. Raymond Randolph repeatedly said the legal provisions cited by the FCC were &gt; mere policy statements that by themselves ca n't justify the commission 's &gt; action .
'You have yet to identify a specific statute, ' he said.Wait , I feel about this...uhh.I have to first figure out whether I 'm for this issue or not before I can decide whether I like the idea of a roving band of officials whose word is the power of law , rather than an actual law.Political philosophy follows the ideas you want to impose on others , and not from first principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; udge A. Raymond Randolph repeatedly said the legal provisions cited by the FCC were&gt; mere policy statements that by themselves can't justify the commission's&gt; action.
'You have yet to identify a specific statute,' he said.Wait, I feel about this...uhh.I have to first figure out whether I'm for this issue or not before I can decide whether I like the idea of a roving band of officials whose word is the power of law, rather than an actual law.Political philosophy follows the ideas you want to impose on others, and not from first principles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701782</id>
	<title>fleeting expletives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262953260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'You have yet to identify a specific statute,'</p></div></blockquote><p>An FCC rule is OK for huge fines for fleeting expletives, but for this there needs to be a specific statute?  What's the difference?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'You have yet to identify a specific statute,'An FCC rule is OK for huge fines for fleeting expletives , but for this there needs to be a specific statute ?
What 's the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'You have yet to identify a specific statute,'An FCC rule is OK for huge fines for fleeting expletives, but for this there needs to be a specific statute?
What's the difference?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700386</id>
	<title>YES!  Let the free market decide!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262946660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Net neutrality" is a bullshiat term invented by statists who want to control what we John Galt's of the world can and cannot do.  I am extremely glad to hear that some judges have finally come down on the side of common sense and not that of political correctness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Net neutrality " is a bullshiat term invented by statists who want to control what we John Galt 's of the world can and can not do .
I am extremely glad to hear that some judges have finally come down on the side of common sense and not that of political correctness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Net neutrality" is a bullshiat term invented by statists who want to control what we John Galt's of the world can and cannot do.
I am extremely glad to hear that some judges have finally come down on the side of common sense and not that of political correctness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30715278</id>
	<title>Re:No Suprise here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263147600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another Americunt big-business apologist. Here's a hint: you already paid for the public utility with a ludicrous subsidy and they have fucking screwed you--big time--and yet you continue to defend them and shout "socialism" as if you knew what the word meant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another Americunt big-business apologist .
Here 's a hint : you already paid for the public utility with a ludicrous subsidy and they have fucking screwed you--big time--and yet you continue to defend them and shout " socialism " as if you knew what the word meant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another Americunt big-business apologist.
Here's a hint: you already paid for the public utility with a ludicrous subsidy and they have fucking screwed you--big time--and yet you continue to defend them and shout "socialism" as if you knew what the word meant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701188</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1262950380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"'You can't get an unbridled, roving commission to go about doing good"</p><p>This adequately describes more than one Appeals Court.  Talk about calling out the kettle!</p><p>Breathtaking.  Just stupendously breathtaking!  He couldn't possibly have said that out loud with desperately wishing he had just shut up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'You ca n't get an unbridled , roving commission to go about doing good " This adequately describes more than one Appeals Court .
Talk about calling out the kettle ! Breathtaking .
Just stupendously breathtaking !
He could n't possibly have said that out loud with desperately wishing he had just shut up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'You can't get an unbridled, roving commission to go about doing good"This adequately describes more than one Appeals Court.
Talk about calling out the kettle!Breathtaking.
Just stupendously breathtaking!
He couldn't possibly have said that out loud with desperately wishing he had just shut up...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701654</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>bmk67</author>
	<datestamp>1262952720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So all that needs to happen is a law must be passed.  I can't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING!</p></div><p>It's never that simple.  The road to hell is paved in good intentions.</p><p>Let's say Lobbyist A wants net neutrality, and finds a sympathetic ear or three in congress.  Draft legislation is written by legislator C, and Lobby B gets wind of it.  Lobby B is opposed to neutrality, and contacts legislator D, who happens to be bought and paid for by Lobby B.  Another bill is written, which on it's face looks like net neutrality, but in fact is not.</p><p>The first bill gets a few sponsors, who go out and try to get other legislators to line up behind them.  In order to garner votes, the sponsors have to make concessions to other legislators, or add pork to benefit another legislator's state/district.  Repeat ad nauseum until enough of the 435 representatives / 100 senators have slipped in their pet project or amendment.</p><p>Meanwhile, the second bill is going through the same process.  There may be several competing bills, in both the House and the Senate.  Usually when you actually get a similar bill to pass both the House and the Senate, there are differences to be hammered out.</p><p>What you end up with is a monstrosity of a bill that looks like neither original bill, and nobody is really happy with it - except the districts that ended up being the beneficiaries of all the pork that got packed into the bill on both sides of the capitol building.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So all that needs to happen is a law must be passed .
I ca n't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING ! It 's never that simple .
The road to hell is paved in good intentions.Let 's say Lobbyist A wants net neutrality , and finds a sympathetic ear or three in congress .
Draft legislation is written by legislator C , and Lobby B gets wind of it .
Lobby B is opposed to neutrality , and contacts legislator D , who happens to be bought and paid for by Lobby B. Another bill is written , which on it 's face looks like net neutrality , but in fact is not.The first bill gets a few sponsors , who go out and try to get other legislators to line up behind them .
In order to garner votes , the sponsors have to make concessions to other legislators , or add pork to benefit another legislator 's state/district .
Repeat ad nauseum until enough of the 435 representatives / 100 senators have slipped in their pet project or amendment.Meanwhile , the second bill is going through the same process .
There may be several competing bills , in both the House and the Senate .
Usually when you actually get a similar bill to pass both the House and the Senate , there are differences to be hammered out.What you end up with is a monstrosity of a bill that looks like neither original bill , and nobody is really happy with it - except the districts that ended up being the beneficiaries of all the pork that got packed into the bill on both sides of the capitol building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all that needs to happen is a law must be passed.
I can't wait to see how many pages it will take to say NO THROTTLING!It's never that simple.
The road to hell is paved in good intentions.Let's say Lobbyist A wants net neutrality, and finds a sympathetic ear or three in congress.
Draft legislation is written by legislator C, and Lobby B gets wind of it.
Lobby B is opposed to neutrality, and contacts legislator D, who happens to be bought and paid for by Lobby B.  Another bill is written, which on it's face looks like net neutrality, but in fact is not.The first bill gets a few sponsors, who go out and try to get other legislators to line up behind them.
In order to garner votes, the sponsors have to make concessions to other legislators, or add pork to benefit another legislator's state/district.
Repeat ad nauseum until enough of the 435 representatives / 100 senators have slipped in their pet project or amendment.Meanwhile, the second bill is going through the same process.
There may be several competing bills, in both the House and the Senate.
Usually when you actually get a similar bill to pass both the House and the Senate, there are differences to be hammered out.What you end up with is a monstrosity of a bill that looks like neither original bill, and nobody is really happy with it - except the districts that ended up being the beneficiaries of all the pork that got packed into the bill on both sides of the capitol building.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30707776</id>
	<title>Re:No Suprise here</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1263058140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are such an ignorant twit I don`t even know where to begin.  You want to get rid of all regulations?  Ok then, no more FDA to protect you from poisoned foods.  No more American Medical Association to make sure you don`t get fooled into buying a quack doctor`s services. No more zoning laws, minimal building construction standards, water quality requirements, phone line uptime requirements, electricity production standards, etc. etc.

In the 50s and 60s our capital gains taxes were much, much higher than they are now.


Your comment about `socialism` is so stupid it just boggles the mind.  There is no black and white you juvenile-minded fool.  EVERYTHING is at least partly socialized.  I can`t stress this enough.  There is no business, no industry in the world that isn`t at least partly regulated and thus socialized for the benefit of society.  The fact that you don`t understand this just demonstrates how much a brainwashed retard you are.  Just please, jump off a cliff and relieve this world of your oppressive idiocy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are such an ignorant twit I don ` t even know where to begin .
You want to get rid of all regulations ?
Ok then , no more FDA to protect you from poisoned foods .
No more American Medical Association to make sure you don ` t get fooled into buying a quack doctor ` s services .
No more zoning laws , minimal building construction standards , water quality requirements , phone line uptime requirements , electricity production standards , etc .
etc . In the 50s and 60s our capital gains taxes were much , much higher than they are now .
Your comment about ` socialism ` is so stupid it just boggles the mind .
There is no black and white you juvenile-minded fool .
EVERYTHING is at least partly socialized .
I can ` t stress this enough .
There is no business , no industry in the world that isn ` t at least partly regulated and thus socialized for the benefit of society .
The fact that you don ` t understand this just demonstrates how much a brainwashed retard you are .
Just please , jump off a cliff and relieve this world of your oppressive idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are such an ignorant twit I don`t even know where to begin.
You want to get rid of all regulations?
Ok then, no more FDA to protect you from poisoned foods.
No more American Medical Association to make sure you don`t get fooled into buying a quack doctor`s services.
No more zoning laws, minimal building construction standards, water quality requirements, phone line uptime requirements, electricity production standards, etc.
etc.

In the 50s and 60s our capital gains taxes were much, much higher than they are now.
Your comment about `socialism` is so stupid it just boggles the mind.
There is no black and white you juvenile-minded fool.
EVERYTHING is at least partly socialized.
I can`t stress this enough.
There is no business, no industry in the world that isn`t at least partly regulated and thus socialized for the benefit of society.
The fact that you don`t understand this just demonstrates how much a brainwashed retard you are.
Just please, jump off a cliff and relieve this world of your oppressive idiocy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701246</id>
	<title>told you so</title>
	<author>Jodka</author>
	<datestamp>1262950680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1494416&amp;cid=30608002" title="slashdot.org">insightful comment</a> [slashdot.org] last week I alluded to something exactly like this happening.</p><p>This week, advocates for "net neutrality" still have a lot of excuse making to do for injustices of the patent and copyright system, rights violations in the war on terrorism, and the train wreck which is Obamacare before they get to advocating for an expansion of government into internet regulation.</p><p>Why is "But won't you think of the children?" a joke but "But won't you think of net neutrality" regarded equally?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my insightful comment [ slashdot.org ] last week I alluded to something exactly like this happening.This week , advocates for " net neutrality " still have a lot of excuse making to do for injustices of the patent and copyright system , rights violations in the war on terrorism , and the train wreck which is Obamacare before they get to advocating for an expansion of government into internet regulation.Why is " But wo n't you think of the children ?
" a joke but " But wo n't you think of net neutrality " regarded equally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my insightful comment [slashdot.org] last week I alluded to something exactly like this happening.This week, advocates for "net neutrality" still have a lot of excuse making to do for injustices of the patent and copyright system, rights violations in the war on terrorism, and the train wreck which is Obamacare before they get to advocating for an expansion of government into internet regulation.Why is "But won't you think of the children?
" a joke but "But won't you think of net neutrality" regarded equally?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30712828</id>
	<title>Re:Just Pass a Law</title>
	<author>Warhawke</author>
	<datestamp>1263062820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Legislation that protects consumers against the profit-interests of large corporations...  Why does the word "vaporware" come to mind?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legislation that protects consumers against the profit-interests of large corporations... Why does the word " vaporware " come to mind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legislation that protects consumers against the profit-interests of large corporations...  Why does the word "vaporware" come to mind?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700956</id>
	<title>Re:No Suprise here</title>
	<author>gangien</author>
	<datestamp>1262949420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AH oh, here we go again.</p><p>You're right, big government is the solution.  Government in control is what we need.  This is perfect.  Instead of letting competition decide who wins, we let government hurrah!!!!</p><p>Do people not understand how capitalism works?  And no, we don't have a capitalistic system in the US, we have big corporations and unions who get legislature passed, that is the exact opposite of capitalism.  But the solution isn't to just go hogwild with stupid regulations that hinder improvement and innovation and meanwhile don't even achieve the results they desire?</p><p>and moreover, what are we btihcing about? throttling?  geez.  you know what? i had comcast, i started to hate them, they are incompetent(beyond throttling), so you know what i did? I did my business elsewhere.  And don't tell me there aren't other options, because there are in almost all cases, other options.</p><p>The solution is rather simple, get rid of almost all regulations on business.  Let individuals decide what their choices are and where to go.  Let people vote in the best way, with our dollars, on what services are good, and what are bad.  But nope, won't be done, all those regulations are supposed to help right? hahahahaha.  they rarely help, and even when they do it's a short term, and in the long term are much worse for the consumer.  The worst thing to do is judge legislation by it's intentions rather than it's results.  Which is what we always do.  At some point we'll learn freedom of choice, really does work.  Well, we'll learn it again, we used to know it back in the 1700's and 1800's and even into the early 1900's.  Which were our most productive times, but ah well.  Hell, as recently as the 50's we had decent medical care, and shockingly, there was little regulation and government involvement.</p><p>Socialism does not work.  Even in cases like this, where you want it to.  The only exceptions, are literally where there are no other alternatives, but those cases are few and far between.  And i'll put my mod prediction in the last part so no one will read it, either this post gets ignored or modded down, never know tho, occasionally some 'kook' libertarian posts do get modded up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AH oh , here we go again.You 're right , big government is the solution .
Government in control is what we need .
This is perfect .
Instead of letting competition decide who wins , we let government hurrah ! ! !
! Do people not understand how capitalism works ?
And no , we do n't have a capitalistic system in the US , we have big corporations and unions who get legislature passed , that is the exact opposite of capitalism .
But the solution is n't to just go hogwild with stupid regulations that hinder improvement and innovation and meanwhile do n't even achieve the results they desire ? and moreover , what are we btihcing about ?
throttling ? geez .
you know what ?
i had comcast , i started to hate them , they are incompetent ( beyond throttling ) , so you know what i did ?
I did my business elsewhere .
And do n't tell me there are n't other options , because there are in almost all cases , other options.The solution is rather simple , get rid of almost all regulations on business .
Let individuals decide what their choices are and where to go .
Let people vote in the best way , with our dollars , on what services are good , and what are bad .
But nope , wo n't be done , all those regulations are supposed to help right ?
hahahahaha. they rarely help , and even when they do it 's a short term , and in the long term are much worse for the consumer .
The worst thing to do is judge legislation by it 's intentions rather than it 's results .
Which is what we always do .
At some point we 'll learn freedom of choice , really does work .
Well , we 'll learn it again , we used to know it back in the 1700 's and 1800 's and even into the early 1900 's .
Which were our most productive times , but ah well .
Hell , as recently as the 50 's we had decent medical care , and shockingly , there was little regulation and government involvement.Socialism does not work .
Even in cases like this , where you want it to .
The only exceptions , are literally where there are no other alternatives , but those cases are few and far between .
And i 'll put my mod prediction in the last part so no one will read it , either this post gets ignored or modded down , never know tho , occasionally some 'kook ' libertarian posts do get modded up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AH oh, here we go again.You're right, big government is the solution.
Government in control is what we need.
This is perfect.
Instead of letting competition decide who wins, we let government hurrah!!!
!Do people not understand how capitalism works?
And no, we don't have a capitalistic system in the US, we have big corporations and unions who get legislature passed, that is the exact opposite of capitalism.
But the solution isn't to just go hogwild with stupid regulations that hinder improvement and innovation and meanwhile don't even achieve the results they desire?and moreover, what are we btihcing about?
throttling?  geez.
you know what?
i had comcast, i started to hate them, they are incompetent(beyond throttling), so you know what i did?
I did my business elsewhere.
And don't tell me there aren't other options, because there are in almost all cases, other options.The solution is rather simple, get rid of almost all regulations on business.
Let individuals decide what their choices are and where to go.
Let people vote in the best way, with our dollars, on what services are good, and what are bad.
But nope, won't be done, all those regulations are supposed to help right?
hahahahaha.  they rarely help, and even when they do it's a short term, and in the long term are much worse for the consumer.
The worst thing to do is judge legislation by it's intentions rather than it's results.
Which is what we always do.
At some point we'll learn freedom of choice, really does work.
Well, we'll learn it again, we used to know it back in the 1700's and 1800's and even into the early 1900's.
Which were our most productive times, but ah well.
Hell, as recently as the 50's we had decent medical care, and shockingly, there was little regulation and government involvement.Socialism does not work.
Even in cases like this, where you want it to.
The only exceptions, are literally where there are no other alternatives, but those cases are few and far between.
And i'll put my mod prediction in the last part so no one will read it, either this post gets ignored or modded down, never know tho, occasionally some 'kook' libertarian posts do get modded up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699796</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30707776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30706212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30715278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30712828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30702494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1754203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1754203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30706212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700322
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30712828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30702494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1754203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1754203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30707776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30715278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1754203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30699806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1754203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30700386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1754203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1754203.30701816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
