<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_12_2022246</id>
	<title>Comcast Launches Broadband Meter</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263295080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>nlawalker writes <i>"Beginning on Tuesday, January 12, Comcast high-speed internet users in Washington state will have access to an <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/technologybrierdudleysblog/2010767726\_comcast\_launching\_broadband\_me.html">online tool that displays their bandwidth usage</a> for the most recent three calendar (not billing) months of usage, including the current month. Washington is the second market to receive access to the tool, following its introduction in Portland. 'For the fraction of less than 1 percent of our customers who are concerned about exceeding our excessive use threshold, we believe this meter will help them monitor and calibrate their usage,' said spokesman Steve Kipp. Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>nlawalker writes " Beginning on Tuesday , January 12 , Comcast high-speed internet users in Washington state will have access to an online tool that displays their bandwidth usage for the most recent three calendar ( not billing ) months of usage , including the current month .
Washington is the second market to receive access to the tool , following its introduction in Portland .
'For the fraction of less than 1 percent of our customers who are concerned about exceeding our excessive use threshold , we believe this meter will help them monitor and calibrate their usage, ' said spokesman Steve Kipp .
Perhaps those who are n't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nlawalker writes "Beginning on Tuesday, January 12, Comcast high-speed internet users in Washington state will have access to an online tool that displays their bandwidth usage for the most recent three calendar (not billing) months of usage, including the current month.
Washington is the second market to receive access to the tool, following its introduction in Portland.
'For the fraction of less than 1 percent of our customers who are concerned about exceeding our excessive use threshold, we believe this meter will help them monitor and calibrate their usage,' said spokesman Steve Kipp.
Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744602</id>
	<title>Summary for this posting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263299880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast, what a bunch of asshats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast , what a bunch of asshats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast, what a bunch of asshats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744638</id>
	<title>Sounds about right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263300120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, they're saying for 5\% of the price of a T1 you get 5\% the capacity over a month.</p><p>So, continuing on about the tenth year in a row, I continue find it very hard to give a shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , they 're saying for 5 \ % of the price of a T1 you get 5 \ % the capacity over a month.So , continuing on about the tenth year in a row , I continue find it very hard to give a shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, they're saying for 5\% of the price of a T1 you get 5\% the capacity over a month.So, continuing on about the tenth year in a row, I continue find it very hard to give a shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746250</id>
	<title>Re:Freakonomics</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1263310200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The real solution to this problem is for Comcast, and every other ISP to invest more into infrastructure.</p><p>Comcast's residential pricing in Chicago is 59 dollars plus a 5 dollar modem rental (this is accurate as of today, as I just called and ordered). This is 64 dollars a month and because its residential its capped at 250gigs. Comcast's 6mbps (w 12mbps burst) Business class service is 59.99, with no cap, and includes the modem rental.  The only difference is that they make you sign a 12month contract.</p><p>So enterprising Comcast users should just switch to business class, pay less, and enjoy their torrents. The cap is there to make them move to business service and because the business internet market is so much more competitive than residential the price is LESS than residential.  Funny eh? They have the infrastructure, but they know AT&amp;T service is so horrible and Uverse is only in select neighborhoods that they can charge what AT&amp;T charges for Uverse Max. I tried getting Uverse today only to hear "You cant get it without video service" and then after practically yelling at the CSR I got them to talk to their manager to tell me that "Yes, we'll reluctantly sell you internet."  And because I have DSL with them I first need to cancel it then call them back once its disconnected. So we're looking at several days of no internet. Just incredible. AT&amp;T's incompetence is stunning. I gave up and called Comcast after some research.</p><p>What we need is more competitors and better competitors. I suspect they have the infrastructure. If you read dslreports forums on business comcast, you'll find a lot of happy people with high speeds, no caps, and normal pings. As is, the duopoly thats common in most American cities isnt working. I really dont have a dog in this fight. I just needed something faster than my 1.5mbps DSL line (cant increase because of distance to CO) and wanted the best price for my bandwidth dollar.</p><p>For those interested, Comcast business has 14/2 for 89.99 a month. I might get that and split it with other tenants in my condo via the Cat-5 run in all the units.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The real solution to this problem is for Comcast , and every other ISP to invest more into infrastructure.Comcast 's residential pricing in Chicago is 59 dollars plus a 5 dollar modem rental ( this is accurate as of today , as I just called and ordered ) .
This is 64 dollars a month and because its residential its capped at 250gigs .
Comcast 's 6mbps ( w 12mbps burst ) Business class service is 59.99 , with no cap , and includes the modem rental .
The only difference is that they make you sign a 12month contract.So enterprising Comcast users should just switch to business class , pay less , and enjoy their torrents .
The cap is there to make them move to business service and because the business internet market is so much more competitive than residential the price is LESS than residential .
Funny eh ?
They have the infrastructure , but they know AT&amp;T service is so horrible and Uverse is only in select neighborhoods that they can charge what AT&amp;T charges for Uverse Max .
I tried getting Uverse today only to hear " You cant get it without video service " and then after practically yelling at the CSR I got them to talk to their manager to tell me that " Yes , we 'll reluctantly sell you internet .
" And because I have DSL with them I first need to cancel it then call them back once its disconnected .
So we 're looking at several days of no internet .
Just incredible .
AT&amp;T 's incompetence is stunning .
I gave up and called Comcast after some research.What we need is more competitors and better competitors .
I suspect they have the infrastructure .
If you read dslreports forums on business comcast , you 'll find a lot of happy people with high speeds , no caps , and normal pings .
As is , the duopoly thats common in most American cities isnt working .
I really dont have a dog in this fight .
I just needed something faster than my 1.5mbps DSL line ( cant increase because of distance to CO ) and wanted the best price for my bandwidth dollar.For those interested , Comcast business has 14/2 for 89.99 a month .
I might get that and split it with other tenants in my condo via the Cat-5 run in all the units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The real solution to this problem is for Comcast, and every other ISP to invest more into infrastructure.Comcast's residential pricing in Chicago is 59 dollars plus a 5 dollar modem rental (this is accurate as of today, as I just called and ordered).
This is 64 dollars a month and because its residential its capped at 250gigs.
Comcast's 6mbps (w 12mbps burst) Business class service is 59.99, with no cap, and includes the modem rental.
The only difference is that they make you sign a 12month contract.So enterprising Comcast users should just switch to business class, pay less, and enjoy their torrents.
The cap is there to make them move to business service and because the business internet market is so much more competitive than residential the price is LESS than residential.
Funny eh?
They have the infrastructure, but they know AT&amp;T service is so horrible and Uverse is only in select neighborhoods that they can charge what AT&amp;T charges for Uverse Max.
I tried getting Uverse today only to hear "You cant get it without video service" and then after practically yelling at the CSR I got them to talk to their manager to tell me that "Yes, we'll reluctantly sell you internet.
"  And because I have DSL with them I first need to cancel it then call them back once its disconnected.
So we're looking at several days of no internet.
Just incredible.
AT&amp;T's incompetence is stunning.
I gave up and called Comcast after some research.What we need is more competitors and better competitors.
I suspect they have the infrastructure.
If you read dslreports forums on business comcast, you'll find a lot of happy people with high speeds, no caps, and normal pings.
As is, the duopoly thats common in most American cities isnt working.
I really dont have a dog in this fight.
I just needed something faster than my 1.5mbps DSL line (cant increase because of distance to CO) and wanted the best price for my bandwidth dollar.For those interested, Comcast business has 14/2 for 89.99 a month.
I might get that and split it with other tenants in my condo via the Cat-5 run in all the units.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747912</id>
	<title>Re:Dear US,</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1263414000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Catching up to what?  Caps and limits do nothing but push you into falling behind.  I live in Canada, where I have the choice of Rogers or Bell.  Both with 60GB/mo caps.  Oh, and that's all the competition I have too.  I can't tell you the number of times that I've had the rogers meter not work, incorrectly report the number.  Carry over the previous months balance to the following month.  I had a neighbor down the street have their service cut off because it carried his previous months to his next months.  Let me think of what else, random spiking of usage when I wasn't using any.  Luckily that stopped after they pushed a new modem firmware, lot of people figured some were cloning cable modem macs, but no one ever heard anything on that either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Catching up to what ?
Caps and limits do nothing but push you into falling behind .
I live in Canada , where I have the choice of Rogers or Bell .
Both with 60GB/mo caps .
Oh , and that 's all the competition I have too .
I ca n't tell you the number of times that I 've had the rogers meter not work , incorrectly report the number .
Carry over the previous months balance to the following month .
I had a neighbor down the street have their service cut off because it carried his previous months to his next months .
Let me think of what else , random spiking of usage when I was n't using any .
Luckily that stopped after they pushed a new modem firmware , lot of people figured some were cloning cable modem macs , but no one ever heard anything on that either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Catching up to what?
Caps and limits do nothing but push you into falling behind.
I live in Canada, where I have the choice of Rogers or Bell.
Both with 60GB/mo caps.
Oh, and that's all the competition I have too.
I can't tell you the number of times that I've had the rogers meter not work, incorrectly report the number.
Carry over the previous months balance to the following month.
I had a neighbor down the street have their service cut off because it carried his previous months to his next months.
Let me think of what else, random spiking of usage when I wasn't using any.
Luckily that stopped after they pushed a new modem firmware, lot of people figured some were cloning cable modem macs, but no one ever heard anything on that either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744844</id>
	<title>Re:Old...</title>
	<author>iamsolidsnk</author>
	<datestamp>1263301320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, if you own a Linksys WRT54G model router, of most firmware variations, you can get custom firmware that will track WLAN usage.  It was quite handy when I had to pick a broadband connection plan when I moved to a new state.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , if you own a Linksys WRT54G model router , of most firmware variations , you can get custom firmware that will track WLAN usage .
It was quite handy when I had to pick a broadband connection plan when I moved to a new state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, if you own a Linksys WRT54G model router, of most firmware variations, you can get custom firmware that will track WLAN usage.
It was quite handy when I had to pick a broadband connection plan when I moved to a new state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745270</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds about right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>10 years, as you say.  That is a helluva lot of time for bandwidth to become cheaper for everyone except consumers.  Why could I buy an unlimited 1 MB connection 10 years ago and I can't buy anything faster today for less than 100 bucks a month?</htmltext>
<tokenext>10 years , as you say .
That is a helluva lot of time for bandwidth to become cheaper for everyone except consumers .
Why could I buy an unlimited 1 MB connection 10 years ago and I ca n't buy anything faster today for less than 100 bucks a month ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 years, as you say.
That is a helluva lot of time for bandwidth to become cheaper for everyone except consumers.
Why could I buy an unlimited 1 MB connection 10 years ago and I can't buy anything faster today for less than 100 bucks a month?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745758</id>
	<title>Already implemented by Telus in Canada</title>
	<author>MagikSlinger</author>
	<datestamp>1263306300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Telus's broadband solutions never promises unlimited bandwidth and always had a site you could go to to see your current (and past) consumption of bandwidth per month.  If you hit the cap, you have the option of buying extra bandwidth for the month.  Also, it's a "nice" cap in that it simply throttles you so you can still check e-mail, etc., but not do any serious downloading, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telus 's broadband solutions never promises unlimited bandwidth and always had a site you could go to to see your current ( and past ) consumption of bandwidth per month .
If you hit the cap , you have the option of buying extra bandwidth for the month .
Also , it 's a " nice " cap in that it simply throttles you so you can still check e-mail , etc. , but not do any serious downloading , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telus's broadband solutions never promises unlimited bandwidth and always had a site you could go to to see your current (and past) consumption of bandwidth per month.
If you hit the cap, you have the option of buying extra bandwidth for the month.
Also, it's a "nice" cap in that it simply throttles you so you can still check e-mail, etc., but not do any serious downloading, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746538</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about timing</title>
	<author>effigiate</author>
	<datestamp>1263312600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was at PSU in the late 90s and I don't recall a download limit, though I may have just never hit it.  What did bother me was the printing limit of 200 pages a semester in the general computer labs.  I did figure out that the EE lab had no printing limit, so I just printed everything there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was at PSU in the late 90s and I do n't recall a download limit , though I may have just never hit it .
What did bother me was the printing limit of 200 pages a semester in the general computer labs .
I did figure out that the EE lab had no printing limit , so I just printed everything there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was at PSU in the late 90s and I don't recall a download limit, though I may have just never hit it.
What did bother me was the printing limit of 200 pages a semester in the general computer labs.
I did figure out that the EE lab had no printing limit, so I just printed everything there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744858</id>
	<title>Emphasis on very few people</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1263301440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the fraction of less than 1 percent of our customers who are concerned...</p></div><p>For the very extremely low and small fraction of far less than 1 percent, seriously there are like so few of you that I can't believe I'm issuing a press release, I mean I could just walk around to the insanely lonely few of you who are concerned about this thing... I'm sorry, I just want to emphasize how little this policy affects anyone besides like a small handfull of our customers.  Because so few of you will be affected by this trivial little thing.  Seriously, there aren't many of you.  Lets not make a big deal about it, because I mean I haven't looked, but I bet I could count the people who this will affect on one hand.  I mean, I've sent all the people who should be concerned with this a letter, and I mean one letter because that's all it took, via snailmail not even e-mail.  I'd hesitate to even say we're going to be throttling people with this, because I bet those two or three people over the limit were flukes or something anyway, we're really generous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the fraction of less than 1 percent of our customers who are concerned...For the very extremely low and small fraction of far less than 1 percent , seriously there are like so few of you that I ca n't believe I 'm issuing a press release , I mean I could just walk around to the insanely lonely few of you who are concerned about this thing... I 'm sorry , I just want to emphasize how little this policy affects anyone besides like a small handfull of our customers .
Because so few of you will be affected by this trivial little thing .
Seriously , there are n't many of you .
Lets not make a big deal about it , because I mean I have n't looked , but I bet I could count the people who this will affect on one hand .
I mean , I 've sent all the people who should be concerned with this a letter , and I mean one letter because that 's all it took , via snailmail not even e-mail .
I 'd hesitate to even say we 're going to be throttling people with this , because I bet those two or three people over the limit were flukes or something anyway , we 're really generous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the fraction of less than 1 percent of our customers who are concerned...For the very extremely low and small fraction of far less than 1 percent, seriously there are like so few of you that I can't believe I'm issuing a press release, I mean I could just walk around to the insanely lonely few of you who are concerned about this thing... I'm sorry, I just want to emphasize how little this policy affects anyone besides like a small handfull of our customers.
Because so few of you will be affected by this trivial little thing.
Seriously, there aren't many of you.
Lets not make a big deal about it, because I mean I haven't looked, but I bet I could count the people who this will affect on one hand.
I mean, I've sent all the people who should be concerned with this a letter, and I mean one letter because that's all it took, via snailmail not even e-mail.
I'd hesitate to even say we're going to be throttling people with this, because I bet those two or three people over the limit were flukes or something anyway, we're really generous.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744362</id>
	<title>Honey...</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1263298680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge.</p><p>"Honey, I have been to that new page on Comcast site and I realized that we are using only 0.5 GB of bandwidth a month while we are paying for 250 GB, we need to find a way to make this more profitable, download more recipe books and travel agency pamphlets, I don't know, but we have to find some way. Maybe we should just forward emails with silly jokes or hoaxes to more friends..."</p><p>"Let's phone that nerdy guy we know to ask him what we can do about this..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Perhaps those who are n't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge .
" Honey , I have been to that new page on Comcast site and I realized that we are using only 0.5 GB of bandwidth a month while we are paying for 250 GB , we need to find a way to make this more profitable , download more recipe books and travel agency pamphlets , I do n't know , but we have to find some way .
Maybe we should just forward emails with silly jokes or hoaxes to more friends... " " Let 's phone that nerdy guy we know to ask him what we can do about this... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge.
"Honey, I have been to that new page on Comcast site and I realized that we are using only 0.5 GB of bandwidth a month while we are paying for 250 GB, we need to find a way to make this more profitable, download more recipe books and travel agency pamphlets, I don't know, but we have to find some way.
Maybe we should just forward emails with silly jokes or hoaxes to more friends...""Let's phone that nerdy guy we know to ask him what we can do about this..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744466</id>
	<title>Convenient</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263299220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Here's a fake metric that has no meaningful relation to what we're going to bill you for."</p><p>On a side note pfsense keeps track of this for you, and I'm fairly certain the majority of those cheap shit Linksys or Dlink "routers" do as well. You can even match them to your billing cycle. Yay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Here 's a fake metric that has no meaningful relation to what we 're going to bill you for .
" On a side note pfsense keeps track of this for you , and I 'm fairly certain the majority of those cheap shit Linksys or Dlink " routers " do as well .
You can even match them to your billing cycle .
Yay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Here's a fake metric that has no meaningful relation to what we're going to bill you for.
"On a side note pfsense keeps track of this for you, and I'm fairly certain the majority of those cheap shit Linksys or Dlink "routers" do as well.
You can even match them to your billing cycle.
Yay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745260</id>
	<title>With mac os updates pushing 1gb and windows ones b</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263303540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With mac os updates pushing 1gb and windows ones being big as well. People with more then one system are more likey to be download a lot. also game and other app updates are not as small as they used be.</p><p>Then you have a lot of flash loaded web sites and more.</p><p>also they seem to count arp traffic as part of the cap as well.</p><p>What is the cap on a business cable internet plan?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With mac os updates pushing 1gb and windows ones being big as well .
People with more then one system are more likey to be download a lot .
also game and other app updates are not as small as they used be.Then you have a lot of flash loaded web sites and more.also they seem to count arp traffic as part of the cap as well.What is the cap on a business cable internet plan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With mac os updates pushing 1gb and windows ones being big as well.
People with more then one system are more likey to be download a lot.
also game and other app updates are not as small as they used be.Then you have a lot of flash loaded web sites and more.also they seem to count arp traffic as part of the cap as well.What is the cap on a business cable internet plan?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30748826</id>
	<title>Re:Freakonomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263385140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thing is the late fee didnt cover the cost. See thing is daycare in MOST of the world is very heavily subsideized. And most parents would want to keep kids a bit longer, i know atleast the person next to me woul like kids to be picked up 15 minutes later.</p><p>Now the real problem is that when everybody gets a allowance to do this for slight change, then suddenly you see babysitting going ALL to the daycare centers, who need to become much much bigger pay 3 times as much salaries etc. And that scaling is not profitable on the long run.</p><p>Whats worse once they stopped this finig idea they were left with the same situation as in fining. It just didnt work.</p><p>Humans are irrational, for one thing humans value being nice more than they value money. But once you exchange the societal free pressure for money something weird happens. People change, business is a world of its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is the late fee didnt cover the cost .
See thing is daycare in MOST of the world is very heavily subsideized .
And most parents would want to keep kids a bit longer , i know atleast the person next to me woul like kids to be picked up 15 minutes later.Now the real problem is that when everybody gets a allowance to do this for slight change , then suddenly you see babysitting going ALL to the daycare centers , who need to become much much bigger pay 3 times as much salaries etc .
And that scaling is not profitable on the long run.Whats worse once they stopped this finig idea they were left with the same situation as in fining .
It just didnt work.Humans are irrational , for one thing humans value being nice more than they value money .
But once you exchange the societal free pressure for money something weird happens .
People change , business is a world of its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is the late fee didnt cover the cost.
See thing is daycare in MOST of the world is very heavily subsideized.
And most parents would want to keep kids a bit longer, i know atleast the person next to me woul like kids to be picked up 15 minutes later.Now the real problem is that when everybody gets a allowance to do this for slight change, then suddenly you see babysitting going ALL to the daycare centers, who need to become much much bigger pay 3 times as much salaries etc.
And that scaling is not profitable on the long run.Whats worse once they stopped this finig idea they were left with the same situation as in fining.
It just didnt work.Humans are irrational, for one thing humans value being nice more than they value money.
But once you exchange the societal free pressure for money something weird happens.
People change, business is a world of its own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744810</id>
	<title>Re:it's not enough</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1263301080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If ISPs tried to "itemize" your bandwidth people would complain about privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If ISPs tried to " itemize " your bandwidth people would complain about privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ISPs tried to "itemize" your bandwidth people would complain about privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632</id>
	<title>It's all about timing</title>
	<author>maino82</author>
	<datestamp>1263300060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In college (I went to Penn State) they had a similar monitor that would update and show you if you were getting close to, or had already exceeded the limits for the month. After the first infraction in a semster, they'd cut you back to dialup speeds for about a week, then at the second infraction, for the rest of the semester, and after the third (assuming you could even get there at dialup speeds) you were cut off. My friends and I took this as a challenge, so we were always trying to get as close to the download limit without going over, even people who otherwise would not download much at all. I would anticipate this will only encourage similar behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In college ( I went to Penn State ) they had a similar monitor that would update and show you if you were getting close to , or had already exceeded the limits for the month .
After the first infraction in a semster , they 'd cut you back to dialup speeds for about a week , then at the second infraction , for the rest of the semester , and after the third ( assuming you could even get there at dialup speeds ) you were cut off .
My friends and I took this as a challenge , so we were always trying to get as close to the download limit without going over , even people who otherwise would not download much at all .
I would anticipate this will only encourage similar behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In college (I went to Penn State) they had a similar monitor that would update and show you if you were getting close to, or had already exceeded the limits for the month.
After the first infraction in a semster, they'd cut you back to dialup speeds for about a week, then at the second infraction, for the rest of the semester, and after the third (assuming you could even get there at dialup speeds) you were cut off.
My friends and I took this as a challenge, so we were always trying to get as close to the download limit without going over, even people who otherwise would not download much at all.
I would anticipate this will only encourage similar behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755088</id>
	<title>Re:Honey...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263416040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; I'm disappointed in all the geeks on this site misusing the term "bandwidth." Bandwidth is a measure of rate, not of volume.</p><p>Yes... they are measuring a rate of bits per month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I 'm disappointed in all the geeks on this site misusing the term " bandwidth .
" Bandwidth is a measure of rate , not of volume.Yes... they are measuring a rate of bits per month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; I'm disappointed in all the geeks on this site misusing the term "bandwidth.
" Bandwidth is a measure of rate, not of volume.Yes... they are measuring a rate of bits per month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746026</id>
	<title>Re:Freakonomics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263308220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So when you give people this new information, what's going to happen? 90\% of people are not using that much bandwidth already. Comcast is giving them a chart that says "look how little bandwidth you're using, you could use a lot more and not get in trouble".</p></div><p>No, what will happen is 90 \% of the customer base will abandon the higher tiers of service in favor of the cheapest connection since it still provides more bandwidth than the cap allows. Their sales and marketing groups are going to have a cow, and the only people on faster packages will be the heavy users.</p><p>The only reason Comcast and others haven't already just reduced their top tier back to the 3 to 5 meg packages is marketing- they want to be able to say they are the "fastest" or "faster than DSL!!". And then they sell this service to average users who don't know any better, and then cap your actual usage to less than what those uncapped DSL connections will do.</p><p>I also expect to see lawsuits start up over the bandwidth monitoring. For example, if I was on Comcast, I would keep my own specific count of traffic. I would also monitor for data loss and any unsolicited connections, and force them to remove those items from my usage numbers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when you give people this new information , what 's going to happen ?
90 \ % of people are not using that much bandwidth already .
Comcast is giving them a chart that says " look how little bandwidth you 're using , you could use a lot more and not get in trouble " .No , what will happen is 90 \ % of the customer base will abandon the higher tiers of service in favor of the cheapest connection since it still provides more bandwidth than the cap allows .
Their sales and marketing groups are going to have a cow , and the only people on faster packages will be the heavy users.The only reason Comcast and others have n't already just reduced their top tier back to the 3 to 5 meg packages is marketing- they want to be able to say they are the " fastest " or " faster than DSL ! ! " .
And then they sell this service to average users who do n't know any better , and then cap your actual usage to less than what those uncapped DSL connections will do.I also expect to see lawsuits start up over the bandwidth monitoring .
For example , if I was on Comcast , I would keep my own specific count of traffic .
I would also monitor for data loss and any unsolicited connections , and force them to remove those items from my usage numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when you give people this new information, what's going to happen?
90\% of people are not using that much bandwidth already.
Comcast is giving them a chart that says "look how little bandwidth you're using, you could use a lot more and not get in trouble".No, what will happen is 90 \% of the customer base will abandon the higher tiers of service in favor of the cheapest connection since it still provides more bandwidth than the cap allows.
Their sales and marketing groups are going to have a cow, and the only people on faster packages will be the heavy users.The only reason Comcast and others haven't already just reduced their top tier back to the 3 to 5 meg packages is marketing- they want to be able to say they are the "fastest" or "faster than DSL!!".
And then they sell this service to average users who don't know any better, and then cap your actual usage to less than what those uncapped DSL connections will do.I also expect to see lawsuits start up over the bandwidth monitoring.
For example, if I was on Comcast, I would keep my own specific count of traffic.
I would also monitor for data loss and any unsolicited connections, and force them to remove those items from my usage numbers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744614</id>
	<title>Re:Old Tech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263300000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the same thing ("why is this news, my ISP has done this for years") but then read TFA.</p><p>"In October 2008, the company began limiting residential broadband customers to 250 gigabytes of data usage per month. Before that, the company had periodically cut off service to people using too much broadband, but hadn't specified an amount, drawing complaints that it was throttling users."</p><p>So they didn't need to have a data meter before October 2008 but did after then. What I don't understand though is why they didn't introduce a data meter in October 2008 when they changed their policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the same thing ( " why is this news , my ISP has done this for years " ) but then read TFA .
" In October 2008 , the company began limiting residential broadband customers to 250 gigabytes of data usage per month .
Before that , the company had periodically cut off service to people using too much broadband , but had n't specified an amount , drawing complaints that it was throttling users .
" So they did n't need to have a data meter before October 2008 but did after then .
What I do n't understand though is why they did n't introduce a data meter in October 2008 when they changed their policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the same thing ("why is this news, my ISP has done this for years") but then read TFA.
"In October 2008, the company began limiting residential broadband customers to 250 gigabytes of data usage per month.
Before that, the company had periodically cut off service to people using too much broadband, but hadn't specified an amount, drawing complaints that it was throttling users.
"So they didn't need to have a data meter before October 2008 but did after then.
What I don't understand though is why they didn't introduce a data meter in October 2008 when they changed their policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744726</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>faedle</author>
	<datestamp>1263300600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all this handwringing, I've never seen this feature on my Comcast account.  Yes, I live in Portland.</p><p>Maybe it's because I pay for the higher tier?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all this handwringing , I 've never seen this feature on my Comcast account .
Yes , I live in Portland.Maybe it 's because I pay for the higher tier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all this handwringing, I've never seen this feature on my Comcast account.
Yes, I live in Portland.Maybe it's because I pay for the higher tier?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</id>
	<title>Freakonomics</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1263301440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge.</i></p><p>You're not kidding.  There's a story in Freakonomics about a daycare center that had problems with people not picking their kids up on time.  So they figured they would charge a fee; penalize people for leaving their kids and they'll stop, right?  Instead, more people started showing up late.  Turns out that paying a fee assuaged peoples guilt for not showing up on time.  Before they felt like jerks for being late, now they could just pay a fee and feel better.  Moral of the story, incentives don't always work the way you think they will.</p><p>So when you give people this new information, what's going to happen?  90\% of people are not using that much bandwidth already.  Comcast is giving them a chart that says "look how little bandwidth you're using, you could use a lot more and not get in trouble".  Some of those people are going to start using more bandwith, and I'll bet those people will more than offset the minority of heavy users who might curtail their usage.</p><p>The real solution to this problem is for Comcast, and every other ISP to invest more into infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps those who are n't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge.You 're not kidding .
There 's a story in Freakonomics about a daycare center that had problems with people not picking their kids up on time .
So they figured they would charge a fee ; penalize people for leaving their kids and they 'll stop , right ?
Instead , more people started showing up late .
Turns out that paying a fee assuaged peoples guilt for not showing up on time .
Before they felt like jerks for being late , now they could just pay a fee and feel better .
Moral of the story , incentives do n't always work the way you think they will.So when you give people this new information , what 's going to happen ?
90 \ % of people are not using that much bandwidth already .
Comcast is giving them a chart that says " look how little bandwidth you 're using , you could use a lot more and not get in trouble " .
Some of those people are going to start using more bandwith , and I 'll bet those people will more than offset the minority of heavy users who might curtail their usage.The real solution to this problem is for Comcast , and every other ISP to invest more into infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge.You're not kidding.
There's a story in Freakonomics about a daycare center that had problems with people not picking their kids up on time.
So they figured they would charge a fee; penalize people for leaving their kids and they'll stop, right?
Instead, more people started showing up late.
Turns out that paying a fee assuaged peoples guilt for not showing up on time.
Before they felt like jerks for being late, now they could just pay a fee and feel better.
Moral of the story, incentives don't always work the way you think they will.So when you give people this new information, what's going to happen?
90\% of people are not using that much bandwidth already.
Comcast is giving them a chart that says "look how little bandwidth you're using, you could use a lot more and not get in trouble".
Some of those people are going to start using more bandwith, and I'll bet those people will more than offset the minority of heavy users who might curtail their usage.The real solution to this problem is for Comcast, and every other ISP to invest more into infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744688</id>
	<title>not convinced</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263300360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not convinced that this cap is being enforced in the south Chicago area. I know for a fact that I exceed 250gb a month on a regular basis, and although I am throttled often enough, my speeds have always stayed over 5Mb/s with no internet cutoffs, and I have not yet received any warning messages from comcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not convinced that this cap is being enforced in the south Chicago area .
I know for a fact that I exceed 250gb a month on a regular basis , and although I am throttled often enough , my speeds have always stayed over 5Mb/s with no internet cutoffs , and I have not yet received any warning messages from comcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not convinced that this cap is being enforced in the south Chicago area.
I know for a fact that I exceed 250gb a month on a regular basis, and although I am throttled often enough, my speeds have always stayed over 5Mb/s with no internet cutoffs, and I have not yet received any warning messages from comcast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745532</id>
	<title>I was wondering...</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1263305100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't download pirated movies or music - but I do stream a fair number of TV shows and movies (Netflix), and occasionally have to pull down pretty large files on those days I work from home. So I've legitimately wondered where on the continuum we fell, and have been waiting for this since they announced it over a year ago.</p><p>But heck, all that wondering and our household's only been using about 50 gigs a month, according to the meter.</p><p>So now I guess I'll start leaving that Tor relay on all the time, and maybe start taking advantage of all the allocated bandwidth I haven't been using!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't download pirated movies or music - but I do stream a fair number of TV shows and movies ( Netflix ) , and occasionally have to pull down pretty large files on those days I work from home .
So I 've legitimately wondered where on the continuum we fell , and have been waiting for this since they announced it over a year ago.But heck , all that wondering and our household 's only been using about 50 gigs a month , according to the meter.So now I guess I 'll start leaving that Tor relay on all the time , and maybe start taking advantage of all the allocated bandwidth I have n't been using !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't download pirated movies or music - but I do stream a fair number of TV shows and movies (Netflix), and occasionally have to pull down pretty large files on those days I work from home.
So I've legitimately wondered where on the continuum we fell, and have been waiting for this since they announced it over a year ago.But heck, all that wondering and our household's only been using about 50 gigs a month, according to the meter.So now I guess I'll start leaving that Tor relay on all the time, and maybe start taking advantage of all the allocated bandwidth I haven't been using!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747536</id>
	<title>Re:Honey...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263321960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm disappointed in all the geeks on this site misusing the term "bandwidth."  Bandwidth is a measure of rate, not of volume.</p><p>I can understand a Comcast marketing droid calling it a "bandwidth meter" because it's a non-geek selling it to non-geeks.  But we shouldn't use the word improperly just because some stupid people do.</p><p>Earning my karma today, that's for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm disappointed in all the geeks on this site misusing the term " bandwidth .
" Bandwidth is a measure of rate , not of volume.I can understand a Comcast marketing droid calling it a " bandwidth meter " because it 's a non-geek selling it to non-geeks .
But we should n't use the word improperly just because some stupid people do.Earning my karma today , that 's for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm disappointed in all the geeks on this site misusing the term "bandwidth.
"  Bandwidth is a measure of rate, not of volume.I can understand a Comcast marketing droid calling it a "bandwidth meter" because it's a non-geek selling it to non-geeks.
But we shouldn't use the word improperly just because some stupid people do.Earning my karma today, that's for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744464</id>
	<title>Someone's not doing their share!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1263299220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge.</i> <br> <br>
Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should start sharing more porn! Darn leechers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps those who are n't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge .
Perhaps those who are n't using 250GB a month should start sharing more porn !
Darn leechers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should take it as a challenge.
Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should start sharing more porn!
Darn leechers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746490</id>
	<title>The solution to parents showing up late</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1263312240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a story in Freakonomics about a daycare center that had problems with people not picking their kids up on time.</p></div><p>If you offer care from 9 to 5, at 5 o' clock, take the kids that haven't been picked up, walk them out to the curb, tell them to stand there until their parents pick them up, lock up the place and go home.</p><p>No kid would want that to happen again, so they'd beg their parents to be there on time.  And no parent would want this to happen again either.</p><p>Maybe it's reckless endangerment of children.  Maybe it's just a plain old dick move.  But I think it'd work.</p><p>The general point: if you make someone else's behaviour cost them something (financially or emotionally) in order to discourage that behaviour, make sure it costs enough (i.e. too much).  Ramp up the fines every time, say by a factor 2.  Starting at a measly fiver, it can get expensive really fast.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a story in Freakonomics about a daycare center that had problems with people not picking their kids up on time.If you offer care from 9 to 5 , at 5 o ' clock , take the kids that have n't been picked up , walk them out to the curb , tell them to stand there until their parents pick them up , lock up the place and go home.No kid would want that to happen again , so they 'd beg their parents to be there on time .
And no parent would want this to happen again either.Maybe it 's reckless endangerment of children .
Maybe it 's just a plain old dick move .
But I think it 'd work.The general point : if you make someone else 's behaviour cost them something ( financially or emotionally ) in order to discourage that behaviour , make sure it costs enough ( i.e .
too much ) .
Ramp up the fines every time , say by a factor 2 .
Starting at a measly fiver , it can get expensive really fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a story in Freakonomics about a daycare center that had problems with people not picking their kids up on time.If you offer care from 9 to 5, at 5 o' clock, take the kids that haven't been picked up, walk them out to the curb, tell them to stand there until their parents pick them up, lock up the place and go home.No kid would want that to happen again, so they'd beg their parents to be there on time.
And no parent would want this to happen again either.Maybe it's reckless endangerment of children.
Maybe it's just a plain old dick move.
But I think it'd work.The general point: if you make someone else's behaviour cost them something (financially or emotionally) in order to discourage that behaviour, make sure it costs enough (i.e.
too much).
Ramp up the fines every time, say by a factor 2.
Starting at a measly fiver, it can get expensive really fast.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745292</id>
	<title>Congratulations!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've now caught up with internet backwaters, like Australia. We've had this shit for years. Don't remember it making the front page of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've now caught up with internet backwaters , like Australia .
We 've had this shit for years .
Do n't remember it making the front page of ./ , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've now caught up with internet backwaters, like Australia.
We've had this shit for years.
Don't remember it making the front page of ./, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746318</id>
	<title>Re:Freakonomics</title>
	<author>Alcimedes</author>
	<datestamp>1263310800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you missed the entire story there.</p><p>They found that if the fee was too low then parents felt fine showing up late and paying the fee.  However, if you raise the fee high enough then they don't show up late anymore.  Hence the $2 per minute your late fees at daycare centers that are standard around here.</p><p>Don't think Comcast didn't figure out the second part of that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed the entire story there.They found that if the fee was too low then parents felt fine showing up late and paying the fee .
However , if you raise the fee high enough then they do n't show up late anymore .
Hence the $ 2 per minute your late fees at daycare centers that are standard around here.Do n't think Comcast did n't figure out the second part of that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed the entire story there.They found that if the fee was too low then parents felt fine showing up late and paying the fee.
However, if you raise the fee high enough then they don't show up late anymore.
Hence the $2 per minute your late fees at daycare centers that are standard around here.Don't think Comcast didn't figure out the second part of that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746190</id>
	<title>Dear US,</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263309780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The rest of the world has had this for some time. Nice to see you're catching up.<br> <br>

If the metre is half way decent this will be a valuable tool in tracking and assessing your own download habits, but given the level of competence displayed by US telco's something tells me this wont be the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the world has had this for some time .
Nice to see you 're catching up .
If the metre is half way decent this will be a valuable tool in tracking and assessing your own download habits , but given the level of competence displayed by US telco 's something tells me this wont be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the world has had this for some time.
Nice to see you're catching up.
If the metre is half way decent this will be a valuable tool in tracking and assessing your own download habits, but given the level of competence displayed by US telco's something tells me this wont be the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745268</id>
	<title>Re:it's not enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is?<br>Just have an app on your computer that logs data usage by process name.  The difference between this number and the online number is data used by infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is ? Just have an app on your computer that logs data usage by process name .
The difference between this number and the online number is data used by infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is?Just have an app on your computer that logs data usage by process name.
The difference between this number and the online number is data used by infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744608</id>
	<title>Re:Old Tech</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1263300000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i dont see why Comcast has taken so long to give its users access to a monitoring tool.</p></div><p>Because they didn't have a cap before. With no limit, knowing how much you've used has limited utility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i dont see why Comcast has taken so long to give its users access to a monitoring tool.Because they did n't have a cap before .
With no limit , knowing how much you 've used has limited utility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i dont see why Comcast has taken so long to give its users access to a monitoring tool.Because they didn't have a cap before.
With no limit, knowing how much you've used has limited utility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30748800</id>
	<title>Re:or...</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263384780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also their meter may include packet headers and other low-level things, where a just-on-your-pc meter may only count "data" transferred. It depends how they both measure, but the odds of your meter and theirs agreeing is very very low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also their meter may include packet headers and other low-level things , where a just-on-your-pc meter may only count " data " transferred .
It depends how they both measure , but the odds of your meter and theirs agreeing is very very low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also their meter may include packet headers and other low-level things, where a just-on-your-pc meter may only count "data" transferred.
It depends how they both measure, but the odds of your meter and theirs agreeing is very very low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30751104</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about timing</title>
	<author>mkw87</author>
	<datestamp>1263400620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We used to do the same thing at Penn State.  End of the semester was the best, because they only checked your usage every 12 hours, my friend went crazy during one 12 hour period an managed to more than double the cap, took a screenshot of the usage graph, and photoshopped it to say "Porno Meter"......good times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We used to do the same thing at Penn State .
End of the semester was the best , because they only checked your usage every 12 hours , my friend went crazy during one 12 hour period an managed to more than double the cap , took a screenshot of the usage graph , and photoshopped it to say " Porno Meter " ......good times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used to do the same thing at Penn State.
End of the semester was the best, because they only checked your usage every 12 hours, my friend went crazy during one 12 hour period an managed to more than double the cap, took a screenshot of the usage graph, and photoshopped it to say "Porno Meter"......good times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744830</id>
	<title>Re:or...</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1263301260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their traffic meter will almost definitely show more traffic than anything you install on your PC, because they measure on their end and you're measuring on yours. I'm sure some people can explain why better than I can (because I can't think of anything except packet loss), but for some reason there's always more data being transmitted than being received (and most home users do more receiving than transmitting).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their traffic meter will almost definitely show more traffic than anything you install on your PC , because they measure on their end and you 're measuring on yours .
I 'm sure some people can explain why better than I can ( because I ca n't think of anything except packet loss ) , but for some reason there 's always more data being transmitted than being received ( and most home users do more receiving than transmitting ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their traffic meter will almost definitely show more traffic than anything you install on your PC, because they measure on their end and you're measuring on yours.
I'm sure some people can explain why better than I can (because I can't think of anything except packet loss), but for some reason there's always more data being transmitted than being received (and most home users do more receiving than transmitting).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745356</id>
	<title>Re:Old Tech</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1263304200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes they want to change the US mind set, make every packet golden, like Australia, Nz.<br>
The last gasp of a big rustbelt bell's and other telcos.<br>
Start your own community efforts and by pass the evil telco with their living in "Australia" packet profits.<br>
If your state has a ban, unban it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:<br>
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/municipal-fiber-needs-more-fdr-localism-fewer-state-bans.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/municipal-fiber-needs-more-fdr-localism-fewer-state-bans.ars</a> [arstechnica.com] <br>
Run for any local office, then move up your state political ladder, exposing the lock in and lock out of telco options<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) <br>
Name and shame the bribes, the theft and kickbacks, shine a bright light at the hidden telco lobby.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes they want to change the US mind set , make every packet golden , like Australia , Nz .
The last gasp of a big rustbelt bell 's and other telcos .
Start your own community efforts and by pass the evil telco with their living in " Australia " packet profits .
If your state has a ban , unban it : http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/municipal-fiber-needs-more-fdr-localism-fewer-state-bans.ars [ arstechnica.com ] Run for any local office , then move up your state political ladder , exposing the lock in and lock out of telco options : ) Name and shame the bribes , the theft and kickbacks , shine a bright light at the hidden telco lobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes they want to change the US mind set, make every packet golden, like Australia, Nz.
The last gasp of a big rustbelt bell's and other telcos.
Start your own community efforts and by pass the evil telco with their living in "Australia" packet profits.
If your state has a ban, unban it :
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/municipal-fiber-needs-more-fdr-localism-fewer-state-bans.ars [arstechnica.com] 
Run for any local office, then move up your state political ladder, exposing the lock in and lock out of telco options :) 
Name and shame the bribes, the theft and kickbacks, shine a bright light at the hidden telco lobby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744476</id>
	<title>Thanks mine is unlimited...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263299220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I DL around 50 GBs each day thanks to megaupload premium, God bless those BR r&#237;ps...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I DL around 50 GBs each day thanks to megaupload premium , God bless those BR r   ps.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I DL around 50 GBs each day thanks to megaupload premium, God bless those BR ríps...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744788</id>
	<title>Not using all 250?</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1263300900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now users can band together and sell off their "quota credits" to each other the way corporations do with carbon credits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now users can band together and sell off their " quota credits " to each other the way corporations do with carbon credits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now users can band together and sell off their "quota credits" to each other the way corporations do with carbon credits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746500</id>
	<title>Re:Dear US,</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1263312300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not the rest of the world I don't think...maybe Belgium, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few others</p><p>Most countries are moving faster and with higher or no caps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the rest of the world I do n't think...maybe Belgium , Canada , Australia , New Zealand and a few othersMost countries are moving faster and with higher or no caps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the rest of the world I don't think...maybe Belgium, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few othersMost countries are moving faster and with higher or no caps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30761288</id>
	<title>Re:Honey...</title>
	<author>jakykong</author>
	<datestamp>1263409380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've tried to explain this difference to people before. I'm not sure whether it's because mass media got to them first, or whether it's just too complex for someone who's never seen a velocity graph to understand, but it seems that "volume" used in this way is too complicated, and "amount of data" means close to nothing to someone who can't tell the difference between RAM and hard disk storage.</p><p>At the moment, I work at Safeway. Living in a decently close-knit area of town means that I see people who know that I'm "the computer guy", and it never ceases to amaze me the depths of ignorance which most people live in about technology. Just yesterday, I had someone ask me what a "four-gigabyte laptop" means. I assume they meant RAM, but it shouldn't take much to understand why that statement is meaningless, even at a layman's level (Four gigabytes of *what*?).</p><p>For what it's worth, I have pondered a modified definition of bandwidth to encompass rate and quantity. Something like a velocity vector, which includes not only the direction, but also the magnitude, bandwidth could be considered a vector quantity with both a rate (Mbps) and a magnitude (250Gb). It makes sense to me, as these quantities are closely related. Mainstream media has apparently adopted similar nomenclature (such as Comcast allowing 54Mbps for 250Gb), and one could extrapolate that the absolute value, i.e. the scalar quantity, would still match the traditional definition of bandwidth (and, again, this would go nicely with Comcast first saying that they give you 54Mbps).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried to explain this difference to people before .
I 'm not sure whether it 's because mass media got to them first , or whether it 's just too complex for someone who 's never seen a velocity graph to understand , but it seems that " volume " used in this way is too complicated , and " amount of data " means close to nothing to someone who ca n't tell the difference between RAM and hard disk storage.At the moment , I work at Safeway .
Living in a decently close-knit area of town means that I see people who know that I 'm " the computer guy " , and it never ceases to amaze me the depths of ignorance which most people live in about technology .
Just yesterday , I had someone ask me what a " four-gigabyte laptop " means .
I assume they meant RAM , but it should n't take much to understand why that statement is meaningless , even at a layman 's level ( Four gigabytes of * what * ?
) .For what it 's worth , I have pondered a modified definition of bandwidth to encompass rate and quantity .
Something like a velocity vector , which includes not only the direction , but also the magnitude , bandwidth could be considered a vector quantity with both a rate ( Mbps ) and a magnitude ( 250Gb ) .
It makes sense to me , as these quantities are closely related .
Mainstream media has apparently adopted similar nomenclature ( such as Comcast allowing 54Mbps for 250Gb ) , and one could extrapolate that the absolute value , i.e .
the scalar quantity , would still match the traditional definition of bandwidth ( and , again , this would go nicely with Comcast first saying that they give you 54Mbps ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried to explain this difference to people before.
I'm not sure whether it's because mass media got to them first, or whether it's just too complex for someone who's never seen a velocity graph to understand, but it seems that "volume" used in this way is too complicated, and "amount of data" means close to nothing to someone who can't tell the difference between RAM and hard disk storage.At the moment, I work at Safeway.
Living in a decently close-knit area of town means that I see people who know that I'm "the computer guy", and it never ceases to amaze me the depths of ignorance which most people live in about technology.
Just yesterday, I had someone ask me what a "four-gigabyte laptop" means.
I assume they meant RAM, but it shouldn't take much to understand why that statement is meaningless, even at a layman's level (Four gigabytes of *what*?
).For what it's worth, I have pondered a modified definition of bandwidth to encompass rate and quantity.
Something like a velocity vector, which includes not only the direction, but also the magnitude, bandwidth could be considered a vector quantity with both a rate (Mbps) and a magnitude (250Gb).
It makes sense to me, as these quantities are closely related.
Mainstream media has apparently adopted similar nomenclature (such as Comcast allowing 54Mbps for 250Gb), and one could extrapolate that the absolute value, i.e.
the scalar quantity, would still match the traditional definition of bandwidth (and, again, this would go nicely with Comcast first saying that they give you 54Mbps).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744904</id>
	<title>Re:it's not enough</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1263301680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except that it's not so easy to summarize like that.</p></div><p>Also, no one I know needs an eye-opener like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that it 's not so easy to summarize like that.Also , no one I know needs an eye-opener like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that it's not so easy to summarize like that.Also, no one I know needs an eye-opener like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747858</id>
	<title>Re:Freakonomics</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1263412980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or stop advertising falsely and only advertise what they are capable of offering. Split it into different categories if you have to. And NEVER, EVER ADVERTISE UNLIMITED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or stop advertising falsely and only advertise what they are capable of offering .
Split it into different categories if you have to .
And NEVER , EVER ADVERTISE UNLIMITED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or stop advertising falsely and only advertise what they are capable of offering.
Split it into different categories if you have to.
And NEVER, EVER ADVERTISE UNLIMITED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746180</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds about right.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1263309720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also get 5\% of the reliability of a T1 line I guess?</p><p>I wish...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also get 5 \ % of the reliability of a T1 line I guess ? I wish.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also get 5\% of the reliability of a T1 line I guess?I wish...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744974</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about timing</title>
	<author>Paradigm\_Complex</author>
	<datestamp>1263302100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would anticipate this will only encourage similar behavior.</p></div><p>I expect a similar ultimate result - more bandwidth usage - but for a different reason.  People don't have to worry about going over the limit without realizing it - they no longer have to keep any sort of margin of error.  They're free to use every last drop of service they're paying for without worry of accidentally going over and getting punished.<br> <br>

I've had, uhh, "husky" friends who went on diet and exercise regiments that worked quite well *before* they started counting calories and setting hard limits.  The idea of "well, I'm not actually hungry so I shouldn't push it and eat this" didn't cross their mind - it became "well, I'm allowed another 500calories today, let's have desert!"  Conversely, "I think I can go around another block or two" didn't cross their minds, it became "well, that's it, I jogged as far as I was supposed to."  Both the friends I'm talking about did eventually lose the weight (and one of them got a girlfriend!), but it clearly took longer then necessary and was an over-all more painful experience.  From what I'm told, that extra bit of pleasure from stuffing yourself with desert doesn't counter the feeling from when you look down at the scale and fail to recognize improvement.<br> <br>

While plenty of Comcasts customers don't really understand mechanics such as bandwidth, I fully expect those who do to follow a similar logic to those of the aforementioned friends and use everything they can because they know they can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would anticipate this will only encourage similar behavior.I expect a similar ultimate result - more bandwidth usage - but for a different reason .
People do n't have to worry about going over the limit without realizing it - they no longer have to keep any sort of margin of error .
They 're free to use every last drop of service they 're paying for without worry of accidentally going over and getting punished .
I 've had , uhh , " husky " friends who went on diet and exercise regiments that worked quite well * before * they started counting calories and setting hard limits .
The idea of " well , I 'm not actually hungry so I should n't push it and eat this " did n't cross their mind - it became " well , I 'm allowed another 500calories today , let 's have desert !
" Conversely , " I think I can go around another block or two " did n't cross their minds , it became " well , that 's it , I jogged as far as I was supposed to .
" Both the friends I 'm talking about did eventually lose the weight ( and one of them got a girlfriend !
) , but it clearly took longer then necessary and was an over-all more painful experience .
From what I 'm told , that extra bit of pleasure from stuffing yourself with desert does n't counter the feeling from when you look down at the scale and fail to recognize improvement .
While plenty of Comcasts customers do n't really understand mechanics such as bandwidth , I fully expect those who do to follow a similar logic to those of the aforementioned friends and use everything they can because they know they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would anticipate this will only encourage similar behavior.I expect a similar ultimate result - more bandwidth usage - but for a different reason.
People don't have to worry about going over the limit without realizing it - they no longer have to keep any sort of margin of error.
They're free to use every last drop of service they're paying for without worry of accidentally going over and getting punished.
I've had, uhh, "husky" friends who went on diet and exercise regiments that worked quite well *before* they started counting calories and setting hard limits.
The idea of "well, I'm not actually hungry so I shouldn't push it and eat this" didn't cross their mind - it became "well, I'm allowed another 500calories today, let's have desert!
"  Conversely, "I think I can go around another block or two" didn't cross their minds, it became "well, that's it, I jogged as far as I was supposed to.
"  Both the friends I'm talking about did eventually lose the weight (and one of them got a girlfriend!
), but it clearly took longer then necessary and was an over-all more painful experience.
From what I'm told, that extra bit of pleasure from stuffing yourself with desert doesn't counter the feeling from when you look down at the scale and fail to recognize improvement.
While plenty of Comcasts customers don't really understand mechanics such as bandwidth, I fully expect those who do to follow a similar logic to those of the aforementioned friends and use everything they can because they know they can.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744660</id>
	<title>it's not enough</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1263300180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>people want to be able to find out what they used the bandwidth for. Like a phone bill lists the numbers you called and the call durations. Except that it's not so easy to summarize like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>people want to be able to find out what they used the bandwidth for .
Like a phone bill lists the numbers you called and the call durations .
Except that it 's not so easy to summarize like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people want to be able to find out what they used the bandwidth for.
Like a phone bill lists the numbers you called and the call durations.
Except that it's not so easy to summarize like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745856</id>
	<title>A Little Late for Me, But...</title>
	<author>Maltheus</author>
	<datestamp>1263307020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been waiting for this forever because I always assumed I was right up against the limit and it really kept me from downloading as much as I would have liked for years. But I recently added a Tomato flashed router and I now realize I can download 3 or even 4 times what I've been grabbing. So my downloads have gone up a bit since then, but only by a little. The real limiting factor for me now is drive space. That includes the primary and two or more backups. I'm swimming in ram, haven't needed to update my video card in years, I'm getting by with an old CPU, but disk space is the one system component that can't keep up to my needs these days. The sizes aren't growing fast enough, the quality has been plummeting and the average video bitrates have more than doubled from a few years ago. I don't even have the (full) tower space in my server to be able to rip all my DVDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been waiting for this forever because I always assumed I was right up against the limit and it really kept me from downloading as much as I would have liked for years .
But I recently added a Tomato flashed router and I now realize I can download 3 or even 4 times what I 've been grabbing .
So my downloads have gone up a bit since then , but only by a little .
The real limiting factor for me now is drive space .
That includes the primary and two or more backups .
I 'm swimming in ram , have n't needed to update my video card in years , I 'm getting by with an old CPU , but disk space is the one system component that ca n't keep up to my needs these days .
The sizes are n't growing fast enough , the quality has been plummeting and the average video bitrates have more than doubled from a few years ago .
I do n't even have the ( full ) tower space in my server to be able to rip all my DVDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been waiting for this forever because I always assumed I was right up against the limit and it really kept me from downloading as much as I would have liked for years.
But I recently added a Tomato flashed router and I now realize I can download 3 or even 4 times what I've been grabbing.
So my downloads have gone up a bit since then, but only by a little.
The real limiting factor for me now is drive space.
That includes the primary and two or more backups.
I'm swimming in ram, haven't needed to update my video card in years, I'm getting by with an old CPU, but disk space is the one system component that can't keep up to my needs these days.
The sizes aren't growing fast enough, the quality has been plummeting and the average video bitrates have more than doubled from a few years ago.
I don't even have the (full) tower space in my server to be able to rip all my DVDs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747860</id>
	<title>Re:Someone's not doing their share!</title>
	<author>pgn674</author>
	<datestamp>1263413040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should start sharing more porn! Darn leechers!</p></div><p>I'm sorry, but I can only upload at 30 KiB/s before my torrent uploading starts to severely degrade my Internet connection on every computer and application on the network (sometimes for more than a half hour after I stop), in terms of packet loss, ping time, download speed, and upload speed on other applications. If I were to leave that going all the time (which would increase my electricity bill for keeping the computer on), I would only upload 75.2 GiB per month.<br>
<br>
BTW, I have noticed this limit on more than a couple residential broadband connections of 10 Mb or less, cable and DSL alike. Has anyone else?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps those who are n't using 250GB a month should start sharing more porn !
Darn leechers ! I 'm sorry , but I can only upload at 30 KiB/s before my torrent uploading starts to severely degrade my Internet connection on every computer and application on the network ( sometimes for more than a half hour after I stop ) , in terms of packet loss , ping time , download speed , and upload speed on other applications .
If I were to leave that going all the time ( which would increase my electricity bill for keeping the computer on ) , I would only upload 75.2 GiB per month .
BTW , I have noticed this limit on more than a couple residential broadband connections of 10 Mb or less , cable and DSL alike .
Has anyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps those who aren't using 250GB a month should start sharing more porn!
Darn leechers!I'm sorry, but I can only upload at 30 KiB/s before my torrent uploading starts to severely degrade my Internet connection on every computer and application on the network (sometimes for more than a half hour after I stop), in terms of packet loss, ping time, download speed, and upload speed on other applications.
If I were to leave that going all the time (which would increase my electricity bill for keeping the computer on), I would only upload 75.2 GiB per month.
BTW, I have noticed this limit on more than a couple residential broadband connections of 10 Mb or less, cable and DSL alike.
Has anyone else?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744498</id>
	<title>or...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263299400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can also go online and download one of many broadband meters... who knows there meter could be rigged to show you using more bandwidth then you really are just to give you a reason to overcharge you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can also go online and download one of many broadband meters... who knows there meter could be rigged to show you using more bandwidth then you really are just to give you a reason to overcharge you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can also go online and download one of many broadband meters... who knows there meter could be rigged to show you using more bandwidth then you really are just to give you a reason to overcharge you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755420</id>
	<title>Re:With mac os updates pushing 1gb and windows one</title>
	<author>u-235-sentinel</author>
	<datestamp>1263374100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I asked that question 3 years ago.  We upgraded to a business plan and we were told it's just more.  this of course was before they announced in 2008 it's 250 Gigs for residential plans.  So I'm curious if they have a stated cap today</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked that question 3 years ago .
We upgraded to a business plan and we were told it 's just more .
this of course was before they announced in 2008 it 's 250 Gigs for residential plans .
So I 'm curious if they have a stated cap today</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked that question 3 years ago.
We upgraded to a business plan and we were told it's just more.
this of course was before they announced in 2008 it's 250 Gigs for residential plans.
So I'm curious if they have a stated cap today</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744718</id>
	<title>What I've learned..</title>
	<author>Snotboble\_</author>
	<datestamp>1263300540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. in any area - broadband, speed limits, personal days off etc. etc. is that if you put a cap on anything, then people will consider anything below the cap as a right and use their right to the fullest. So Comcast may see a huge increase in traffic summed up as people start acting according to their rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. in any area - broadband , speed limits , personal days off etc .
etc. is that if you put a cap on anything , then people will consider anything below the cap as a right and use their right to the fullest .
So Comcast may see a huge increase in traffic summed up as people start acting according to their rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. in any area - broadband, speed limits, personal days off etc.
etc. is that if you put a cap on anything, then people will consider anything below the cap as a right and use their right to the fullest.
So Comcast may see a huge increase in traffic summed up as people start acting according to their rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745390</id>
	<title>So much for that</title>
	<author>Mia'cova</author>
	<datestamp>1263304260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much for being able to stump their overuse calls by saying "oh sure, so how do I check my usage?" I'll need a new excuse for ignoring their cap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for being able to stump their overuse calls by saying " oh sure , so how do I check my usage ?
" I 'll need a new excuse for ignoring their cap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for being able to stump their overuse calls by saying "oh sure, so how do I check my usage?
" I'll need a new excuse for ignoring their cap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755398</id>
	<title>Re:Freakonomics</title>
	<author>u-235-sentinel</author>
	<datestamp>1263374040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell yeah.  I'm considering going back if they provide the meter.  I'm already reporting using cacti on my firewall so I know what my usage is.  We're under 70 Gigs a month at most.  30-40 Gigs normally.  It's going to be a hard sell going back to Concast though.  My family doesn't like the company and my kids really hate them.</p><p>Should be interesting to see what their reaction is AFTER the meter is implemented.  I'm curious if they would consider going back but as I said, we'll see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell yeah .
I 'm considering going back if they provide the meter .
I 'm already reporting using cacti on my firewall so I know what my usage is .
We 're under 70 Gigs a month at most .
30-40 Gigs normally .
It 's going to be a hard sell going back to Concast though .
My family does n't like the company and my kids really hate them.Should be interesting to see what their reaction is AFTER the meter is implemented .
I 'm curious if they would consider going back but as I said , we 'll see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell yeah.
I'm considering going back if they provide the meter.
I'm already reporting using cacti on my firewall so I know what my usage is.
We're under 70 Gigs a month at most.
30-40 Gigs normally.
It's going to be a hard sell going back to Concast though.
My family doesn't like the company and my kids really hate them.Should be interesting to see what their reaction is AFTER the meter is implemented.
I'm curious if they would consider going back but as I said, we'll see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744880</id>
	<title>Re:Whats the big deal?</title>
	<author>gsarnold</author>
	<datestamp>1263301560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only real point to this is keeping their cable TV business viable. (IMHO, of course.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real point to this is keeping their cable TV business viable .
( IMHO , of course .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real point to this is keeping their cable TV business viable.
(IMHO, of course.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744576</id>
	<title>Whats the big deal?</title>
	<author>onepwr</author>
	<datestamp>1263299760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So comcast puts up bandwidth usage per user online... We used to do that for all ISDN/POTS dialup clients over 10 years back when I used to work for an ISP. Granted comcast has userbase much much larger than that, but unless I missed something their auth is via PPPoE which probably has a radius backend of sorts so it should be hard to get the InOctets/OutOctets per users modem and push them into a database. So whats the hue and cry about (at least technically?)....Is'nt this something real simple for a company the size of comcast? Of course, they may not want you to see what your usage is but thats purely a biz thing to keep users in the dark before getting shafted by comcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So comcast puts up bandwidth usage per user online... We used to do that for all ISDN/POTS dialup clients over 10 years back when I used to work for an ISP .
Granted comcast has userbase much much larger than that , but unless I missed something their auth is via PPPoE which probably has a radius backend of sorts so it should be hard to get the InOctets/OutOctets per users modem and push them into a database .
So whats the hue and cry about ( at least technically ?
) ....Is'nt this something real simple for a company the size of comcast ?
Of course , they may not want you to see what your usage is but thats purely a biz thing to keep users in the dark before getting shafted by comcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So comcast puts up bandwidth usage per user online... We used to do that for all ISDN/POTS dialup clients over 10 years back when I used to work for an ISP.
Granted comcast has userbase much much larger than that, but unless I missed something their auth is via PPPoE which probably has a radius backend of sorts so it should be hard to get the InOctets/OutOctets per users modem and push them into a database.
So whats the hue and cry about (at least technically?
)....Is'nt this something real simple for a company the size of comcast?
Of course, they may not want you to see what your usage is but thats purely a biz thing to keep users in the dark before getting shafted by comcast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745238</id>
	<title>Re:Freakonomics</title>
	<author>assemblyronin</author>
	<datestamp>1263303360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>So they figured they would charge a fee; penalize people for leaving their kids and they'll stop, right? Instead, more people started showing up late.  Turns out that paying a fee assuaged peoples guilt for not showing up on time. Before they felt like jerks for being late, now they could just pay a fee and feel better.  Moral of the story, incentives don't always work the way you think they will.</i></p></div><p>I'm not sure I agree with the moral of that story (as it is presented in your comment) - the real problem (from a business perspective) is that parents picking up kids late means lost revenue in terms of having to keep a proportional number of employees (possibly paying OT) to the number of kids that haven't been picked up yet.  So by charging a fee, I can at least cover my costs of retaining my employees, if not charge a little extra to make a bigger margin on the truant parents.</p><p>Similarly, Comcast could use the behavior everyone is hypothesizing to show that they need more bailout money because, "Gosh, Mr./Mrs. Congress Critter - We've been trying to implement better connectivity, but usage keeps going way, way up! We need more money to increase infrastructure!"  At which point they pocket 99\% of any corporate welfare money they get, and use the remaining 1\% to increase the cap by 25GB/month.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they figured they would charge a fee ; penalize people for leaving their kids and they 'll stop , right ?
Instead , more people started showing up late .
Turns out that paying a fee assuaged peoples guilt for not showing up on time .
Before they felt like jerks for being late , now they could just pay a fee and feel better .
Moral of the story , incentives do n't always work the way you think they will.I 'm not sure I agree with the moral of that story ( as it is presented in your comment ) - the real problem ( from a business perspective ) is that parents picking up kids late means lost revenue in terms of having to keep a proportional number of employees ( possibly paying OT ) to the number of kids that have n't been picked up yet .
So by charging a fee , I can at least cover my costs of retaining my employees , if not charge a little extra to make a bigger margin on the truant parents.Similarly , Comcast could use the behavior everyone is hypothesizing to show that they need more bailout money because , " Gosh , Mr./Mrs .
Congress Critter - We 've been trying to implement better connectivity , but usage keeps going way , way up !
We need more money to increase infrastructure !
" At which point they pocket 99 \ % of any corporate welfare money they get , and use the remaining 1 \ % to increase the cap by 25GB/month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So they figured they would charge a fee; penalize people for leaving their kids and they'll stop, right?
Instead, more people started showing up late.
Turns out that paying a fee assuaged peoples guilt for not showing up on time.
Before they felt like jerks for being late, now they could just pay a fee and feel better.
Moral of the story, incentives don't always work the way you think they will.I'm not sure I agree with the moral of that story (as it is presented in your comment) - the real problem (from a business perspective) is that parents picking up kids late means lost revenue in terms of having to keep a proportional number of employees (possibly paying OT) to the number of kids that haven't been picked up yet.
So by charging a fee, I can at least cover my costs of retaining my employees, if not charge a little extra to make a bigger margin on the truant parents.Similarly, Comcast could use the behavior everyone is hypothesizing to show that they need more bailout money because, "Gosh, Mr./Mrs.
Congress Critter - We've been trying to implement better connectivity, but usage keeps going way, way up!
We need more money to increase infrastructure!
"  At which point they pocket 99\% of any corporate welfare money they get, and use the remaining 1\% to increase the cap by 25GB/month.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744430</id>
	<title>Old Tech</title>
	<author>muphin</author>
	<datestamp>1263299040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has been available in Australia for all broadband AND dial up plans for years.. i dont see why Comcast has taken so long to give its users access to a monitoring tool.<br>
<br>
its usually close to the end of the billing month you check your usage and then try and make up the difference<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been available in Australia for all broadband AND dial up plans for years.. i dont see why Comcast has taken so long to give its users access to a monitoring tool .
its usually close to the end of the billing month you check your usage and then try and make up the difference : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been available in Australia for all broadband AND dial up plans for years.. i dont see why Comcast has taken so long to give its users access to a monitoring tool.
its usually close to the end of the billing month you check your usage and then try and make up the difference :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745560</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>mcsqueak</author>
	<datestamp>1263305280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For all this handwringing, I've never seen this feature on my Comcast account. Yes, I live in Portland.</p></div><p>Same here! I'm not sure why... I never bothered to call and find out. We (myself and two roommates) pay for high-speed internet, standard cable+HBO, 1 HD box and 2 SD boxes. I don't think we've ever gone over the limit, we've never been contacted about such a thing or had our connection throttled back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all this handwringing , I 've never seen this feature on my Comcast account .
Yes , I live in Portland.Same here !
I 'm not sure why... I never bothered to call and find out .
We ( myself and two roommates ) pay for high-speed internet , standard cable + HBO , 1 HD box and 2 SD boxes .
I do n't think we 've ever gone over the limit , we 've never been contacted about such a thing or had our connection throttled back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all this handwringing, I've never seen this feature on my Comcast account.
Yes, I live in Portland.Same here!
I'm not sure why... I never bothered to call and find out.
We (myself and two roommates) pay for high-speed internet, standard cable+HBO, 1 HD box and 2 SD boxes.
I don't think we've ever gone over the limit, we've never been contacted about such a thing or had our connection throttled back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744892</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about timing</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1263301620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember back when I was on another ADSL provider that had pretty strict limits (10 GB a month a few years ago), me and some friends that were on the same provider would push that limit as far as we could. They had a traffic meter that reset at midnight on the first of the month, and if you went over 10 GB (up+down) you were set back to below dialup speeds. The good part was they could only change your speed when you weren't connected, and you could stay online for 36 hours before your connection was broken and your ip renewed.</p><p>So around noon on the second-to-last day of the month, when our traffic meter was at 9.9 GB, we'd reconnect so we'd have the entire 36 hours of interwebz remaining, and turn on as many downloads as we could from as many sources as we could (you know, linux distros and other legal stuff). The 3.3Mbit connection allowed for approximately 400kB/s of download traffic, which gave us about 50 GB of traffic in those 36 hours.</p><p>My personal record with that provider was over 90 GB, when I started the whole thing 72 hours before the end of the month and they didn't change my speed during the few seconds it took to reconnect (dozens of torrents and download managers hammering the router for some juicy juicy internet). Of course, the next month me and my friends tried this again, and many of us experienced the longest 36 hours of our lives.</p><p>It all seems kind of funny now, realizing that last week I downloaded the Orange Box from Steam because I was too lazy to reach, grab the DVD and put it in the drive. I'm glad I don't have a traffic limit anymore, even though the speeds still suck (4 Mbit/s down, 512kbit/s up).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember back when I was on another ADSL provider that had pretty strict limits ( 10 GB a month a few years ago ) , me and some friends that were on the same provider would push that limit as far as we could .
They had a traffic meter that reset at midnight on the first of the month , and if you went over 10 GB ( up + down ) you were set back to below dialup speeds .
The good part was they could only change your speed when you were n't connected , and you could stay online for 36 hours before your connection was broken and your ip renewed.So around noon on the second-to-last day of the month , when our traffic meter was at 9.9 GB , we 'd reconnect so we 'd have the entire 36 hours of interwebz remaining , and turn on as many downloads as we could from as many sources as we could ( you know , linux distros and other legal stuff ) .
The 3.3Mbit connection allowed for approximately 400kB/s of download traffic , which gave us about 50 GB of traffic in those 36 hours.My personal record with that provider was over 90 GB , when I started the whole thing 72 hours before the end of the month and they did n't change my speed during the few seconds it took to reconnect ( dozens of torrents and download managers hammering the router for some juicy juicy internet ) .
Of course , the next month me and my friends tried this again , and many of us experienced the longest 36 hours of our lives.It all seems kind of funny now , realizing that last week I downloaded the Orange Box from Steam because I was too lazy to reach , grab the DVD and put it in the drive .
I 'm glad I do n't have a traffic limit anymore , even though the speeds still suck ( 4 Mbit/s down , 512kbit/s up ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember back when I was on another ADSL provider that had pretty strict limits (10 GB a month a few years ago), me and some friends that were on the same provider would push that limit as far as we could.
They had a traffic meter that reset at midnight on the first of the month, and if you went over 10 GB (up+down) you were set back to below dialup speeds.
The good part was they could only change your speed when you weren't connected, and you could stay online for 36 hours before your connection was broken and your ip renewed.So around noon on the second-to-last day of the month, when our traffic meter was at 9.9 GB, we'd reconnect so we'd have the entire 36 hours of interwebz remaining, and turn on as many downloads as we could from as many sources as we could (you know, linux distros and other legal stuff).
The 3.3Mbit connection allowed for approximately 400kB/s of download traffic, which gave us about 50 GB of traffic in those 36 hours.My personal record with that provider was over 90 GB, when I started the whole thing 72 hours before the end of the month and they didn't change my speed during the few seconds it took to reconnect (dozens of torrents and download managers hammering the router for some juicy juicy internet).
Of course, the next month me and my friends tried this again, and many of us experienced the longest 36 hours of our lives.It all seems kind of funny now, realizing that last week I downloaded the Orange Box from Steam because I was too lazy to reach, grab the DVD and put it in the drive.
I'm glad I don't have a traffic limit anymore, even though the speeds still suck (4 Mbit/s down, 512kbit/s up).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744800</id>
	<title>WOW...</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1263300960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less than 1\% use that bandwidth and it affects their network, isn't that absurd? Isn't that an indication of a terrible network? I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, but if you can't support 1\% of your users at that level then IMO you have a crap network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less than 1 \ % use that bandwidth and it affects their network , is n't that absurd ?
Is n't that an indication of a terrible network ?
I honestly do n't know the answers to these questions , but if you ca n't support 1 \ % of your users at that level then IMO you have a crap network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less than 1\% use that bandwidth and it affects their network, isn't that absurd?
Isn't that an indication of a terrible network?
I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, but if you can't support 1\% of your users at that level then IMO you have a crap network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744696</id>
	<title>Total douchebaggery</title>
	<author>uvsc\_wolverine</author>
	<datestamp>1263300360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand that most of their customers won't really need this, but for heavy users that need to monitor their bandwidth this is just evil.  The bandwidth monitor needs to be aligned with the billing month, not the calendar month.  This is just another way for them to get users to pay fines for going over the bandwidth cap.<p>  "Sorry, but your billing cycle ended on the 23rd of December, you started using up your January billing cycle's bandwidth allotment then even though the meter only shows your usage since January 1st."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that most of their customers wo n't really need this , but for heavy users that need to monitor their bandwidth this is just evil .
The bandwidth monitor needs to be aligned with the billing month , not the calendar month .
This is just another way for them to get users to pay fines for going over the bandwidth cap .
" Sorry , but your billing cycle ended on the 23rd of December , you started using up your January billing cycle 's bandwidth allotment then even though the meter only shows your usage since January 1st .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that most of their customers won't really need this, but for heavy users that need to monitor their bandwidth this is just evil.
The bandwidth monitor needs to be aligned with the billing month, not the calendar month.
This is just another way for them to get users to pay fines for going over the bandwidth cap.
"Sorry, but your billing cycle ended on the 23rd of December, you started using up your January billing cycle's bandwidth allotment then even though the meter only shows your usage since January 1st.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30749224</id>
	<title>Re:Freakonomics</title>
	<author>qubezz</author>
	<datestamp>1263390180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made sure that I was collecting accurate statistics at my firewall (potential contradictory evidence) when I heard about Comcast kicking subscribers with arbitrary undisclosed limits. Let's see where I'm at now:</p><p>
<tt>
Date  	Input  	Output  	Input  	Output<br>
2010-01-01 	251.870 	2115.767 	2116.783 	251.558<br>
2010-01-02 	4057.632 	3177.647 	3178.459 	4057.909<br>
2010-01-03 	38.004 	1477.193 	1476.422 	39.027<br>
2010-01-04 	338.429 	765.487 	764.031 	339.051<br>
2010-01-05 	7080.921 	5497.791 	5497.078 	7081.385<br>
2010-01-06 	3106.979 	1227.276 	1232.928 	3107.854<br>
2010-01-07 	3157.551 	2625.572 	2624.544 	3159.966<br>
2010-01-08 	254.441 	2537.142 	2531.232 	251.970<br>
2010-01-09 	35.455 	1239.041 	1240.122 	36.826<br>
2010-01-10 	993.526 	1655.382 	1655.324 	993.645<br>
2010-01-11 	4745.444 	2715.261 	2718.403 	4745.090<br>
2010-01-12 	4450.554 	2291.770 	2294.454 	4450.166<br>
2010-01-13 	283.387 	47.536 	47.747 	283.328<br>
Total 	28794.19 MB 	27372.87 MB 	27377.53 MB 	28797.77 MB<br>
</tt>

</p><p>Looks like I've got to start hitting the internet a lot harder since I'm barely at the 10\% mark so far this month, and now they've set the bar!</p><p>It's like when Comcast decided to 'discontinue' Usenet (their paltry 2gb/month service from Giganews, after already cutting it back several times). After you would pass 2gb, you'd be refused connection at the next login until the month elapsed, and any overage would come out of the following month's quota. Well, with no following month's quota to jeopardize, I made sure that I stayed connected without interruption for about 26 hours, and pulled about three years worth of 2gb/month off Comcast's Giganews. They set the rules, I play within them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made sure that I was collecting accurate statistics at my firewall ( potential contradictory evidence ) when I heard about Comcast kicking subscribers with arbitrary undisclosed limits .
Let 's see where I 'm at now : Date Input Output Input Output 2010-01-01 251.870 2115.767 2116.783 251.558 2010-01-02 4057.632 3177.647 3178.459 4057.909 2010-01-03 38.004 1477.193 1476.422 39.027 2010-01-04 338.429 765.487 764.031 339.051 2010-01-05 7080.921 5497.791 5497.078 7081.385 2010-01-06 3106.979 1227.276 1232.928 3107.854 2010-01-07 3157.551 2625.572 2624.544 3159.966 2010-01-08 254.441 2537.142 2531.232 251.970 2010-01-09 35.455 1239.041 1240.122 36.826 2010-01-10 993.526 1655.382 1655.324 993.645 2010-01-11 4745.444 2715.261 2718.403 4745.090 2010-01-12 4450.554 2291.770 2294.454 4450.166 2010-01-13 283.387 47.536 47.747 283.328 Total 28794.19 MB 27372.87 MB 27377.53 MB 28797.77 MB Looks like I 've got to start hitting the internet a lot harder since I 'm barely at the 10 \ % mark so far this month , and now they 've set the bar ! It 's like when Comcast decided to 'discontinue ' Usenet ( their paltry 2gb/month service from Giganews , after already cutting it back several times ) .
After you would pass 2gb , you 'd be refused connection at the next login until the month elapsed , and any overage would come out of the following month 's quota .
Well , with no following month 's quota to jeopardize , I made sure that I stayed connected without interruption for about 26 hours , and pulled about three years worth of 2gb/month off Comcast 's Giganews .
They set the rules , I play within them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made sure that I was collecting accurate statistics at my firewall (potential contradictory evidence) when I heard about Comcast kicking subscribers with arbitrary undisclosed limits.
Let's see where I'm at now:

Date  	Input  	Output  	Input  	Output
2010-01-01 	251.870 	2115.767 	2116.783 	251.558
2010-01-02 	4057.632 	3177.647 	3178.459 	4057.909
2010-01-03 	38.004 	1477.193 	1476.422 	39.027
2010-01-04 	338.429 	765.487 	764.031 	339.051
2010-01-05 	7080.921 	5497.791 	5497.078 	7081.385
2010-01-06 	3106.979 	1227.276 	1232.928 	3107.854
2010-01-07 	3157.551 	2625.572 	2624.544 	3159.966
2010-01-08 	254.441 	2537.142 	2531.232 	251.970
2010-01-09 	35.455 	1239.041 	1240.122 	36.826
2010-01-10 	993.526 	1655.382 	1655.324 	993.645
2010-01-11 	4745.444 	2715.261 	2718.403 	4745.090
2010-01-12 	4450.554 	2291.770 	2294.454 	4450.166
2010-01-13 	283.387 	47.536 	47.747 	283.328
Total 	28794.19 MB 	27372.87 MB 	27377.53 MB 	28797.77 MB


Looks like I've got to start hitting the internet a lot harder since I'm barely at the 10\% mark so far this month, and now they've set the bar!It's like when Comcast decided to 'discontinue' Usenet (their paltry 2gb/month service from Giganews, after already cutting it back several times).
After you would pass 2gb, you'd be refused connection at the next login until the month elapsed, and any overage would come out of the following month's quota.
Well, with no following month's quota to jeopardize, I made sure that I stayed connected without interruption for about 26 hours, and pulled about three years worth of 2gb/month off Comcast's Giganews.
They set the rules, I play within them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745434</id>
	<title>What good will this do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am guessing that this is a PR campaign to 'educate' users by saying: </p><p> <i>'See how much data you can transfer using our service. It is more that you will ever need. Now if it weren't for those bad guys that use 500GB a month your prices could be lower and your service better.'</i> </p><p>The problem with this argument is that the top users are probably the people who drive the trend on how internet is going to be used in the future.  I can remember when 56K modem was a great deal that fit all my needs and I am not that old. My parents a year ago thought that they don't need more than dailup to check for an occasional e-mail. Now they can not live without broadband that is not sufficient for Skype video calls that take at least on hour each. Now think about it - TV over internet is coming big time, everybody and his sister a pushing 3D TV, video calling is becoming a norm and so on and so forth... </p><p>How much data do you think your average user will be using in a year or two?</p><p>Why waste money on stupid meters when you can upgrade you network?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am guessing that this is a PR campaign to 'educate ' users by saying : 'See how much data you can transfer using our service .
It is more that you will ever need .
Now if it were n't for those bad guys that use 500GB a month your prices could be lower and your service better .
' The problem with this argument is that the top users are probably the people who drive the trend on how internet is going to be used in the future .
I can remember when 56K modem was a great deal that fit all my needs and I am not that old .
My parents a year ago thought that they do n't need more than dailup to check for an occasional e-mail .
Now they can not live without broadband that is not sufficient for Skype video calls that take at least on hour each .
Now think about it - TV over internet is coming big time , everybody and his sister a pushing 3D TV , video calling is becoming a norm and so on and so forth... How much data do you think your average user will be using in a year or two ? Why waste money on stupid meters when you can upgrade you network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am guessing that this is a PR campaign to 'educate' users by saying:  'See how much data you can transfer using our service.
It is more that you will ever need.
Now if it weren't for those bad guys that use 500GB a month your prices could be lower and your service better.
' The problem with this argument is that the top users are probably the people who drive the trend on how internet is going to be used in the future.
I can remember when 56K modem was a great deal that fit all my needs and I am not that old.
My parents a year ago thought that they don't need more than dailup to check for an occasional e-mail.
Now they can not live without broadband that is not sufficient for Skype video calls that take at least on hour each.
Now think about it - TV over internet is coming big time, everybody and his sister a pushing 3D TV, video calling is becoming a norm and so on and so forth... How much data do you think your average user will be using in a year or two?Why waste money on stupid meters when you can upgrade you network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744770</id>
	<title>Good for them, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263300840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just ship a decent router to the end user? I get detailed bandwidth reports on my WRT54GL running Tomato.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just ship a decent router to the end user ?
I get detailed bandwidth reports on my WRT54GL running Tomato .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just ship a decent router to the end user?
I get detailed bandwidth reports on my WRT54GL running Tomato.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744716</id>
	<title>Sorry, Comcast, but it's not enough</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1263300540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just Comcast trying to legitimize their practice cutting off users who exceed their data transfer cap.</p><p>I suppose it's better than not being told how close you are to having your service suspended for a year, but I'd prefer it if their service were clearly advertised as metered service and had reasonable fees for overages instead of suspending users' accounts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just Comcast trying to legitimize their practice cutting off users who exceed their data transfer cap.I suppose it 's better than not being told how close you are to having your service suspended for a year , but I 'd prefer it if their service were clearly advertised as metered service and had reasonable fees for overages instead of suspending users ' accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just Comcast trying to legitimize their practice cutting off users who exceed their data transfer cap.I suppose it's better than not being told how close you are to having your service suspended for a year, but I'd prefer it if their service were clearly advertised as metered service and had reasonable fees for overages instead of suspending users' accounts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744398</id>
	<title>Old...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263298860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Canada I had this service on my DSL seven years ago, and my cable internet has had it for the last three years at least. (Not that I ever view it. I figure I can plead ignorance if I don't and they complain. HAHA)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Canada I had this service on my DSL seven years ago , and my cable internet has had it for the last three years at least .
( Not that I ever view it .
I figure I can plead ignorance if I do n't and they complain .
HAHA )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Canada I had this service on my DSL seven years ago, and my cable internet has had it for the last three years at least.
(Not that I ever view it.
I figure I can plead ignorance if I don't and they complain.
HAHA)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745938</id>
	<title>250 what?</title>
	<author>mcnellis</author>
	<datestamp>1263307620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>250 gigabytes or 250 industry gigabytes? Base 2 or base 10? There's a big difference!</htmltext>
<tokenext>250 gigabytes or 250 industry gigabytes ?
Base 2 or base 10 ?
There 's a big difference !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>250 gigabytes or 250 industry gigabytes?
Base 2 or base 10?
There's a big difference!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746336</id>
	<title>Re:Not using all 250?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263310980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now users can band together and sell off their "quota credits" to each other the way corporations do with carbon credits.</p></div><p>I have created a Quota Credit Exchange Corporation (QCEC) and will be the North American quota credit broker. Please send your payment via PayPal in the amount of CAD75,000.00 to set-up your trading account and each credit will cost/reward you in the amount of CAD0.75 per credit. Each credit represents 1KB of data capacity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now users can band together and sell off their " quota credits " to each other the way corporations do with carbon credits.I have created a Quota Credit Exchange Corporation ( QCEC ) and will be the North American quota credit broker .
Please send your payment via PayPal in the amount of CAD75,000.00 to set-up your trading account and each credit will cost/reward you in the amount of CAD0.75 per credit .
Each credit represents 1KB of data capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now users can band together and sell off their "quota credits" to each other the way corporations do with carbon credits.I have created a Quota Credit Exchange Corporation (QCEC) and will be the North American quota credit broker.
Please send your payment via PayPal in the amount of CAD75,000.00 to set-up your trading account and each credit will cost/reward you in the amount of CAD0.75 per credit.
Each credit represents 1KB of data capacity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744788</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30749224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30748826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30748800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30751104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30761288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2022246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30761288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30751104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30748800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30747858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30748826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30749224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30755398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30746180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30745560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2022246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2022246.30744844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
