<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_18_175248</id>
	<title>Verizon and Google Offer Up Net Neutrality Truce</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263837060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>When it comes to net neutrality, can we get along? Google and Verizon, antagonists on the question yet partners in Droid, say yes. The two companies have even teamed up to <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/01/verizon-and-google-draft-net-neutrality-peace-treaty.ars">send the FCC ideas</a> on how to handle network management disputes. 'Google/Verizon say that the Internet should function as an "open platform." That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to&mdash;and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write. The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission."'"</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to net neutrality , can we get along ?
Google and Verizon , antagonists on the question yet partners in Droid , say yes .
The two companies have even teamed up to send the FCC ideas on how to handle network management disputes .
'Google/Verizon say that the Internet should function as an " open platform .
" That means , to them , that " when a person accesses cyberspace , he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to    and that other person should be able to receive his or her message , " they write .
The 'Net should operate as a place where no " central authority " can make rules that prescribe the possible , and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to " innovate without permission .
" ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to net neutrality, can we get along?
Google and Verizon, antagonists on the question yet partners in Droid, say yes.
The two companies have even teamed up to send the FCC ideas on how to handle network management disputes.
'Google/Verizon say that the Internet should function as an "open platform.
" That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write.
The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission.
"'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810688</id>
	<title>Another view on Cell Phones</title>
	<author>cervo</author>
	<datestamp>1263843480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most cell networks have really shitty service, and completely rip you off.  SMS prices seem to have gone up over the years, however they are tiny text messages.  As network capacity increases they should be even easier to deliver.  The fact that people are surfing websites for cheap which use way more data than SMS just shows how the phone companies rip you off.  They also have control on their phones, so often any IM apps will charge you for an SMS with every message.<br> <br>
Also once you buy a phone, you are locked into a network.  If they screw you over for two years, to leave you will have to pay termination fees, and get a new phone on your new network.  You are basically locked in.  Some people sell unlocked phones, but they are often locked into one network.  Even T-Mobile/ATT use different 3G frequencies.  Verizon/Sprint do not use the same hardware either.  So cell companies aren't in competition with each other.<br> <br>
With net neutrality 3rd parties can make devices that use all the cell networks (just the 3g parts, not the voice) and use VOIP.  Now, Apple smacks down most VOIP apps in the apple store (no doubt at the request of ATT).  But even if they didn't, the phone company could probably use deep packet inspection to find other people's VOIP packets an dmake them lower priority.  OR just block all VOIP packets except for the phone company's own.  IF there is net neutrality then they can't.  So you could make 3rd party devices that link to everyone's 3g network and use VOIP.  Then carriers would be forced to compete on price, and network quality.  Customer service would improve because dissatisfied customers would just leave....<br> <br>
But in defeating net neutrality things can mostly stay the same....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most cell networks have really shitty service , and completely rip you off .
SMS prices seem to have gone up over the years , however they are tiny text messages .
As network capacity increases they should be even easier to deliver .
The fact that people are surfing websites for cheap which use way more data than SMS just shows how the phone companies rip you off .
They also have control on their phones , so often any IM apps will charge you for an SMS with every message .
Also once you buy a phone , you are locked into a network .
If they screw you over for two years , to leave you will have to pay termination fees , and get a new phone on your new network .
You are basically locked in .
Some people sell unlocked phones , but they are often locked into one network .
Even T-Mobile/ATT use different 3G frequencies .
Verizon/Sprint do not use the same hardware either .
So cell companies are n't in competition with each other .
With net neutrality 3rd parties can make devices that use all the cell networks ( just the 3g parts , not the voice ) and use VOIP .
Now , Apple smacks down most VOIP apps in the apple store ( no doubt at the request of ATT ) .
But even if they did n't , the phone company could probably use deep packet inspection to find other people 's VOIP packets an dmake them lower priority .
OR just block all VOIP packets except for the phone company 's own .
IF there is net neutrality then they ca n't .
So you could make 3rd party devices that link to everyone 's 3g network and use VOIP .
Then carriers would be forced to compete on price , and network quality .
Customer service would improve because dissatisfied customers would just leave... . But in defeating net neutrality things can mostly stay the same... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most cell networks have really shitty service, and completely rip you off.
SMS prices seem to have gone up over the years, however they are tiny text messages.
As network capacity increases they should be even easier to deliver.
The fact that people are surfing websites for cheap which use way more data than SMS just shows how the phone companies rip you off.
They also have control on their phones, so often any IM apps will charge you for an SMS with every message.
Also once you buy a phone, you are locked into a network.
If they screw you over for two years, to leave you will have to pay termination fees, and get a new phone on your new network.
You are basically locked in.
Some people sell unlocked phones, but they are often locked into one network.
Even T-Mobile/ATT use different 3G frequencies.
Verizon/Sprint do not use the same hardware either.
So cell companies aren't in competition with each other.
With net neutrality 3rd parties can make devices that use all the cell networks (just the 3g parts, not the voice) and use VOIP.
Now, Apple smacks down most VOIP apps in the apple store (no doubt at the request of ATT).
But even if they didn't, the phone company could probably use deep packet inspection to find other people's VOIP packets an dmake them lower priority.
OR just block all VOIP packets except for the phone company's own.
IF there is net neutrality then they can't.
So you could make 3rd party devices that link to everyone's 3g network and use VOIP.
Then carriers would be forced to compete on price, and network quality.
Customer service would improve because dissatisfied customers would just leave.... 
But in defeating net neutrality things can mostly stay the same....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810650</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate without permission</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1263843300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I noticed that phrase as well, and thought that Google should adopt it as its tagline or motto:<br>
"<b>Google: We Innovate* without permission.</b>
<i>*the meaning of the word 'innovate' may change at any time</i>"
<br> <br>

It suits their MO perfectly. They choose to "Innovate"(disrupt) certain aspects of the market when it suits them. The "Innovate"(pour money into) projects they see as helpful to their overarching goal. They especially "Innovate"(alter privacy conventions) according to how it best suits them at any point in time. Possibly their best defense against any objection is "it's technically *not* illegal, so piss off". This is all (mostly) fine, I just hate that they do it under the "we're the good guys with the OSS and 'do no evil'" umbrella.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that phrase as well , and thought that Google should adopt it as its tagline or motto : " Google : We Innovate * without permission .
* the meaning of the word 'innovate ' may change at any time " It suits their MO perfectly .
They choose to " Innovate " ( disrupt ) certain aspects of the market when it suits them .
The " Innovate " ( pour money into ) projects they see as helpful to their overarching goal .
They especially " Innovate " ( alter privacy conventions ) according to how it best suits them at any point in time .
Possibly their best defense against any objection is " it 's technically * not * illegal , so piss off " .
This is all ( mostly ) fine , I just hate that they do it under the " we 're the good guys with the OSS and 'do no evil ' " umbrella .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that phrase as well, and thought that Google should adopt it as its tagline or motto:
"Google: We Innovate* without permission.
*the meaning of the word 'innovate' may change at any time"
 

It suits their MO perfectly.
They choose to "Innovate"(disrupt) certain aspects of the market when it suits them.
The "Innovate"(pour money into) projects they see as helpful to their overarching goal.
They especially "Innovate"(alter privacy conventions) according to how it best suits them at any point in time.
Possibly their best defense against any objection is "it's technically *not* illegal, so piss off".
This is all (mostly) fine, I just hate that they do it under the "we're the good guys with the OSS and 'do no evil'" umbrella.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810368</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>sexybomber</author>
	<datestamp>1263841980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the same thing.  Yes, Alice will, in fact, be <i>able to</i> connect with any other person that she wants to, and Bill's site will, in fact, be <i>able to</i> receive messages from Alice.  Unfortunately, the ping will be several thousand ms each way, because neither Alice nor Bill have paid Verizon their protection money.  Also, Bill's site will not be listed on Google for the same reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the same thing .
Yes , Alice will , in fact , be able to connect with any other person that she wants to , and Bill 's site will , in fact , be able to receive messages from Alice .
Unfortunately , the ping will be several thousand ms each way , because neither Alice nor Bill have paid Verizon their protection money .
Also , Bill 's site will not be listed on Google for the same reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the same thing.
Yes, Alice will, in fact, be able to connect with any other person that she wants to, and Bill's site will, in fact, be able to receive messages from Alice.
Unfortunately, the ping will be several thousand ms each way, because neither Alice nor Bill have paid Verizon their protection money.
Also, Bill's site will not be listed on Google for the same reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812816</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263810420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time.  In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet...</p></div><p>Why?  What makes one person's chat more important than another's ISO download?  If the network is not capable of handling the traffic it sees, then it needs to be upgraded.  Giving preference to VOIP at the expense of bittorent does not seem "neutral" to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone 's bit torrent download because it is real time .
In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet...Why ?
What makes one person 's chat more important than another 's ISO download ?
If the network is not capable of handling the traffic it sees , then it needs to be upgraded .
Giving preference to VOIP at the expense of bittorent does not seem " neutral " to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time.
In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet...Why?
What makes one person's chat more important than another's ISO download?
If the network is not capable of handling the traffic it sees, then it needs to be upgraded.
Giving preference to VOIP at the expense of bittorent does not seem "neutral" to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30817140</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1263893820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to--and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write. The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission."</p></div><p>So when a "person" is an ISP, he has a "right" to pick and choose what traffic will he drop or throttle, and users, trapped in his network, don't have any recourse because no "central authority" can smack such ISP with fines and license withdrawals for such "innovation".</p><p>Amirite?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" when a person accesses cyberspace , he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to--and that other person should be able to receive his or her message , " they write .
The 'Net should operate as a place where no " central authority " can make rules that prescribe the possible , and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to " innovate without permission .
" So when a " person " is an ISP , he has a " right " to pick and choose what traffic will he drop or throttle , and users , trapped in his network , do n't have any recourse because no " central authority " can smack such ISP with fines and license withdrawals for such " innovation " .Amirite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to--and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write.
The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission.
"So when a "person" is an ISP, he has a "right" to pick and choose what traffic will he drop or throttle, and users, trapped in his network, don't have any recourse because no "central authority" can smack such ISP with fines and license withdrawals for such "innovation".Amirite?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810480</id>
	<title>Worrying</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1263842460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way they worded their stance is very worrying.  For example, this expression:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>"when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to&mdash;and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,"</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>The "message" part can be interpreted not as a packet but as any message such as email, IM or blog entry, which could be used to justify that any network traffic that crosses a network can be fiddled by the operators, even dropped, if it was sent through a connection which is communicating through protocols other than the ones officially sanctioned by the operators.  So as your download isn't a message, your home-made VoIP service isn't a message or your internet gaming connection isn't a message then they would be free to just drop it as they see fit.  To put it in other words, if the operators don't identify your connection traffic as being message exchanges then they can simply do what they wish with it, which, as wee have become used to, will mean that you and I are screwed.</p><p>Then, this next excerpt is also important to take notice:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>" they write. The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission."</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Well, that means nothing more than "and don't fuck with our business".  That's terribly worrying because, together with the first stance, this reads as <b>we get to choose what to do with our traffic and no one should ever bother us about it</b>. </p><p>So this has the potential of being a horrible, horrible attack on today's free internet. And that is very scarry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way they worded their stance is very worrying .
For example , this expression : " when a person accesses cyberspace , he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to    and that other person should be able to receive his or her message , " The " message " part can be interpreted not as a packet but as any message such as email , IM or blog entry , which could be used to justify that any network traffic that crosses a network can be fiddled by the operators , even dropped , if it was sent through a connection which is communicating through protocols other than the ones officially sanctioned by the operators .
So as your download is n't a message , your home-made VoIP service is n't a message or your internet gaming connection is n't a message then they would be free to just drop it as they see fit .
To put it in other words , if the operators do n't identify your connection traffic as being message exchanges then they can simply do what they wish with it , which , as wee have become used to , will mean that you and I are screwed.Then , this next excerpt is also important to take notice : " they write .
The 'Net should operate as a place where no " central authority " can make rules that prescribe the possible , and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to " innovate without permission .
" Well , that means nothing more than " and do n't fuck with our business " .
That 's terribly worrying because , together with the first stance , this reads as we get to choose what to do with our traffic and no one should ever bother us about it .
So this has the potential of being a horrible , horrible attack on today 's free internet .
And that is very scarry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way they worded their stance is very worrying.
For example, this expression: "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," The "message" part can be interpreted not as a packet but as any message such as email, IM or blog entry, which could be used to justify that any network traffic that crosses a network can be fiddled by the operators, even dropped, if it was sent through a connection which is communicating through protocols other than the ones officially sanctioned by the operators.
So as your download isn't a message, your home-made VoIP service isn't a message or your internet gaming connection isn't a message then they would be free to just drop it as they see fit.
To put it in other words, if the operators don't identify your connection traffic as being message exchanges then they can simply do what they wish with it, which, as wee have become used to, will mean that you and I are screwed.Then, this next excerpt is also important to take notice: " they write.
The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission.
" Well, that means nothing more than "and don't fuck with our business".
That's terribly worrying because, together with the first stance, this reads as we get to choose what to do with our traffic and no one should ever bother us about it.
So this has the potential of being a horrible, horrible attack on today's free internet.
And that is very scarry.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810682</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>Dalzhim</author>
	<datestamp>1263843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But still throttling has some uses if done right.  A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time.  In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet.</p></div><p>Then how do you determine what application needs real time and what application doesn't to provide higher quality packets? Will the next generation of P2P applications use real-time protocols to be quicker than their predecessors? Will people with legitimate real-time applications need to go through endless and costly processes to get "authorized" as real-time apps which deserve higher quality packets?

Throttling is just a new tool to make oversubscription easy. It has no advantages for the everyday customer; only downsides.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But still throttling has some uses if done right .
A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone 's bit torrent download because it is real time .
In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet.Then how do you determine what application needs real time and what application does n't to provide higher quality packets ?
Will the next generation of P2P applications use real-time protocols to be quicker than their predecessors ?
Will people with legitimate real-time applications need to go through endless and costly processes to get " authorized " as real-time apps which deserve higher quality packets ?
Throttling is just a new tool to make oversubscription easy .
It has no advantages for the everyday customer ; only downsides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But still throttling has some uses if done right.
A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time.
In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet.Then how do you determine what application needs real time and what application doesn't to provide higher quality packets?
Will the next generation of P2P applications use real-time protocols to be quicker than their predecessors?
Will people with legitimate real-time applications need to go through endless and costly processes to get "authorized" as real-time apps which deserve higher quality packets?
Throttling is just a new tool to make oversubscription easy.
It has no advantages for the everyday customer; only downsides.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810464</id>
	<title>This is a hail mary</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1263842400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big telecom knows their position is indefensible and that people do not want private corporations to take over the internet.  Net Neutrality needs to pass to prevent them from waiting a couple years to try an internet take over again (ie horrible packages like cable tv channels, throttling, and unwanted re-direction of connections).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big telecom knows their position is indefensible and that people do not want private corporations to take over the internet .
Net Neutrality needs to pass to prevent them from waiting a couple years to try an internet take over again ( ie horrible packages like cable tv channels , throttling , and unwanted re-direction of connections ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big telecom knows their position is indefensible and that people do not want private corporations to take over the internet.
Net Neutrality needs to pass to prevent them from waiting a couple years to try an internet take over again (ie horrible packages like cable tv channels, throttling, and unwanted re-direction of connections).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810220</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1263841200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Virgin Media (In the UK) <a href="http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html" title="virginmedia.com">throttles your speed</a> [virginmedia.com] if you download a certain amount of data between certain times.  For example, on the M package, if you download 1.5 GB between 1000 and 1500, they bring you down to 200 or 300 kbps.  That seems fair to ensure that nobody's encroaching on someone else's speeds (although I'm no network engineer, so someone else can confirm whether this is a legitimate line of reasoning by them).

<br> <br>

Also, you're supposed to say "First Post"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virgin Media ( In the UK ) throttles your speed [ virginmedia.com ] if you download a certain amount of data between certain times .
For example , on the M package , if you download 1.5 GB between 1000 and 1500 , they bring you down to 200 or 300 kbps .
That seems fair to ensure that nobody 's encroaching on someone else 's speeds ( although I 'm no network engineer , so someone else can confirm whether this is a legitimate line of reasoning by them ) .
Also , you 're supposed to say " First Post "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virgin Media (In the UK) throttles your speed [virginmedia.com] if you download a certain amount of data between certain times.
For example, on the M package, if you download 1.5 GB between 1000 and 1500, they bring you down to 200 or 300 kbps.
That seems fair to ensure that nobody's encroaching on someone else's speeds (although I'm no network engineer, so someone else can confirm whether this is a legitimate line of reasoning by them).
Also, you're supposed to say "First Post"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30813822</id>
	<title>Re:Get 'er done!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263815520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a fool to think this is a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. But keep playing the game as each side whittles away your rights and freedoms. Their loyalty lies not with you (whom they are supposed to represent), but with corporate interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a fool to think this is a Conservative vs. Liberal issue .
But keep playing the game as each side whittles away your rights and freedoms .
Their loyalty lies not with you ( whom they are supposed to represent ) , but with corporate interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a fool to think this is a Conservative vs. Liberal issue.
But keep playing the game as each side whittles away your rights and freedoms.
Their loyalty lies not with you (whom they are supposed to represent), but with corporate interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136</id>
	<title>Throttling?</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1263840840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's still this problem:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to&mdash;and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,</p></div><p>Yes, but how fast?</p><p>A throttled Internet is still not a neutral network.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's still this problem : when a person accesses cyberspace , he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to    and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,Yes , but how fast ? A throttled Internet is still not a neutral network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's still this problem:when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,Yes, but how fast?A throttled Internet is still not a neutral network.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812420</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263808440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>*Yawn* As of the time I am writing this, there are only 64 comments to this posting. Nobody really gives two hoots about net neutrality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Yawn * As of the time I am writing this , there are only 64 comments to this posting .
Nobody really gives two hoots about net neutrality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Yawn* As of the time I am writing this, there are only 64 comments to this posting.
Nobody really gives two hoots about net neutrality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30815690</id>
	<title>Re:Wireless is the future though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263831180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wireless only makes sense if major companies are NOT in control of the wireless airwaves or the devices that make it happen... I'd rather there be a million and one little 'meshed' connections than one or two big (authorized) connections. That way when the telcos finally figure out that they're just freight haulers we'll have the technology in place to 'route' around them. Besides a mesh network is a lot more robust than the 'controlled' networks of today.</p><p>(anonymous for a reason... remember the phone company is every where....  )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wireless only makes sense if major companies are NOT in control of the wireless airwaves or the devices that make it happen... I 'd rather there be a million and one little 'meshed ' connections than one or two big ( authorized ) connections .
That way when the telcos finally figure out that they 're just freight haulers we 'll have the technology in place to 'route ' around them .
Besides a mesh network is a lot more robust than the 'controlled ' networks of today .
( anonymous for a reason... remember the phone company is every where.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wireless only makes sense if major companies are NOT in control of the wireless airwaves or the devices that make it happen... I'd rather there be a million and one little 'meshed' connections than one or two big (authorized) connections.
That way when the telcos finally figure out that they're just freight haulers we'll have the technology in place to 'route' around them.
Besides a mesh network is a lot more robust than the 'controlled' networks of today.
(anonymous for a reason... remember the phone company is every where....  )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810588</id>
	<title>Verizon is blocking irc apps on droid right now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263843060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so you know, press releases are just words..  They just started doing this a week or so ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so you know , press releases are just words.. They just started doing this a week or so ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so you know, press releases are just words..  They just started doing this a week or so ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811098</id>
	<title>Wireless is the future though</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1263845580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you think about it, wireless speeds are stating to catch up to hard wired connections.  Over the next 10-20 years I think we're going to see a shift away from landlines.  In terms of net neutrality this should mean there will be numerous companies competing in the wireless network market (AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint).  This is good because ultimately users would not stand for gatekeepers that throttle -- therefore competition and user choice is paramount here.  What worries me is device lock-in and two year contracts.  Google's latest move with the N1 is starting to make a bit more sense now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you think about it , wireless speeds are stating to catch up to hard wired connections .
Over the next 10-20 years I think we 're going to see a shift away from landlines .
In terms of net neutrality this should mean there will be numerous companies competing in the wireless network market ( AT&amp;T , T-Mobile , Verizon , Sprint ) .
This is good because ultimately users would not stand for gatekeepers that throttle -- therefore competition and user choice is paramount here .
What worries me is device lock-in and two year contracts .
Google 's latest move with the N1 is starting to make a bit more sense now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you think about it, wireless speeds are stating to catch up to hard wired connections.
Over the next 10-20 years I think we're going to see a shift away from landlines.
In terms of net neutrality this should mean there will be numerous companies competing in the wireless network market (AT&amp;T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint).
This is good because ultimately users would not stand for gatekeepers that throttle -- therefore competition and user choice is paramount here.
What worries me is device lock-in and two year contracts.
Google's latest move with the N1 is starting to make a bit more sense now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812200</id>
	<title>Traffic shaping done right</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1263807420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time.</p></div><p>Your phone sex is not more important than my porn movie.</p><p>Your phone sex might be more important---to you!---than your own porn movie.  That's fine.  Tell your ISP (via IP QoS flags) to downgrade <em>your own</em> bittorent transfers in preference to your VoIP.</p><p>Prioritize your own traffic however the hell you like it (or ask your ISP to do that service for you).  As long as I get the bandwidth I paid for, no matter how I like to use it.</p><p>Otherwise, I'm going to encode bittorrent packets as sound waves (remember modems?) and start delivering them over VoIP if that's faster.  Then what have we gained?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone 's bit torrent download because it is real time.Your phone sex is not more important than my porn movie.Your phone sex might be more important---to you ! ---than your own porn movie .
That 's fine .
Tell your ISP ( via IP QoS flags ) to downgrade your own bittorent transfers in preference to your VoIP.Prioritize your own traffic however the hell you like it ( or ask your ISP to do that service for you ) .
As long as I get the bandwidth I paid for , no matter how I like to use it.Otherwise , I 'm going to encode bittorrent packets as sound waves ( remember modems ?
) and start delivering them over VoIP if that 's faster .
Then what have we gained ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time.Your phone sex is not more important than my porn movie.Your phone sex might be more important---to you!---than your own porn movie.
That's fine.
Tell your ISP (via IP QoS flags) to downgrade your own bittorent transfers in preference to your VoIP.Prioritize your own traffic however the hell you like it (or ask your ISP to do that service for you).
As long as I get the bandwidth I paid for, no matter how I like to use it.Otherwise, I'm going to encode bittorrent packets as sound waves (remember modems?
) and start delivering them over VoIP if that's faster.
Then what have we gained?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810846</id>
	<title>Any anti-neutrality tech...</title>
	<author>John Guilt</author>
	<datestamp>1263844320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...can be cast as 'innovation' (and a good one---it makes life easier for <i>someone</i>, and presumably even better if that someone has a lot of capital) which should not be stifled by a 'central authority' (any authority Google or Verizon doesn't like).</htmltext>
<tokenext>...can be cast as 'innovation ' ( and a good one---it makes life easier for someone , and presumably even better if that someone has a lot of capital ) which should not be stifled by a 'central authority ' ( any authority Google or Verizon does n't like ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...can be cast as 'innovation' (and a good one---it makes life easier for someone, and presumably even better if that someone has a lot of capital) which should not be stifled by a 'central authority' (any authority Google or Verizon doesn't like).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30815324</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263826740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't you allow apps to tag their data with a realtimeness - realtime apps gets fewer packets through, but faster, non-realtime gets more packets through but slower for each packet (higher delay)? That way, there'd be no incentive to lie about what kind of data it is, you just have to figure out the right trade-off for your app...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't you allow apps to tag their data with a realtimeness - realtime apps gets fewer packets through , but faster , non-realtime gets more packets through but slower for each packet ( higher delay ) ?
That way , there 'd be no incentive to lie about what kind of data it is , you just have to figure out the right trade-off for your app.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't you allow apps to tag their data with a realtimeness - realtime apps gets fewer packets through, but faster, non-realtime gets more packets through but slower for each packet (higher delay)?
That way, there'd be no incentive to lie about what kind of data it is, you just have to figure out the right trade-off for your app...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811772</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1263805560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then how do you determine what application needs real time and what application doesn't to provide higher quality packets?</p></div><p>Simple: you don't. The ISP shouldn't care about the applications, just the data. Instead, you allocate each customer N bytes of real-time data per day (or per peak/off-peak period) at a maximum rate of X KB/s. Any application can <em>request</em> real-time priority, subject to overrides configured in the router, but once either the short-term rate or the long-term cap is used up the overflow gets bumped down to normal priority.</p><p>Since real-time bandwidth is strictly limited it wouldn't benefit bulk-data applications, which don't care about latency or jitter. For example, if a P2P client application were to request real-time priority it would only get a bit less jitter and latency for, say, the first 10 KB/s worth of packets; the remaining 100 KB/s would be over the limit and thus left at normal priority. The practice would be self-limiting as users would not choose clients which exhaust their real-time allocation and interfere with VoIP calls for&mdash;at best&mdash;marginally higher throughput.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then how do you determine what application needs real time and what application does n't to provide higher quality packets ? Simple : you do n't .
The ISP should n't care about the applications , just the data .
Instead , you allocate each customer N bytes of real-time data per day ( or per peak/off-peak period ) at a maximum rate of X KB/s .
Any application can request real-time priority , subject to overrides configured in the router , but once either the short-term rate or the long-term cap is used up the overflow gets bumped down to normal priority.Since real-time bandwidth is strictly limited it would n't benefit bulk-data applications , which do n't care about latency or jitter .
For example , if a P2P client application were to request real-time priority it would only get a bit less jitter and latency for , say , the first 10 KB/s worth of packets ; the remaining 100 KB/s would be over the limit and thus left at normal priority .
The practice would be self-limiting as users would not choose clients which exhaust their real-time allocation and interfere with VoIP calls for    at best    marginally higher throughput .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then how do you determine what application needs real time and what application doesn't to provide higher quality packets?Simple: you don't.
The ISP shouldn't care about the applications, just the data.
Instead, you allocate each customer N bytes of real-time data per day (or per peak/off-peak period) at a maximum rate of X KB/s.
Any application can request real-time priority, subject to overrides configured in the router, but once either the short-term rate or the long-term cap is used up the overflow gets bumped down to normal priority.Since real-time bandwidth is strictly limited it wouldn't benefit bulk-data applications, which don't care about latency or jitter.
For example, if a P2P client application were to request real-time priority it would only get a bit less jitter and latency for, say, the first 10 KB/s worth of packets; the remaining 100 KB/s would be over the limit and thus left at normal priority.
The practice would be self-limiting as users would not choose clients which exhaust their real-time allocation and interfere with VoIP calls for—at best—marginally higher throughput.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811874</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263805920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bittorrent is right now used a lot for illegal files.</p></div><p>This is very tangential to what you're talking about, but I'd still like to point out that Bittorrent is right now used for a lot of legal files too.  FTP is used to transfer both illegal files and legal files.  HTTP and NNTP too.  It doesn't make sense to blame the protocol.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bittorrent is right now used a lot for illegal files.This is very tangential to what you 're talking about , but I 'd still like to point out that Bittorrent is right now used for a lot of legal files too .
FTP is used to transfer both illegal files and legal files .
HTTP and NNTP too .
It does n't make sense to blame the protocol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bittorrent is right now used a lot for illegal files.This is very tangential to what you're talking about, but I'd still like to point out that Bittorrent is right now used for a lot of legal files too.
FTP is used to transfer both illegal files and legal files.
HTTP and NNTP too.
It doesn't make sense to blame the protocol.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810340</id>
	<title>PR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263841860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds to me like they're both agreeing to go the throttled route.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like they 're both agreeing to go the throttled route .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like they're both agreeing to go the throttled route.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30825714</id>
	<title>Verizon supports a free web, eh?</title>
	<author>berkbw</author>
	<datestamp>1263900900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original reason for me not using Verizon's mail services was that Verizon blacklisted much of Eastern Europe.  Now they're on the "freedom train"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original reason for me not using Verizon 's mail services was that Verizon blacklisted much of Eastern Europe .
Now they 're on the " freedom train " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original reason for me not using Verizon's mail services was that Verizon blacklisted much of Eastern Europe.
Now they're on the "freedom train"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30813072</id>
	<title>Lies.</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263811800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not believe that a company which recognizes DMCA, could also be loyal to the net neutrality philosophy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not believe that a company which recognizes DMCA , could also be loyal to the net neutrality philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not believe that a company which recognizes DMCA, could also be loyal to the net neutrality philosophy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30813306</id>
	<title>Can we just have packet prioritizing?</title>
	<author>YojimboJango</author>
	<datestamp>1263812820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I ever see out of these people is throttling speed based on how much you've downloaded, or how long you've been downloading for.  I have <b>never once</b> seen a throttling plan based on current network congestion.  Why is this?  Can't we run a system where once the network reaches 100\% capacity we start giving priority to the packets that need it?  Say a switch that has a priority stack that runs like voip,http,https,ftp,sftp,encrypted,unknown,BitTorrent.  <br> <br>

All I ever see are 'solutions' that allow the ISPs to run at well below their actual capacity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I ever see out of these people is throttling speed based on how much you 've downloaded , or how long you 've been downloading for .
I have never once seen a throttling plan based on current network congestion .
Why is this ?
Ca n't we run a system where once the network reaches 100 \ % capacity we start giving priority to the packets that need it ?
Say a switch that has a priority stack that runs like voip,http,https,ftp,sftp,encrypted,unknown,BitTorrent .
All I ever see are 'solutions ' that allow the ISPs to run at well below their actual capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I ever see out of these people is throttling speed based on how much you've downloaded, or how long you've been downloading for.
I have never once seen a throttling plan based on current network congestion.
Why is this?
Can't we run a system where once the network reaches 100\% capacity we start giving priority to the packets that need it?
Say a switch that has a priority stack that runs like voip,http,https,ftp,sftp,encrypted,unknown,BitTorrent.
All I ever see are 'solutions' that allow the ISPs to run at well below their actual capacity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30814342</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1263818520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have to upgrade their network whether they throttle or not.  The implementation of throttling simply allows them to delay the upgrade cycle once, but they are forced to continue anyways.

Bandwidth increases according to MOore's law.  VM is screwing over its customers by claiming they have to throttle in order to manage the network.  If they put their money into network investment they would be able to offer everyone truthly advertised, unthrottled connections.  Just look at various other European countries with super-fast speeds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have to upgrade their network whether they throttle or not .
The implementation of throttling simply allows them to delay the upgrade cycle once , but they are forced to continue anyways .
Bandwidth increases according to MOore 's law .
VM is screwing over its customers by claiming they have to throttle in order to manage the network .
If they put their money into network investment they would be able to offer everyone truthly advertised , unthrottled connections .
Just look at various other European countries with super-fast speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have to upgrade their network whether they throttle or not.
The implementation of throttling simply allows them to delay the upgrade cycle once, but they are forced to continue anyways.
Bandwidth increases according to MOore's law.
VM is screwing over its customers by claiming they have to throttle in order to manage the network.
If they put their money into network investment they would be able to offer everyone truthly advertised, unthrottled connections.
Just look at various other European countries with super-fast speeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>cervo</author>
	<datestamp>1263841920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps by saying that at least 75\% of someone's network capacity has to be used to deliver all packets and the extra 25\% can be re-allocated to higher priority packets or something.  I'm not sure how it works.<br> <br>
But in principle I'm okay with throttling traffic within reasonable limits.  Unfortunately due to corporate greed it is obvious what will happen.  Basically people will throttle packets so slow that people like Google will have to pay, basically extortion.  But still throttling has some uses if done right.  A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time.  In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet.<br> <br>
But you need something like the operating system does.  Basically in an operating system, to protect against starvation, often lower priority processes get their priority bumped up over time so that eventually they are guaranteed to get a turn at the processor.  Otherwise it is possible that higher priority processes come along and cause the low priority process to starve.  The same principle would need to happen on the internet.<br> <br>
However if you are ATT and you want to extort google, you could just make everyone's packets but google's higher priority and then google would suffer starvation of many packets and would be force to pay if a significant amount of the traffic comes through google.  Rather than that I'd rather have net neutrality.  But I'd be open to some type of regulations that stop people from overly slowing down other traffic (for say extortion) but using maybe the top 25\% or 10\% of capacity to give some special packets higher priority than others.  The problem is that I don't really know how to word it exactly.  And also many ways of wording it will leave the area wide open to abuse.  Also remember Comcast denied it was practicing traffic management for a long time.  It outright lied to everyone until it got caught.  Now it claims that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate it (which maybe it doesn't, who knows).  But if the company was so sure it was in the right, why lie until caught red handed?  But anyway no matter what it thinks the law is, it tries to get around it.  Either it thought the FCC had the authority and tried to avoid the issue and now is trying to challenge the authority to skirt the law.  Or it was just keeping to itself for customer relations.<br> <br>
Anyway I wouldn't necessarily mind a throttled connection at my local ISP either, as long as it says it is throttled and all the conditions.  If you lie to me that's ridiculous.  And if you sell $60/month throttled connections, I think you'd lose customers as they jump ship.  But a throttled connection selling at a discount to a non throttled connection would probably attract some people.  I think the government should start going after companies for false advertising.  If you sell an "unlimited" connection then it better damn well be unlimited.  Without any type of secret caps.  Some companies throttle you or even cut you off after you reach a certain cap.  IF that cap is not advertised clearly and it is an "unlimited" connection they should be fined/thrown in jail.  If they sell a connection that says UNLIMITED to 5 GB and then throttled to 128K then that is fine.  But if you sell "unlimited" then don't come whining when people use it unlimited.<br> <br>
Still I'm not entirely convinced that it is all network problems and not trying to set things up.  Bittorrent is right now used a lot for illegal files.  But ultimately when Hollywood joins the 21st century, bittorrent could be a great cheap way for them to distribute movies.  Then they just need to pay for hard disk space for a movie and seed it on bittorrent.  Probably much cheaper than printing out DVDs and stuff.  Ultimately they could distribute a lot of older movies that are out of production due to lack of popularity.  And people would probably buy them.  Even TV studios can use bittorrent to distribute tv show episodes while saving a ton on bandwidth costs.  N</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps by saying that at least 75 \ % of someone 's network capacity has to be used to deliver all packets and the extra 25 \ % can be re-allocated to higher priority packets or something .
I 'm not sure how it works .
But in principle I 'm okay with throttling traffic within reasonable limits .
Unfortunately due to corporate greed it is obvious what will happen .
Basically people will throttle packets so slow that people like Google will have to pay , basically extortion .
But still throttling has some uses if done right .
A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone 's bit torrent download because it is real time .
In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet .
But you need something like the operating system does .
Basically in an operating system , to protect against starvation , often lower priority processes get their priority bumped up over time so that eventually they are guaranteed to get a turn at the processor .
Otherwise it is possible that higher priority processes come along and cause the low priority process to starve .
The same principle would need to happen on the internet .
However if you are ATT and you want to extort google , you could just make everyone 's packets but google 's higher priority and then google would suffer starvation of many packets and would be force to pay if a significant amount of the traffic comes through google .
Rather than that I 'd rather have net neutrality .
But I 'd be open to some type of regulations that stop people from overly slowing down other traffic ( for say extortion ) but using maybe the top 25 \ % or 10 \ % of capacity to give some special packets higher priority than others .
The problem is that I do n't really know how to word it exactly .
And also many ways of wording it will leave the area wide open to abuse .
Also remember Comcast denied it was practicing traffic management for a long time .
It outright lied to everyone until it got caught .
Now it claims that the FCC does n't have the authority to regulate it ( which maybe it does n't , who knows ) .
But if the company was so sure it was in the right , why lie until caught red handed ?
But anyway no matter what it thinks the law is , it tries to get around it .
Either it thought the FCC had the authority and tried to avoid the issue and now is trying to challenge the authority to skirt the law .
Or it was just keeping to itself for customer relations .
Anyway I would n't necessarily mind a throttled connection at my local ISP either , as long as it says it is throttled and all the conditions .
If you lie to me that 's ridiculous .
And if you sell $ 60/month throttled connections , I think you 'd lose customers as they jump ship .
But a throttled connection selling at a discount to a non throttled connection would probably attract some people .
I think the government should start going after companies for false advertising .
If you sell an " unlimited " connection then it better damn well be unlimited .
Without any type of secret caps .
Some companies throttle you or even cut you off after you reach a certain cap .
IF that cap is not advertised clearly and it is an " unlimited " connection they should be fined/thrown in jail .
If they sell a connection that says UNLIMITED to 5 GB and then throttled to 128K then that is fine .
But if you sell " unlimited " then do n't come whining when people use it unlimited .
Still I 'm not entirely convinced that it is all network problems and not trying to set things up .
Bittorrent is right now used a lot for illegal files .
But ultimately when Hollywood joins the 21st century , bittorrent could be a great cheap way for them to distribute movies .
Then they just need to pay for hard disk space for a movie and seed it on bittorrent .
Probably much cheaper than printing out DVDs and stuff .
Ultimately they could distribute a lot of older movies that are out of production due to lack of popularity .
And people would probably buy them .
Even TV studios can use bittorrent to distribute tv show episodes while saving a ton on bandwidth costs .
N</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps by saying that at least 75\% of someone's network capacity has to be used to deliver all packets and the extra 25\% can be re-allocated to higher priority packets or something.
I'm not sure how it works.
But in principle I'm okay with throttling traffic within reasonable limits.
Unfortunately due to corporate greed it is obvious what will happen.
Basically people will throttle packets so slow that people like Google will have to pay, basically extortion.
But still throttling has some uses if done right.
A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time.
In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet.
But you need something like the operating system does.
Basically in an operating system, to protect against starvation, often lower priority processes get their priority bumped up over time so that eventually they are guaranteed to get a turn at the processor.
Otherwise it is possible that higher priority processes come along and cause the low priority process to starve.
The same principle would need to happen on the internet.
However if you are ATT and you want to extort google, you could just make everyone's packets but google's higher priority and then google would suffer starvation of many packets and would be force to pay if a significant amount of the traffic comes through google.
Rather than that I'd rather have net neutrality.
But I'd be open to some type of regulations that stop people from overly slowing down other traffic (for say extortion) but using maybe the top 25\% or 10\% of capacity to give some special packets higher priority than others.
The problem is that I don't really know how to word it exactly.
And also many ways of wording it will leave the area wide open to abuse.
Also remember Comcast denied it was practicing traffic management for a long time.
It outright lied to everyone until it got caught.
Now it claims that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate it (which maybe it doesn't, who knows).
But if the company was so sure it was in the right, why lie until caught red handed?
But anyway no matter what it thinks the law is, it tries to get around it.
Either it thought the FCC had the authority and tried to avoid the issue and now is trying to challenge the authority to skirt the law.
Or it was just keeping to itself for customer relations.
Anyway I wouldn't necessarily mind a throttled connection at my local ISP either, as long as it says it is throttled and all the conditions.
If you lie to me that's ridiculous.
And if you sell $60/month throttled connections, I think you'd lose customers as they jump ship.
But a throttled connection selling at a discount to a non throttled connection would probably attract some people.
I think the government should start going after companies for false advertising.
If you sell an "unlimited" connection then it better damn well be unlimited.
Without any type of secret caps.
Some companies throttle you or even cut you off after you reach a certain cap.
IF that cap is not advertised clearly and it is an "unlimited" connection they should be fined/thrown in jail.
If they sell a connection that says UNLIMITED to 5 GB and then throttled to 128K then that is fine.
But if you sell "unlimited" then don't come whining when people use it unlimited.
Still I'm not entirely convinced that it is all network problems and not trying to set things up.
Bittorrent is right now used a lot for illegal files.
But ultimately when Hollywood joins the 21st century, bittorrent could be a great cheap way for them to distribute movies.
Then they just need to pay for hard disk space for a movie and seed it on bittorrent.
Probably much cheaper than printing out DVDs and stuff.
Ultimately they could distribute a lot of older movies that are out of production due to lack of popularity.
And people would probably buy them.
Even TV studios can use bittorrent to distribute tv show episodes while saving a ton on bandwidth costs.
N</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810596</id>
	<title>!network management</title>
	<author>Tuki</author>
	<datestamp>1263843120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously irritating that they continue to dub this "network management".  I have been in the network management business for over a decade, and not once have I throttled down anyone's network connection.  That is a job for network engineers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously irritating that they continue to dub this " network management " .
I have been in the network management business for over a decade , and not once have I throttled down anyone 's network connection .
That is a job for network engineers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously irritating that they continue to dub this "network management".
I have been in the network management business for over a decade, and not once have I throttled down anyone's network connection.
That is a job for network engineers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30817830</id>
	<title>Re:Get 'er done!</title>
	<author>timbo234</author>
	<datestamp>1263903900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe pedantic but still worth pointing out: *England* is not flirting with harsh internet laws, there is no Government of England, it's the government of the UK that's doing so. And any laws that result will affect people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England.</p><p>Also it's not a given that European countries will 'fall into line' with the US on this. It requires specific laws at either the national level or the national and EU level to be enacted. This will be slightly more likely if the US does it, as it would provide a good example of a major nation seeing the benefit of net neutrality, but there's no mechanism where laws get passed from the US to Europe!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe pedantic but still worth pointing out : * England * is not flirting with harsh internet laws , there is no Government of England , it 's the government of the UK that 's doing so .
And any laws that result will affect people in Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England.Also it 's not a given that European countries will 'fall into line ' with the US on this .
It requires specific laws at either the national level or the national and EU level to be enacted .
This will be slightly more likely if the US does it , as it would provide a good example of a major nation seeing the benefit of net neutrality , but there 's no mechanism where laws get passed from the US to Europe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe pedantic but still worth pointing out: *England* is not flirting with harsh internet laws, there is no Government of England, it's the government of the UK that's doing so.
And any laws that result will affect people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England.Also it's not a given that European countries will 'fall into line' with the US on this.
It requires specific laws at either the national level or the national and EU level to be enacted.
This will be slightly more likely if the US does it, as it would provide a good example of a major nation seeing the benefit of net neutrality, but there's no mechanism where laws get passed from the US to Europe!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810402</id>
	<title>Too vague to be of value.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263842160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to&mdash;and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,""</p><p>This statement has no meaning if they don't include protocol in it.</p><p>Do they mean "he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... by whatever means they choose" or<br>"he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... as long as they're using only the tools and methods we tell them to"</p><p>And as someone else already pointed out, they don't mention speed either.  The devil's in the details, after all.</p><p>It's an interesting start, but this is what people have come to expect from the internet in the first place.  The part I worry about isn't whether there or not people will be able to reach each other.  It's how the big networks will change to rules and set up restrictions, yet still convince people that what they are getting is still an 'open internet'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That means , to them , that " when a person accesses cyberspace , he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to    and that other person should be able to receive his or her message , " " This statement has no meaning if they do n't include protocol in it.Do they mean " he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... by whatever means they choose " or " he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... as long as they 're using only the tools and methods we tell them to " And as someone else already pointed out , they do n't mention speed either .
The devil 's in the details , after all.It 's an interesting start , but this is what people have come to expect from the internet in the first place .
The part I worry about is n't whether there or not people will be able to reach each other .
It 's how the big networks will change to rules and set up restrictions , yet still convince people that what they are getting is still an 'open internet' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message,""This statement has no meaning if they don't include protocol in it.Do they mean "he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... by whatever means they choose" or"he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to... as long as they're using only the tools and methods we tell them to"And as someone else already pointed out, they don't mention speed either.
The devil's in the details, after all.It's an interesting start, but this is what people have come to expect from the internet in the first place.
The part I worry about isn't whether there or not people will be able to reach each other.
It's how the big networks will change to rules and set up restrictions, yet still convince people that what they are getting is still an 'open internet'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812082</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>The Mighty Buzzard</author>
	<datestamp>1263806880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That seems fair to ensure that nobody's encroaching on someone else's speeds</p></div><p>
I can see where it might, but I am a network engineer and it most certainly isn't.  It's extremely easy to keep the tubes full but make sure important packets like http/voip/fps games/etc... get to skip ahead in line and get through faster.  That gives Quality of Service to what's important without slowing down all the less time critical traffic any more than absolutely necessary.  It's actually <i>harder</i> to do it the way you suggest and serves <i>no</i> purpose but to keep Virgin Media (or whoever) from having to build up infrastructure to keep up with demand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems fair to ensure that nobody 's encroaching on someone else 's speeds I can see where it might , but I am a network engineer and it most certainly is n't .
It 's extremely easy to keep the tubes full but make sure important packets like http/voip/fps games/etc... get to skip ahead in line and get through faster .
That gives Quality of Service to what 's important without slowing down all the less time critical traffic any more than absolutely necessary .
It 's actually harder to do it the way you suggest and serves no purpose but to keep Virgin Media ( or whoever ) from having to build up infrastructure to keep up with demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems fair to ensure that nobody's encroaching on someone else's speeds
I can see where it might, but I am a network engineer and it most certainly isn't.
It's extremely easy to keep the tubes full but make sure important packets like http/voip/fps games/etc... get to skip ahead in line and get through faster.
That gives Quality of Service to what's important without slowing down all the less time critical traffic any more than absolutely necessary.
It's actually harder to do it the way you suggest and serves no purpose but to keep Virgin Media (or whoever) from having to build up infrastructure to keep up with demand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810538</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate without permission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263842760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Innovate without permission" is an excellent expression, although not completely descriptive of the goal in this case.</p></div><p>What's sad is that it has to be said at all -- it implies that people need permission before molding technology and science in a way that serves the public good. I shouldn't have to ask someone for permission to learn more about the world around me and put that learning in service of the greater good. And neither should anybody else. Anywhere. Ever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Innovate without permission " is an excellent expression , although not completely descriptive of the goal in this case.What 's sad is that it has to be said at all -- it implies that people need permission before molding technology and science in a way that serves the public good .
I should n't have to ask someone for permission to learn more about the world around me and put that learning in service of the greater good .
And neither should anybody else .
Anywhere. Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Innovate without permission" is an excellent expression, although not completely descriptive of the goal in this case.What's sad is that it has to be said at all -- it implies that people need permission before molding technology and science in a way that serves the public good.
I shouldn't have to ask someone for permission to learn more about the world around me and put that learning in service of the greater good.
And neither should anybody else.
Anywhere. Ever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810768</id>
	<title>Get 'er done!</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1263843840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> It's seriously important to get a net neutrality arrangement worked out in the US and carved in stone before the neo-conservative elements get back in control.  It's a sad fact that the conservative side of politics there has been taken over by a bunch of religious fanatics and fascists who want nothing to do with such traditional conservative values as freedom from the intrusion of government into one's private life.  Net neutrality was headed for the scrap heap under the previous administration, and it's far from assured under this one. </p><p> It's also an unfortunate fact that the US still has enough financial clout to enforce its rules on other countries.  The up-side of this situation is that if the US enacts strong net neutrality legislation, most European countries will happily fall in line, and the ones like England and Italy, which are flirting with harsh internet laws, will have to go along.  Even China will have an increasingly-difficult time keeping its "Green Wall" intact. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's seriously important to get a net neutrality arrangement worked out in the US and carved in stone before the neo-conservative elements get back in control .
It 's a sad fact that the conservative side of politics there has been taken over by a bunch of religious fanatics and fascists who want nothing to do with such traditional conservative values as freedom from the intrusion of government into one 's private life .
Net neutrality was headed for the scrap heap under the previous administration , and it 's far from assured under this one .
It 's also an unfortunate fact that the US still has enough financial clout to enforce its rules on other countries .
The up-side of this situation is that if the US enacts strong net neutrality legislation , most European countries will happily fall in line , and the ones like England and Italy , which are flirting with harsh internet laws , will have to go along .
Even China will have an increasingly-difficult time keeping its " Green Wall " intact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's seriously important to get a net neutrality arrangement worked out in the US and carved in stone before the neo-conservative elements get back in control.
It's a sad fact that the conservative side of politics there has been taken over by a bunch of religious fanatics and fascists who want nothing to do with such traditional conservative values as freedom from the intrusion of government into one's private life.
Net neutrality was headed for the scrap heap under the previous administration, and it's far from assured under this one.
It's also an unfortunate fact that the US still has enough financial clout to enforce its rules on other countries.
The up-side of this situation is that if the US enacts strong net neutrality legislation, most European countries will happily fall in line, and the ones like England and Italy, which are flirting with harsh internet laws, will have to go along.
Even China will have an increasingly-difficult time keeping its "Green Wall" intact. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810654</id>
	<title>Sounds like a definitiion of SPAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263843300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to"... sounds exactly like request suggexted by a potential spammer. Surely they meant, "... if the recipient wants to be contacted"</p><p>No doubt they did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a person accesses cyberspace , he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to " ... sounds exactly like request suggexted by a potential spammer .
Surely they meant , " ... if the recipient wants to be contacted " No doubt they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to"... sounds exactly like request suggexted by a potential spammer.
Surely they meant, "... if the recipient wants to be contacted"No doubt they did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810184</id>
	<title>Innovate without permission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263841020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Innovate without permission" is an excellent expression, although not completely descriptive of the goal in this case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Innovate without permission " is an excellent expression , although not completely descriptive of the goal in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Innovate without permission" is an excellent expression, although not completely descriptive of the goal in this case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30814708</id>
	<title>Re:It's a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263821460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have a feeling if they can convince them of this, its just 1 step in a long journey towards a better<b>, safer, more secure and trusted</b> web<b>, especially after passing laws and regulations that effectively cuts off anything anonymous.</b> </i><br>Here, fixed that for you.<br>Since when do we need regulation at all? Since some of the kids that grew up with BBS (and actually have a clue) became adults and started making money off of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a feeling if they can convince them of this , its just 1 step in a long journey towards a better , safer , more secure and trusted web , especially after passing laws and regulations that effectively cuts off anything anonymous .
Here , fixed that for you.Since when do we need regulation at all ?
Since some of the kids that grew up with BBS ( and actually have a clue ) became adults and started making money off of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a feeling if they can convince them of this, its just 1 step in a long journey towards a better, safer, more secure and trusted web, especially after passing laws and regulations that effectively cuts off anything anonymous.
Here, fixed that for you.Since when do we need regulation at all?
Since some of the kids that grew up with BBS (and actually have a clue) became adults and started making money off of it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811148</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1263845880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, on the M package, if you download 1.5 GB between 1000 and 1500, they bring you down to 200 or 300 kbps. That seems fair to ensure that nobody's encroaching on someone else's speeds (although I'm no network engineer, so someone else can confirm whether this is a legitimate line of reasoning by them).</p></div><p>I'm also not a network engineer, but it seems rather obvious that their system is not "fair" so long as the throttling is arbitrary and bears no relation to the available bandwidth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , on the M package , if you download 1.5 GB between 1000 and 1500 , they bring you down to 200 or 300 kbps .
That seems fair to ensure that nobody 's encroaching on someone else 's speeds ( although I 'm no network engineer , so someone else can confirm whether this is a legitimate line of reasoning by them ) .I 'm also not a network engineer , but it seems rather obvious that their system is not " fair " so long as the throttling is arbitrary and bears no relation to the available bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, on the M package, if you download 1.5 GB between 1000 and 1500, they bring you down to 200 or 300 kbps.
That seems fair to ensure that nobody's encroaching on someone else's speeds (although I'm no network engineer, so someone else can confirm whether this is a legitimate line of reasoning by them).I'm also not a network engineer, but it seems rather obvious that their system is not "fair" so long as the throttling is arbitrary and bears no relation to the available bandwidth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810400</id>
	<title>Central Authority?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1263842160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about all the little(?) keepers of the last mile? Like Verizon. Can they make up their own rules? OTOH, the FCC is a 'central authority'. Are they suggesting that the FCC shouldn't have a say in such rulemaking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all the little ( ?
) keepers of the last mile ?
Like Verizon .
Can they make up their own rules ?
OTOH , the FCC is a 'central authority' .
Are they suggesting that the FCC should n't have a say in such rulemaking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all the little(?
) keepers of the last mile?
Like Verizon.
Can they make up their own rules?
OTOH, the FCC is a 'central authority'.
Are they suggesting that the FCC shouldn't have a say in such rulemaking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810234</id>
	<title>Demands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263841260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I demand all 404 error pages be replaced with a rick-roll;<br>organizations that fail to do so can pay a small fine to the RIAA &amp; MPAA.<br>Also, Microsoft should get a screen shot of every page I visit to make sure their browser is rendering it correctly.<br>Finally, I want an unencrypted monthly backup of my hard drive(s) automatically sent to the CIA/NSA sponsored cloud back up database.</p><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I demand all 404 error pages be replaced with a rick-roll ; organizations that fail to do so can pay a small fine to the RIAA &amp; MPAA.Also , Microsoft should get a screen shot of every page I visit to make sure their browser is rendering it correctly.Finally , I want an unencrypted monthly backup of my hard drive ( s ) automatically sent to the CIA/NSA sponsored cloud back up database.That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I demand all 404 error pages be replaced with a rick-roll;organizations that fail to do so can pay a small fine to the RIAA &amp; MPAA.Also, Microsoft should get a screen shot of every page I visit to make sure their browser is rendering it correctly.Finally, I want an unencrypted monthly backup of my hard drive(s) automatically sent to the CIA/NSA sponsored cloud back up database.That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810238</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1263841320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a broader question: Isn't this entire "teaming up" look like some sort of fluff? It seems like the PR teams of both companies met for lunch and decided that both parties have better things to do than moderate the public aspect of this particular disagreement. They then put up a sign saying "move along, nothing to see here".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a broader question : Is n't this entire " teaming up " look like some sort of fluff ?
It seems like the PR teams of both companies met for lunch and decided that both parties have better things to do than moderate the public aspect of this particular disagreement .
They then put up a sign saying " move along , nothing to see here " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a broader question: Isn't this entire "teaming up" look like some sort of fluff?
It seems like the PR teams of both companies met for lunch and decided that both parties have better things to do than moderate the public aspect of this particular disagreement.
They then put up a sign saying "move along, nothing to see here".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810214</id>
	<title>And wont you need a rule to make it open ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1263841200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after all, if some party 'redefines' open, how are you going to keep it open ?</p><p>you need some basic rules to make sure that openness persists. you need net neutrality rules. there is nothing related to innovation in this. net neutrality is basically the freedom of expression for modern humanism. its fundamental.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after all , if some party 'redefines ' open , how are you going to keep it open ? you need some basic rules to make sure that openness persists .
you need net neutrality rules .
there is nothing related to innovation in this .
net neutrality is basically the freedom of expression for modern humanism .
its fundamental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after all, if some party 'redefines' open, how are you going to keep it open ?you need some basic rules to make sure that openness persists.
you need net neutrality rules.
there is nothing related to innovation in this.
net neutrality is basically the freedom of expression for modern humanism.
its fundamental.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810442</id>
	<title>collusion</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263842280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, they're trying to come up with something that looks open on its face, but on closer inspection keeps all the power in the hands of private interests they can control. They realized their petty squabbling could both both their businesses in jeopardy so they're pretending to get along like a big house on fire now and praying that the FCC finds something else to pick on while they muster their political allies.</p><p>It's a tactic designed expressly to weaken the FCC's support in Congress by appearing to be the victims of the FCC "control freaks", while they, the benevolent corporate interests, only want the lowest prices and best services for you, the vulnerable consumer. Cue media relations campaign in 5...4...3...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , they 're trying to come up with something that looks open on its face , but on closer inspection keeps all the power in the hands of private interests they can control .
They realized their petty squabbling could both both their businesses in jeopardy so they 're pretending to get along like a big house on fire now and praying that the FCC finds something else to pick on while they muster their political allies.It 's a tactic designed expressly to weaken the FCC 's support in Congress by appearing to be the victims of the FCC " control freaks " , while they , the benevolent corporate interests , only want the lowest prices and best services for you , the vulnerable consumer .
Cue media relations campaign in 5...4...3.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, they're trying to come up with something that looks open on its face, but on closer inspection keeps all the power in the hands of private interests they can control.
They realized their petty squabbling could both both their businesses in jeopardy so they're pretending to get along like a big house on fire now and praying that the FCC finds something else to pick on while they muster their political allies.It's a tactic designed expressly to weaken the FCC's support in Congress by appearing to be the victims of the FCC "control freaks", while they, the benevolent corporate interests, only want the lowest prices and best services for you, the vulnerable consumer.
Cue media relations campaign in 5...4...3...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810228</id>
	<title>It's a start</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263841260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get the FCC to agree to something small first.</p><p>I have a feeling if they can convince them of this, its just 1 step in a long journey towards a better web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the FCC to agree to something small first.I have a feeling if they can convince them of this , its just 1 step in a long journey towards a better web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the FCC to agree to something small first.I have a feeling if they can convince them of this, its just 1 step in a long journey towards a better web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810642</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1263843300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NN generally doesnt mean the end of QoS and throttling for technical reasons (putting priority on VOIP and gaming and putting torrents and ftp to bulk). Instead, it means ending throttling and QoS for BUSINESS REASONS. That is to say, Comcast isnt going to put Vonage VOIP into the bulk category because Vonage competes with their own VOIP service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NN generally doesnt mean the end of QoS and throttling for technical reasons ( putting priority on VOIP and gaming and putting torrents and ftp to bulk ) .
Instead , it means ending throttling and QoS for BUSINESS REASONS .
That is to say , Comcast isnt going to put Vonage VOIP into the bulk category because Vonage competes with their own VOIP service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NN generally doesnt mean the end of QoS and throttling for technical reasons (putting priority on VOIP and gaming and putting torrents and ftp to bulk).
Instead, it means ending throttling and QoS for BUSINESS REASONS.
That is to say, Comcast isnt going to put Vonage VOIP into the bulk category because Vonage competes with their own VOIP service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810172</id>
	<title>"cyberspace"?</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1263840960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812380</id>
	<title>Re:Throttling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263808140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps by saying that at least 75\% of someone's network capacity has to be used to deliver all packets and the extra 25\% can be re-allocated to higher priority packets or something.</p></div><p>Why not limit advertising to the throttled speed?  I.e. if I buy a 20 Mbs package from my ISP, I should be able to download at about 2.5 MB/sec from any site that supports it, but for their partners I might get 4 MB/sec.  As long as the latencies are reasonable this would be a way to add value to the service, rather than take it away.  The latter is cheaper, but I think a good business could make the former work very well.  "Add on our super hyper turbo booster service for $10/month and double your speeds to YouTube.  Or add our lag-be-gone package and get very low ping times to your favorite game servers."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps by saying that at least 75 \ % of someone 's network capacity has to be used to deliver all packets and the extra 25 \ % can be re-allocated to higher priority packets or something.Why not limit advertising to the throttled speed ?
I.e. if I buy a 20 Mbs package from my ISP , I should be able to download at about 2.5 MB/sec from any site that supports it , but for their partners I might get 4 MB/sec .
As long as the latencies are reasonable this would be a way to add value to the service , rather than take it away .
The latter is cheaper , but I think a good business could make the former work very well .
" Add on our super hyper turbo booster service for $ 10/month and double your speeds to YouTube .
Or add our lag-be-gone package and get very low ping times to your favorite game servers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps by saying that at least 75\% of someone's network capacity has to be used to deliver all packets and the extra 25\% can be re-allocated to higher priority packets or something.Why not limit advertising to the throttled speed?
I.e. if I buy a 20 Mbs package from my ISP, I should be able to download at about 2.5 MB/sec from any site that supports it, but for their partners I might get 4 MB/sec.
As long as the latencies are reasonable this would be a way to add value to the service, rather than take it away.
The latter is cheaper, but I think a good business could make the former work very well.
"Add on our super hyper turbo booster service for $10/month and double your speeds to YouTube.
Or add our lag-be-gone package and get very low ping times to your favorite game servers.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810558</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate without permission</title>
	<author>superdana</author>
	<datestamp>1263842880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Innovate without permission" also sounds like a euphemism for bullshit like Site Finder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Innovate without permission " also sounds like a euphemism for bullshit like Site Finder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Innovate without permission" also sounds like a euphemism for bullshit like Site Finder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810764</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263843840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had to right a short paper on this topic. Here is my the blog post.

<a href="http://thomas-netneutrality.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://thomas-netneutrality.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to right a short paper on this topic .
Here is my the blog post .
http : //thomas-netneutrality.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to right a short paper on this topic.
Here is my the blog post.
http://thomas-netneutrality.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30814708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30817830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30814342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30815324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30813822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30815690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_175248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30815690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30814708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30817830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30813822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30817140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_175248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810682
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30815324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30812082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30814342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30811148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_175248.30810642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
