<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_1748259</id>
	<title>A Simple Guide To Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266346440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>superapecommando writes in with a <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/public-sector/in-depth/index.cfm?articleid=3028">neutral introduction to net neutrality</a> from ComputerWorld UK. While it doesn't go into a lot of technical depth, it's rare to see anything written on the subject that isn't rabid on one side or the other. <i>"Google's recently announced plan to <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/10/1712200/Googles-Experimental-Fiber-Network">set up trial fiber-optic networks</a> in the US with ultra-high-speed Internet connections puts the long running national debate over Net Neutrality back into high gear. A hot topic of discussion and debate in government and telecom circles since at least 2003, Net Neutrality, actually involves a broad array of topics, technologies and players. Here's a primer for those looking to get up to speed fast."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>superapecommando writes in with a neutral introduction to net neutrality from ComputerWorld UK .
While it does n't go into a lot of technical depth , it 's rare to see anything written on the subject that is n't rabid on one side or the other .
" Google 's recently announced plan to set up trial fiber-optic networks in the US with ultra-high-speed Internet connections puts the long running national debate over Net Neutrality back into high gear .
A hot topic of discussion and debate in government and telecom circles since at least 2003 , Net Neutrality , actually involves a broad array of topics , technologies and players .
Here 's a primer for those looking to get up to speed fast .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>superapecommando writes in with a neutral introduction to net neutrality from ComputerWorld UK.
While it doesn't go into a lot of technical depth, it's rare to see anything written on the subject that isn't rabid on one side or the other.
"Google's recently announced plan to set up trial fiber-optic networks in the US with ultra-high-speed Internet connections puts the long running national debate over Net Neutrality back into high gear.
A hot topic of discussion and debate in government and telecom circles since at least 2003, Net Neutrality, actually involves a broad array of topics, technologies and players.
Here's a primer for those looking to get up to speed fast.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31162710</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1266327060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is it that to make energy to how to put more energy in to get more out.  You have to pay for the cost of the coal/gas/uranium you're burning. (traditionally, solar, tidal, and wind energy is a different business)</p><p>Every form of backbone in existence costs the same idling as it does running full tilt.  Thats not true, this is a difference, its just so small that its really not worth mentioning as you probably can't detect that power difference (on the network infrastructure gear) in the facebook data center, let alone anyone smaller.</p><p>If you have 100 million cable modem subscribers using the Internet for an hour a day (at the same time) it costs the EXACT same as if none of them use it at all that day, or if they all use it constantly all day.</p><p>Both companies have to pay to install infrastructure, the cost is more or less identical between the two.</p><p>I pay more on a normal month for cable than power.  I pay more for something that has no consumables than I do for the product that has a consumable, the power usage for providing the bandwidth doesn't count, its far too small to count.   Power companies are also required to be fair and charge fair prices, they have to ask the government to make changes, and they government can and does say no.</p><p>Comparing bandwidth providers to power companies is roughly like comparing pirating an mp3 of brittney spears  to kidnapping her and forcing her to sing at your daughters birthday party.  Its a fucking retarded comparison to make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is it that to make energy to how to put more energy in to get more out .
You have to pay for the cost of the coal/gas/uranium you 're burning .
( traditionally , solar , tidal , and wind energy is a different business ) Every form of backbone in existence costs the same idling as it does running full tilt .
Thats not true , this is a difference , its just so small that its really not worth mentioning as you probably ca n't detect that power difference ( on the network infrastructure gear ) in the facebook data center , let alone anyone smaller.If you have 100 million cable modem subscribers using the Internet for an hour a day ( at the same time ) it costs the EXACT same as if none of them use it at all that day , or if they all use it constantly all day.Both companies have to pay to install infrastructure , the cost is more or less identical between the two.I pay more on a normal month for cable than power .
I pay more for something that has no consumables than I do for the product that has a consumable , the power usage for providing the bandwidth does n't count , its far too small to count .
Power companies are also required to be fair and charge fair prices , they have to ask the government to make changes , and they government can and does say no.Comparing bandwidth providers to power companies is roughly like comparing pirating an mp3 of brittney spears to kidnapping her and forcing her to sing at your daughters birthday party .
Its a fucking retarded comparison to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is it that to make energy to how to put more energy in to get more out.
You have to pay for the cost of the coal/gas/uranium you're burning.
(traditionally, solar, tidal, and wind energy is a different business)Every form of backbone in existence costs the same idling as it does running full tilt.
Thats not true, this is a difference, its just so small that its really not worth mentioning as you probably can't detect that power difference (on the network infrastructure gear) in the facebook data center, let alone anyone smaller.If you have 100 million cable modem subscribers using the Internet for an hour a day (at the same time) it costs the EXACT same as if none of them use it at all that day, or if they all use it constantly all day.Both companies have to pay to install infrastructure, the cost is more or less identical between the two.I pay more on a normal month for cable than power.
I pay more for something that has no consumables than I do for the product that has a consumable, the power usage for providing the bandwidth doesn't count, its far too small to count.
Power companies are also required to be fair and charge fair prices, they have to ask the government to make changes, and they government can and does say no.Comparing bandwidth providers to power companies is roughly like comparing pirating an mp3 of brittney spears  to kidnapping her and forcing her to sing at your daughters birthday party.
Its a fucking retarded comparison to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160798</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality in Politics</title>
	<author>jluzwick</author>
	<datestamp>1266317520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have found that most politicians have a poor understanding of what net neutrality is or they do not understand the consequences of not having net neutrality.
<p>
For instance, take a peek at these two articles on Net Neutrality that have come up in the past year.
</p><p>
The first one about Senator Mc. Cain.
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/fcc-approves-proposed-net-neutrality-rules/" title="foxnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/fcc-approves-proposed-net-neutrality-rules/</a> [foxnews.com]
He states, "These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace". He also states it will stifle innovation and kill jobs.  He clearly does not have a coherent understanding of Net Neutrality as one of the goals is to increase innovation through the unrestricted, unfettered access to the internet.  In this case, the government is providing deregulation to a market by disallowing private companies from restricting content.
</p><p>
Another Politician, Senator. Feinstein believes we should allow ISPs to restrict access to the internet to abate the spread of child pornography. In her words, changing the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program "allows for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement."  While removing child pornography from the internet is a noble goal, she doesn't understand how much more harm will come of this through abuse of the policy.  Halting the spread of child pornography can be combated through our legal system instead of giving ISPs complete control over what we can view.
The article can be viewed here: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/feinstein\_stimulus\_amendment/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/feinstein\_stimulus\_amendment/</a> [theregister.co.uk]
</p><p>
While allowing ISPs to restrict our internet access would stop the spread of child pornography and could be construed as a government intrusion of a private sector that doesn't need it, consider China and Iran.  The governments of these countries are completely against Net Neutrality in every way so they may control their populations by restricting anything that collides with their views.  While our private ISPs might not have the kind of power these governments do, would you want our ISPs to be allowed that power?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have found that most politicians have a poor understanding of what net neutrality is or they do not understand the consequences of not having net neutrality .
For instance , take a peek at these two articles on Net Neutrality that have come up in the past year .
The first one about Senator Mc .
Cain . http : //www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/fcc-approves-proposed-net-neutrality-rules/ [ foxnews.com ] He states , " These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace " .
He also states it will stifle innovation and kill jobs .
He clearly does not have a coherent understanding of Net Neutrality as one of the goals is to increase innovation through the unrestricted , unfettered access to the internet .
In this case , the government is providing deregulation to a market by disallowing private companies from restricting content .
Another Politician , Senator .
Feinstein believes we should allow ISPs to restrict access to the internet to abate the spread of child pornography .
In her words , changing the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program " allows for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity , including child pornography and copyright infringement .
" While removing child pornography from the internet is a noble goal , she does n't understand how much more harm will come of this through abuse of the policy .
Halting the spread of child pornography can be combated through our legal system instead of giving ISPs complete control over what we can view .
The article can be viewed here : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/feinstein \ _stimulus \ _amendment/ [ theregister.co.uk ] While allowing ISPs to restrict our internet access would stop the spread of child pornography and could be construed as a government intrusion of a private sector that does n't need it , consider China and Iran .
The governments of these countries are completely against Net Neutrality in every way so they may control their populations by restricting anything that collides with their views .
While our private ISPs might not have the kind of power these governments do , would you want our ISPs to be allowed that power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have found that most politicians have a poor understanding of what net neutrality is or they do not understand the consequences of not having net neutrality.
For instance, take a peek at these two articles on Net Neutrality that have come up in the past year.
The first one about Senator Mc.
Cain.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/fcc-approves-proposed-net-neutrality-rules/ [foxnews.com]
He states, "These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace".
He also states it will stifle innovation and kill jobs.
He clearly does not have a coherent understanding of Net Neutrality as one of the goals is to increase innovation through the unrestricted, unfettered access to the internet.
In this case, the government is providing deregulation to a market by disallowing private companies from restricting content.
Another Politician, Senator.
Feinstein believes we should allow ISPs to restrict access to the internet to abate the spread of child pornography.
In her words, changing the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program "allows for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement.
"  While removing child pornography from the internet is a noble goal, she doesn't understand how much more harm will come of this through abuse of the policy.
Halting the spread of child pornography can be combated through our legal system instead of giving ISPs complete control over what we can view.
The article can be viewed here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/feinstein\_stimulus\_amendment/ [theregister.co.uk]

While allowing ISPs to restrict our internet access would stop the spread of child pornography and could be construed as a government intrusion of a private sector that doesn't need it, consider China and Iran.
The governments of these countries are completely against Net Neutrality in every way so they may control their populations by restricting anything that collides with their views.
While our private ISPs might not have the kind of power these governments do, would you want our ISPs to be allowed that power?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158866</id>
	<title>Transparency is the key to real neutrality...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1266351780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO, I'm not a huge fan of strict network neutrality, there are cases where you want advanced traffic management techniques that would be non-neutral:  EG, if you are dealing with wide-area wireless, banning P2P applications is probably a very good thing, as wireless bandwidth is vastly more expensive.  Likewise, token-bucket hacks which improve interactive traffic could in some ways be considered "non neutral", as the start of a transfer is given preference, but the net result is it greatly improves user experience.</p><p>But what is important is network <i> <b>transparency</b> </i>: we need to know what is happening, since without knowing what's going on, you can't distinguish between reasonable management practices and unreasonable ones, such as wireline services blocking P2P, favoring some sites over others, or blocking applications.</p><p>Additionally, there are a lot of behaviors, such as DNS wildcarding, which are non-neutral but have been overlooked in the debate by focusing solely on application transport.</p><p>Thus I believe its important to develop tools (such as, obligatory plug to the research project I'm involved with, , <a href="http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/" title="berkeley.edu">Netalyzr</a> [berkeley.edu]) so that we ensure transparency.  We need transparency, because we need to "Trust, but verify".  Otherwise, even if network neutrality was legally enforced, how do we know we are getting what we expect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO , I 'm not a huge fan of strict network neutrality , there are cases where you want advanced traffic management techniques that would be non-neutral : EG , if you are dealing with wide-area wireless , banning P2P applications is probably a very good thing , as wireless bandwidth is vastly more expensive .
Likewise , token-bucket hacks which improve interactive traffic could in some ways be considered " non neutral " , as the start of a transfer is given preference , but the net result is it greatly improves user experience.But what is important is network transparency : we need to know what is happening , since without knowing what 's going on , you ca n't distinguish between reasonable management practices and unreasonable ones , such as wireline services blocking P2P , favoring some sites over others , or blocking applications.Additionally , there are a lot of behaviors , such as DNS wildcarding , which are non-neutral but have been overlooked in the debate by focusing solely on application transport.Thus I believe its important to develop tools ( such as , obligatory plug to the research project I 'm involved with , , Netalyzr [ berkeley.edu ] ) so that we ensure transparency .
We need transparency , because we need to " Trust , but verify " .
Otherwise , even if network neutrality was legally enforced , how do we know we are getting what we expect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO, I'm not a huge fan of strict network neutrality, there are cases where you want advanced traffic management techniques that would be non-neutral:  EG, if you are dealing with wide-area wireless, banning P2P applications is probably a very good thing, as wireless bandwidth is vastly more expensive.
Likewise, token-bucket hacks which improve interactive traffic could in some ways be considered "non neutral", as the start of a transfer is given preference, but the net result is it greatly improves user experience.But what is important is network  transparency : we need to know what is happening, since without knowing what's going on, you can't distinguish between reasonable management practices and unreasonable ones, such as wireline services blocking P2P, favoring some sites over others, or blocking applications.Additionally, there are a lot of behaviors, such as DNS wildcarding, which are non-neutral but have been overlooked in the debate by focusing solely on application transport.Thus I believe its important to develop tools (such as, obligatory plug to the research project I'm involved with, , Netalyzr [berkeley.edu]) so that we ensure transparency.
We need transparency, because we need to "Trust, but verify".
Otherwise, even if network neutrality was legally enforced, how do we know we are getting what we expect?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159272</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266353580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big cable companies should be allowed to do whatever they want with their networks. They paid for the networks out of their own pocket, free from any tax-payer subsidies, right?</p><p>Wait. What's that? They didn't? Oh. My mistake!</p><p>At least we're not throwing 7 billion dollars of taxpayer money in their general direction in the form of "stimulus".</p><p>Really? We're doing that too? You're kidding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big cable companies should be allowed to do whatever they want with their networks .
They paid for the networks out of their own pocket , free from any tax-payer subsidies , right ? Wait .
What 's that ?
They did n't ?
Oh. My mistake ! At least we 're not throwing 7 billion dollars of taxpayer money in their general direction in the form of " stimulus " .Really ?
We 're doing that too ?
You 're kidding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big cable companies should be allowed to do whatever they want with their networks.
They paid for the networks out of their own pocket, free from any tax-payer subsidies, right?Wait.
What's that?
They didn't?
Oh. My mistake!At least we're not throwing 7 billion dollars of taxpayer money in their general direction in the form of "stimulus".Really?
We're doing that too?
You're kidding?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161086</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1266318780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kilowatt/hour of power<br>-&gt; kilowatt-hour of energy</p><p>Just sayin'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kilowatt/hour of power- &gt; kilowatt-hour of energyJust sayin'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kilowatt/hour of power-&gt; kilowatt-hour of energyJust sayin'...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158754</id>
	<title>YUO FAIL It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266351300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of OpEnBSD versus was in the tea I</htmltext>
<tokenext>of OpEnBSD versus was in the tea I</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of OpEnBSD versus was in the tea I</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159616</id>
	<title>to all the propentants of net neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266312120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a simple question: Why?</p><p>Why is it that, the largely unregulated internet has gone on in mainstream for over a decade now, with no major problems, and we want to heap on regulations.  Why?  what's so wrong with the internet as it currently stands that you think needs protection?  verizon banned 4chan, which is such an important website, and that got a lot of attention.  and you're worried about what?</p><p>To me this is just more of the same, perhaps, well intended regulations, that will end up making things worse for everyone, including the proponents of net neutrality.  It's doing fine, so let's heap on redtape! hurrah!  i wonder if wikipedia would have took off, if there was a lot of regulation in place?  or youtube?  maybe they would, but if you think about all the steps that this will eventually require, and the lawyers, and the general mess that will come because of this, we will miss out on things that might have been.  And what happens when the, 'think of the children' type get into regulating the internet (which they will)?  they will be relentless.  and they will eventually force some stupid crap down through the usual think of the children bullshit that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. loathes so much.  the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  and this is just another one of those well intended pieces of legislation that will end up costing us a lot more than it prevented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a simple question : Why ? Why is it that , the largely unregulated internet has gone on in mainstream for over a decade now , with no major problems , and we want to heap on regulations .
Why ? what 's so wrong with the internet as it currently stands that you think needs protection ?
verizon banned 4chan , which is such an important website , and that got a lot of attention .
and you 're worried about what ? To me this is just more of the same , perhaps , well intended regulations , that will end up making things worse for everyone , including the proponents of net neutrality .
It 's doing fine , so let 's heap on redtape !
hurrah ! i wonder if wikipedia would have took off , if there was a lot of regulation in place ?
or youtube ?
maybe they would , but if you think about all the steps that this will eventually require , and the lawyers , and the general mess that will come because of this , we will miss out on things that might have been .
And what happens when the , 'think of the children ' type get into regulating the internet ( which they will ) ?
they will be relentless .
and they will eventually force some stupid crap down through the usual think of the children bullshit that / .
loathes so much .
the road to hell is paved with good intentions .
and this is just another one of those well intended pieces of legislation that will end up costing us a lot more than it prevented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a simple question: Why?Why is it that, the largely unregulated internet has gone on in mainstream for over a decade now, with no major problems, and we want to heap on regulations.
Why?  what's so wrong with the internet as it currently stands that you think needs protection?
verizon banned 4chan, which is such an important website, and that got a lot of attention.
and you're worried about what?To me this is just more of the same, perhaps, well intended regulations, that will end up making things worse for everyone, including the proponents of net neutrality.
It's doing fine, so let's heap on redtape!
hurrah!  i wonder if wikipedia would have took off, if there was a lot of regulation in place?
or youtube?
maybe they would, but if you think about all the steps that this will eventually require, and the lawyers, and the general mess that will come because of this, we will miss out on things that might have been.
And what happens when the, 'think of the children' type get into regulating the internet (which they will)?
they will be relentless.
and they will eventually force some stupid crap down through the usual think of the children bullshit that /.
loathes so much.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
and this is just another one of those well intended pieces of legislation that will end up costing us a lot more than it prevented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159146</id>
	<title>Just Like Celebrity Jeopardy</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1266352980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take "The Rapists" for $200, Trebek.</p><p>That's "Therapists", Connery!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take " The Rapists " for $ 200 , Trebek.That 's " Therapists " , Connery !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take "The Rapists" for $200, Trebek.That's "Therapists", Connery!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31166538</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You already have bandwidth caps - pay $X to get the Internet at 2mbits, pay $Y to get it at 6mbits. Transfer caps are when you get a quota of X gb/month.</p><p>Having transfer caps is fine, provided you have them instead of bandwidth caps, and not both at once. I pay to get 80Gb/month of Internet as fast as they can deliver it, and it's in my ISP interest to make my internet go faster because then I'll use more transfer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You already have bandwidth caps - pay $ X to get the Internet at 2mbits , pay $ Y to get it at 6mbits .
Transfer caps are when you get a quota of X gb/month.Having transfer caps is fine , provided you have them instead of bandwidth caps , and not both at once .
I pay to get 80Gb/month of Internet as fast as they can deliver it , and it 's in my ISP interest to make my internet go faster because then I 'll use more transfer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already have bandwidth caps - pay $X to get the Internet at 2mbits, pay $Y to get it at 6mbits.
Transfer caps are when you get a quota of X gb/month.Having transfer caps is fine, provided you have them instead of bandwidth caps, and not both at once.
I pay to get 80Gb/month of Internet as fast as they can deliver it, and it's in my ISP interest to make my internet go faster because then I'll use more transfer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1266351660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.</p><p>Honestly.. I would prefer a $X per Giga or Megabyte over $x for unlimited*</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *Where we define unlimited, who gets throttled when and can cut you off for exceeding any internal threshold that we will not tell you about.</p><p>Seriously.. If I am curious about my power usage, I can walk outside, look at the meter, and figure out pretty close to what I owe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.Honestly.. I would prefer a $ X per Giga or Megabyte over $ x for unlimited *               * Where we define unlimited , who gets throttled when and can cut you off for exceeding any internal threshold that we will not tell you about.Seriously.. If I am curious about my power usage , I can walk outside , look at the meter , and figure out pretty close to what I owe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.Honestly.. I would prefer a $X per Giga or Megabyte over $x for unlimited*
              *Where we define unlimited, who gets throttled when and can cut you off for exceeding any internal threshold that we will not tell you about.Seriously.. If I am curious about my power usage, I can walk outside, look at the meter, and figure out pretty close to what I owe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159290</id>
	<title>Re:Submitter's Username?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266353700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if you knew how to read then this wouldn't be such a problem for you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if you knew how to read then this would n't be such a problem for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if you knew how to read then this wouldn't be such a problem for you...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159836</id>
	<title>Re:to all the propentants of net neutrality</title>
	<author>Microlith</author>
	<datestamp>1266313260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is it that, the largely unregulated internet has gone on in mainstream for over a decade now, with no major problems, and we want to heap on regulations.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because in 2006 AT&amp;T's CEO opened his mouth and basically stated he wanted to hold his customers hostage from Google in exchange for more money. He plainly stated that he wanted to charge both his direct customers AND people who were incidentally coming across the lines. It was made plainly obvious that corporations can and would abuse their services and their customers for the sake of making a profit, especially when they had a monopoly position in areas.</p><p>My personal preference would be to force common carrier status on all data providers.</p><blockquote><div><p>what's so wrong with the internet as it currently stands that you think needs protection?</p></div></blockquote><p>A bunch of regional monopolies serve as the only reasonably modern gateway to the most important technology of the late 20th/early 21st century, and they're more than willing to destroy what makes it unique.</p><p>The carriers should be forcibly struck blind. They've already been caught fucking with connections, and are more than willing to host and affect their networks (and customers) with conflicts of interest that serve only themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that , the largely unregulated internet has gone on in mainstream for over a decade now , with no major problems , and we want to heap on regulations.Because in 2006 AT&amp;T 's CEO opened his mouth and basically stated he wanted to hold his customers hostage from Google in exchange for more money .
He plainly stated that he wanted to charge both his direct customers AND people who were incidentally coming across the lines .
It was made plainly obvious that corporations can and would abuse their services and their customers for the sake of making a profit , especially when they had a monopoly position in areas.My personal preference would be to force common carrier status on all data providers.what 's so wrong with the internet as it currently stands that you think needs protection ? A bunch of regional monopolies serve as the only reasonably modern gateway to the most important technology of the late 20th/early 21st century , and they 're more than willing to destroy what makes it unique.The carriers should be forcibly struck blind .
They 've already been caught fucking with connections , and are more than willing to host and affect their networks ( and customers ) with conflicts of interest that serve only themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that, the largely unregulated internet has gone on in mainstream for over a decade now, with no major problems, and we want to heap on regulations.Because in 2006 AT&amp;T's CEO opened his mouth and basically stated he wanted to hold his customers hostage from Google in exchange for more money.
He plainly stated that he wanted to charge both his direct customers AND people who were incidentally coming across the lines.
It was made plainly obvious that corporations can and would abuse their services and their customers for the sake of making a profit, especially when they had a monopoly position in areas.My personal preference would be to force common carrier status on all data providers.what's so wrong with the internet as it currently stands that you think needs protection?A bunch of regional monopolies serve as the only reasonably modern gateway to the most important technology of the late 20th/early 21st century, and they're more than willing to destroy what makes it unique.The carriers should be forcibly struck blind.
They've already been caught fucking with connections, and are more than willing to host and affect their networks (and customers) with conflicts of interest that serve only themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31163266</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>catd77</author>
	<datestamp>1266330660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, at least thats the only industry, WAIT ITS NOT! Oh, well at least this isn't all about profits WAIT IT IS! amidoinitrite?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least thats the only industry , WAIT ITS NOT !
Oh , well at least this is n't all about profits WAIT IT IS !
amidoinitrite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least thats the only industry, WAIT ITS NOT!
Oh, well at least this isn't all about profits WAIT IT IS!
amidoinitrite?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160268</id>
	<title>Re:Common argument</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1266314940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? The few times I have hear of ISP blocking is at the request or threat of the government. The solution from the point of view of the ISP is to charge for usage which means the more the customer uses, the more revenue the ISP will get.  What is wrong with that? Oh yeah, the government says that's unfair. More Government regulation to fix the older government regulation is not the answer!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
The few times I have hear of ISP blocking is at the request or threat of the government .
The solution from the point of view of the ISP is to charge for usage which means the more the customer uses , the more revenue the ISP will get .
What is wrong with that ?
Oh yeah , the government says that 's unfair .
More Government regulation to fix the older government regulation is not the answer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
The few times I have hear of ISP blocking is at the request or threat of the government.
The solution from the point of view of the ISP is to charge for usage which means the more the customer uses, the more revenue the ISP will get.
What is wrong with that?
Oh yeah, the government says that's unfair.
More Government regulation to fix the older government regulation is not the answer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160684</id>
	<title>"Net Neutrality" sucks</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1266317040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"Net Neutrality" sucks.  Net Neutrality, as I understand it, is very nearly fundamental for economic growth.
</p><p>
Seriously, this is a geek site, and every time NN comes up people talk about different things.
</p><p>
I think we should talk about "common carrier" status.  I know it doesn't legally apply to telcos in the US, but it should, and it's a reasonably well-understood term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Net Neutrality " sucks .
Net Neutrality , as I understand it , is very nearly fundamental for economic growth .
Seriously , this is a geek site , and every time NN comes up people talk about different things .
I think we should talk about " common carrier " status .
I know it does n't legally apply to telcos in the US , but it should , and it 's a reasonably well-understood term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"Net Neutrality" sucks.
Net Neutrality, as I understand it, is very nearly fundamental for economic growth.
Seriously, this is a geek site, and every time NN comes up people talk about different things.
I think we should talk about "common carrier" status.
I know it doesn't legally apply to telcos in the US, but it should, and it's a reasonably well-understood term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160990</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1266318420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.</p></div><p>What's wrong with that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.What 's wrong with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.What's wrong with that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160122</id>
	<title>what is the price of a bit? what am I paying for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266314340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.</p></div><p>Power is finite and needs to be generated on-demand from (usually) consumable resources. Bandwidth doesn't fall in the the same category.</p><p>For fibre, if you have something that's sitting around idle, you're "wasting" (say) 1 Gb/s of bandwidth each second that it's not lit up. It could be used to transfer information for someone, but if you've capped people and so they're not using it because they're over their caps, you have all this telco equipment doing absolutely nothing.</p><p>On the other hand, if you're not using power, that means the generation companies aren't burning coal/gas/uranium. You don't use, they don't use. But an ISP, if you don't use... their plant is still running.  Now there's certainly an incremental cost in power optical lasers and such, but it's tiny IMHO.</p><p>What exactly are we charged for using when we're charged for transferring a bit of information? The fibre is still depreciating where I'm running a torrent or not; the Cisco/Juniper is getting out of date whether I'm hitting Youtube or not.</p><p>With electricity, I'm being charged for the consumption of coal/gas/uranium (plus some overhead for transport). What exactly am I being charged for consuming when I download a bit?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.Power is finite and needs to be generated on-demand from ( usually ) consumable resources .
Bandwidth does n't fall in the the same category.For fibre , if you have something that 's sitting around idle , you 're " wasting " ( say ) 1 Gb/s of bandwidth each second that it 's not lit up .
It could be used to transfer information for someone , but if you 've capped people and so they 're not using it because they 're over their caps , you have all this telco equipment doing absolutely nothing.On the other hand , if you 're not using power , that means the generation companies are n't burning coal/gas/uranium .
You do n't use , they do n't use .
But an ISP , if you do n't use... their plant is still running .
Now there 's certainly an incremental cost in power optical lasers and such , but it 's tiny IMHO.What exactly are we charged for using when we 're charged for transferring a bit of information ?
The fibre is still depreciating where I 'm running a torrent or not ; the Cisco/Juniper is getting out of date whether I 'm hitting Youtube or not.With electricity , I 'm being charged for the consumption of coal/gas/uranium ( plus some overhead for transport ) .
What exactly am I being charged for consuming when I download a bit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.Power is finite and needs to be generated on-demand from (usually) consumable resources.
Bandwidth doesn't fall in the the same category.For fibre, if you have something that's sitting around idle, you're "wasting" (say) 1 Gb/s of bandwidth each second that it's not lit up.
It could be used to transfer information for someone, but if you've capped people and so they're not using it because they're over their caps, you have all this telco equipment doing absolutely nothing.On the other hand, if you're not using power, that means the generation companies aren't burning coal/gas/uranium.
You don't use, they don't use.
But an ISP, if you don't use... their plant is still running.
Now there's certainly an incremental cost in power optical lasers and such, but it's tiny IMHO.What exactly are we charged for using when we're charged for transferring a bit of information?
The fibre is still depreciating where I'm running a torrent or not; the Cisco/Juniper is getting out of date whether I'm hitting Youtube or not.With electricity, I'm being charged for the consumption of coal/gas/uranium (plus some overhead for transport).
What exactly am I being charged for consuming when I download a bit?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159350</id>
	<title>Re:Common argument</title>
	<author>Ichijo</author>
	<datestamp>1266310800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T, Time-Warner, etc.?</p></div></blockquote><p>You lease a circuit to your Internet provider of choice, perhaps to the same one Pirate Bay uses if you don't want any traffic blocked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T , Time-Warner , etc .
? You lease a circuit to your Internet provider of choice , perhaps to the same one Pirate Bay uses if you do n't want any traffic blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T, Time-Warner, etc.
?You lease a circuit to your Internet provider of choice, perhaps to the same one Pirate Bay uses if you don't want any traffic blocked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158906</id>
	<title>Do we have a neutral network now?</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1266351900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I need to do more research on the topic to figure out what exactly it is that people mean when they talk about network neutrality, especially since it seems to mean different things to different people.  However, I'm not sure that we really have network neutrality now, nor can we.  Just thinking of protocols such as BGP, which basically makes the Internet work at all, and which makes all of its routing decisions based on admin/management policy and not based on any technical metrics, so that certain routes will always be favored, especially those through peers, makes me think that network neutrality in the sense of ensuring that there aren't transit fees and data tariffs to keep competing content second class is sort of impossible.<br><br>I'll freely admit that I'm not in possession of extremely in-depth knowledge of how major ISPs handle their business, having been a system admin at a web hosting company and now working a provider of niche networking hardware, but what's the difference between one AS #1 peering with AS #2 and allowing free transit of data, but meetering data sourced at AS #3 which has no peerage agreement and charging them for the use of their tubes?  How can we continue to use BGP, which isn't designed with "fairness" of routes in mind (at least not to my understanding, as opposed to other routing protocols which build routes based on metrics such as hop count and bandwidth), but which is designed to allow one AS to favor another AS explicitly, and still have network neutrality?<br><br>Or are people really only concerned that ISPs providing end-user service don't shape traffic and limit bt use, for example, but don't care whether their ISP just refuses to directly exchange routing tables with their favorite media conglomerate and increase the lag in their video streaming?<br><br>If I'm off-base with this one, please feel free to let me know, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I need to do more research on the topic to figure out what exactly it is that people mean when they talk about network neutrality , especially since it seems to mean different things to different people .
However , I 'm not sure that we really have network neutrality now , nor can we .
Just thinking of protocols such as BGP , which basically makes the Internet work at all , and which makes all of its routing decisions based on admin/management policy and not based on any technical metrics , so that certain routes will always be favored , especially those through peers , makes me think that network neutrality in the sense of ensuring that there are n't transit fees and data tariffs to keep competing content second class is sort of impossible.I 'll freely admit that I 'm not in possession of extremely in-depth knowledge of how major ISPs handle their business , having been a system admin at a web hosting company and now working a provider of niche networking hardware , but what 's the difference between one AS # 1 peering with AS # 2 and allowing free transit of data , but meetering data sourced at AS # 3 which has no peerage agreement and charging them for the use of their tubes ?
How can we continue to use BGP , which is n't designed with " fairness " of routes in mind ( at least not to my understanding , as opposed to other routing protocols which build routes based on metrics such as hop count and bandwidth ) , but which is designed to allow one AS to favor another AS explicitly , and still have network neutrality ? Or are people really only concerned that ISPs providing end-user service do n't shape traffic and limit bt use , for example , but do n't care whether their ISP just refuses to directly exchange routing tables with their favorite media conglomerate and increase the lag in their video streaming ? If I 'm off-base with this one , please feel free to let me know , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I need to do more research on the topic to figure out what exactly it is that people mean when they talk about network neutrality, especially since it seems to mean different things to different people.
However, I'm not sure that we really have network neutrality now, nor can we.
Just thinking of protocols such as BGP, which basically makes the Internet work at all, and which makes all of its routing decisions based on admin/management policy and not based on any technical metrics, so that certain routes will always be favored, especially those through peers, makes me think that network neutrality in the sense of ensuring that there aren't transit fees and data tariffs to keep competing content second class is sort of impossible.I'll freely admit that I'm not in possession of extremely in-depth knowledge of how major ISPs handle their business, having been a system admin at a web hosting company and now working a provider of niche networking hardware, but what's the difference between one AS #1 peering with AS #2 and allowing free transit of data, but meetering data sourced at AS #3 which has no peerage agreement and charging them for the use of their tubes?
How can we continue to use BGP, which isn't designed with "fairness" of routes in mind (at least not to my understanding, as opposed to other routing protocols which build routes based on metrics such as hop count and bandwidth), but which is designed to allow one AS to favor another AS explicitly, and still have network neutrality?Or are people really only concerned that ISPs providing end-user service don't shape traffic and limit bt use, for example, but don't care whether their ISP just refuses to directly exchange routing tables with their favorite media conglomerate and increase the lag in their video streaming?If I'm off-base with this one, please feel free to let me know, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159736</id>
	<title>Common Carrier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266312840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now they arent legally considered common carrier. They get all the benefits of being a common carrier. Legally force them to be a common carrier and all these problems go away.</p><p>Only reason for them to restrict what is being transmitted.</p><p>1. illegal: child porn or ddos/spam; only with applicable legal implications of getting the law involved.<br>2. Act of the flying spaghetti monster destroyed the packet.<br>3. The transmitter sent a fragmented or broken packet.<br>4. Their network is being attacked.</p><p>Otherwise they are liable for the cost of the damage.</p><p>Japan has done this. Surprise surprise they have reasonable and good quality internet access there. $45 will get you 45mbit/5mbit unlimited. or $75 for 100mbit/100mbit unlimited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now they arent legally considered common carrier .
They get all the benefits of being a common carrier .
Legally force them to be a common carrier and all these problems go away.Only reason for them to restrict what is being transmitted.1 .
illegal : child porn or ddos/spam ; only with applicable legal implications of getting the law involved.2 .
Act of the flying spaghetti monster destroyed the packet.3 .
The transmitter sent a fragmented or broken packet.4 .
Their network is being attacked.Otherwise they are liable for the cost of the damage.Japan has done this .
Surprise surprise they have reasonable and good quality internet access there .
$ 45 will get you 45mbit/5mbit unlimited .
or $ 75 for 100mbit/100mbit unlimited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now they arent legally considered common carrier.
They get all the benefits of being a common carrier.
Legally force them to be a common carrier and all these problems go away.Only reason for them to restrict what is being transmitted.1.
illegal: child porn or ddos/spam; only with applicable legal implications of getting the law involved.2.
Act of the flying spaghetti monster destroyed the packet.3.
The transmitter sent a fragmented or broken packet.4.
Their network is being attacked.Otherwise they are liable for the cost of the damage.Japan has done this.
Surprise surprise they have reasonable and good quality internet access there.
$45 will get you 45mbit/5mbit unlimited.
or $75 for 100mbit/100mbit unlimited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159242</id>
	<title>Re:Do we have a neutral network now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266353460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes you are off and this has nothing to do with peering agreements. At it's base, legislating network neutrality is dictating that the way the internet works now is the way it should work. ISP's are meant to be access points, not gatekeepers. Net neutrality legislation aims to prevent ISP's selling tiered services like cable companies do with their service. An ISP can't go and make an agreement with one content/service provider (say MS Bing) and throttle all competitors to be so slow as to be useless and turn around and say that you have to upgrade to the next package up to be able to use Google. Network neutrality prevents an ISP running a VOIP service and throttling Vonage into oblivion, unless you pay for the *special unlimited* VIOP package. Network Neutrality prevents double dipping, i.e. the ISP from charging you to access content AND charging content providers to be in the lower level tiers.<br> <br>Legitimate QoS is not prevented under network neutrality. ISP's can, and should, prioritize VOIP over HTTP. They could even throttle BitTorrent if they wanted to.<br> <br>BitTorrent is the big problem with the FCC's plan. They specifically allow ISP's to filter out illegal traffic. BitTorrent has many many legitimate uses, unfortunately no ISP that has filtered BT has ever recognized that fact and simply blocks it all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes you are off and this has nothing to do with peering agreements .
At it 's base , legislating network neutrality is dictating that the way the internet works now is the way it should work .
ISP 's are meant to be access points , not gatekeepers .
Net neutrality legislation aims to prevent ISP 's selling tiered services like cable companies do with their service .
An ISP ca n't go and make an agreement with one content/service provider ( say MS Bing ) and throttle all competitors to be so slow as to be useless and turn around and say that you have to upgrade to the next package up to be able to use Google .
Network neutrality prevents an ISP running a VOIP service and throttling Vonage into oblivion , unless you pay for the * special unlimited * VIOP package .
Network Neutrality prevents double dipping , i.e .
the ISP from charging you to access content AND charging content providers to be in the lower level tiers .
Legitimate QoS is not prevented under network neutrality .
ISP 's can , and should , prioritize VOIP over HTTP .
They could even throttle BitTorrent if they wanted to .
BitTorrent is the big problem with the FCC 's plan .
They specifically allow ISP 's to filter out illegal traffic .
BitTorrent has many many legitimate uses , unfortunately no ISP that has filtered BT has ever recognized that fact and simply blocks it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes you are off and this has nothing to do with peering agreements.
At it's base, legislating network neutrality is dictating that the way the internet works now is the way it should work.
ISP's are meant to be access points, not gatekeepers.
Net neutrality legislation aims to prevent ISP's selling tiered services like cable companies do with their service.
An ISP can't go and make an agreement with one content/service provider (say MS Bing) and throttle all competitors to be so slow as to be useless and turn around and say that you have to upgrade to the next package up to be able to use Google.
Network neutrality prevents an ISP running a VOIP service and throttling Vonage into oblivion, unless you pay for the *special unlimited* VIOP package.
Network Neutrality prevents double dipping, i.e.
the ISP from charging you to access content AND charging content providers to be in the lower level tiers.
Legitimate QoS is not prevented under network neutrality.
ISP's can, and should, prioritize VOIP over HTTP.
They could even throttle BitTorrent if they wanted to.
BitTorrent is the big problem with the FCC's plan.
They specifically allow ISP's to filter out illegal traffic.
BitTorrent has many many legitimate uses, unfortunately no ISP that has filtered BT has ever recognized that fact and simply blocks it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159430</id>
	<title>Re:Transparency is the key to real neutrality...</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1266311280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why limit it to banning P2P?<br>If someone is running an FTP server on a wide-area wireless network shouldn't that be banned too?<br>Or downloading anything big, youtube should be blocked too.</p><p>Or they could just put a hard cap on usage so that if you use up all your bandwidth in the first 3 days torrenting Lost it's your problem.</p><p>P2P isn't the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why limit it to banning P2P ? If someone is running an FTP server on a wide-area wireless network should n't that be banned too ? Or downloading anything big , youtube should be blocked too.Or they could just put a hard cap on usage so that if you use up all your bandwidth in the first 3 days torrenting Lost it 's your problem.P2P is n't the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why limit it to banning P2P?If someone is running an FTP server on a wide-area wireless network shouldn't that be banned too?Or downloading anything big, youtube should be blocked too.Or they could just put a hard cap on usage so that if you use up all your bandwidth in the first 3 days torrenting Lost it's your problem.P2P isn't the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159726</id>
	<title>Neutrally unspoken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266312780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The net neutrality argument is one that should never have been.<br>The baby bells in the US were required to carry competitors traffic over their networks and this is the way it should have been for all utilities.</p><p>Then there is the question of what exactly to carriers own anyway.<br>The Internet was paid for by tax payers so why should they get the right to profit off of what the public has paid for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The net neutrality argument is one that should never have been.The baby bells in the US were required to carry competitors traffic over their networks and this is the way it should have been for all utilities.Then there is the question of what exactly to carriers own anyway.The Internet was paid for by tax payers so why should they get the right to profit off of what the public has paid for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The net neutrality argument is one that should never have been.The baby bells in the US were required to carry competitors traffic over their networks and this is the way it should have been for all utilities.Then there is the question of what exactly to carriers own anyway.The Internet was paid for by tax payers so why should they get the right to profit off of what the public has paid for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161984</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1266323220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Metered bandwidth would be an even bigger blow to innovation on the Internet than lack of net neutrality. If all Internet users were forced onto metered bandwidth plans, these things would all be dead:</p><ul><li>User-driven video upload sites like YouTube</li><li>Streaming video services like Hulu and Netflix</li><li>Streaming music services like Pandora, Slacker, and independent stations like SomaFM</li><li>Many forms of online gaming</li><li>Advertising</li></ul><p>That last one is the real kicker. The Internet basically runs on advertising. When Internet access is billed by the byte, everyone is going to look to cut their costs by installing ad blocking software. Google and Yahoo would fold overnight. Facebook would become the exclusive realm of the well-to-do. The "printed" news industry would fall into an even deeper hole than its already in. I could list examples all day, but the key thing to take away here is that the Internet as we know it would cease to exist.</p><p>Now also think about who have thus far been the major proponents of metered bandwidth: Cable and phone companies. They have an interest in restricting how their customers use the Internet, because they believe it competes with their other services. And they would be right. They can see a future where Hulu is just the beginning of streaming content distribution on the Internet. Eventually, services will come along that offer a cable-TV-like experience for a fraction of the price. All the customer needs is an Internet connection and a little set-top box. Companies like Comcast and AT&amp;T will simply become ISPs, which is the exact opposite direction that they want to go: they want direct control and supervision over their customers' experience because that's where the money is. Any whining noises they make about peer-to-peer killing their networking infrastructure is bullshit, they just don't want to be cut out of a direct content relationship with their customers.</p><blockquote><div><p>Seriously.. If I am curious about my power usage, I can walk outside, look at the meter, and figure out pretty close to what I owe.</p></div></blockquote><p>Power and gas are utilities. They are easy to quantify and are used for specific obvious purposes, so it makes sense to bill based on how much is consumed. The Internet, however, is a communications medium. Apples and oranges, my friend.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Metered bandwidth would be an even bigger blow to innovation on the Internet than lack of net neutrality .
If all Internet users were forced onto metered bandwidth plans , these things would all be dead : User-driven video upload sites like YouTubeStreaming video services like Hulu and NetflixStreaming music services like Pandora , Slacker , and independent stations like SomaFMMany forms of online gamingAdvertisingThat last one is the real kicker .
The Internet basically runs on advertising .
When Internet access is billed by the byte , everyone is going to look to cut their costs by installing ad blocking software .
Google and Yahoo would fold overnight .
Facebook would become the exclusive realm of the well-to-do .
The " printed " news industry would fall into an even deeper hole than its already in .
I could list examples all day , but the key thing to take away here is that the Internet as we know it would cease to exist.Now also think about who have thus far been the major proponents of metered bandwidth : Cable and phone companies .
They have an interest in restricting how their customers use the Internet , because they believe it competes with their other services .
And they would be right .
They can see a future where Hulu is just the beginning of streaming content distribution on the Internet .
Eventually , services will come along that offer a cable-TV-like experience for a fraction of the price .
All the customer needs is an Internet connection and a little set-top box .
Companies like Comcast and AT&amp;T will simply become ISPs , which is the exact opposite direction that they want to go : they want direct control and supervision over their customers ' experience because that 's where the money is .
Any whining noises they make about peer-to-peer killing their networking infrastructure is bullshit , they just do n't want to be cut out of a direct content relationship with their customers.Seriously.. If I am curious about my power usage , I can walk outside , look at the meter , and figure out pretty close to what I owe.Power and gas are utilities .
They are easy to quantify and are used for specific obvious purposes , so it makes sense to bill based on how much is consumed .
The Internet , however , is a communications medium .
Apples and oranges , my friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Metered bandwidth would be an even bigger blow to innovation on the Internet than lack of net neutrality.
If all Internet users were forced onto metered bandwidth plans, these things would all be dead:User-driven video upload sites like YouTubeStreaming video services like Hulu and NetflixStreaming music services like Pandora, Slacker, and independent stations like SomaFMMany forms of online gamingAdvertisingThat last one is the real kicker.
The Internet basically runs on advertising.
When Internet access is billed by the byte, everyone is going to look to cut their costs by installing ad blocking software.
Google and Yahoo would fold overnight.
Facebook would become the exclusive realm of the well-to-do.
The "printed" news industry would fall into an even deeper hole than its already in.
I could list examples all day, but the key thing to take away here is that the Internet as we know it would cease to exist.Now also think about who have thus far been the major proponents of metered bandwidth: Cable and phone companies.
They have an interest in restricting how their customers use the Internet, because they believe it competes with their other services.
And they would be right.
They can see a future where Hulu is just the beginning of streaming content distribution on the Internet.
Eventually, services will come along that offer a cable-TV-like experience for a fraction of the price.
All the customer needs is an Internet connection and a little set-top box.
Companies like Comcast and AT&amp;T will simply become ISPs, which is the exact opposite direction that they want to go: they want direct control and supervision over their customers' experience because that's where the money is.
Any whining noises they make about peer-to-peer killing their networking infrastructure is bullshit, they just don't want to be cut out of a direct content relationship with their customers.Seriously.. If I am curious about my power usage, I can walk outside, look at the meter, and figure out pretty close to what I owe.Power and gas are utilities.
They are easy to quantify and are used for specific obvious purposes, so it makes sense to bill based on how much is consumed.
The Internet, however, is a communications medium.
Apples and oranges, my friend.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160286</id>
	<title>Future?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266315060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://digg.com/tech\_news/Your\_ISP\_if\_Net\_Neutrality\_disappears\_PIC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //digg.com/tech \ _news/Your \ _ISP \ _if \ _Net \ _Neutrality \ _disappears \ _PIC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://digg.com/tech\_news/Your\_ISP\_if\_Net\_Neutrality\_disappears\_PIC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158794</id>
	<title>simple guide to surviving unprecedented evile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266351420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. &amp; recently (about a 1000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding &amp; excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no need to confuse 'religion ' with being a spiritual being .
our soul purpose here is to care for one another .
failing that , we 're simply passing through ( excess baggage ) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind' .
&amp; recently ( about a 1000 years ago ) it was determined that hoarding &amp; excess by a few , resulted in negative consequences for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being.
our soul purpose here is to care for one another.
failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'.
&amp; recently (about a 1000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding &amp; excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159152</id>
	<title>Re:Submitter's Username?</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1266353040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>brought to you buy the fine folks from expertsexchange.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>brought to you buy the fine folks from expertsexchange.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>brought to you buy the fine folks from expertsexchange.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161562</id>
	<title>Re:what is the price of a bit? what am I paying fo</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1266321000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Power is finite and needs to be generated on-demand from (usually) consumable resources. Bandwidth doesn't fall in the the same category.</p><p>For fibre, if you have something that's sitting around idle, you're "wasting" (say) 1 Gb/s of bandwidth each second that it's not lit up.</p> </div><p>Same could be said for my 200AMP service, when I'm only using 50 amps.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, if you're not using power, that means the generation companies aren't burning coal/gas/uranium. You don't use, they don't use. But an ISP, if you don't use... their plant is still running.</p>  </div><p>How often do they power down dams and nuclear reactors near you?  Those, along with coal, are base-load, and almost always run.</p><p>Basically, what you are alluding to, I think, is that with electricity, the power is finite, and the delivery mechanism is the cheap part.</p><p>My argument is that bandwidth is the same, but backwards, the bandwidth is relatively infinite, but the delivery mechanism is the expensive part.  (fiber to your house or node, uplink bandwidth, etc)  Your electric system (or at least many) even allow you to choose the "source" for the other side of the connection, even if its not really those same currents coming directly to your door.  Why do we continue to purchase these in bundles?  I would pay less, even when I watch things like Hulu.com, then my neighbor, who has kids who love to torrent every TV show, ever made.  I am also taxing the system less as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Power is finite and needs to be generated on-demand from ( usually ) consumable resources .
Bandwidth does n't fall in the the same category.For fibre , if you have something that 's sitting around idle , you 're " wasting " ( say ) 1 Gb/s of bandwidth each second that it 's not lit up .
Same could be said for my 200AMP service , when I 'm only using 50 amps.On the other hand , if you 're not using power , that means the generation companies are n't burning coal/gas/uranium .
You do n't use , they do n't use .
But an ISP , if you do n't use... their plant is still running .
How often do they power down dams and nuclear reactors near you ?
Those , along with coal , are base-load , and almost always run.Basically , what you are alluding to , I think , is that with electricity , the power is finite , and the delivery mechanism is the cheap part.My argument is that bandwidth is the same , but backwards , the bandwidth is relatively infinite , but the delivery mechanism is the expensive part .
( fiber to your house or node , uplink bandwidth , etc ) Your electric system ( or at least many ) even allow you to choose the " source " for the other side of the connection , even if its not really those same currents coming directly to your door .
Why do we continue to purchase these in bundles ?
I would pay less , even when I watch things like Hulu.com , then my neighbor , who has kids who love to torrent every TV show , ever made .
I am also taxing the system less as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power is finite and needs to be generated on-demand from (usually) consumable resources.
Bandwidth doesn't fall in the the same category.For fibre, if you have something that's sitting around idle, you're "wasting" (say) 1 Gb/s of bandwidth each second that it's not lit up.
Same could be said for my 200AMP service, when I'm only using 50 amps.On the other hand, if you're not using power, that means the generation companies aren't burning coal/gas/uranium.
You don't use, they don't use.
But an ISP, if you don't use... their plant is still running.
How often do they power down dams and nuclear reactors near you?
Those, along with coal, are base-load, and almost always run.Basically, what you are alluding to, I think, is that with electricity, the power is finite, and the delivery mechanism is the cheap part.My argument is that bandwidth is the same, but backwards, the bandwidth is relatively infinite, but the delivery mechanism is the expensive part.
(fiber to your house or node, uplink bandwidth, etc)  Your electric system (or at least many) even allow you to choose the "source" for the other side of the connection, even if its not really those same currents coming directly to your door.
Why do we continue to purchase these in bundles?
I would pay less, even when I watch things like Hulu.com, then my neighbor, who has kids who love to torrent every TV show, ever made.
I am also taxing the system less as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158666</id>
	<title>Superapecommando</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266350880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, a bit off topic, but is his name SuperApeCommando, or a play on the double R for Super Rape Commando?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , a bit off topic , but is his name SuperApeCommando , or a play on the double R for Super Rape Commando ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, a bit off topic, but is his name SuperApeCommando, or a play on the double R for Super Rape Commando?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858</id>
	<title>Common argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP's net neutral without any messy government regulation. But what happens if all the major ISP's start blocking certain sites (like Pirate Bay)? With most people (in the U.S. at least) having at most 1-3 broadband providers to choose from, exactly where are you supposed to you go when all the big ones agree on a blacklist? And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T, Time-Warner, etc.? It's not like you can just start up a Mom &amp; Pop broadband provider and start laying hundreds of miles of cable. Even Google will have a hard time competing with the big telco's and cableco's with the relatively minor bit of fiber optic they own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP 's net neutral without any messy government regulation .
But what happens if all the major ISP 's start blocking certain sites ( like Pirate Bay ) ?
With most people ( in the U.S. at least ) having at most 1-3 broadband providers to choose from , exactly where are you supposed to you go when all the big ones agree on a blacklist ?
And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T , Time-Warner , etc. ?
It 's not like you can just start up a Mom &amp; Pop broadband provider and start laying hundreds of miles of cable .
Even Google will have a hard time competing with the big telco 's and cableco 's with the relatively minor bit of fiber optic they own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP's net neutral without any messy government regulation.
But what happens if all the major ISP's start blocking certain sites (like Pirate Bay)?
With most people (in the U.S. at least) having at most 1-3 broadband providers to choose from, exactly where are you supposed to you go when all the big ones agree on a blacklist?
And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T, Time-Warner, etc.?
It's not like you can just start up a Mom &amp; Pop broadband provider and start laying hundreds of miles of cable.
Even Google will have a hard time competing with the big telco's and cableco's with the relatively minor bit of fiber optic they own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31166194</id>
	<title>Re:Transparency is the key to real neutrality...</title>
	<author>inKubus</author>
	<datestamp>1265057160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you look at the networking of most smallish cities, there are usually only 3 or 4 real connections out of the city.  Usually some OC192 or something to the nearest big city.  It's all lined up along the original easements for railroads, power and telephones.  A lot of the inter-city traffic is carried on microwave, which means no security at all.  Sure, there are a lot more fibers today than in 1990 but after the dotcom burst people stopped pulling in most places.  This Google thing may be the start of the next wave.</p><p>The smaller your city the further out on the spur you are and the more narrow your options for getting "to the internet" (or to other networks, essentially).  The internet isn't ANYTHING, just a way to get from network to network.  Right now, the networks themselves for consumers are all in the hands of the telcom companies because they already had the wire.  IPv6 will change that because it makes it possible to have mesh networks that actually work.  So you could get together with your neighbors at a city council meeting and pay the 10K to pull fiber to a block of houses or even better, neighborhood wireless.  IPv4 always needed someone to organize it a little to make it work.  It's still highly decentralized and if you look at most university networks, they tend to still follow the original path of lots of publically routable IPs, lots of leased line interconnects to other universities and leased line connections to the closest POPs.  But those leased lines are mostly owned by the phone company.</p><p>If Google's buying dark fiber, great, but they are still a company.  What we need is to look at the internet like a road or highway, something everyone should have access to for free.  It's not that expensive to do this in the city, but we will end up heavily subsidizing the country so they can have it also.</p><p>CONUS square miles: 2,959,064.44<br>CONUS square meters: 7.6639417x10^12 m^2</p><p>802.11 coverage per AP 802.11g@9mbps: 3.14159 * 76m^2= 18,145 square meters<br><a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps4570/products\_white\_paper09186a00801d61a3.shtml" title="cisco.com">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps4570/products\_white\_paper09186a00801d61a3.shtml</a> [cisco.com]</p><p>422,154,863 access points, 1 every 152 feet.</p><p>At $40/pop that's only $16,886,194,520.  ($20 for the AP, $20 for the solar panel)</p><p>The <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123976018012019527.html" title="wsj.com">government is throwing in $7B</a> [wsj.com], we're halfway there!  If everyone spent a weekend deploying we could have the majority of country covered with 9mbps by the end of the year.</p><p>If you mesh them and use hexagonal cells you'll have 9mbps from the AP to your laptop even at the middle between cells, and 1mbps to each contigous cell.  With IPv6 just use a geographic way to assign the prefix (county, township, section, etc. are already there for the entire country).  With a similar setup you can ensure an entirely neutral net.  Of course, there are better chunks of bandwidth just coming available.  Unfortunately the government charges for the auctions.  They need to reserve a nice big chunk for the public, license channels by the square mile using a homestead system where one person can only own 1 AP per mile, with no limit on the total they can own.</p><p>Implement micropayment billing to recover the costs and build wires (you need wires to be reliable).  Keep greed away with stiff federal pound me in the ass penalties for tampering with APs or trying to price gouge.  Problem solved.</p><p>Yes, it will be fucking slow at first but you have to start somewhere.  The people who need high speed will still have their existing networks, they'll just want to patch into the mesh too to reach those potential customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you look at the networking of most smallish cities , there are usually only 3 or 4 real connections out of the city .
Usually some OC192 or something to the nearest big city .
It 's all lined up along the original easements for railroads , power and telephones .
A lot of the inter-city traffic is carried on microwave , which means no security at all .
Sure , there are a lot more fibers today than in 1990 but after the dotcom burst people stopped pulling in most places .
This Google thing may be the start of the next wave.The smaller your city the further out on the spur you are and the more narrow your options for getting " to the internet " ( or to other networks , essentially ) .
The internet is n't ANYTHING , just a way to get from network to network .
Right now , the networks themselves for consumers are all in the hands of the telcom companies because they already had the wire .
IPv6 will change that because it makes it possible to have mesh networks that actually work .
So you could get together with your neighbors at a city council meeting and pay the 10K to pull fiber to a block of houses or even better , neighborhood wireless .
IPv4 always needed someone to organize it a little to make it work .
It 's still highly decentralized and if you look at most university networks , they tend to still follow the original path of lots of publically routable IPs , lots of leased line interconnects to other universities and leased line connections to the closest POPs .
But those leased lines are mostly owned by the phone company.If Google 's buying dark fiber , great , but they are still a company .
What we need is to look at the internet like a road or highway , something everyone should have access to for free .
It 's not that expensive to do this in the city , but we will end up heavily subsidizing the country so they can have it also.CONUS square miles : 2,959,064.44CONUS square meters : 7.6639417x10 ^ 12 m ^ 2802.11 coverage per AP 802.11g @ 9mbps : 3.14159 * 76m ^ 2 = 18,145 square metershttp : //www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps4570/products \ _white \ _paper09186a00801d61a3.shtml [ cisco.com ] 422,154,863 access points , 1 every 152 feet.At $ 40/pop that 's only $ 16,886,194,520 .
( $ 20 for the AP , $ 20 for the solar panel ) The government is throwing in $ 7B [ wsj.com ] , we 're halfway there !
If everyone spent a weekend deploying we could have the majority of country covered with 9mbps by the end of the year.If you mesh them and use hexagonal cells you 'll have 9mbps from the AP to your laptop even at the middle between cells , and 1mbps to each contigous cell .
With IPv6 just use a geographic way to assign the prefix ( county , township , section , etc .
are already there for the entire country ) .
With a similar setup you can ensure an entirely neutral net .
Of course , there are better chunks of bandwidth just coming available .
Unfortunately the government charges for the auctions .
They need to reserve a nice big chunk for the public , license channels by the square mile using a homestead system where one person can only own 1 AP per mile , with no limit on the total they can own.Implement micropayment billing to recover the costs and build wires ( you need wires to be reliable ) .
Keep greed away with stiff federal pound me in the ass penalties for tampering with APs or trying to price gouge .
Problem solved.Yes , it will be fucking slow at first but you have to start somewhere .
The people who need high speed will still have their existing networks , they 'll just want to patch into the mesh too to reach those potential customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you look at the networking of most smallish cities, there are usually only 3 or 4 real connections out of the city.
Usually some OC192 or something to the nearest big city.
It's all lined up along the original easements for railroads, power and telephones.
A lot of the inter-city traffic is carried on microwave, which means no security at all.
Sure, there are a lot more fibers today than in 1990 but after the dotcom burst people stopped pulling in most places.
This Google thing may be the start of the next wave.The smaller your city the further out on the spur you are and the more narrow your options for getting "to the internet" (or to other networks, essentially).
The internet isn't ANYTHING, just a way to get from network to network.
Right now, the networks themselves for consumers are all in the hands of the telcom companies because they already had the wire.
IPv6 will change that because it makes it possible to have mesh networks that actually work.
So you could get together with your neighbors at a city council meeting and pay the 10K to pull fiber to a block of houses or even better, neighborhood wireless.
IPv4 always needed someone to organize it a little to make it work.
It's still highly decentralized and if you look at most university networks, they tend to still follow the original path of lots of publically routable IPs, lots of leased line interconnects to other universities and leased line connections to the closest POPs.
But those leased lines are mostly owned by the phone company.If Google's buying dark fiber, great, but they are still a company.
What we need is to look at the internet like a road or highway, something everyone should have access to for free.
It's not that expensive to do this in the city, but we will end up heavily subsidizing the country so they can have it also.CONUS square miles: 2,959,064.44CONUS square meters: 7.6639417x10^12 m^2802.11 coverage per AP 802.11g@9mbps: 3.14159 * 76m^2= 18,145 square metershttp://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps4570/products\_white\_paper09186a00801d61a3.shtml [cisco.com]422,154,863 access points, 1 every 152 feet.At $40/pop that's only $16,886,194,520.
($20 for the AP, $20 for the solar panel)The government is throwing in $7B [wsj.com], we're halfway there!
If everyone spent a weekend deploying we could have the majority of country covered with 9mbps by the end of the year.If you mesh them and use hexagonal cells you'll have 9mbps from the AP to your laptop even at the middle between cells, and 1mbps to each contigous cell.
With IPv6 just use a geographic way to assign the prefix (county, township, section, etc.
are already there for the entire country).
With a similar setup you can ensure an entirely neutral net.
Of course, there are better chunks of bandwidth just coming available.
Unfortunately the government charges for the auctions.
They need to reserve a nice big chunk for the public, license channels by the square mile using a homestead system where one person can only own 1 AP per mile, with no limit on the total they can own.Implement micropayment billing to recover the costs and build wires (you need wires to be reliable).
Keep greed away with stiff federal pound me in the ass penalties for tampering with APs or trying to price gouge.
Problem solved.Yes, it will be fucking slow at first but you have to start somewhere.
The people who need high speed will still have their existing networks, they'll just want to patch into the mesh too to reach those potential customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31164564</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about profits anyway.</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266339780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me old fashioned (at 21?) But I have a different phone provider from my ISP. And I still source all of my parts seperately and assemble them together, since it is cheaper that way.</p><p>Relying on 5 different companies means if Dell makes some stupid moves (See example: Enron) I'm not left stranded - I will have a raport with a Linksys Rep since they handle my servers, or an HP rep because they handle my printers. I don't personally choose HP computers because I think they make better accessories than CPU's, but if it were ever to come to that I'd be glad to know I'm getting a good rate because I've been a good customer.</p><p>This is not the "day to day" ups and downs of companies I am refering to, I mean the company completely crashing, leaving you with 10,000 computers that no longer have support. Bummer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me old fashioned ( at 21 ?
) But I have a different phone provider from my ISP .
And I still source all of my parts seperately and assemble them together , since it is cheaper that way.Relying on 5 different companies means if Dell makes some stupid moves ( See example : Enron ) I 'm not left stranded - I will have a raport with a Linksys Rep since they handle my servers , or an HP rep because they handle my printers .
I do n't personally choose HP computers because I think they make better accessories than CPU 's , but if it were ever to come to that I 'd be glad to know I 'm getting a good rate because I 've been a good customer.This is not the " day to day " ups and downs of companies I am refering to , I mean the company completely crashing , leaving you with 10,000 computers that no longer have support .
Bummer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me old fashioned (at 21?
) But I have a different phone provider from my ISP.
And I still source all of my parts seperately and assemble them together, since it is cheaper that way.Relying on 5 different companies means if Dell makes some stupid moves (See example: Enron) I'm not left stranded - I will have a raport with a Linksys Rep since they handle my servers, or an HP rep because they handle my printers.
I don't personally choose HP computers because I think they make better accessories than CPU's, but if it were ever to come to that I'd be glad to know I'm getting a good rate because I've been a good customer.This is not the "day to day" ups and downs of companies I am refering to, I mean the company completely crashing, leaving you with 10,000 computers that no longer have support.
Bummer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31162328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31165730</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>7 billion dollars[...]in the form of "stimulus"</i></p><p>Peanuts. We already gave them $200 billion.<br><a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit\_20070810\_002683.html" title="pbs.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit\_20070810\_002683.html</a> [pbs.org]</p><p>gewg\_</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>7 billion dollars [ ... ] in the form of " stimulus " Peanuts .
We already gave them $ 200 billion.http : //www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit \ _20070810 \ _002683.html [ pbs.org ] gewg \ _</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7 billion dollars[...]in the form of "stimulus"Peanuts.
We already gave them $200 billion.http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit\_20070810\_002683.html [pbs.org]gewg\_</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31162328</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about profits anyway.</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1266325020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If Google provides me from everything from a computer to internet to applications... It's a scary thought if someone else starts running the show, with the only goal of seperating me from as many dollars as possible.</i></p><p>Maybe.  But remember when your Dial-up provider was different from your ISP?  Or when you had to source all of your computer parts separately, assemble them all together, and pray that they worked?</p><p>Having one company responsible for larger chunks isn't necessarily a bad idea, especially if they make sense to group together.  If Google is the one who finally gets ISP's off their butts to run fiber to the home, that seems to me like a good thing.  If someone could choose Hotmail, Comcast networking, and a Dell, or Gmail, on Gfiber, on a G-branded netbook... is there really leverage there to make a mess of things?  I don't know.  Relying on 5 different companies for different links in the uptime chain seems more fragile than relying on 1 company whose servers are likely to go down all at once or not at all (with a backup provider, of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google provides me from everything from a computer to internet to applications... It 's a scary thought if someone else starts running the show , with the only goal of seperating me from as many dollars as possible.Maybe .
But remember when your Dial-up provider was different from your ISP ?
Or when you had to source all of your computer parts separately , assemble them all together , and pray that they worked ? Having one company responsible for larger chunks is n't necessarily a bad idea , especially if they make sense to group together .
If Google is the one who finally gets ISP 's off their butts to run fiber to the home , that seems to me like a good thing .
If someone could choose Hotmail , Comcast networking , and a Dell , or Gmail , on Gfiber , on a G-branded netbook... is there really leverage there to make a mess of things ?
I do n't know .
Relying on 5 different companies for different links in the uptime chain seems more fragile than relying on 1 company whose servers are likely to go down all at once or not at all ( with a backup provider , of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google provides me from everything from a computer to internet to applications... It's a scary thought if someone else starts running the show, with the only goal of seperating me from as many dollars as possible.Maybe.
But remember when your Dial-up provider was different from your ISP?
Or when you had to source all of your computer parts separately, assemble them all together, and pray that they worked?Having one company responsible for larger chunks isn't necessarily a bad idea, especially if they make sense to group together.
If Google is the one who finally gets ISP's off their butts to run fiber to the home, that seems to me like a good thing.
If someone could choose Hotmail, Comcast networking, and a Dell, or Gmail, on Gfiber, on a G-branded netbook... is there really leverage there to make a mess of things?
I don't know.
Relying on 5 different companies for different links in the uptime chain seems more fragile than relying on 1 company whose servers are likely to go down all at once or not at all (with a backup provider, of course).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31163258</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about profits anyway.</title>
	<author>catd77</author>
	<datestamp>1266330540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like everything else trusted to corporations (ahem! Healthcare) they are trying to get as much money from us cash cows as they can.  But, it is their job since we are in a free (ish) market economy.  But, I still think the internet should be free for all since it is the primary means of communication now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like everything else trusted to corporations ( ahem !
Healthcare ) they are trying to get as much money from us cash cows as they can .
But , it is their job since we are in a free ( ish ) market economy .
But , I still think the internet should be free for all since it is the primary means of communication now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like everything else trusted to corporations (ahem!
Healthcare) they are trying to get as much money from us cash cows as they can.
But, it is their job since we are in a free (ish) market economy.
But, I still think the internet should be free for all since it is the primary means of communication now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159204</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about profits anyway.</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266353280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no problem with doing that with the way things are done now.</p><p>But when there is a new guy running Google (and it will happen eventually) - I don't know if I want to be fully dependant on Google services.</p><p>I think you might have heard that euphemism about eggs and baskets...</p><p>If Google provides me from everything from a computer to internet to applications... It's a scary thought if someone else starts running the show, with the only goal of seperating me from as many dollars as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem with doing that with the way things are done now.But when there is a new guy running Google ( and it will happen eventually ) - I do n't know if I want to be fully dependant on Google services.I think you might have heard that euphemism about eggs and baskets...If Google provides me from everything from a computer to internet to applications... It 's a scary thought if someone else starts running the show , with the only goal of seperating me from as many dollars as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem with doing that with the way things are done now.But when there is a new guy running Google (and it will happen eventually) - I don't know if I want to be fully dependant on Google services.I think you might have heard that euphemism about eggs and baskets...If Google provides me from everything from a computer to internet to applications... It's a scary thought if someone else starts running the show, with the only goal of seperating me from as many dollars as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160698</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry ab</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266317100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Bandwidth caps are outside of the purview of NN as it's traditionally defined.</p><p>Not really.  Net neutrality bsically ays all pipes will be treated the same, so whether I watch my videos at MGM.com r comcastrentals.com,I should be treated the same (~10 cents per gigabyte transferred).</p><p>My MAIN concern is that Comcast/Cox/whoever doesn't block access, such as to sites like FOXnews.com or infowars.org.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Bandwidth caps are outside of the purview of NN as it 's traditionally defined.Not really .
Net neutrality bsically ays all pipes will be treated the same , so whether I watch my videos at MGM.com r comcastrentals.com,I should be treated the same ( ~ 10 cents per gigabyte transferred ) .My MAIN concern is that Comcast/Cox/whoever does n't block access , such as to sites like FOXnews.com or infowars.org .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Bandwidth caps are outside of the purview of NN as it's traditionally defined.Not really.
Net neutrality bsically ays all pipes will be treated the same, so whether I watch my videos at MGM.com r comcastrentals.com,I should be treated the same (~10 cents per gigabyte transferred).My MAIN concern is that Comcast/Cox/whoever doesn't block access, such as to sites like FOXnews.com or infowars.org.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916</id>
	<title>Submitter's Username?</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1266351960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one that read the submitter's username as Super Rape Commando?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that read the submitter 's username as Super Rape Commando ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that read the submitter's username as Super Rape Commando?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159788</id>
	<title>Re:Common argument</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1266312960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP's net neutral without any messy government regulation. But what happens if all the major ISP's start blocking certain sites (like Pirate Bay)?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>


Any competitor which doesn't block it will get more business.</p><blockquote><div><p>With most people (in the U.S. at least) having at most 1-3 broadband providers to choose from, exactly where are you supposed to you go when all the big ones agree on a blacklist?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>


To the competitor that eventually pops up, or the one that defects from the blocking.</p><blockquote><div><p>And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T, Time-Warner, etc.? It's not like you can just start up a Mom &amp; Pop broadband provider and start laying hundreds of miles of cable. Even Google will have a hard time competing with the big telco's and cableco's with the relatively minor bit of fiber optic they own.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>

The problem there is that the government funded their cabling, yet the companies turned around and monopolized it. Either have the government take the cabling back, or make the companies pay the government (us) back. Currently their "low" rates are effectively subsidized, thus making competition difficult because a new competitor wouldn't be subsidized.

As you can see, it's not a free market in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP 's net neutral without any messy government regulation .
But what happens if all the major ISP 's start blocking certain sites ( like Pirate Bay ) ?
Any competitor which does n't block it will get more business.With most people ( in the U.S. at least ) having at most 1-3 broadband providers to choose from , exactly where are you supposed to you go when all the big ones agree on a blacklist ?
To the competitor that eventually pops up , or the one that defects from the blocking.And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T , Time-Warner , etc. ?
It 's not like you can just start up a Mom &amp; Pop broadband provider and start laying hundreds of miles of cable .
Even Google will have a hard time competing with the big telco 's and cableco 's with the relatively minor bit of fiber optic they own .
The problem there is that the government funded their cabling , yet the companies turned around and monopolized it .
Either have the government take the cabling back , or make the companies pay the government ( us ) back .
Currently their " low " rates are effectively subsidized , thus making competition difficult because a new competitor would n't be subsidized .
As you can see , it 's not a free market in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP's net neutral without any messy government regulation.
But what happens if all the major ISP's start blocking certain sites (like Pirate Bay)?
Any competitor which doesn't block it will get more business.With most people (in the U.S. at least) having at most 1-3 broadband providers to choose from, exactly where are you supposed to you go when all the big ones agree on a blacklist?
To the competitor that eventually pops up, or the one that defects from the blocking.And how can you open up a competing provider when all the wire and fiber are in the hands of monopolies like AT&amp;T, Time-Warner, etc.?
It's not like you can just start up a Mom &amp; Pop broadband provider and start laying hundreds of miles of cable.
Even Google will have a hard time competing with the big telco's and cableco's with the relatively minor bit of fiber optic they own.
The problem there is that the government funded their cabling, yet the companies turned around and monopolized it.
Either have the government take the cabling back, or make the companies pay the government (us) back.
Currently their "low" rates are effectively subsidized, thus making competition difficult because a new competitor wouldn't be subsidized.
As you can see, it's not a free market in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31162054</id>
	<title>Net neutrality isn't what they think, either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the arguments about net neutrality seem to center around how lacking it would screw over you, the end user.  What's discussed a lot less is that allowing for tiered internet plans would also screw over the ISPs.</p><p>There's a huge amount of market demand for using the 'bottom-tier' services currently available, most notably file sharing and porn.  Every attempt to date by an ISP to block a service based on port, protocol, or traffic analysis has caused users to massively adopt services that do the same thing as their previous service, but aren't blocked by the ISP.  A good example is Apple's current woes with jail-broken Iphones;  they intended to keep their phones locked to a specific protocol, clever people broke the lock, and now there are so many people using jail-broken Iphones that Apple is forced to support those people.  If Apple blocked users with jail-broken phones from the Iphone store, all they'd do would be to lose a huge percentage of their user base (and indirectly support the creation of a bunch of other third-party Iphone stores that provided apps for jail-broken phones).  Or, again, look at AOL's issues keeping reverse-engineered third-party apps out of their OSCAR protocol;  fundamentally, it simply didn't work.</p><p>My point is that, if ISPs started requiring a certain set of applications or blocking certain protocols, users will simply adapt to work around the restrictions.  People are going to keep on sharing files and viewing porn, regardless of the ISPs restrictions.  An ISP which doesn't implement net neutrality will inevitably create a demand for hacked security, weird tunneling protocols, and programs that masquerade as licensed, top-tier programs.  Think your ISP is having QOS problems now because they've got 50K users using BitTorrent?  Wait until there's 50K users tunneling BitTorrent through DNS, and see what that does to the QOS.  Want to create a business model that relies on partnership deals with big software companies?  Wait until your partners realize that your users reverse-engineered their software and are using it to distribute pornography.  While I think that net neutrality is important and good for end-users, they can and will continue doing what they're doing regardless of whether net neutrality is implemented or not.  For ISPs, though, implementing net neutrality would be a huge mistake;  all it will accomplish is to drive users to actively compromise the systems that the ISP relies on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the arguments about net neutrality seem to center around how lacking it would screw over you , the end user .
What 's discussed a lot less is that allowing for tiered internet plans would also screw over the ISPs.There 's a huge amount of market demand for using the 'bottom-tier ' services currently available , most notably file sharing and porn .
Every attempt to date by an ISP to block a service based on port , protocol , or traffic analysis has caused users to massively adopt services that do the same thing as their previous service , but are n't blocked by the ISP .
A good example is Apple 's current woes with jail-broken Iphones ; they intended to keep their phones locked to a specific protocol , clever people broke the lock , and now there are so many people using jail-broken Iphones that Apple is forced to support those people .
If Apple blocked users with jail-broken phones from the Iphone store , all they 'd do would be to lose a huge percentage of their user base ( and indirectly support the creation of a bunch of other third-party Iphone stores that provided apps for jail-broken phones ) .
Or , again , look at AOL 's issues keeping reverse-engineered third-party apps out of their OSCAR protocol ; fundamentally , it simply did n't work.My point is that , if ISPs started requiring a certain set of applications or blocking certain protocols , users will simply adapt to work around the restrictions .
People are going to keep on sharing files and viewing porn , regardless of the ISPs restrictions .
An ISP which does n't implement net neutrality will inevitably create a demand for hacked security , weird tunneling protocols , and programs that masquerade as licensed , top-tier programs .
Think your ISP is having QOS problems now because they 've got 50K users using BitTorrent ?
Wait until there 's 50K users tunneling BitTorrent through DNS , and see what that does to the QOS .
Want to create a business model that relies on partnership deals with big software companies ?
Wait until your partners realize that your users reverse-engineered their software and are using it to distribute pornography .
While I think that net neutrality is important and good for end-users , they can and will continue doing what they 're doing regardless of whether net neutrality is implemented or not .
For ISPs , though , implementing net neutrality would be a huge mistake ; all it will accomplish is to drive users to actively compromise the systems that the ISP relies on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the arguments about net neutrality seem to center around how lacking it would screw over you, the end user.
What's discussed a lot less is that allowing for tiered internet plans would also screw over the ISPs.There's a huge amount of market demand for using the 'bottom-tier' services currently available, most notably file sharing and porn.
Every attempt to date by an ISP to block a service based on port, protocol, or traffic analysis has caused users to massively adopt services that do the same thing as their previous service, but aren't blocked by the ISP.
A good example is Apple's current woes with jail-broken Iphones;  they intended to keep their phones locked to a specific protocol, clever people broke the lock, and now there are so many people using jail-broken Iphones that Apple is forced to support those people.
If Apple blocked users with jail-broken phones from the Iphone store, all they'd do would be to lose a huge percentage of their user base (and indirectly support the creation of a bunch of other third-party Iphone stores that provided apps for jail-broken phones).
Or, again, look at AOL's issues keeping reverse-engineered third-party apps out of their OSCAR protocol;  fundamentally, it simply didn't work.My point is that, if ISPs started requiring a certain set of applications or blocking certain protocols, users will simply adapt to work around the restrictions.
People are going to keep on sharing files and viewing porn, regardless of the ISPs restrictions.
An ISP which doesn't implement net neutrality will inevitably create a demand for hacked security, weird tunneling protocols, and programs that masquerade as licensed, top-tier programs.
Think your ISP is having QOS problems now because they've got 50K users using BitTorrent?
Wait until there's 50K users tunneling BitTorrent through DNS, and see what that does to the QOS.
Want to create a business model that relies on partnership deals with big software companies?
Wait until your partners realize that your users reverse-engineered their software and are using it to distribute pornography.
While I think that net neutrality is important and good for end-users, they can and will continue doing what they're doing regardless of whether net neutrality is implemented or not.
For ISPs, though, implementing net neutrality would be a huge mistake;  all it will accomplish is to drive users to actively compromise the systems that the ISP relies on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158520</id>
	<title>It's all about profits anyway.</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1266350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other companies are looking to get a slice of Google's profits.</p><p>Fuck them.</p><p>The day Google offers fiber in my neighborhood I am going to sign up with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other companies are looking to get a slice of Google 's profits.Fuck them.The day Google offers fiber in my neighborhood I am going to sign up with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other companies are looking to get a slice of Google's profits.Fuck them.The day Google offers fiber in my neighborhood I am going to sign up with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159324</id>
	<title>Public Utility Option</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1266353820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the Fed building, owning and running fiber as a service? The states could get in it as well.</p><p>Charge a federal sales tax on all purchases made via the interweb to fund it.  Or maybe just have a national system that does not aim at making a profit to compete against the companies.</p><p>How about making the damn providers compete?  In the US, telcos DO NOT COMPETE in any meaningful way.  Maybe lifting the laws that prevent competition would help. Prices are going up instead of down or staying flat, while service seems stagnant.</p><p>The net isn't just for porn and games, it's a major channel for business and communication (speech).  i think it's wrong to trust that to executives of massive companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the Fed building , owning and running fiber as a service ?
The states could get in it as well.Charge a federal sales tax on all purchases made via the interweb to fund it .
Or maybe just have a national system that does not aim at making a profit to compete against the companies.How about making the damn providers compete ?
In the US , telcos DO NOT COMPETE in any meaningful way .
Maybe lifting the laws that prevent competition would help .
Prices are going up instead of down or staying flat , while service seems stagnant.The net is n't just for porn and games , it 's a major channel for business and communication ( speech ) .
i think it 's wrong to trust that to executives of massive companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the Fed building, owning and running fiber as a service?
The states could get in it as well.Charge a federal sales tax on all purchases made via the interweb to fund it.
Or maybe just have a national system that does not aim at making a profit to compete against the companies.How about making the damn providers compete?
In the US, telcos DO NOT COMPETE in any meaningful way.
Maybe lifting the laws that prevent competition would help.
Prices are going up instead of down or staying flat, while service seems stagnant.The net isn't just for porn and games, it's a major channel for business and communication (speech).
i think it's wrong to trust that to executives of massive companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158958</id>
	<title>sex with a 6naa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266352200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">I t4ought it was my</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I t4ought it was my [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I t4ought it was my [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161054</id>
	<title>Re:to all the propentants of net neutrality</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1266318660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a simple question: Why?</p></div><p>So that you can continue to post here without your ISP blocking you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a simple question : Why ? So that you can continue to post here without your ISP blocking you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a simple question: Why?So that you can continue to post here without your ISP blocking you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality isn't the only thing to worry about</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1266351120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... or even the most important thing to worry about. Watch for big cable-companies to impose bandwidth caps and raise the price of data transfer to protect their regional video monopolies at the expense of Internet-accessible video content. Bandwidth caps are outside of the purview of NN as it's traditionally defined.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or even the most important thing to worry about .
Watch for big cable-companies to impose bandwidth caps and raise the price of data transfer to protect their regional video monopolies at the expense of Internet-accessible video content .
Bandwidth caps are outside of the purview of NN as it 's traditionally defined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or even the most important thing to worry about.
Watch for big cable-companies to impose bandwidth caps and raise the price of data transfer to protect their regional video monopolies at the expense of Internet-accessible video content.
Bandwidth caps are outside of the purview of NN as it's traditionally defined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158526</id>
	<title>Rare on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it's rare to see anything written on the subject that isn't rabid on one side or the other.</i></p><p>it's rare to see anything  <b>on Slashdot</b>  on the subject that isn't rabid<b>ly on the pro-Net Neutrality side</b>.</p><p>There. Fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's rare to see anything written on the subject that is n't rabid on one side or the other.it 's rare to see anything on Slashdot on the subject that is n't rabidly on the pro-Net Neutrality side.There .
Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's rare to see anything written on the subject that isn't rabid on one side or the other.it's rare to see anything  on Slashdot  on the subject that isn't rabidly on the pro-Net Neutrality side.There.
Fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160038</id>
	<title>Re:Common argument</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1266314040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP's net neutral without any messy government regulation. But what happens if all the major ISP's start blocking certain sites (like Pirate Bay)?</p> </div><p>There are two things about this. First, if they all do this at the same time that suggests collusion, which is a violation of existing anti-trust laws. Second, if your hypothetical comes to pass, that is the time to push for the institution of some kind of net neutrality regulations. <br>
The problem with instituting government regulations for a problem you foresee occuring in the future (but that has not yet manifest itself), is that any government regulation will limit the options for future advances. <br>
Basically, I think that Network Neutrality is a good idea, but am skeptical about governments ability to implement it by regulation without creating more problems than it solves. I think it is a good thing for there to be some people who keep the ISPs feet to the fire about network neutrality, but that it would be premature to institute such rules at this time. Remember, when new government regulations are implemented they almost always have big corporations among their major supporters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP 's net neutral without any messy government regulation .
But what happens if all the major ISP 's start blocking certain sites ( like Pirate Bay ) ?
There are two things about this .
First , if they all do this at the same time that suggests collusion , which is a violation of existing anti-trust laws .
Second , if your hypothetical comes to pass , that is the time to push for the institution of some kind of net neutrality regulations .
The problem with instituting government regulations for a problem you foresee occuring in the future ( but that has not yet manifest itself ) , is that any government regulation will limit the options for future advances .
Basically , I think that Network Neutrality is a good idea , but am skeptical about governments ability to implement it by regulation without creating more problems than it solves .
I think it is a good thing for there to be some people who keep the ISPs feet to the fire about network neutrality , but that it would be premature to institute such rules at this time .
Remember , when new government regulations are implemented they almost always have big corporations among their major supporters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP's net neutral without any messy government regulation.
But what happens if all the major ISP's start blocking certain sites (like Pirate Bay)?
There are two things about this.
First, if they all do this at the same time that suggests collusion, which is a violation of existing anti-trust laws.
Second, if your hypothetical comes to pass, that is the time to push for the institution of some kind of net neutrality regulations.
The problem with instituting government regulations for a problem you foresee occuring in the future (but that has not yet manifest itself), is that any government regulation will limit the options for future advances.
Basically, I think that Network Neutrality is a good idea, but am skeptical about governments ability to implement it by regulation without creating more problems than it solves.
I think it is a good thing for there to be some people who keep the ISPs feet to the fire about network neutrality, but that it would be premature to institute such rules at this time.
Remember, when new government regulations are implemented they almost always have big corporations among their major supporters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159654</id>
	<title>Re:Public Utility Option</title>
	<author>StopKoolaidPoliticsT</author>
	<datestamp>1266312360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That'll work, until someone in Congress decides that they need to censor the federal network using the boogeyman of the day (think of the children, we need to implement this ban to stop the terrorists, we're filtering to stop piracy, etc).<br> <br>

The federal government is no less prone to creating abuse than privately owned entities. When the government is the sole provider in town and they screw you over, it's a bit harder to get a new provider. There won't even be a duopoly to switch to since nobody can compete with a tax subsidized option.<br> <br>

Split the system into an independently owned, neutral company (or companies) that are regulated to maintain the network(s) and allow completely unfettered access to any ISP, cable provider, telephony provider, etc wishing to use that network. Let the ISPs compete on services while we're guaranteed a completely neutral pipe to all of them. The ISP can pay a per-customer fee for access to the network (based on max speed, guaranteed throughput, latency, etc) to keep the regulated network company doing their thing. Real competition and real options.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'll work , until someone in Congress decides that they need to censor the federal network using the boogeyman of the day ( think of the children , we need to implement this ban to stop the terrorists , we 're filtering to stop piracy , etc ) .
The federal government is no less prone to creating abuse than privately owned entities .
When the government is the sole provider in town and they screw you over , it 's a bit harder to get a new provider .
There wo n't even be a duopoly to switch to since nobody can compete with a tax subsidized option .
Split the system into an independently owned , neutral company ( or companies ) that are regulated to maintain the network ( s ) and allow completely unfettered access to any ISP , cable provider , telephony provider , etc wishing to use that network .
Let the ISPs compete on services while we 're guaranteed a completely neutral pipe to all of them .
The ISP can pay a per-customer fee for access to the network ( based on max speed , guaranteed throughput , latency , etc ) to keep the regulated network company doing their thing .
Real competition and real options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'll work, until someone in Congress decides that they need to censor the federal network using the boogeyman of the day (think of the children, we need to implement this ban to stop the terrorists, we're filtering to stop piracy, etc).
The federal government is no less prone to creating abuse than privately owned entities.
When the government is the sole provider in town and they screw you over, it's a bit harder to get a new provider.
There won't even be a duopoly to switch to since nobody can compete with a tax subsidized option.
Split the system into an independently owned, neutral company (or companies) that are regulated to maintain the network(s) and allow completely unfettered access to any ISP, cable provider, telephony provider, etc wishing to use that network.
Let the ISPs compete on services while we're guaranteed a completely neutral pipe to all of them.
The ISP can pay a per-customer fee for access to the network (based on max speed, guaranteed throughput, latency, etc) to keep the regulated network company doing their thing.
Real competition and real options.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159134</id>
	<title>Re:Submitter's Username?</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1266352920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only one that read the submitter's username as Super Rape Commando?</p></div><p>Yes... it's just the guilt manifesting itself from when in 1991, you raped and murdering a teenage girl. Why won't you just come clean already? I mean, we've all been there buddy, at least at some point, so why are you refusing to talk to us about it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that read the submitter 's username as Super Rape Commando ? Yes... it 's just the guilt manifesting itself from when in 1991 , you raped and murdering a teenage girl .
Why wo n't you just come clean already ?
I mean , we 've all been there buddy , at least at some point , so why are you refusing to talk to us about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that read the submitter's username as Super Rape Commando?Yes... it's just the guilt manifesting itself from when in 1991, you raped and murdering a teenage girl.
Why won't you just come clean already?
I mean, we've all been there buddy, at least at some point, so why are you refusing to talk to us about it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31164564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31162328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31166194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31166538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31165730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31163266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31162710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31163258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1748259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1748259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1748259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1748259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1748259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31165730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31163266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160122
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31162710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31166538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1748259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31166194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1748259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31163258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31162328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31164564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1748259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31161054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1748259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31158858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31159788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1748259.31160038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
