<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_08_2150258</id>
	<title>Major ISPs Help Fund BitTorrent User Tracking Research</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268046900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"I was scanning conference proceedings to come up with ideas for a reading group I run at my workplace, and I noticed an interesting paper from the new <a href="http://www.wifs09.org/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=20&amp;Itemid=64#session\_cryptoProt">IEEE WIFS forensics conference</a>. Researchers from the University of Colorado have <a href="http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~dlmccoy/papers/bauer-wifs09.pdf">published a technique for tracking BitTorrent users</a> (PDF) by joining and actively probing torrent swarms using low-cost cloud computing services. They claim their methods allowed them to monitor the entire Pirate Bay torrent set for as little as $13/mo using EC2. But that's not even the interesting part. Their work appears to have been 'funded in part through gifts from PolyCipher' &mdash; a <a href="http://www.polycipher.com/about.html">broadband ISP consortium</a>. That's right; three major national ISPs funded this round of BitTorrent tracking research, not the MPAA/RIAA. Could this be evidence of ISP support for ACTA and a global three-strikes law?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " I was scanning conference proceedings to come up with ideas for a reading group I run at my workplace , and I noticed an interesting paper from the new IEEE WIFS forensics conference .
Researchers from the University of Colorado have published a technique for tracking BitTorrent users ( PDF ) by joining and actively probing torrent swarms using low-cost cloud computing services .
They claim their methods allowed them to monitor the entire Pirate Bay torrent set for as little as $ 13/mo using EC2 .
But that 's not even the interesting part .
Their work appears to have been 'funded in part through gifts from PolyCipher '    a broadband ISP consortium .
That 's right ; three major national ISPs funded this round of BitTorrent tracking research , not the MPAA/RIAA .
Could this be evidence of ISP support for ACTA and a global three-strikes law ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "I was scanning conference proceedings to come up with ideas for a reading group I run at my workplace, and I noticed an interesting paper from the new IEEE WIFS forensics conference.
Researchers from the University of Colorado have published a technique for tracking BitTorrent users (PDF) by joining and actively probing torrent swarms using low-cost cloud computing services.
They claim their methods allowed them to monitor the entire Pirate Bay torrent set for as little as $13/mo using EC2.
But that's not even the interesting part.
Their work appears to have been 'funded in part through gifts from PolyCipher' — a broadband ISP consortium.
That's right; three major national ISPs funded this round of BitTorrent tracking research, not the MPAA/RIAA.
Could this be evidence of ISP support for ACTA and a global three-strikes law?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407664</id>
	<title>Almost like an ad at first...</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1268052060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>for as little as $13/mo</p></div><p>My eyes somehow jumped to that part first. At first, looks kinda like an ad, doesn't it?</p><p>Monitor Pirate Bay torrents TODAY, for only $13/month!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>for as little as $ 13/moMy eyes somehow jumped to that part first .
At first , looks kinda like an ad , does n't it ? Monitor Pirate Bay torrents TODAY , for only $ 13/month !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for as little as $13/moMy eyes somehow jumped to that part first.
At first, looks kinda like an ad, doesn't it?Monitor Pirate Bay torrents TODAY, for only $13/month!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408760</id>
	<title>Re:Not Necessarily</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1268058960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a very easy way to reduce excess traffic, charge users by the GB. Both uploads and downloads. But that way they don't get to advertise "unlimited" connection.</p><p>By shutting down high usage users they are breaching their contract with the user, over selling their service and using false advertisements all at the same time.</p><p>Where are the honest ISP when you need them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a very easy way to reduce excess traffic , charge users by the GB .
Both uploads and downloads .
But that way they do n't get to advertise " unlimited " connection.By shutting down high usage users they are breaching their contract with the user , over selling their service and using false advertisements all at the same time.Where are the honest ISP when you need them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a very easy way to reduce excess traffic, charge users by the GB.
Both uploads and downloads.
But that way they don't get to advertise "unlimited" connection.By shutting down high usage users they are breaching their contract with the user, over selling their service and using false advertisements all at the same time.Where are the honest ISP when you need them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407396</id>
	<title>Not Necessarily</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be evidence of ISPs wanting to reduce unwanted BitTorrent traffic by taking a pro-active stance against piracy. BitTorrent eats up a lot of bandwidth and has been targeted for throttling for a while now. Why only throttle it if you can kill it outright?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be evidence of ISPs wanting to reduce unwanted BitTorrent traffic by taking a pro-active stance against piracy .
BitTorrent eats up a lot of bandwidth and has been targeted for throttling for a while now .
Why only throttle it if you can kill it outright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be evidence of ISPs wanting to reduce unwanted BitTorrent traffic by taking a pro-active stance against piracy.
BitTorrent eats up a lot of bandwidth and has been targeted for throttling for a while now.
Why only throttle it if you can kill it outright?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408414</id>
	<title>Re:Pissing all over the Bill of Rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true, because corporations are considered Citizens, and any citizen can report any other citizen.   I'm sure it will only get better now that Corp. "Citizens" can donate/spend all the money they want to get people in office, but Individual Citizens are still limited to contributions of 2500. (Not that I have the money to give anyways).  Both are just examples of how Corp.s have more rights than a regular citizen, its "free market economy" we have to let them run that way our we're evul social communists!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/wrist  gag</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true , because corporations are considered Citizens , and any citizen can report any other citizen .
I 'm sure it will only get better now that Corp. " Citizens " can donate/spend all the money they want to get people in office , but Individual Citizens are still limited to contributions of 2500 .
( Not that I have the money to give anyways ) .
Both are just examples of how Corp.s have more rights than a regular citizen , its " free market economy " we have to let them run that way our we 're evul social communists !
/wrist gag</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true, because corporations are considered Citizens, and any citizen can report any other citizen.
I'm sure it will only get better now that Corp. "Citizens" can donate/spend all the money they want to get people in office, but Individual Citizens are still limited to contributions of 2500.
(Not that I have the money to give anyways).
Both are just examples of how Corp.s have more rights than a regular citizen, its "free market economy" we have to let them run that way our we're evul social communists!
/wrist  gag</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407630</id>
	<title>Close to home</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268051820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading about some of this papers references last year. I found it interesting as at the time I was working for a company that had been data mining, advertising and "other" activities over P2P networks for several years. Working there made me feel kinda sleazy, but it was a paycheck when I needed it, at least until the investors got spooked and stopped writing pay checks...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading about some of this papers references last year .
I found it interesting as at the time I was working for a company that had been data mining , advertising and " other " activities over P2P networks for several years .
Working there made me feel kinda sleazy , but it was a paycheck when I needed it , at least until the investors got spooked and stopped writing pay checks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading about some of this papers references last year.
I found it interesting as at the time I was working for a company that had been data mining, advertising and "other" activities over P2P networks for several years.
Working there made me feel kinda sleazy, but it was a paycheck when I needed it, at least until the investors got spooked and stopped writing pay checks...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407804</id>
	<title>Re:Not Necessarily</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would ISPs want to kill bit torrent when it's the main reason a lot of people use broadband?   They don't give a shit about copyright infringement - no-one does, except the people who lose out from it.  ISPs will stop it when they suffer (financially) from it, and not a second sooner.</p><p>In a world without bittorrent and other p2p pirate systems (yeah yeah, I know they have legit uses too), next to nobody needs more than a half meg connection for surfing/email/gaming etc, and next to no-one would be likely to get through more than a gig a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would ISPs want to kill bit torrent when it 's the main reason a lot of people use broadband ?
They do n't give a shit about copyright infringement - no-one does , except the people who lose out from it .
ISPs will stop it when they suffer ( financially ) from it , and not a second sooner.In a world without bittorrent and other p2p pirate systems ( yeah yeah , I know they have legit uses too ) , next to nobody needs more than a half meg connection for surfing/email/gaming etc , and next to no-one would be likely to get through more than a gig a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would ISPs want to kill bit torrent when it's the main reason a lot of people use broadband?
They don't give a shit about copyright infringement - no-one does, except the people who lose out from it.
ISPs will stop it when they suffer (financially) from it, and not a second sooner.In a world without bittorrent and other p2p pirate systems (yeah yeah, I know they have legit uses too), next to nobody needs more than a half meg connection for surfing/email/gaming etc, and next to no-one would be likely to get through more than a gig a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412052</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268141640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can't sell only what you have when it's about bandwidth.</i></p><p>Last time I checked selling what you don't have is fraud. But maybe things changed, ya know, I am one of those old fashioned people who dream of a world where business means "matching supply and demand", not "swindling whoever is enough of a sucker out of his money".</p><p>Seriously though. What gives you the idea that internet has to be slow and expensive. You can even sell what you're selling right now, 8mbit for 50 bucks. But you have to tell your customers that they may not rely on it. What you are selling to them right now is nothing short of fraudulent. You give them the idea they could get 8mbit permanently 24/7 for 50 bucks, and this is not sustainable, for nobody. You can neither supply the pipes nor the amount of data generated this way for 50 bucks. So selling them this is fraud. Nothing more.</p><p>Sell them what you have. Sell them that they may use 8mbit speed, but neither constantly nor reliably, that this is supposed to be a burst rather than a sustained rate. According to your statistics, the average internet user should not really care, should he?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't sell only what you have when it 's about bandwidth.Last time I checked selling what you do n't have is fraud .
But maybe things changed , ya know , I am one of those old fashioned people who dream of a world where business means " matching supply and demand " , not " swindling whoever is enough of a sucker out of his money " .Seriously though .
What gives you the idea that internet has to be slow and expensive .
You can even sell what you 're selling right now , 8mbit for 50 bucks .
But you have to tell your customers that they may not rely on it .
What you are selling to them right now is nothing short of fraudulent .
You give them the idea they could get 8mbit permanently 24/7 for 50 bucks , and this is not sustainable , for nobody .
You can neither supply the pipes nor the amount of data generated this way for 50 bucks .
So selling them this is fraud .
Nothing more.Sell them what you have .
Sell them that they may use 8mbit speed , but neither constantly nor reliably , that this is supposed to be a burst rather than a sustained rate .
According to your statistics , the average internet user should not really care , should he ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't sell only what you have when it's about bandwidth.Last time I checked selling what you don't have is fraud.
But maybe things changed, ya know, I am one of those old fashioned people who dream of a world where business means "matching supply and demand", not "swindling whoever is enough of a sucker out of his money".Seriously though.
What gives you the idea that internet has to be slow and expensive.
You can even sell what you're selling right now, 8mbit for 50 bucks.
But you have to tell your customers that they may not rely on it.
What you are selling to them right now is nothing short of fraudulent.
You give them the idea they could get 8mbit permanently 24/7 for 50 bucks, and this is not sustainable, for nobody.
You can neither supply the pipes nor the amount of data generated this way for 50 bucks.
So selling them this is fraud.
Nothing more.Sell them what you have.
Sell them that they may use 8mbit speed, but neither constantly nor reliably, that this is supposed to be a burst rather than a sustained rate.
According to your statistics, the average internet user should not really care, should he?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408704</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1268058480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often. If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them. I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.</p></div></blockquote><p>On the flip side, ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy BitTorrent traffic that goes into or comes out of their networks far, far more than traffic within their network.  If I were managing an ISP, I'd be analyzing BitTorrent traffic to find out how much of it is staying locally, and using that to decide whether it's worth looking for a way to extend the protocol to prefer nearby seeds by adding additional DHCP response fields, by doing something clever with mDNS, etc.  Heck, if I were managing an ISP, I'd be contributing code to BitTorrent to allow ISPs to specify information about the IP ranges within our regional network and the cost of uploads/downloads through our various peer ISPs, thus allowing the P2P client to weight its traffic towards connecting to other P2P peers that are cheaper for the ISP if all other things are equal, and allowing the P2P client to more effectively use bandwidth by making sure that only one P2P client within the regional network pulls each chunk of a given file through the expensive upstream pipes, then seeds it to the other peers through the faster regional network.  Performance should improve on the average *and* the cost to the ISPs would go down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they do n't have to upgrade as often .
If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights , it 's a win win for them .
I 'm not saying I support this kind of thing , but it makes business sense.On the flip side , ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy BitTorrent traffic that goes into or comes out of their networks far , far more than traffic within their network .
If I were managing an ISP , I 'd be analyzing BitTorrent traffic to find out how much of it is staying locally , and using that to decide whether it 's worth looking for a way to extend the protocol to prefer nearby seeds by adding additional DHCP response fields , by doing something clever with mDNS , etc .
Heck , if I were managing an ISP , I 'd be contributing code to BitTorrent to allow ISPs to specify information about the IP ranges within our regional network and the cost of uploads/downloads through our various peer ISPs , thus allowing the P2P client to weight its traffic towards connecting to other P2P peers that are cheaper for the ISP if all other things are equal , and allowing the P2P client to more effectively use bandwidth by making sure that only one P2P client within the regional network pulls each chunk of a given file through the expensive upstream pipes , then seeds it to the other peers through the faster regional network .
Performance should improve on the average * and * the cost to the ISPs would go down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often.
If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them.
I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.On the flip side, ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy BitTorrent traffic that goes into or comes out of their networks far, far more than traffic within their network.
If I were managing an ISP, I'd be analyzing BitTorrent traffic to find out how much of it is staying locally, and using that to decide whether it's worth looking for a way to extend the protocol to prefer nearby seeds by adding additional DHCP response fields, by doing something clever with mDNS, etc.
Heck, if I were managing an ISP, I'd be contributing code to BitTorrent to allow ISPs to specify information about the IP ranges within our regional network and the cost of uploads/downloads through our various peer ISPs, thus allowing the P2P client to weight its traffic towards connecting to other P2P peers that are cheaper for the ISP if all other things are equal, and allowing the P2P client to more effectively use bandwidth by making sure that only one P2P client within the regional network pulls each chunk of a given file through the expensive upstream pipes, then seeds it to the other peers through the faster regional network.
Performance should improve on the average *and* the cost to the ISPs would go down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407948</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1268053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being someone that works for a major ISP in the department in which we receive and act on copyright complaints, I can tell you... we hate it.
Think of it this way, when the DMCA was passed we suddenly had to create an entire department that produced no profits. In fact, it sometimes forces us to disconnect customers and LOSE money.
I know that managent rutinely goes to our legal department to find out if they can just stop enforcing DMCA all together.

Now, throttling the bandwidth of torrent users? Yea... they're all over that. What ISPs want are little old ladies paying $100/month for 10MB service and only using it to check their mail once a day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being someone that works for a major ISP in the department in which we receive and act on copyright complaints , I can tell you... we hate it .
Think of it this way , when the DMCA was passed we suddenly had to create an entire department that produced no profits .
In fact , it sometimes forces us to disconnect customers and LOSE money .
I know that managent rutinely goes to our legal department to find out if they can just stop enforcing DMCA all together .
Now , throttling the bandwidth of torrent users ?
Yea... they 're all over that .
What ISPs want are little old ladies paying $ 100/month for 10MB service and only using it to check their mail once a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being someone that works for a major ISP in the department in which we receive and act on copyright complaints, I can tell you... we hate it.
Think of it this way, when the DMCA was passed we suddenly had to create an entire department that produced no profits.
In fact, it sometimes forces us to disconnect customers and LOSE money.
I know that managent rutinely goes to our legal department to find out if they can just stop enforcing DMCA all together.
Now, throttling the bandwidth of torrent users?
Yea... they're all over that.
What ISPs want are little old ladies paying $100/month for 10MB service and only using it to check their mail once a day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407424</id>
	<title>Isn't bittorrent good?</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1268050800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bittorrent makes users demand more bandwidth, which is good for ISPs I guess, someone has to pay for the network improvements.<br>So ISPs should solve equal or fair speed distribution among users (so that bittorrent users don't block others), rather than hunt the clients that use the service to its full extent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bittorrent makes users demand more bandwidth , which is good for ISPs I guess , someone has to pay for the network improvements.So ISPs should solve equal or fair speed distribution among users ( so that bittorrent users do n't block others ) , rather than hunt the clients that use the service to its full extent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bittorrent makes users demand more bandwidth, which is good for ISPs I guess, someone has to pay for the network improvements.So ISPs should solve equal or fair speed distribution among users (so that bittorrent users don't block others), rather than hunt the clients that use the service to its full extent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411724</id>
	<title>Re:lol</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1268136900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being someone that works for a major ISP in the department in which we receive and act on copyright complaints, I can tell you... we hate it.</p></div><p>I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. I hope every day that they're forced to run the dept that the CFO has a little cry to himself.<br> <br>Trolling aside, the only solution to file sharing on the internet is to start local-network seeding for torrents etc. Yes, that means the ISP buying terrabytes of storage and hosting files to be downloaded.<br> <br>Talk amongst yourselves, bribe, extort, blackmail, sue, every other underhanded trick to get authorisation to implement it, and see your problems drop to nothing. Otherwise, the community will break every measure you put in place. Encrypted torrents, port shifting, protocol encapsulation, dynamic hashes, onion routing, then finally darknets. Like DRM, you will never stop the motivated. They will always win. <br> <br>Your <b>only</b> solution is to make it less time consuming, and a better experience (genuinely, not your jaded interpretation of the word) to be an honest consumer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being someone that works for a major ISP in the department in which we receive and act on copyright complaints , I can tell you... we hate it.I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever .
I hope every day that they 're forced to run the dept that the CFO has a little cry to himself .
Trolling aside , the only solution to file sharing on the internet is to start local-network seeding for torrents etc .
Yes , that means the ISP buying terrabytes of storage and hosting files to be downloaded .
Talk amongst yourselves , bribe , extort , blackmail , sue , every other underhanded trick to get authorisation to implement it , and see your problems drop to nothing .
Otherwise , the community will break every measure you put in place .
Encrypted torrents , port shifting , protocol encapsulation , dynamic hashes , onion routing , then finally darknets .
Like DRM , you will never stop the motivated .
They will always win .
Your only solution is to make it less time consuming , and a better experience ( genuinely , not your jaded interpretation of the word ) to be an honest consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being someone that works for a major ISP in the department in which we receive and act on copyright complaints, I can tell you... we hate it.I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever.
I hope every day that they're forced to run the dept that the CFO has a little cry to himself.
Trolling aside, the only solution to file sharing on the internet is to start local-network seeding for torrents etc.
Yes, that means the ISP buying terrabytes of storage and hosting files to be downloaded.
Talk amongst yourselves, bribe, extort, blackmail, sue, every other underhanded trick to get authorisation to implement it, and see your problems drop to nothing.
Otherwise, the community will break every measure you put in place.
Encrypted torrents, port shifting, protocol encapsulation, dynamic hashes, onion routing, then finally darknets.
Like DRM, you will never stop the motivated.
They will always win.
Your only solution is to make it less time consuming, and a better experience (genuinely, not your jaded interpretation of the word) to be an honest consumer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268052420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a simple solution to this: Sell only what you have. Or rather, market it correctly. When you sell people 8mbit synchronous, they will expect this to be available to them and they will maybe try to use it. Hoping that they just want to have a fat pipe but won't use it is like hoping that people who buy cars that go 200mph won't drive that fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a simple solution to this : Sell only what you have .
Or rather , market it correctly .
When you sell people 8mbit synchronous , they will expect this to be available to them and they will maybe try to use it .
Hoping that they just want to have a fat pipe but wo n't use it is like hoping that people who buy cars that go 200mph wo n't drive that fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a simple solution to this: Sell only what you have.
Or rather, market it correctly.
When you sell people 8mbit synchronous, they will expect this to be available to them and they will maybe try to use it.
Hoping that they just want to have a fat pipe but won't use it is like hoping that people who buy cars that go 200mph won't drive that fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392</id>
	<title>ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>90\% of the traffic by a relatively small subset of the consumers.   They hates it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of the traffic by a relatively small subset of the consumers .
They hates it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of the traffic by a relatively small subset of the consumers.
They hates it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409430</id>
	<title>Major ISPs</title>
	<author>sam.haskins</author>
	<datestamp>1268064780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, it's a group of national-level ISPs? The links says that two of them are Comcast and Time-Warner.
<br> <br>
Comcast being the future owners of NBC, and a "content" company regardless. <br>
Time-Warner being a content company too.
<br> <br>
Why do we think it's not the normal content-publishers trying to screw people over?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , it 's a group of national-level ISPs ?
The links says that two of them are Comcast and Time-Warner .
Comcast being the future owners of NBC , and a " content " company regardless .
Time-Warner being a content company too .
Why do we think it 's not the normal content-publishers trying to screw people over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, it's a group of national-level ISPs?
The links says that two of them are Comcast and Time-Warner.
Comcast being the future owners of NBC, and a "content" company regardless.
Time-Warner being a content company too.
Why do we think it's not the normal content-publishers trying to screw people over?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411092</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an issue of scale, broski.</p><p>A heavy bittorrent user can transfer perhaps 10 or 100 times as much data as an "ordinary" user just surfing the web etc.</p><p>A "fat person" cannot each 10 times as much as a normal person, so all-you-can-eat restaurants don't have the same problem of heavy users breaking their over-subscription based business model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an issue of scale , broski.A heavy bittorrent user can transfer perhaps 10 or 100 times as much data as an " ordinary " user just surfing the web etc.A " fat person " can not each 10 times as much as a normal person , so all-you-can-eat restaurants do n't have the same problem of heavy users breaking their over-subscription based business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an issue of scale, broski.A heavy bittorrent user can transfer perhaps 10 or 100 times as much data as an "ordinary" user just surfing the web etc.A "fat person" cannot each 10 times as much as a normal person, so all-you-can-eat restaurants don't have the same problem of heavy users breaking their over-subscription based business model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411444</id>
	<title>About time too....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268133480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, we have a large media industry which is going to lobby to protect its revenue stream.</p><p>Second, we have people who want the content, but don't value it at the prices the media corps charge.</p><p>Third, we have the whole "web 2.0" revolution - streaming video is a massive bandwidth hog - the ISPs either have to upgrade, which has a cost transferred to the user, or they have to free up bandwidth from file sharers to allow Joe User to watch streaming Hi-Def.</p><p>The media companies won't stop their lobbying. If there is a technical solution to mass copyright infringement on BitTorrent, a few things will happen.</p><p>First, bandwidth will be freed for other users: ISPs and customers are happy.<br>Second, those who consume material from BT will have to decide whether to pay for it. The prices are too high, so people will either consume less or stop altogether.</p><p>In the latter case, a lot of people will have free time to do something productive to improve self and others, rather than constantly consuming all of this media, which does nothing but pass the time and further inculcate mass media ideas which are generally not to the benefit of the individual.</p><p>Further, with the mass copyright infringement curbed to an acceptable degree, there is less incentive for Big Media to lobby for increased control of computers and the Internet, with attendant invasions of privacy. Big Government wants to do this anyway, but it is likely to meet more opposition if the costs are collected from the tax payer, rather than the deep pockets of the media industry who see the effort to develop all this tracking nonsense as a legitimate revenue protection strategy.</p><p>I feel the same as most people regarding the prices charged for media, and the fact that where prices are set unacceptably high, people who can't download for free wouldn't purchase all the content at full price.</p><p>The outcome of this could be more bandwidth for the end users to watch their video on demand, download, etc, less copyright infringement, and less overall media consumed, whether purchased or "pirated".</p><p>Win - win? Ultimately what the media companies do not realise is that the "content" they produce has very little intellectual or artistic value. It is a time-passer for the masses. In the end people will buy a small amount - the odd film or box set of a favourite series, and not much else. It is better for the individual to consume less of the same repetitive media drivel, instead being restricted by price to consume only what they most enjoy. The genuine film and TV buffs will consume as much as ever, but will pay for it, and the rest will find something better to do with their time - perhaps charity, self improvement, or even more time in the bar with friends.</p><p>There has to be a solution eventually, and I won't shed too many tears if the whole "piracy" gig eventually diminishes to hardcore geeks only, with the rest of the people paying a token amount to consume only some media. The reduction in consumption will reduce the market for a lot of drivel, with products with genuine entertainment value or artistic innovation in demand, with the rest of the recycled concepts on the shelf.</p><p>Better for artistic value, better for the individual, better for the media firms and ISPs, and some of the incentive for draconian government interference in public communications under the guise of "protecting intellectual property" removed.</p><p>Thoughts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , we have a large media industry which is going to lobby to protect its revenue stream.Second , we have people who want the content , but do n't value it at the prices the media corps charge.Third , we have the whole " web 2.0 " revolution - streaming video is a massive bandwidth hog - the ISPs either have to upgrade , which has a cost transferred to the user , or they have to free up bandwidth from file sharers to allow Joe User to watch streaming Hi-Def.The media companies wo n't stop their lobbying .
If there is a technical solution to mass copyright infringement on BitTorrent , a few things will happen.First , bandwidth will be freed for other users : ISPs and customers are happy.Second , those who consume material from BT will have to decide whether to pay for it .
The prices are too high , so people will either consume less or stop altogether.In the latter case , a lot of people will have free time to do something productive to improve self and others , rather than constantly consuming all of this media , which does nothing but pass the time and further inculcate mass media ideas which are generally not to the benefit of the individual.Further , with the mass copyright infringement curbed to an acceptable degree , there is less incentive for Big Media to lobby for increased control of computers and the Internet , with attendant invasions of privacy .
Big Government wants to do this anyway , but it is likely to meet more opposition if the costs are collected from the tax payer , rather than the deep pockets of the media industry who see the effort to develop all this tracking nonsense as a legitimate revenue protection strategy.I feel the same as most people regarding the prices charged for media , and the fact that where prices are set unacceptably high , people who ca n't download for free would n't purchase all the content at full price.The outcome of this could be more bandwidth for the end users to watch their video on demand , download , etc , less copyright infringement , and less overall media consumed , whether purchased or " pirated " .Win - win ?
Ultimately what the media companies do not realise is that the " content " they produce has very little intellectual or artistic value .
It is a time-passer for the masses .
In the end people will buy a small amount - the odd film or box set of a favourite series , and not much else .
It is better for the individual to consume less of the same repetitive media drivel , instead being restricted by price to consume only what they most enjoy .
The genuine film and TV buffs will consume as much as ever , but will pay for it , and the rest will find something better to do with their time - perhaps charity , self improvement , or even more time in the bar with friends.There has to be a solution eventually , and I wo n't shed too many tears if the whole " piracy " gig eventually diminishes to hardcore geeks only , with the rest of the people paying a token amount to consume only some media .
The reduction in consumption will reduce the market for a lot of drivel , with products with genuine entertainment value or artistic innovation in demand , with the rest of the recycled concepts on the shelf.Better for artistic value , better for the individual , better for the media firms and ISPs , and some of the incentive for draconian government interference in public communications under the guise of " protecting intellectual property " removed.Thoughts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, we have a large media industry which is going to lobby to protect its revenue stream.Second, we have people who want the content, but don't value it at the prices the media corps charge.Third, we have the whole "web 2.0" revolution - streaming video is a massive bandwidth hog - the ISPs either have to upgrade, which has a cost transferred to the user, or they have to free up bandwidth from file sharers to allow Joe User to watch streaming Hi-Def.The media companies won't stop their lobbying.
If there is a technical solution to mass copyright infringement on BitTorrent, a few things will happen.First, bandwidth will be freed for other users: ISPs and customers are happy.Second, those who consume material from BT will have to decide whether to pay for it.
The prices are too high, so people will either consume less or stop altogether.In the latter case, a lot of people will have free time to do something productive to improve self and others, rather than constantly consuming all of this media, which does nothing but pass the time and further inculcate mass media ideas which are generally not to the benefit of the individual.Further, with the mass copyright infringement curbed to an acceptable degree, there is less incentive for Big Media to lobby for increased control of computers and the Internet, with attendant invasions of privacy.
Big Government wants to do this anyway, but it is likely to meet more opposition if the costs are collected from the tax payer, rather than the deep pockets of the media industry who see the effort to develop all this tracking nonsense as a legitimate revenue protection strategy.I feel the same as most people regarding the prices charged for media, and the fact that where prices are set unacceptably high, people who can't download for free wouldn't purchase all the content at full price.The outcome of this could be more bandwidth for the end users to watch their video on demand, download, etc, less copyright infringement, and less overall media consumed, whether purchased or "pirated".Win - win?
Ultimately what the media companies do not realise is that the "content" they produce has very little intellectual or artistic value.
It is a time-passer for the masses.
In the end people will buy a small amount - the odd film or box set of a favourite series, and not much else.
It is better for the individual to consume less of the same repetitive media drivel, instead being restricted by price to consume only what they most enjoy.
The genuine film and TV buffs will consume as much as ever, but will pay for it, and the rest will find something better to do with their time - perhaps charity, self improvement, or even more time in the bar with friends.There has to be a solution eventually, and I won't shed too many tears if the whole "piracy" gig eventually diminishes to hardcore geeks only, with the rest of the people paying a token amount to consume only some media.
The reduction in consumption will reduce the market for a lot of drivel, with products with genuine entertainment value or artistic innovation in demand, with the rest of the recycled concepts on the shelf.Better for artistic value, better for the individual, better for the media firms and ISPs, and some of the incentive for draconian government interference in public communications under the guise of "protecting intellectual property" removed.Thoughts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408026</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think BitTorrent clients are going full blast all the time: one uses the torrent protocol to get content. This content must be consumed and, with a decent connection, one doesn't have the time consume all the content one can get =&gt; the bandwith usage is still a series of spikes, even in the case of torrent users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think BitTorrent clients are going full blast all the time : one uses the torrent protocol to get content .
This content must be consumed and , with a decent connection , one does n't have the time consume all the content one can get = &gt; the bandwith usage is still a series of spikes , even in the case of torrent users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think BitTorrent clients are going full blast all the time: one uses the torrent protocol to get content.
This content must be consumed and, with a decent connection, one doesn't have the time consume all the content one can get =&gt; the bandwith usage is still a series of spikes, even in the case of torrent users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407784</id>
	<title>Pissing all over the Bill of Rights</title>
	<author>OrwellianLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1268052780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</p></div><p>So the government can't do this, but private corporations can. Then, those private corporations turn around and give said information to the government without probable cause (just a sticky note).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated , and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause , supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched , and the persons or things to be seized.So the government ca n't do this , but private corporations can .
Then , those private corporations turn around and give said information to the government without probable cause ( just a sticky note ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.So the government can't do this, but private corporations can.
Then, those private corporations turn around and give said information to the government without probable cause (just a sticky note).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1268051220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often. If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them. I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.</p></div><p>Totally agree with that. Bandwidth costs money, sure the cost might be dropping, but why would you (as an ISP) actually WANT your consumers to go using all that bandwidth that you are selling them? Wouldn't it make much more business sense to sell them a plan with 100Gb (Yes, in Australia, that's still considered a very high amount of traffic) and have them use 2Gb for their surfing and emails - oh, and find a nice way to kick off all those customers who actually use what they pay for - without looking like it's got anything to do with you, after all, if you sell high usage accounts, you can't kick off high users... erm... wait wat?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they do n't have to upgrade as often .
If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights , it 's a win win for them .
I 'm not saying I support this kind of thing , but it makes business sense.Totally agree with that .
Bandwidth costs money , sure the cost might be dropping , but why would you ( as an ISP ) actually WANT your consumers to go using all that bandwidth that you are selling them ?
Would n't it make much more business sense to sell them a plan with 100Gb ( Yes , in Australia , that 's still considered a very high amount of traffic ) and have them use 2Gb for their surfing and emails - oh , and find a nice way to kick off all those customers who actually use what they pay for - without looking like it 's got anything to do with you , after all , if you sell high usage accounts , you ca n't kick off high users... erm... wait wat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often.
If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them.
I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.Totally agree with that.
Bandwidth costs money, sure the cost might be dropping, but why would you (as an ISP) actually WANT your consumers to go using all that bandwidth that you are selling them?
Wouldn't it make much more business sense to sell them a plan with 100Gb (Yes, in Australia, that's still considered a very high amount of traffic) and have them use 2Gb for their surfing and emails - oh, and find a nice way to kick off all those customers who actually use what they pay for - without looking like it's got anything to do with you, after all, if you sell high usage accounts, you can't kick off high users... erm... wait wat?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407452</id>
	<title>They want your money, not your IP traffic</title>
	<author>renger</author>
	<datestamp>1268050920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As cable company researchers, their goal is to maximize profits for the cable industry.  This includes: reducing (and delaying) the need to invest in new cable-modem equipment, reducing the size of the Internet transit circuits that they must purchase from real IP backbone providers, reducing the quantity of TV channels they must give-up to make room for DOCSIS (cable modem) channels, reducing any competition for video services from (non-cable-company) Internet-video sources, and so on.  Cable company executives care about MPAA/RIAA only so far as it affects the size of their bonus checks.  It is always about the money.
<br> <br>
Let's hope the fiber-based operators kick their sorry coax ass.  (And let us be vigilant that the fiber operators don't become similarly arrogant and unresponsive once they assume the throne of dominant last-mile provider.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As cable company researchers , their goal is to maximize profits for the cable industry .
This includes : reducing ( and delaying ) the need to invest in new cable-modem equipment , reducing the size of the Internet transit circuits that they must purchase from real IP backbone providers , reducing the quantity of TV channels they must give-up to make room for DOCSIS ( cable modem ) channels , reducing any competition for video services from ( non-cable-company ) Internet-video sources , and so on .
Cable company executives care about MPAA/RIAA only so far as it affects the size of their bonus checks .
It is always about the money .
Let 's hope the fiber-based operators kick their sorry coax ass .
( And let us be vigilant that the fiber operators do n't become similarly arrogant and unresponsive once they assume the throne of dominant last-mile provider .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As cable company researchers, their goal is to maximize profits for the cable industry.
This includes: reducing (and delaying) the need to invest in new cable-modem equipment, reducing the size of the Internet transit circuits that they must purchase from real IP backbone providers, reducing the quantity of TV channels they must give-up to make room for DOCSIS (cable modem) channels, reducing any competition for video services from (non-cable-company) Internet-video sources, and so on.
Cable company executives care about MPAA/RIAA only so far as it affects the size of their bonus checks.
It is always about the money.
Let's hope the fiber-based operators kick their sorry coax ass.
(And let us be vigilant that the fiber operators don't become similarly arrogant and unresponsive once they assume the throne of dominant last-mile provider.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409556</id>
	<title>Re:Almost like an ad at first...</title>
	<author>game kid</author>
	<datestamp>1268065800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I misread that as "Monitor Pirate Bay torrents <em>of</em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today\_(NBC\_program)" title="wikipedia.org">TODAY</a> [wikipedia.org]" and wondered who could've incurred the wrath of Comcast.  Or Al Roker.</p><p>(Do not piss off Roker.  He can control the weather and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=7865446&amp;page=1" title="go.com">make you cry</a> [go.com].)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I misread that as " Monitor Pirate Bay torrents of TODAY [ wikipedia.org ] " and wondered who could 've incurred the wrath of Comcast .
Or Al Roker .
( Do not piss off Roker .
He can control the weather and make you cry [ go.com ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I misread that as "Monitor Pirate Bay torrents of TODAY [wikipedia.org]" and wondered who could've incurred the wrath of Comcast.
Or Al Roker.
(Do not piss off Roker.
He can control the weather and make you cry [go.com].
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411552</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1268134680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The average internet user uses less than 1\% of its bandwidth.</p></div><p>If regular users use less than 1\% of their bandwidth, why am I getting whinged at for using the whole lot? By definition, the "regular (average) user" will be either the most frequent, the middle of the spread, or the mean average. If that equals 1\% of bandwidth use, there can't be many who use the whole lot. In fact, roughly a 100:1 ratio regular to power users.<br> <br>So, why is my data transfer capped? Oh yes, <b>not enough bolivian marching powder for the CEO.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The average internet user uses less than 1 \ % of its bandwidth.If regular users use less than 1 \ % of their bandwidth , why am I getting whinged at for using the whole lot ?
By definition , the " regular ( average ) user " will be either the most frequent , the middle of the spread , or the mean average .
If that equals 1 \ % of bandwidth use , there ca n't be many who use the whole lot .
In fact , roughly a 100 : 1 ratio regular to power users .
So , why is my data transfer capped ?
Oh yes , not enough bolivian marching powder for the CEO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average internet user uses less than 1\% of its bandwidth.If regular users use less than 1\% of their bandwidth, why am I getting whinged at for using the whole lot?
By definition, the "regular (average) user" will be either the most frequent, the middle of the spread, or the mean average.
If that equals 1\% of bandwidth use, there can't be many who use the whole lot.
In fact, roughly a 100:1 ratio regular to power users.
So, why is my data transfer capped?
Oh yes, not enough bolivian marching powder for the CEO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413686</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1268150280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks...</p></div><p>Actually, they have no such thing. What they <i>should</i> be doing is acting like the carriers that the are and looking at traffic, not at content. They should be all over finding ways to keep the traffic generated at the edge as close to the edge as possible. Torrent does this by design. What's inside the packets should be of no concern to the provider of the tubes, only that the tubes are used as efficiently as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks...Actually , they have no such thing .
What they should be doing is acting like the carriers that the are and looking at traffic , not at content .
They should be all over finding ways to keep the traffic generated at the edge as close to the edge as possible .
Torrent does this by design .
What 's inside the packets should be of no concern to the provider of the tubes , only that the tubes are used as efficiently as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks...Actually, they have no such thing.
What they should be doing is acting like the carriers that the are and looking at traffic, not at content.
They should be all over finding ways to keep the traffic generated at the edge as close to the edge as possible.
Torrent does this by design.
What's inside the packets should be of no concern to the provider of the tubes, only that the tubes are used as efficiently as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408828</id>
	<title>Prohibition II: The Return</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1268059440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I honestly don't care if it's the ISPs deciding what is and isn't permissible communication, or if it's the government, or the copyright protection organizations.
<br>
An entity with broad control of what people can and can't communicate is more frightening to me than losing the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.00000001\% of people who make their millions from their personal art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't care if it 's the ISPs deciding what is and is n't permissible communication , or if it 's the government , or the copyright protection organizations .
An entity with broad control of what people can and ca n't communicate is more frightening to me than losing the .00000001 \ % of people who make their millions from their personal art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly don't care if it's the ISPs deciding what is and isn't permissible communication, or if it's the government, or the copyright protection organizations.
An entity with broad control of what people can and can't communicate is more frightening to me than losing the .00000001\% of people who make their millions from their personal art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411766</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>kaizokuace</author>
	<datestamp>1268137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's not a win win in the long term. If they cause all their customers to be sued into bankruptcy then all their paying customers won't have the money to be their customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not a win win in the long term .
If they cause all their customers to be sued into bankruptcy then all their paying customers wo n't have the money to be their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not a win win in the long term.
If they cause all their customers to be sued into bankruptcy then all their paying customers won't have the money to be their customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31410734</id>
	<title>Did anyone read the paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did not notice anyone commenting on the actual paper. Maybe I am wrong but all the are doing is probing a peers to establish whether they respond to protocol and actually have parts of the file. This means that to prevent this from working one only needs to run PeerBlock or similar software and block amazon cloud and similar services. If their idea catches on, I am certain that it will be rendered void by proper block list in no time. As various papers correctly stated - "if you are running bit torrent client and not running any filtering software you are an idiot".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not notice anyone commenting on the actual paper .
Maybe I am wrong but all the are doing is probing a peers to establish whether they respond to protocol and actually have parts of the file .
This means that to prevent this from working one only needs to run PeerBlock or similar software and block amazon cloud and similar services .
If their idea catches on , I am certain that it will be rendered void by proper block list in no time .
As various papers correctly stated - " if you are running bit torrent client and not running any filtering software you are an idiot " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not notice anyone commenting on the actual paper.
Maybe I am wrong but all the are doing is probing a peers to establish whether they respond to protocol and actually have parts of the file.
This means that to prevent this from working one only needs to run PeerBlock or similar software and block amazon cloud and similar services.
If their idea catches on, I am certain that it will be rendered void by proper block list in no time.
As various papers correctly stated - "if you are running bit torrent client and not running any filtering software you are an idiot".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408220</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268055360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>DISCLAIMER:</b> I am part of the support team of an ISP<br>Yes, we do hate those users who suck bandwidth via bittorrent to the detriment of the majority who simply want to read their email, keep up-to-date via a social networking site and do other non-intensive tasks. However if we were being completely cynical, the over usage charges we can collect (and which our users agreed to in our AUP when they signed up) are a nice earner. <b>PLUS</b> I agree, we don't have to invest so heavily and so often to upgrade our infrastructure. I don't necessarily agree with such a position, but I'm stuck with it. However, I read TFPDF and it bleats about <i>illegal copyrighted downloads</i> which it seems to imply is the only use for bittorrent, nowhere do I see (except after the download is complete) how this violation can be proven. I have lost count over the years of how many iso's of various Linux distros I have downloaded, how many times the kids have updated WoW.... This sanctimonious BS posturing in the guise of protecting copyright leaves me cold.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DISCLAIMER : I am part of the support team of an ISPYes , we do hate those users who suck bandwidth via bittorrent to the detriment of the majority who simply want to read their email , keep up-to-date via a social networking site and do other non-intensive tasks .
However if we were being completely cynical , the over usage charges we can collect ( and which our users agreed to in our AUP when they signed up ) are a nice earner .
PLUS I agree , we do n't have to invest so heavily and so often to upgrade our infrastructure .
I do n't necessarily agree with such a position , but I 'm stuck with it .
However , I read TFPDF and it bleats about illegal copyrighted downloads which it seems to imply is the only use for bittorrent , nowhere do I see ( except after the download is complete ) how this violation can be proven .
I have lost count over the years of how many iso 's of various Linux distros I have downloaded , how many times the kids have updated WoW.... This sanctimonious BS posturing in the guise of protecting copyright leaves me cold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DISCLAIMER: I am part of the support team of an ISPYes, we do hate those users who suck bandwidth via bittorrent to the detriment of the majority who simply want to read their email, keep up-to-date via a social networking site and do other non-intensive tasks.
However if we were being completely cynical, the over usage charges we can collect (and which our users agreed to in our AUP when they signed up) are a nice earner.
PLUS I agree, we don't have to invest so heavily and so often to upgrade our infrastructure.
I don't necessarily agree with such a position, but I'm stuck with it.
However, I read TFPDF and it bleats about illegal copyrighted downloads which it seems to imply is the only use for bittorrent, nowhere do I see (except after the download is complete) how this violation can be proven.
I have lost count over the years of how many iso's of various Linux distros I have downloaded, how many times the kids have updated WoW.... This sanctimonious BS posturing in the guise of protecting copyright leaves me cold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</id>
	<title>It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>ISPs could simply be looking for ways to find heavy bittorrent users, provide proof of the fact that they're using a lot of bandwidth to download copyrighted content, and to throttle them down or to block this traffic entirely. <br> <br>

ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often.  If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them.  I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs could simply be looking for ways to find heavy bittorrent users , provide proof of the fact that they 're using a lot of bandwidth to download copyrighted content , and to throttle them down or to block this traffic entirely .
ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they do n't have to upgrade as often .
If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights , it 's a win win for them .
I 'm not saying I support this kind of thing , but it makes business sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs could simply be looking for ways to find heavy bittorrent users, provide proof of the fact that they're using a lot of bandwidth to download copyrighted content, and to throttle them down or to block this traffic entirely.
ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often.
If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them.
I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411634</id>
	<title>Re:lol</title>
	<author>polle404</author>
	<datestamp>1268135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah... right...<br>Working for a European ISP, we REALLY want ACTA... not.</p><p>We don't have DMCA, we don't want it, but it's being proposed in ACTA.<br>We don't want forced deep packet inspection, but...<br>We don't want to be forced to police our own network, but...<br>We don't want to lose common carrier status (at least, the EU equivalent of it), but...<br>We don't want to be forced to shut customers out of our net, but...</p><p>Can you see where I'm going with this?</p><p>We DO spend time and money on optimizing &amp; routing, to minimize the cost &amp; impact of various high bandwith technologies, but if the customers start to believe we throttle or police our net, they WILL leave asap, and unlike the US, there's lots of choices of ISP's here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah... right...Working for a European ISP , we REALLY want ACTA... not.We do n't have DMCA , we do n't want it , but it 's being proposed in ACTA.We do n't want forced deep packet inspection , but...We do n't want to be forced to police our own network , but...We do n't want to lose common carrier status ( at least , the EU equivalent of it ) , but...We do n't want to be forced to shut customers out of our net , but...Can you see where I 'm going with this ? We DO spend time and money on optimizing &amp; routing , to minimize the cost &amp; impact of various high bandwith technologies , but if the customers start to believe we throttle or police our net , they WILL leave asap , and unlike the US , there 's lots of choices of ISP 's here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah... right...Working for a European ISP, we REALLY want ACTA... not.We don't have DMCA, we don't want it, but it's being proposed in ACTA.We don't want forced deep packet inspection, but...We don't want to be forced to police our own network, but...We don't want to lose common carrier status (at least, the EU equivalent of it), but...We don't want to be forced to shut customers out of our net, but...Can you see where I'm going with this?We DO spend time and money on optimizing &amp; routing, to minimize the cost &amp; impact of various high bandwith technologies, but if the customers start to believe we throttle or police our net, they WILL leave asap, and unlike the US, there's lots of choices of ISP's here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412378</id>
	<title>Re:They want your money, not your IP traffic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(And let us be vigilant that the fiber operators don't become similarly arrogant and unresponsive once they assume the throne of dominant last-mile provider.)</p></div><p>They will when it's profitable for them.  They're just not at that point.  Yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( And let us be vigilant that the fiber operators do n't become similarly arrogant and unresponsive once they assume the throne of dominant last-mile provider .
) They will when it 's profitable for them .
They 're just not at that point .
Yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(And let us be vigilant that the fiber operators don't become similarly arrogant and unresponsive once they assume the throne of dominant last-mile provider.
)They will when it's profitable for them.
They're just not at that point.
Yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409480</id>
	<title>blacklist?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268065140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cant their ip addresses just be added to a popular blacklist like bluetack, i-blocklist etc?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cant their ip addresses just be added to a popular blacklist like bluetack , i-blocklist etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cant their ip addresses just be added to a popular blacklist like bluetack, i-blocklist etc?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407936</id>
	<title>Not for cable providers</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1268053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet is quickly turning everything we consume into data. Cable companies want to fragment what being on the internet means, and then charge you extra for wanting to use port 25 or have the "privilege" of using bittorrent. They want you to pay for cable TV even if you can get everything off of hulu or directly from nbc.com.</p><p>If they can use technology to kick off high bandwidth users or force them to pay more without having to expand infrastructure, that's a hell of a lot better than expanding infrastructure. More short term profit. Higher stock price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is quickly turning everything we consume into data .
Cable companies want to fragment what being on the internet means , and then charge you extra for wanting to use port 25 or have the " privilege " of using bittorrent .
They want you to pay for cable TV even if you can get everything off of hulu or directly from nbc.com.If they can use technology to kick off high bandwidth users or force them to pay more without having to expand infrastructure , that 's a hell of a lot better than expanding infrastructure .
More short term profit .
Higher stock price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is quickly turning everything we consume into data.
Cable companies want to fragment what being on the internet means, and then charge you extra for wanting to use port 25 or have the "privilege" of using bittorrent.
They want you to pay for cable TV even if you can get everything off of hulu or directly from nbc.com.If they can use technology to kick off high bandwidth users or force them to pay more without having to expand infrastructure, that's a hell of a lot better than expanding infrastructure.
More short term profit.
Higher stock price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408486</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't bittorrent good?</title>
	<author>nobodylocalhost</author>
	<datestamp>1268056920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Due to Net Neutrality, ISPs are not able to implement priority routing. Thus, the only other option left is force hard bandwidth limits. This however does not sit well in a market place where most ISPs claim they offer unlimited internet access. Please note upgrading does not make business sense. Just because you obtain some arbitrary amount of bandwidth does not mean the heavy users will not soak these up as well. All it takes is word of mouth and the number heavy users grow from few and far between to a good portion of your user base. There is no real scalability with upgrading. What we really need is a better understand of the problem and a feasible way to approach it, instead of shouting the same old quick response from ages ago without even bothering with proper research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to Net Neutrality , ISPs are not able to implement priority routing .
Thus , the only other option left is force hard bandwidth limits .
This however does not sit well in a market place where most ISPs claim they offer unlimited internet access .
Please note upgrading does not make business sense .
Just because you obtain some arbitrary amount of bandwidth does not mean the heavy users will not soak these up as well .
All it takes is word of mouth and the number heavy users grow from few and far between to a good portion of your user base .
There is no real scalability with upgrading .
What we really need is a better understand of the problem and a feasible way to approach it , instead of shouting the same old quick response from ages ago without even bothering with proper research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to Net Neutrality, ISPs are not able to implement priority routing.
Thus, the only other option left is force hard bandwidth limits.
This however does not sit well in a market place where most ISPs claim they offer unlimited internet access.
Please note upgrading does not make business sense.
Just because you obtain some arbitrary amount of bandwidth does not mean the heavy users will not soak these up as well.
All it takes is word of mouth and the number heavy users grow from few and far between to a good portion of your user base.
There is no real scalability with upgrading.
What we really need is a better understand of the problem and a feasible way to approach it, instead of shouting the same old quick response from ages ago without even bothering with proper research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407776</id>
	<title>Just reworking Fairplay</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1268052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784\_3-9920665-7.html" title="cnet.com">http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784\_3-9920665-7.html</a> [cnet.com] <br>
"So far, investigators have recorded more than 642,000 "unique serial numbers" that can be traced to the United States and another 650,000<br> of them that cannot be traced to a particular country, with the number of unique serial numbers rising steadily <br>each month since "widespread capturing" of the details began in October 2005.<br>
So they bought up computers, join the networks and map them out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
What have the discovered? <br> The shock of people using the pipes they paid for ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.cnet.com/8301-10784 \ _3-9920665-7.html [ cnet.com ] " So far , investigators have recorded more than 642,000 " unique serial numbers " that can be traced to the United States and another 650,000 of them that can not be traced to a particular country , with the number of unique serial numbers rising steadily each month since " widespread capturing " of the details began in October 2005 .
So they bought up computers , join the networks and map them out : ) What have the discovered ?
The shock of people using the pipes they paid for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784\_3-9920665-7.html [cnet.com] 
"So far, investigators have recorded more than 642,000 "unique serial numbers" that can be traced to the United States and another 650,000 of them that cannot be traced to a particular country, with the number of unique serial numbers rising steadily each month since "widespread capturing" of the details began in October 2005.
So they bought up computers, join the networks and map them out :)
What have the discovered?
The shock of people using the pipes they paid for ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407822</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268052960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could also be a last-ditch effort for ISPs to show they can police themselves before they get shackled by Draconian regulations.  ISPs also hate high bandwidth usage (expanding networks cost money, so to the bean counters who failed ITIL class in MBA school, it is better to charge fees, throttle, and kick off users than it does to expand networks to handle new growth and new applications.)</p><p>ISPs are not going to like ACTA so they want to avoid it as much as they can.  Having to record not just packet headers, but every single packet a user has sent/received and store it for 7 years is going to make them have to spend large amounts of cash for disk farms.  They also don't want to be the focal point for customer outrage when Big Brother-eqsue stories happen:  For example, a divorce happens, the ISP gets a motion of discovery, and has to go data mine in the archives to come up with the exact web pages a husband was viewing in the past on a certain day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could also be a last-ditch effort for ISPs to show they can police themselves before they get shackled by Draconian regulations .
ISPs also hate high bandwidth usage ( expanding networks cost money , so to the bean counters who failed ITIL class in MBA school , it is better to charge fees , throttle , and kick off users than it does to expand networks to handle new growth and new applications .
) ISPs are not going to like ACTA so they want to avoid it as much as they can .
Having to record not just packet headers , but every single packet a user has sent/received and store it for 7 years is going to make them have to spend large amounts of cash for disk farms .
They also do n't want to be the focal point for customer outrage when Big Brother-eqsue stories happen : For example , a divorce happens , the ISP gets a motion of discovery , and has to go data mine in the archives to come up with the exact web pages a husband was viewing in the past on a certain day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could also be a last-ditch effort for ISPs to show they can police themselves before they get shackled by Draconian regulations.
ISPs also hate high bandwidth usage (expanding networks cost money, so to the bean counters who failed ITIL class in MBA school, it is better to charge fees, throttle, and kick off users than it does to expand networks to handle new growth and new applications.
)ISPs are not going to like ACTA so they want to avoid it as much as they can.
Having to record not just packet headers, but every single packet a user has sent/received and store it for 7 years is going to make them have to spend large amounts of cash for disk farms.
They also don't want to be the focal point for customer outrage when Big Brother-eqsue stories happen:  For example, a divorce happens, the ISP gets a motion of discovery, and has to go data mine in the archives to come up with the exact web pages a husband was viewing in the past on a certain day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31410454</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268075340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't that depend on if the high bandwidth users who use up 90\% of the bandwidth are profitable or not? Presuming they are profitable then the company shouldn't have any reason to kick them off, right? I guess it isn't that simple. But it probably is really that simple. The fact of the matter is they are overselling and they shouldn't be. I think they should just offer a service plan that throttles traffic during peak hours. The more you are throttled during peak hours the less it costs you. If you get dial-up during peak hours it costs you like almost nothing- practically dial-up costs probably. The rest of the time you could probably still use 90\% of the bandwidth and the ISP wouldn't have the 'upgrade costs'. Those who do want to have high speed during those times would pay through the roof for it or have a plan that limits the amount of high speed traffic during peak hours up to a certain # of GB and then throttles it down thereafter. Really simple. ISP's would then NEVER have to upgrade as a result of high bandwidth users that use 90\% of the bandwidth. They maybe could just advertise it like this "* up to 5GB month during peak hours" in the bottom of the screen. And then just throttle it back... when customers call and complain about slow connections offer an upgrade. Companies love to up-sell. Customers should be able to control the throttling though so they don't use up all the bandwidth during peak hours all at once if they are going to severely limit it as is likely to be the case- since ISPs are cheap as hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't that depend on if the high bandwidth users who use up 90 \ % of the bandwidth are profitable or not ?
Presuming they are profitable then the company should n't have any reason to kick them off , right ?
I guess it is n't that simple .
But it probably is really that simple .
The fact of the matter is they are overselling and they should n't be .
I think they should just offer a service plan that throttles traffic during peak hours .
The more you are throttled during peak hours the less it costs you .
If you get dial-up during peak hours it costs you like almost nothing- practically dial-up costs probably .
The rest of the time you could probably still use 90 \ % of the bandwidth and the ISP would n't have the 'upgrade costs' .
Those who do want to have high speed during those times would pay through the roof for it or have a plan that limits the amount of high speed traffic during peak hours up to a certain # of GB and then throttles it down thereafter .
Really simple .
ISP 's would then NEVER have to upgrade as a result of high bandwidth users that use 90 \ % of the bandwidth .
They maybe could just advertise it like this " * up to 5GB month during peak hours " in the bottom of the screen .
And then just throttle it back... when customers call and complain about slow connections offer an upgrade .
Companies love to up-sell .
Customers should be able to control the throttling though so they do n't use up all the bandwidth during peak hours all at once if they are going to severely limit it as is likely to be the case- since ISPs are cheap as hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't that depend on if the high bandwidth users who use up 90\% of the bandwidth are profitable or not?
Presuming they are profitable then the company shouldn't have any reason to kick them off, right?
I guess it isn't that simple.
But it probably is really that simple.
The fact of the matter is they are overselling and they shouldn't be.
I think they should just offer a service plan that throttles traffic during peak hours.
The more you are throttled during peak hours the less it costs you.
If you get dial-up during peak hours it costs you like almost nothing- practically dial-up costs probably.
The rest of the time you could probably still use 90\% of the bandwidth and the ISP wouldn't have the 'upgrade costs'.
Those who do want to have high speed during those times would pay through the roof for it or have a plan that limits the amount of high speed traffic during peak hours up to a certain # of GB and then throttles it down thereafter.
Really simple.
ISP's would then NEVER have to upgrade as a result of high bandwidth users that use 90\% of the bandwidth.
They maybe could just advertise it like this "* up to 5GB month during peak hours" in the bottom of the screen.
And then just throttle it back... when customers call and complain about slow connections offer an upgrade.
Companies love to up-sell.
Customers should be able to control the throttling though so they don't use up all the bandwidth during peak hours all at once if they are going to severely limit it as is likely to be the case- since ISPs are cheap as hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407724</id>
	<title>I hope the researchers have lots of funding.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268052420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they are in the US and actually download a chunk from each peer, doesn't that make them liable for literally billions of dollars in damages? After all, they obtained copyrighted works without permission.</p><p>Simple solution: hidden honeypot torrents on the tracker. Anybody who scrapes them is IP-banned for a week. For bonus points, is added to every torrent's peer list to cause an "accidental" DDOS.</p><p>Nastier solution: independent artist puts up a work on TPB, with a license proviso that it's not available to this software. Seed, wait, sue - after all, even 16 kB is (according to the RIAA) enough to net a $250k fine per instance...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they are in the US and actually download a chunk from each peer , does n't that make them liable for literally billions of dollars in damages ?
After all , they obtained copyrighted works without permission.Simple solution : hidden honeypot torrents on the tracker .
Anybody who scrapes them is IP-banned for a week .
For bonus points , is added to every torrent 's peer list to cause an " accidental " DDOS.Nastier solution : independent artist puts up a work on TPB , with a license proviso that it 's not available to this software .
Seed , wait , sue - after all , even 16 kB is ( according to the RIAA ) enough to net a $ 250k fine per instance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they are in the US and actually download a chunk from each peer, doesn't that make them liable for literally billions of dollars in damages?
After all, they obtained copyrighted works without permission.Simple solution: hidden honeypot torrents on the tracker.
Anybody who scrapes them is IP-banned for a week.
For bonus points, is added to every torrent's peer list to cause an "accidental" DDOS.Nastier solution: independent artist puts up a work on TPB, with a license proviso that it's not available to this software.
Seed, wait, sue - after all, even 16 kB is (according to the RIAA) enough to net a $250k fine per instance...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1268052480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also has a tendency to be full blast all the time. Part of what makes cheap lines cheap is that when you have a lot of people, you can share bandwidth and normal usage patterns are such that they don't interfere with each other. You can see this when you have a roommate in that your cable modem doesn't suddenly feel half the speed just because there's another person using it as well. You'll probably find that it is the same overall. Same deal with an office LAN. You all have 100mbps to your desktops and say gig to the server. Yet even with 100 people the server still seems to go full speed on your connection all the time.</p><p>Well the reason is because normal usage isn't sustained at maximum level. It is full of spikes. You download something and then once you have the data the usage stops. The net effect is that you can oversubscribe lines and people still get good service. Everyone gets to pay less and all is well. The larger the scale the more true this seems to be. The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.</p><p>However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time. The suck up a lot of bandwidth and leave little for everyone else, and it doesn't relent.</p><p>Bittorrent is very bad for that. Part of it is because of the uploading, most torrent clients will just keep serving out what they've downloaded until they are stopped. Another part is the many BTers seem to be collectors. They'll download any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and sort through it later. They always have multiple downloads going to get more stuff.</p><p>As such it really screws over the way cheap connections work. So it isn't just that you are using so much, though that is part of it, it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also has a tendency to be full blast all the time .
Part of what makes cheap lines cheap is that when you have a lot of people , you can share bandwidth and normal usage patterns are such that they do n't interfere with each other .
You can see this when you have a roommate in that your cable modem does n't suddenly feel half the speed just because there 's another person using it as well .
You 'll probably find that it is the same overall .
Same deal with an office LAN .
You all have 100mbps to your desktops and say gig to the server .
Yet even with 100 people the server still seems to go full speed on your connection all the time.Well the reason is because normal usage is n't sustained at maximum level .
It is full of spikes .
You download something and then once you have the data the usage stops .
The net effect is that you can oversubscribe lines and people still get good service .
Everyone gets to pay less and all is well .
The larger the scale the more true this seems to be .
The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time .
The suck up a lot of bandwidth and leave little for everyone else , and it does n't relent.Bittorrent is very bad for that .
Part of it is because of the uploading , most torrent clients will just keep serving out what they 've downloaded until they are stopped .
Another part is the many BTers seem to be collectors .
They 'll download any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and sort through it later .
They always have multiple downloads going to get more stuff.As such it really screws over the way cheap connections work .
So it is n't just that you are using so much , though that is part of it , it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also has a tendency to be full blast all the time.
Part of what makes cheap lines cheap is that when you have a lot of people, you can share bandwidth and normal usage patterns are such that they don't interfere with each other.
You can see this when you have a roommate in that your cable modem doesn't suddenly feel half the speed just because there's another person using it as well.
You'll probably find that it is the same overall.
Same deal with an office LAN.
You all have 100mbps to your desktops and say gig to the server.
Yet even with 100 people the server still seems to go full speed on your connection all the time.Well the reason is because normal usage isn't sustained at maximum level.
It is full of spikes.
You download something and then once you have the data the usage stops.
The net effect is that you can oversubscribe lines and people still get good service.
Everyone gets to pay less and all is well.
The larger the scale the more true this seems to be.
The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time.
The suck up a lot of bandwidth and leave little for everyone else, and it doesn't relent.Bittorrent is very bad for that.
Part of it is because of the uploading, most torrent clients will just keep serving out what they've downloaded until they are stopped.
Another part is the many BTers seem to be collectors.
They'll download any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and sort through it later.
They always have multiple downloads going to get more stuff.As such it really screws over the way cheap connections work.
So it isn't just that you are using so much, though that is part of it, it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407700</id>
	<title>It could be fear of the Congress</title>
	<author>glyn.phillips</author>
	<datestamp>1268052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a very real possibility that ISP's will be required to enforce copyright laws in the same way that convenience stores are required to enforce age limits for alcohol and tobacco.  ISP's might also lose the "safe harbor" provisions and become "accessories" to the actions of their users.<br> <br>

If either of these possibilities becomes law the ISP's will be required to shut down IP infringing traffic.  So it could be evidence that ISP's are looking for a way to comply with such laws should they be passed.<br> <br>

It would not be the first time that the U.S. Congress has put a deadline on a technology which did not exist yet.<br> <br>

"No man's life, liberty or property is safe when congress is in session."</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a very real possibility that ISP 's will be required to enforce copyright laws in the same way that convenience stores are required to enforce age limits for alcohol and tobacco .
ISP 's might also lose the " safe harbor " provisions and become " accessories " to the actions of their users .
If either of these possibilities becomes law the ISP 's will be required to shut down IP infringing traffic .
So it could be evidence that ISP 's are looking for a way to comply with such laws should they be passed .
It would not be the first time that the U.S. Congress has put a deadline on a technology which did not exist yet .
" No man 's life , liberty or property is safe when congress is in session .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a very real possibility that ISP's will be required to enforce copyright laws in the same way that convenience stores are required to enforce age limits for alcohol and tobacco.
ISP's might also lose the "safe harbor" provisions and become "accessories" to the actions of their users.
If either of these possibilities becomes law the ISP's will be required to shut down IP infringing traffic.
So it could be evidence that ISP's are looking for a way to comply with such laws should they be passed.
It would not be the first time that the U.S. Congress has put a deadline on a technology which did not exist yet.
"No man's life, liberty or property is safe when congress is in session.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407750</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, the number of spambots ain't that low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , the number of spambots ai n't that low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, the number of spambots ain't that low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408634</id>
	<title>One can also assume the best intent by the ISP</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1268058060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even a perfectly neutral  ISP rightly should have a love hate relationship with bit torrent.   Bit torrent can be a good thing if most of the peers are local connections.   And they espeically should like peer groups  that dont' exit or enter their network.</p><p>And if an ISP were really savvy about the network topology they could strategically place their own seeds to create local peering groups.  But they could not do that without having a way to track the torrent topology on their network.</p><p>So maybe they are good people that are looking at this as a way to optmize local torrent networks for everyone's benefit including their own?</p><p>However that reasoning assumes that with or without bit torrent the same amount of data transfers would be made.  Local bit torrents thus are beneficial.   But if you take the assumption that without bit torrent not as many data transfers would be made, but people would still be willing to pay the same for their service, then the ISP would love to squish bit torrent completely.</p><p>Moreover if they have content to sell then any bit torrent use is competition for the bandwidht they want to sell high QOS content over  (including voip content).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even a perfectly neutral ISP rightly should have a love hate relationship with bit torrent .
Bit torrent can be a good thing if most of the peers are local connections .
And they espeically should like peer groups that dont ' exit or enter their network.And if an ISP were really savvy about the network topology they could strategically place their own seeds to create local peering groups .
But they could not do that without having a way to track the torrent topology on their network.So maybe they are good people that are looking at this as a way to optmize local torrent networks for everyone 's benefit including their own ? However that reasoning assumes that with or without bit torrent the same amount of data transfers would be made .
Local bit torrents thus are beneficial .
But if you take the assumption that without bit torrent not as many data transfers would be made , but people would still be willing to pay the same for their service , then the ISP would love to squish bit torrent completely.Moreover if they have content to sell then any bit torrent use is competition for the bandwidht they want to sell high QOS content over ( including voip content ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even a perfectly neutral  ISP rightly should have a love hate relationship with bit torrent.
Bit torrent can be a good thing if most of the peers are local connections.
And they espeically should like peer groups  that dont' exit or enter their network.And if an ISP were really savvy about the network topology they could strategically place their own seeds to create local peering groups.
But they could not do that without having a way to track the torrent topology on their network.So maybe they are good people that are looking at this as a way to optmize local torrent networks for everyone's benefit including their own?However that reasoning assumes that with or without bit torrent the same amount of data transfers would be made.
Local bit torrents thus are beneficial.
But if you take the assumption that without bit torrent not as many data transfers would be made, but people would still be willing to pay the same for their service, then the ISP would love to squish bit torrent completely.Moreover if they have content to sell then any bit torrent use is competition for the bandwidht they want to sell high QOS content over  (including voip content).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412922</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268147100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So?  That's probably how All You Can Eat restaurants SHOULD work.  Fat people pay the same as me and pretty much get a free ride because I don't eat much.  Communism at its finest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
That 's probably how All You Can Eat restaurants SHOULD work .
Fat people pay the same as me and pretty much get a free ride because I do n't eat much .
Communism at its finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
That's probably how All You Can Eat restaurants SHOULD work.
Fat people pay the same as me and pretty much get a free ride because I don't eat much.
Communism at its finest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31445120</id>
	<title>The REAL Story On This:</title>
	<author>jlivingood</author>
	<datestamp>1268305020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT\_RATE/30860-Cable\_Ops\_Didn\_t\_Fund\_Research\_Into\_BitTorrent\_Tracker.php" title="multichannel.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT\_RATE/30860-Cable\_Ops\_Didn\_t\_Fund\_Research\_Into\_BitTorrent\_Tracker.php</a> [multichannel.com]

Speaks for itself</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT \ _RATE/30860-Cable \ _Ops \ _Didn \ _t \ _Fund \ _Research \ _Into \ _BitTorrent \ _Tracker.php [ multichannel.com ] Speaks for itself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT\_RATE/30860-Cable\_Ops\_Didn\_t\_Fund\_Research\_Into\_BitTorrent\_Tracker.php [multichannel.com]

Speaks for itself</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31418514</id>
	<title>E2 pricing</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1268126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$13/mon will get you approximately 15 days of CPU time from AWS.  I don't get how they come up with these numbers?  And that's not even including bandwidth.  Granted, it probably doesn't require a lot of bandwidth to run a tracker or two, but I can't see these numbers being correct - there has to be zero or two missing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 13/mon will get you approximately 15 days of CPU time from AWS .
I do n't get how they come up with these numbers ?
And that 's not even including bandwidth .
Granted , it probably does n't require a lot of bandwidth to run a tracker or two , but I ca n't see these numbers being correct - there has to be zero or two missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$13/mon will get you approximately 15 days of CPU time from AWS.
I don't get how they come up with these numbers?
And that's not even including bandwidth.
Granted, it probably doesn't require a lot of bandwidth to run a tracker or two, but I can't see these numbers being correct - there has to be zero or two missing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407746</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1268052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Could this be evidence of ISP support for ACTA and a global three-strikes law?"
<br> <br>
For some reason, I just got an image in my head. It's a mat with different conclusions on it that you can jump to.
<br> <br>
More likely this would be more useful for them to justify jacking up the rates for those who use such a "bandwidth intensive" application. Besides, I assumed the **AA was already doing this, compiling vast amounts of evidence. Once they get their first "win" in a p2p trial, they'll upend the dumptruck and start up ye olde legal proceedings. Of course for a "win" they need the public to be on their side, and suing the pants off some single mother for doing "what everyone does" isn't a good start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Could this be evidence of ISP support for ACTA and a global three-strikes law ?
" For some reason , I just got an image in my head .
It 's a mat with different conclusions on it that you can jump to .
More likely this would be more useful for them to justify jacking up the rates for those who use such a " bandwidth intensive " application .
Besides , I assumed the * * AA was already doing this , compiling vast amounts of evidence .
Once they get their first " win " in a p2p trial , they 'll upend the dumptruck and start up ye olde legal proceedings .
Of course for a " win " they need the public to be on their side , and suing the pants off some single mother for doing " what everyone does " is n't a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Could this be evidence of ISP support for ACTA and a global three-strikes law?
"
 
For some reason, I just got an image in my head.
It's a mat with different conclusions on it that you can jump to.
More likely this would be more useful for them to justify jacking up the rates for those who use such a "bandwidth intensive" application.
Besides, I assumed the **AA was already doing this, compiling vast amounts of evidence.
Once they get their first "win" in a p2p trial, they'll upend the dumptruck and start up ye olde legal proceedings.
Of course for a "win" they need the public to be on their side, and suing the pants off some single mother for doing "what everyone does" isn't a good start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407992</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>except that they're not doing anything but sharing the bw an individual customer paid for with other customers, then booting him off if he 'dares' to use what he bought.. it's not just amount of bits, it's amount of bits/time.  if you sell a plan that claims 'unlimited' bw, then you better be prepared to guarantee that.. if not, it should be considered fraud. if it's a limited amount, then guarantee that amount. if you cant, upgrade your lines and quit making excuses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>except that they 're not doing anything but sharing the bw an individual customer paid for with other customers , then booting him off if he 'dares ' to use what he bought.. it 's not just amount of bits , it 's amount of bits/time .
if you sell a plan that claims 'unlimited ' bw , then you better be prepared to guarantee that.. if not , it should be considered fraud .
if it 's a limited amount , then guarantee that amount .
if you cant , upgrade your lines and quit making excuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except that they're not doing anything but sharing the bw an individual customer paid for with other customers, then booting him off if he 'dares' to use what he bought.. it's not just amount of bits, it's amount of bits/time.
if you sell a plan that claims 'unlimited' bw, then you better be prepared to guarantee that.. if not, it should be considered fraud.
if it's a limited amount, then guarantee that amount.
if you cant, upgrade your lines and quit making excuses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408788</id>
	<title>Notice</title>
	<author>Woodengineer</author>
	<datestamp>1268059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else notice that the CEO of Polycipher actually works for Colorado University...conflict on interest much?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else notice that the CEO of Polycipher actually works for Colorado University...conflict on interest much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else notice that the CEO of Polycipher actually works for Colorado University...conflict on interest much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31414990</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1268155380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Overselling works. It worked for the phone companies for decades. It makes things massively cheaper for the end user and wastes less resources. Of course, it only works well when the ratio of overselling is sufficient that things work under normal peak demand. ISPs are overselling to the point where they can't handle daily peak demand and that's where the problem comes from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Overselling works .
It worked for the phone companies for decades .
It makes things massively cheaper for the end user and wastes less resources .
Of course , it only works well when the ratio of overselling is sufficient that things work under normal peak demand .
ISPs are overselling to the point where they ca n't handle daily peak demand and that 's where the problem comes from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overselling works.
It worked for the phone companies for decades.
It makes things massively cheaper for the end user and wastes less resources.
Of course, it only works well when the ratio of overselling is sufficient that things work under normal peak demand.
ISPs are overselling to the point where they can't handle daily peak demand and that's where the problem comes from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412754</id>
	<title>no caps, BT is a non issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268146380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on people, we all know it's all about money and deep effing you in the ass as much as they can teaming up with the enemy if they need to....</p><p>about the cap on valume... I don't see why I should accept a limit on a service I paid for... if I subscribe for a 3Mbps connection I should be able to use it at full speed 24/7 if I want to... like someone said don't sell what you can't provide...<br>Heck at 40 bucks I should have a 20Mbps ADSL connection with a free landline phone connection with free local calls and discounted international calls and free digital TV plus a back up dial up offer in case the ADSL crashes... what I use to have in a different country and still no cap</p><p>BitTorrent and copyright infringement is a complete non issue for ISPs and bandwidth issue.... I'm streaming 4Hrs in my household of video just on netflix every day in HD.... Hulu youtube and other legal networks are used daily too, demos or content is downloaded daily on the XBox, video conferencing regularly etc.... my bandwidth consumption actually went up according to my counter since I legally download.... and I was busting 100Gb in less than a 2 weeks before.... and I'm far from being an marginal household...<br>that said upload might be the issue then again most bittorrent common users put cap on the upload check your peer lists how many do actually share at max capacity not a  tenth of them....</p><p>we all know bandwidth is going to be exponentially required.... every single media or content will soon be exclusively broadcast through internet for convenient reason, speed of distribution cost efficiency and ecological reasons.... the cloud is coming, they should call it skynet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on people , we all know it 's all about money and deep effing you in the ass as much as they can teaming up with the enemy if they need to....about the cap on valume... I do n't see why I should accept a limit on a service I paid for... if I subscribe for a 3Mbps connection I should be able to use it at full speed 24/7 if I want to... like someone said do n't sell what you ca n't provide...Heck at 40 bucks I should have a 20Mbps ADSL connection with a free landline phone connection with free local calls and discounted international calls and free digital TV plus a back up dial up offer in case the ADSL crashes... what I use to have in a different country and still no capBitTorrent and copyright infringement is a complete non issue for ISPs and bandwidth issue.... I 'm streaming 4Hrs in my household of video just on netflix every day in HD.... Hulu youtube and other legal networks are used daily too , demos or content is downloaded daily on the XBox , video conferencing regularly etc.... my bandwidth consumption actually went up according to my counter since I legally download.... and I was busting 100Gb in less than a 2 weeks before.... and I 'm far from being an marginal household...that said upload might be the issue then again most bittorrent common users put cap on the upload check your peer lists how many do actually share at max capacity not a tenth of them....we all know bandwidth is going to be exponentially required.... every single media or content will soon be exclusively broadcast through internet for convenient reason , speed of distribution cost efficiency and ecological reasons.... the cloud is coming , they should call it skynet : D  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on people, we all know it's all about money and deep effing you in the ass as much as they can teaming up with the enemy if they need to....about the cap on valume... I don't see why I should accept a limit on a service I paid for... if I subscribe for a 3Mbps connection I should be able to use it at full speed 24/7 if I want to... like someone said don't sell what you can't provide...Heck at 40 bucks I should have a 20Mbps ADSL connection with a free landline phone connection with free local calls and discounted international calls and free digital TV plus a back up dial up offer in case the ADSL crashes... what I use to have in a different country and still no capBitTorrent and copyright infringement is a complete non issue for ISPs and bandwidth issue.... I'm streaming 4Hrs in my household of video just on netflix every day in HD.... Hulu youtube and other legal networks are used daily too, demos or content is downloaded daily on the XBox, video conferencing regularly etc.... my bandwidth consumption actually went up according to my counter since I legally download.... and I was busting 100Gb in less than a 2 weeks before.... and I'm far from being an marginal household...that said upload might be the issue then again most bittorrent common users put cap on the upload check your peer lists how many do actually share at max capacity not a  tenth of them....we all know bandwidth is going to be exponentially required.... every single media or content will soon be exclusively broadcast through internet for convenient reason, speed of distribution cost efficiency and ecological reasons.... the cloud is coming, they should call it skynet :D
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409018</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>iamacyborg</author>
	<datestamp>1268061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised ISPs aren't more creative in their pricing schemes. </p><p>Currently, they all seem to charge a flat rate for a fixed optimum speed. <b>I think they could manage bandwidth better if they changed a small amount per gigabyte plus a lower monthly fee.</b> The price per gigabyte could vary based on peak usage times, so people would have an incentive to manage schedule their downloads during off hours. </p><p>I think that most people that hate the idea of being charged for usage amount are the people gobbling up tons of bandwidth, meaning their usage is subsidized by granny and her 3Mb of bandwidth use each month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised ISPs are n't more creative in their pricing schemes .
Currently , they all seem to charge a flat rate for a fixed optimum speed .
I think they could manage bandwidth better if they changed a small amount per gigabyte plus a lower monthly fee .
The price per gigabyte could vary based on peak usage times , so people would have an incentive to manage schedule their downloads during off hours .
I think that most people that hate the idea of being charged for usage amount are the people gobbling up tons of bandwidth , meaning their usage is subsidized by granny and her 3Mb of bandwidth use each month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised ISPs aren't more creative in their pricing schemes.
Currently, they all seem to charge a flat rate for a fixed optimum speed.
I think they could manage bandwidth better if they changed a small amount per gigabyte plus a lower monthly fee.
The price per gigabyte could vary based on peak usage times, so people would have an incentive to manage schedule their downloads during off hours.
I think that most people that hate the idea of being charged for usage amount are the people gobbling up tons of bandwidth, meaning their usage is subsidized by granny and her 3Mb of bandwidth use each month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411318</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>wye43</author>
	<datestamp>1268130900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a simple solution to this: Sell only what you have. Or rather, market it correctly. When you sell people 8mbit synchronous, they will expect this to be available to them and they will maybe try to use it. Hoping that they just want to have a fat pipe but won't use it is like hoping that people who buy cars that go 200mph won't drive that fast.</p></div><p>Coming from a guy who worked on an ISP: what you are saying is not a business solution, its just a random dream. Definitely not insightful, unless you are at the end of a bong. According to your mindset, internet access should cost 5000$ per month for 9600bps, ISPs do not exist and there is a central authority that owns the internet.<br>
No. You can't sell only what you have when it&rsquo;s about bandwidth. It&rsquo;s not "hope", its statistics. The average internet user uses less than 1\% of its bandwidth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a simple solution to this : Sell only what you have .
Or rather , market it correctly .
When you sell people 8mbit synchronous , they will expect this to be available to them and they will maybe try to use it .
Hoping that they just want to have a fat pipe but wo n't use it is like hoping that people who buy cars that go 200mph wo n't drive that fast.Coming from a guy who worked on an ISP : what you are saying is not a business solution , its just a random dream .
Definitely not insightful , unless you are at the end of a bong .
According to your mindset , internet access should cost 5000 $ per month for 9600bps , ISPs do not exist and there is a central authority that owns the internet .
No. You ca n't sell only what you have when it    s about bandwidth .
It    s not " hope " , its statistics .
The average internet user uses less than 1 \ % of its bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a simple solution to this: Sell only what you have.
Or rather, market it correctly.
When you sell people 8mbit synchronous, they will expect this to be available to them and they will maybe try to use it.
Hoping that they just want to have a fat pipe but won't use it is like hoping that people who buy cars that go 200mph won't drive that fast.Coming from a guy who worked on an ISP: what you are saying is not a business solution, its just a random dream.
Definitely not insightful, unless you are at the end of a bong.
According to your mindset, internet access should cost 5000$ per month for 9600bps, ISPs do not exist and there is a central authority that owns the internet.
No. You can't sell only what you have when it’s about bandwidth.
It’s not "hope", its statistics.
The average internet user uses less than 1\% of its bandwidth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31415834</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>wye43</author>
	<datestamp>1268158500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good will. It was something I expected from you. I was wrong.<br>
<br>
I seriously tried to help you understand how things work, instead of fighting for how it should work in a theoretical situation.<br>
<br>
I think the idea that bandwidth HAS to be over-sold got trough, but lets go on with even more practical numbers exercise:<br>
<br>
An average user having a 100 Mbps line will do 10 GBytes traffic every month. He pays 100$ for it<br>
<br>
You want to be able to do 32,400,000 GBytes traffic(max allowed by the line). That means that your usage pattern will cost ISP A <b>3.24 milion times</b> than a regular user, while paying the same amount.<br>
<br>
Now "ISP A" can change its services and sell you the "truthful" 100 Mbps for 100$ x 3,240,000 = 324 milion $ a month - would you like that?<br>
<br>
The other alternative you propose is to advertise it "properly". That would mean what? Instead of saying "100$ for 100 Mbps" in its ads, it should say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "100$ for 100 Mbps if you are lucky, if our exit line is not getting saturated, which happens pretty often, and we can only actually guarantee you 100 Mbps/ 3,240,000 = 31 bps!!!"<br>
<br>
How fast you think such ISP would go bankrupt?<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong, I mean I love the truth, and I honestly hate the advertising lies that surrounds us, but in the real world, people don't really buy the truth. I'm only trying to help you understand, I don't apologize for anything/anyone, go burn them if you want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good will .
It was something I expected from you .
I was wrong .
I seriously tried to help you understand how things work , instead of fighting for how it should work in a theoretical situation .
I think the idea that bandwidth HAS to be over-sold got trough , but lets go on with even more practical numbers exercise : An average user having a 100 Mbps line will do 10 GBytes traffic every month .
He pays 100 $ for it You want to be able to do 32,400,000 GBytes traffic ( max allowed by the line ) .
That means that your usage pattern will cost ISP A 3.24 milion times than a regular user , while paying the same amount .
Now " ISP A " can change its services and sell you the " truthful " 100 Mbps for 100 $ x 3,240,000 = 324 milion $ a month - would you like that ?
The other alternative you propose is to advertise it " properly " .
That would mean what ?
Instead of saying " 100 $ for 100 Mbps " in its ads , it should say ... " 100 $ for 100 Mbps if you are lucky , if our exit line is not getting saturated , which happens pretty often , and we can only actually guarantee you 100 Mbps/ 3,240,000 = 31 bps ! ! !
" How fast you think such ISP would go bankrupt ?
Do n't get me wrong , I mean I love the truth , and I honestly hate the advertising lies that surrounds us , but in the real world , people do n't really buy the truth .
I 'm only trying to help you understand , I do n't apologize for anything/anyone , go burn them if you want : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good will.
It was something I expected from you.
I was wrong.
I seriously tried to help you understand how things work, instead of fighting for how it should work in a theoretical situation.
I think the idea that bandwidth HAS to be over-sold got trough, but lets go on with even more practical numbers exercise:

An average user having a 100 Mbps line will do 10 GBytes traffic every month.
He pays 100$ for it

You want to be able to do 32,400,000 GBytes traffic(max allowed by the line).
That means that your usage pattern will cost ISP A 3.24 milion times than a regular user, while paying the same amount.
Now "ISP A" can change its services and sell you the "truthful" 100 Mbps for 100$ x 3,240,000 = 324 milion $ a month - would you like that?
The other alternative you propose is to advertise it "properly".
That would mean what?
Instead of saying "100$ for 100 Mbps" in its ads, it should say ... "100$ for 100 Mbps if you are lucky, if our exit line is not getting saturated, which happens pretty often, and we can only actually guarantee you 100 Mbps/ 3,240,000 = 31 bps!!!
"

How fast you think such ISP would go bankrupt?
Don't get me wrong, I mean I love the truth, and I honestly hate the advertising lies that surrounds us, but in the real world, people don't really buy the truth.
I'm only trying to help you understand, I don't apologize for anything/anyone, go burn them if you want :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409804</id>
	<title>Re:Not Necessarily</title>
	<author>MidnightBrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1268068680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bittorrent users are still very much in the minority of broadband users, so this doesn't actually take a lot of cost/benefit analysis to figure out. Nobody would cancel their Internet if bittorrent disappeared tomorrow, but the big ISPs would see a major source of bandwidth pressure disappear overnight. Finding an excuse to kill it that also happens to make the entertainment industry happy is just icing on the cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bittorrent users are still very much in the minority of broadband users , so this does n't actually take a lot of cost/benefit analysis to figure out .
Nobody would cancel their Internet if bittorrent disappeared tomorrow , but the big ISPs would see a major source of bandwidth pressure disappear overnight .
Finding an excuse to kill it that also happens to make the entertainment industry happy is just icing on the cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bittorrent users are still very much in the minority of broadband users, so this doesn't actually take a lot of cost/benefit analysis to figure out.
Nobody would cancel their Internet if bittorrent disappeared tomorrow, but the big ISPs would see a major source of bandwidth pressure disappear overnight.
Finding an excuse to kill it that also happens to make the entertainment industry happy is just icing on the cake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409706</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>quadelirus</author>
	<datestamp>1268067180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proof positive that money can buy scientific results?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof positive that money can buy scientific results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof positive that money can buy scientific results?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409166</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268062260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, some ISPs make their niche in the market soley through catering to p2p. My ISP has premium services where you pay extras for truly unlimited DLS broadband. No caps or quotas and they promise not to give away your details without a court order. My internet connection is not shared with others and they make sure they have the capacity in their infrastructure to allow this. In return I pay them a lot more than if I had gone with one of the major providers in my country. The thing is, if they didn't offer this then they would have no customers as otherwise I might as well have gone with a major ISP and saved about 50\% on my bills. As a relatively heavy user, I benefit from this without taking away bandwidth from others. Meanwhile my ISP wins as they get a lot of business from people like me who use a lot of bandwidth but are prepared to pay a little more for their superior terms and conditions of service. I wish that more ISPs could understand that there is a huge market for people who would pay a little more for true unlimited high-quality service rather than paying for fake "unlimited" broadband that they have to share with others and can be subject to caps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , some ISPs make their niche in the market soley through catering to p2p .
My ISP has premium services where you pay extras for truly unlimited DLS broadband .
No caps or quotas and they promise not to give away your details without a court order .
My internet connection is not shared with others and they make sure they have the capacity in their infrastructure to allow this .
In return I pay them a lot more than if I had gone with one of the major providers in my country .
The thing is , if they did n't offer this then they would have no customers as otherwise I might as well have gone with a major ISP and saved about 50 \ % on my bills .
As a relatively heavy user , I benefit from this without taking away bandwidth from others .
Meanwhile my ISP wins as they get a lot of business from people like me who use a lot of bandwidth but are prepared to pay a little more for their superior terms and conditions of service .
I wish that more ISPs could understand that there is a huge market for people who would pay a little more for true unlimited high-quality service rather than paying for fake " unlimited " broadband that they have to share with others and can be subject to caps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, some ISPs make their niche in the market soley through catering to p2p.
My ISP has premium services where you pay extras for truly unlimited DLS broadband.
No caps or quotas and they promise not to give away your details without a court order.
My internet connection is not shared with others and they make sure they have the capacity in their infrastructure to allow this.
In return I pay them a lot more than if I had gone with one of the major providers in my country.
The thing is, if they didn't offer this then they would have no customers as otherwise I might as well have gone with a major ISP and saved about 50\% on my bills.
As a relatively heavy user, I benefit from this without taking away bandwidth from others.
Meanwhile my ISP wins as they get a lot of business from people like me who use a lot of bandwidth but are prepared to pay a little more for their superior terms and conditions of service.
I wish that more ISPs could understand that there is a huge market for people who would pay a little more for true unlimited high-quality service rather than paying for fake "unlimited" broadband that they have to share with others and can be subject to caps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407648</id>
	<title>Re:Not Necessarily</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. They don't want a three-strikes law, because when you're "out" they can't overcharge you for bandwidth. What they do want is to stop you from using available bandwidth, without pissing off anyone commercial (e.g. blocking Hulu traffic would save massive bandwidth, but Hulu would get their ass in court. Going after bittorrenters, and especially "bad" bittorrent from a copyright perspective, means only pissing off customers (which is apparently many ISPs' #1 priority) and ensuring a lot of them can't fight back without risking their own asses from the MAFIAA after info on their torrenting habits is aired in open court.</p><p>Really, if you start from an adversarial relationship with your own customers, it makes perfect sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
They do n't want a three-strikes law , because when you 're " out " they ca n't overcharge you for bandwidth .
What they do want is to stop you from using available bandwidth , without pissing off anyone commercial ( e.g .
blocking Hulu traffic would save massive bandwidth , but Hulu would get their ass in court .
Going after bittorrenters , and especially " bad " bittorrent from a copyright perspective , means only pissing off customers ( which is apparently many ISPs ' # 1 priority ) and ensuring a lot of them ca n't fight back without risking their own asses from the MAFIAA after info on their torrenting habits is aired in open court.Really , if you start from an adversarial relationship with your own customers , it makes perfect sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
They don't want a three-strikes law, because when you're "out" they can't overcharge you for bandwidth.
What they do want is to stop you from using available bandwidth, without pissing off anyone commercial (e.g.
blocking Hulu traffic would save massive bandwidth, but Hulu would get their ass in court.
Going after bittorrenters, and especially "bad" bittorrent from a copyright perspective, means only pissing off customers (which is apparently many ISPs' #1 priority) and ensuring a lot of them can't fight back without risking their own asses from the MAFIAA after info on their torrenting habits is aired in open court.Really, if you start from an adversarial relationship with your own customers, it makes perfect sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412910</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1268146980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Downloading copyrighted material illegally is almost certainly violating their TOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Downloading copyrighted material illegally is almost certainly violating their TOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Downloading copyrighted material illegally is almost certainly violating their TOS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409228</id>
	<title>Re:Pirates fund ISPs.</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1268062920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real issue isn't how much the customer is providing in revenue, but how \much they are costing.  Could be that the budget plan has more profit in it than the fatter plan when it is actually being used.</p><p>Obviously, an unused fat plan is the most revenue with the fewest costs, as long as the customer never calls tech support.</p><p>But an underutilized budget plan may be more profitable than a maxed-out fat plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue is n't how much the customer is providing in revenue , but how \ much they are costing .
Could be that the budget plan has more profit in it than the fatter plan when it is actually being used.Obviously , an unused fat plan is the most revenue with the fewest costs , as long as the customer never calls tech support.But an underutilized budget plan may be more profitable than a maxed-out fat plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue isn't how much the customer is providing in revenue, but how \much they are costing.
Could be that the budget plan has more profit in it than the fatter plan when it is actually being used.Obviously, an unused fat plan is the most revenue with the fewest costs, as long as the customer never calls tech support.But an underutilized budget plan may be more profitable than a maxed-out fat plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407382</id>
	<title>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumsta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstances</b></p><p>New details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen. Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda&rsquo;s infidelity with various street trannies.</p><p>In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car. He told his wife that he &ldquo;stopped to help a person crying.&rdquo; Several other hookers sold tales of Malda&rsquo;s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:<br>Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: &ldquo;I called [Malda attorney] Marty &lsquo;Bull Dog&rsquo; Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.&rdquo; And they would all recant their stories.</p><p>&ldquo;In less than 10 days,&rdquo; Barresi says, &ldquo;I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn&rsquo;t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they&rsquo;d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.&rdquo; In 2008, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.</p><p>Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda&rsquo;s car in 2007. After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn&rsquo;t change her story. How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda 's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years , Kathleen .
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup , citing Malda    s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007 , Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car .
He told his wife that he    stopped to help a person crying.    Several other hookers sold tales of Malda    s solicitation to the tabloids , and all of them were convinced to recant , with one exception : Paul Barresi , a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke , tells Page Six :    I called [ Malda attorney ] Marty    Bull Dog    Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.    And they would all recant their stories.    In less than 10 days ,    Barresi says ,    I got them all to sign sworn , videotaped depositions , stating it wasn    t Malda himself , but rather a look-alike , who they    d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.    In 2008 , she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda    s car in 2007 .
After being caught by police , she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn    t change her story .
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen.
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda’s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car.
He told his wife that he “stopped to help a person crying.” Several other hookers sold tales of Malda’s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: “I called [Malda attorney] Marty ‘Bull Dog’ Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.” And they would all recant their stories.“In less than 10 days,” Barresi says, “I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn’t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they’d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.” In 2008, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda’s car in 2007.
After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn’t change her story.
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413104</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268147700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd be surprised as far as your car analogy goes. You are far more likely to see a kid in a Honda Civic or Suburu with a big noise maker muffler than a 200mph Porsche or Ferrari pulled over by the police on the highway. Aside from the trust fund kids, most of us who buy fast cars save that for the race track, the rest are too cowardly (and rightfully so) to ever go that fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be surprised as far as your car analogy goes .
You are far more likely to see a kid in a Honda Civic or Suburu with a big noise maker muffler than a 200mph Porsche or Ferrari pulled over by the police on the highway .
Aside from the trust fund kids , most of us who buy fast cars save that for the race track , the rest are too cowardly ( and rightfully so ) to ever go that fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be surprised as far as your car analogy goes.
You are far more likely to see a kid in a Honda Civic or Suburu with a big noise maker muffler than a 200mph Porsche or Ferrari pulled over by the police on the highway.
Aside from the trust fund kids, most of us who buy fast cars save that for the race track, the rest are too cowardly (and rightfully so) to ever go that fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407758</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1268052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>90\% of the traffic by a relatively small subset of the consumers. They hates it.</p></div><p>That very well may be. But are these users violating their TOS? Did they pay for "all you can eat"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of the traffic by a relatively small subset of the consumers .
They hates it.That very well may be .
But are these users violating their TOS ?
Did they pay for " all you can eat " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of the traffic by a relatively small subset of the consumers.
They hates it.That very well may be.
But are these users violating their TOS?
Did they pay for "all you can eat"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409812</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268068800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>DISCLAIMER: I am part of the support team of an ISP
Yes, we do hate those users who suck bandwidth via bittorrent to the detriment of the majority who simply want to read their email, keep up-to-date via a social networking site and do other non-intensive tasks.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is a lost battle.
</p><p>
A few years ago, only bittorrent users were using video on the Internet.  But now, my 4 and 6 year old kids seem to spend more time watching kids' shows on the Internet than they do on TV, my wife and I use netflix on demand, and my 11 year old watches dozens of youtube videos to learn card tricks and yo-yo tricks.
</p><p>
Video isn't exotic anymore.  If the majority of your customers are just checking facebook and email, start the countdown because it won't last.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DISCLAIMER : I am part of the support team of an ISP Yes , we do hate those users who suck bandwidth via bittorrent to the detriment of the majority who simply want to read their email , keep up-to-date via a social networking site and do other non-intensive tasks .
This is a lost battle .
A few years ago , only bittorrent users were using video on the Internet .
But now , my 4 and 6 year old kids seem to spend more time watching kids ' shows on the Internet than they do on TV , my wife and I use netflix on demand , and my 11 year old watches dozens of youtube videos to learn card tricks and yo-yo tricks .
Video is n't exotic anymore .
If the majority of your customers are just checking facebook and email , start the countdown because it wo n't last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DISCLAIMER: I am part of the support team of an ISP
Yes, we do hate those users who suck bandwidth via bittorrent to the detriment of the majority who simply want to read their email, keep up-to-date via a social networking site and do other non-intensive tasks.
This is a lost battle.
A few years ago, only bittorrent users were using video on the Internet.
But now, my 4 and 6 year old kids seem to spend more time watching kids' shows on the Internet than they do on TV, my wife and I use netflix on demand, and my 11 year old watches dozens of youtube videos to learn card tricks and yo-yo tricks.
Video isn't exotic anymore.
If the majority of your customers are just checking facebook and email, start the countdown because it won't last.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407734</id>
	<title>this is go7atsex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268052480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>poor priorities, You. The tirel:ess series of debates posts. Therefore</htmltext>
<tokenext>poor priorities , You .
The tirel : ess series of debates posts .
Therefore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>poor priorities, You.
The tirel:ess series of debates posts.
Therefore</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413798</id>
	<title>Time To Enable....</title>
	<author>g0bshiTe</author>
	<datestamp>1268150820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those encryption protocols for us heavy torrent users.<br> <br>I'd like to seed out a 6 gig file of nothing but text that repeats the phrase "MY ISP SUCKS ASS", see if they get a kick out of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those encryption protocols for us heavy torrent users .
I 'd like to seed out a 6 gig file of nothing but text that repeats the phrase " MY ISP SUCKS ASS " , see if they get a kick out of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those encryption protocols for us heavy torrent users.
I'd like to seed out a 6 gig file of nothing but text that repeats the phrase "MY ISP SUCKS ASS", see if they get a kick out of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31419260</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1268129820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Totally agree with that. Bandwidth costs money, sure the cost might be dropping, but why would you (as an ISP) actually WANT your consumers to go using all that bandwidth that you are selling them?</p> </div><p>At the risk of taking this way OT, why does it cost money? I mean, I know why it costs <i>some</i> money (everything costs money), but why does it cost <i>so much</i> money that ISP will actively pursue the prosecution of their own customers to stop too much use of it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agree with that .
Bandwidth costs money , sure the cost might be dropping , but why would you ( as an ISP ) actually WANT your consumers to go using all that bandwidth that you are selling them ?
At the risk of taking this way OT , why does it cost money ?
I mean , I know why it costs some money ( everything costs money ) , but why does it cost so much money that ISP will actively pursue the prosecution of their own customers to stop too much use of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agree with that.
Bandwidth costs money, sure the cost might be dropping, but why would you (as an ISP) actually WANT your consumers to go using all that bandwidth that you are selling them?
At the risk of taking this way OT, why does it cost money?
I mean, I know why it costs some money (everything costs money), but why does it cost so much money that ISP will actively pursue the prosecution of their own customers to stop too much use of it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411266</id>
	<title>IP Blocking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will be made lists of IP adresses which are monitoring, so you can block them. Problem solved.(for pirates)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be made lists of IP adresses which are monitoring , so you can block them .
Problem solved .
( for pirates )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be made lists of IP adresses which are monitoring, so you can block them.
Problem solved.
(for pirates)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408574</id>
	<title>Just implement bandwidth caps</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1268057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact is, bandwidth ain't free.<br>ISPs need to implement hard bandwidth caps (say, 100GB per month or whatever number makes sense depending on the plan you are on). If you exceed the usage caps, you have to pay extra (and/or your connection is dropped to slow speeds for the rest of the billing cycle)</p><p>Hard bandwidth caps combined with an easy to use usage meter to tell exactly how much you have left solve the problem. If someone wants to use their whole 100GB in the first few days sucking down globs of content from BitTorrent, so be it.</p><p>Properly implemented, bandwidth caps (especially if they are broken up into peak and off-peak to encourage large downloading to be done in the off-peak period when most users who want email, web etc are not using the net) eliminate the need for any kind of BitTorrent specific measures.</p><p>Any ISP that implemented bandwidth caps and found they still had problems with BitTorrent users would need to:<br>A.Charge more for their service (and use that money to buy more upstream to solve the problem)<br>B.Decrease the bandwidth caps (to reduce the amount of heavy downloading going on)<br>or C.Implement better QoS to send BitTorrent packets to the "back of the queue" when another protocol wants to use the network links.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is , bandwidth ai n't free.ISPs need to implement hard bandwidth caps ( say , 100GB per month or whatever number makes sense depending on the plan you are on ) .
If you exceed the usage caps , you have to pay extra ( and/or your connection is dropped to slow speeds for the rest of the billing cycle ) Hard bandwidth caps combined with an easy to use usage meter to tell exactly how much you have left solve the problem .
If someone wants to use their whole 100GB in the first few days sucking down globs of content from BitTorrent , so be it.Properly implemented , bandwidth caps ( especially if they are broken up into peak and off-peak to encourage large downloading to be done in the off-peak period when most users who want email , web etc are not using the net ) eliminate the need for any kind of BitTorrent specific measures.Any ISP that implemented bandwidth caps and found they still had problems with BitTorrent users would need to : A.Charge more for their service ( and use that money to buy more upstream to solve the problem ) B.Decrease the bandwidth caps ( to reduce the amount of heavy downloading going on ) or C.Implement better QoS to send BitTorrent packets to the " back of the queue " when another protocol wants to use the network links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is, bandwidth ain't free.ISPs need to implement hard bandwidth caps (say, 100GB per month or whatever number makes sense depending on the plan you are on).
If you exceed the usage caps, you have to pay extra (and/or your connection is dropped to slow speeds for the rest of the billing cycle)Hard bandwidth caps combined with an easy to use usage meter to tell exactly how much you have left solve the problem.
If someone wants to use their whole 100GB in the first few days sucking down globs of content from BitTorrent, so be it.Properly implemented, bandwidth caps (especially if they are broken up into peak and off-peak to encourage large downloading to be done in the off-peak period when most users who want email, web etc are not using the net) eliminate the need for any kind of BitTorrent specific measures.Any ISP that implemented bandwidth caps and found they still had problems with BitTorrent users would need to:A.Charge more for their service (and use that money to buy more upstream to solve the problem)B.Decrease the bandwidth caps (to reduce the amount of heavy downloading going on)or C.Implement better QoS to send BitTorrent packets to the "back of the queue" when another protocol wants to use the network links.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407632</id>
	<title>Pirates fund ISPs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268051820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a pirate stops being a pirate then they stop needing the (expensive) super fast broadband and will happily settle for a budget connection. ISP's thinking a bit too much in the short term here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a pirate stops being a pirate then they stop needing the ( expensive ) super fast broadband and will happily settle for a budget connection .
ISP 's thinking a bit too much in the short term here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a pirate stops being a pirate then they stop needing the (expensive) super fast broadband and will happily settle for a budget connection.
ISP's thinking a bit too much in the short term here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408118</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1268054640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only that but lawsuits and discovery cost money. If the ISP can more easily cough up the evidence when asked by formalizing the procedures, it will probably limit their liability and reduce their compliance costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that but lawsuits and discovery cost money .
If the ISP can more easily cough up the evidence when asked by formalizing the procedures , it will probably limit their liability and reduce their compliance costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that but lawsuits and discovery cost money.
If the ISP can more easily cough up the evidence when asked by formalizing the procedures, it will probably limit their liability and reduce their compliance costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407446</id>
	<title>Do it your self</title>
	<author>KevMar</author>
	<datestamp>1268050920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All they want are honest numbers.  We know we cannot trust  MPAA/RIAA for those.</p><p>I'm not saying we can trust the numbers or have any idea how ISP's will use the results.  But they will be more informed when they decided to support or fight ACTA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they want are honest numbers .
We know we can not trust MPAA/RIAA for those.I 'm not saying we can trust the numbers or have any idea how ISP 's will use the results .
But they will be more informed when they decided to support or fight ACTA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they want are honest numbers.
We know we cannot trust  MPAA/RIAA for those.I'm not saying we can trust the numbers or have any idea how ISP's will use the results.
But they will be more informed when they decided to support or fight ACTA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413568</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>mcoon</author>
	<datestamp>1268149740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, from what I understand, many ISPs in this fight also sell cable or cable like services and are simply protecting their primary market by killing bittorrent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , from what I understand , many ISPs in this fight also sell cable or cable like services and are simply protecting their primary market by killing bittorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, from what I understand, many ISPs in this fight also sell cable or cable like services and are simply protecting their primary market by killing bittorrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409326</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like saying law enforcement agencies can't perform drug raids on homes in rural areas due to increased power consumption.  It happens, a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like saying law enforcement agencies ca n't perform drug raids on homes in rural areas due to increased power consumption .
It happens , a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like saying law enforcement agencies can't perform drug raids on homes in rural areas due to increased power consumption.
It happens, a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408108</id>
	<title>Re:They want your money, not your IP traffic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's hope the fiber-based operators kick their sorry coax ass.</p></div><p>Right now, I fail to see the difference between a fiber and coax operator other than quality of service.  Both are interested in traffic management.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope the fiber-based operators kick their sorry coax ass.Right now , I fail to see the difference between a fiber and coax operator other than quality of service .
Both are interested in traffic management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope the fiber-based operators kick their sorry coax ass.Right now, I fail to see the difference between a fiber and coax operator other than quality of service.
Both are interested in traffic management.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407548</id>
	<title>This is so [not] surprising!</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1268051400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? An interested party funding research that could that affects their business model? This seems to be a non-story, unless this is the first time these financial ties have been revealed between bit torrent researchers and ISPs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
An interested party funding research that could that affects their business model ?
This seems to be a non-story , unless this is the first time these financial ties have been revealed between bit torrent researchers and ISPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
An interested party funding research that could that affects their business model?
This seems to be a non-story, unless this is the first time these financial ties have been revealed between bit torrent researchers and ISPs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31410840</id>
	<title>Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268166720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you rather have 8mbit 99\% of the time for $30 a month, or 8mbit all of the time for $300 a month. That's a problem with guarantees... it means you need much more infrastructure which costs money.</p><p>And your car analogy doesn't fly. There's something called statistics, which works pretty well for large numbers. Not everybody is going to use the full bandwidth all the time. It's about finding the right balance between capacity and price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather have 8mbit 99 \ % of the time for $ 30 a month , or 8mbit all of the time for $ 300 a month .
That 's a problem with guarantees... it means you need much more infrastructure which costs money.And your car analogy does n't fly .
There 's something called statistics , which works pretty well for large numbers .
Not everybody is going to use the full bandwidth all the time .
It 's about finding the right balance between capacity and price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather have 8mbit 99\% of the time for $30 a month, or 8mbit all of the time for $300 a month.
That's a problem with guarantees... it means you need much more infrastructure which costs money.And your car analogy doesn't fly.
There's something called statistics, which works pretty well for large numbers.
Not everybody is going to use the full bandwidth all the time.
It's about finding the right balance between capacity and price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408298</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's hate bittorrent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268055840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a related note fat people are now banned from All You Can Eat restaurants.</p><p>They have a tendency to eat all the time. Part of what makes cheap food cheap is that when you have a lot of people, you can share kitchens and normal eating patterns are such that they don't interfere with each other. You can see this when you have a roommate in that your microwave doesn't suddenly cook at half the speed just because there's another person using it as well sometimes. You'll probably find that it is the same overall. Same deal with an office kitchen. You all have 1000 watts to your coffee machine and say 3000 to the plug. Yet even with 10 people the coffee maker still seems to go full speed on your java all the time.</p><p>Well the reason is because normal usage isn't sustained at maximum level. It is full of spikes. You eat something and then once you have the meal the usage stops. The net effect is that you can oversubscribe kitchens and people still get good service. Everyone gets to pay less and all is well. The larger the scale the more true this seems to be. The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.</p><p>However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time. The suck up a lot of gravy and leave little for everyone else, and it doesn't relent.</p><p>Fatties are very bad for that. Part of it is because of the farting, most fat people will just keep serving out what they've eaten until they are stopped. Another part is the many fatties seem to be huge. They'll eat any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and digest it later. They always have multiple plates going to get more stuff.</p><p>As such it really screws over the way cheap restaurants work.<br>So it isn't just that you are using so much, though that is part of it, it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.</p><p>That was disturbingly easy to translate....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a related note fat people are now banned from All You Can Eat restaurants.They have a tendency to eat all the time .
Part of what makes cheap food cheap is that when you have a lot of people , you can share kitchens and normal eating patterns are such that they do n't interfere with each other .
You can see this when you have a roommate in that your microwave does n't suddenly cook at half the speed just because there 's another person using it as well sometimes .
You 'll probably find that it is the same overall .
Same deal with an office kitchen .
You all have 1000 watts to your coffee machine and say 3000 to the plug .
Yet even with 10 people the coffee maker still seems to go full speed on your java all the time.Well the reason is because normal usage is n't sustained at maximum level .
It is full of spikes .
You eat something and then once you have the meal the usage stops .
The net effect is that you can oversubscribe kitchens and people still get good service .
Everyone gets to pay less and all is well .
The larger the scale the more true this seems to be .
The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time .
The suck up a lot of gravy and leave little for everyone else , and it does n't relent.Fatties are very bad for that .
Part of it is because of the farting , most fat people will just keep serving out what they 've eaten until they are stopped .
Another part is the many fatties seem to be huge .
They 'll eat any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and digest it later .
They always have multiple plates going to get more stuff.As such it really screws over the way cheap restaurants work.So it is n't just that you are using so much , though that is part of it , it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.That was disturbingly easy to translate... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a related note fat people are now banned from All You Can Eat restaurants.They have a tendency to eat all the time.
Part of what makes cheap food cheap is that when you have a lot of people, you can share kitchens and normal eating patterns are such that they don't interfere with each other.
You can see this when you have a roommate in that your microwave doesn't suddenly cook at half the speed just because there's another person using it as well sometimes.
You'll probably find that it is the same overall.
Same deal with an office kitchen.
You all have 1000 watts to your coffee machine and say 3000 to the plug.
Yet even with 10 people the coffee maker still seems to go full speed on your java all the time.Well the reason is because normal usage isn't sustained at maximum level.
It is full of spikes.
You eat something and then once you have the meal the usage stops.
The net effect is that you can oversubscribe kitchens and people still get good service.
Everyone gets to pay less and all is well.
The larger the scale the more true this seems to be.
The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time.
The suck up a lot of gravy and leave little for everyone else, and it doesn't relent.Fatties are very bad for that.
Part of it is because of the farting, most fat people will just keep serving out what they've eaten until they are stopped.
Another part is the many fatties seem to be huge.
They'll eat any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and digest it later.
They always have multiple plates going to get more stuff.As such it really screws over the way cheap restaurants work.So it isn't just that you are using so much, though that is part of it, it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.That was disturbingly easy to translate....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31419260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31410840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31414990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31415834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2150258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31410454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31414990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31410840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411318
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412052
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31415834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31410454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31413568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31419260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31418514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31411092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31412378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2150258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31409804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31408760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2150258.31407648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
