<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_1214214</id>
	<title>YouTube's Bandwidth Bill May be Zero</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1268924100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:chrislight@gmUMLAUTail.comminuspunct" rel="nofollow">MrShaggy</a> writes <i>"Credit Suisse made headlines this summer when it estimated that YouTube was costing Google a half a billion dollars in 2009 as it streamed 75 billion videos. But a new report from Arbor Networks suggests that even though Google is approaching 10 percent of the net's traffic, it's got so much fiber optic cable it is simply trading traffic, <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/youtube-bandwidth/#ixzz0iTG7n4tC">with no payment involved</a>, with the net's largest ISPs. 'I think Google's transit costs are close to zero,' said Craig Labovitz, the chief scientist for Arbor Networks and a longtime internet researcher. Arbor Networks, which sells network monitoring equipment used by about 70 percent of the net's ISPs, likely knows more about the net's ebbs and flows than anyone outside of the National Security Agency."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MrShaggy writes " Credit Suisse made headlines this summer when it estimated that YouTube was costing Google a half a billion dollars in 2009 as it streamed 75 billion videos .
But a new report from Arbor Networks suggests that even though Google is approaching 10 percent of the net 's traffic , it 's got so much fiber optic cable it is simply trading traffic , with no payment involved , with the net 's largest ISPs .
'I think Google 's transit costs are close to zero, ' said Craig Labovitz , the chief scientist for Arbor Networks and a longtime internet researcher .
Arbor Networks , which sells network monitoring equipment used by about 70 percent of the net 's ISPs , likely knows more about the net 's ebbs and flows than anyone outside of the National Security Agency .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MrShaggy writes "Credit Suisse made headlines this summer when it estimated that YouTube was costing Google a half a billion dollars in 2009 as it streamed 75 billion videos.
But a new report from Arbor Networks suggests that even though Google is approaching 10 percent of the net's traffic, it's got so much fiber optic cable it is simply trading traffic, with no payment involved, with the net's largest ISPs.
'I think Google's transit costs are close to zero,' said Craig Labovitz, the chief scientist for Arbor Networks and a longtime internet researcher.
Arbor Networks, which sells network monitoring equipment used by about 70 percent of the net's ISPs, likely knows more about the net's ebbs and flows than anyone outside of the National Security Agency.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523416</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1268930160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

"Bandwidth bill" != "infrastructure cost".</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bandwidth bill " ! = " infrastructure cost " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

"Bandwidth bill" != "infrastructure cost".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524030</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>Chris Pimlott</author>
	<datestamp>1268932920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, the Slashdot title has got it wrong.  TFA doesn't say that Google's overall cost for bandwidth is zero, simply that their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_transit" title="wikipedia.org">transit</a> [wikipedia.org] costs are near zero, which specifically refers money paid to a network provider to carry your traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , the Slashdot title has got it wrong .
TFA does n't say that Google 's overall cost for bandwidth is zero , simply that their transit [ wikipedia.org ] costs are near zero , which specifically refers money paid to a network provider to carry your traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, the Slashdot title has got it wrong.
TFA doesn't say that Google's overall cost for bandwidth is zero, simply that their transit [wikipedia.org] costs are near zero, which specifically refers money paid to a network provider to carry your traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498</id>
	<title>Buying rather than leasing costs money.</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1268930400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Almost all companies lease their offices.  They could buy them and save rent.  It would possibly be cheaper.  They don;t though.  They don't want all that capital tied up in property.  They can use it for business expansion instead.
<br> <br>
So Google owns a bunch of fibre.  This has a capital cost.  That's money that could have been invested somewhere else, so it's not free.  They could have leased the fibre from a third party.  Presumably they worked out that it would be cheaper not to do this.  They could probably have saved money by leasing bandwidth from a third party.  The third party would then be able to amortise the costs over several customers if there's surplus bandwidth.  Having capital tied up like this isn't "free".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost all companies lease their offices .
They could buy them and save rent .
It would possibly be cheaper .
They don ; t though .
They do n't want all that capital tied up in property .
They can use it for business expansion instead .
So Google owns a bunch of fibre .
This has a capital cost .
That 's money that could have been invested somewhere else , so it 's not free .
They could have leased the fibre from a third party .
Presumably they worked out that it would be cheaper not to do this .
They could probably have saved money by leasing bandwidth from a third party .
The third party would then be able to amortise the costs over several customers if there 's surplus bandwidth .
Having capital tied up like this is n't " free " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost all companies lease their offices.
They could buy them and save rent.
It would possibly be cheaper.
They don;t though.
They don't want all that capital tied up in property.
They can use it for business expansion instead.
So Google owns a bunch of fibre.
This has a capital cost.
That's money that could have been invested somewhere else, so it's not free.
They could have leased the fibre from a third party.
Presumably they worked out that it would be cheaper not to do this.
They could probably have saved money by leasing bandwidth from a third party.
The third party would then be able to amortise the costs over several customers if there's surplus bandwidth.
Having capital tied up like this isn't "free".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524430</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1268934720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's my point.  The capital investment is already made! It's therefore no longer considered a cost, but an asset.  Yes they have to perform maintenance but they are maintaining it regardless of YouTube.  They are maintaining it for Google's core business.</p><p>Perhaps you think its a retarded way to look at the situation but that's exactly how an accountant would look at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's my point .
The capital investment is already made !
It 's therefore no longer considered a cost , but an asset .
Yes they have to perform maintenance but they are maintaining it regardless of YouTube .
They are maintaining it for Google 's core business.Perhaps you think its a retarded way to look at the situation but that 's exactly how an accountant would look at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's my point.
The capital investment is already made!
It's therefore no longer considered a cost, but an asset.
Yes they have to perform maintenance but they are maintaining it regardless of YouTube.
They are maintaining it for Google's core business.Perhaps you think its a retarded way to look at the situation but that's exactly how an accountant would look at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288</id>
	<title>by that logic</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268929380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because i don't ride in other people's cars, my car costs are zero</p><p>except for car payments, financing, gasoline, repairs, insurance, inspection, registration, tolls, oil change...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because i do n't ride in other people 's cars , my car costs are zeroexcept for car payments , financing , gasoline , repairs , insurance , inspection , registration , tolls , oil change.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because i don't ride in other people's cars, my car costs are zeroexcept for car payments, financing, gasoline, repairs, insurance, inspection, registration, tolls, oil change...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523018</id>
	<title>So it's like when I got my Brother a new PC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268928000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This Win7 PC cost $300.  On the other hand I still owe you $299 for that RTF model airplane you gave me last month.  How about we just call it even?" - me</p><p>"Deal."  - brother</p><p>It sounds like Google and the ISPs have the same arrangement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This Win7 PC cost $ 300 .
On the other hand I still owe you $ 299 for that RTF model airplane you gave me last month .
How about we just call it even ?
" - me " Deal .
" - brotherIt sounds like Google and the ISPs have the same arrangement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This Win7 PC cost $300.
On the other hand I still owe you $299 for that RTF model airplane you gave me last month.
How about we just call it even?
" - me"Deal.
"  - brotherIt sounds like Google and the ISPs have the same arrangement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31531512</id>
	<title>$500 million per year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268920860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, I know this is a simplistic equation, but this was just for bandwidth right?</p><p>Even if Google was paying $5/Mbps/month for traffic (and that's about $3/Mbps more expensive than I pay for it in quantities greater than 1Gbps), that's 8,000Gbps. That's a huge amount of traffic and equates to about 80 million concurrent streams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I know this is a simplistic equation , but this was just for bandwidth right ? Even if Google was paying $ 5/Mbps/month for traffic ( and that 's about $ 3/Mbps more expensive than I pay for it in quantities greater than 1Gbps ) , that 's 8,000Gbps .
That 's a huge amount of traffic and equates to about 80 million concurrent streams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I know this is a simplistic equation, but this was just for bandwidth right?Even if Google was paying $5/Mbps/month for traffic (and that's about $3/Mbps more expensive than I pay for it in quantities greater than 1Gbps), that's 8,000Gbps.
That's a huge amount of traffic and equates to about 80 million concurrent streams.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523162</id>
	<title>Re:Payments are not the only costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268928660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget how the depreciation and maintenance cost of the fiber erases some of their taxes that buying bandwidth wouldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget how the depreciation and maintenance cost of the fiber erases some of their taxes that buying bandwidth would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget how the depreciation and maintenance cost of the fiber erases some of their taxes that buying bandwidth wouldn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31578976</id>
	<title>Re:by that logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's less like a truck, and more like a series of tubes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's less like a truck , and more like a series of tubes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's less like a truck, and more like a series of tubes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523816</id>
	<title>Re:Payments are not the only costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1268932080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nonetheless, bandwidth which tey could sell is potential money in, assuming that they can find a buyer. This arrangement guarantees no money out which they weren't going to spend anyway. To that extent, it's free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nonetheless , bandwidth which tey could sell is potential money in , assuming that they can find a buyer .
This arrangement guarantees no money out which they were n't going to spend anyway .
To that extent , it 's free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nonetheless, bandwidth which tey could sell is potential money in, assuming that they can find a buyer.
This arrangement guarantees no money out which they weren't going to spend anyway.
To that extent, it's free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525740</id>
	<title>Moral of the story</title>
	<author>Kludge</author>
	<datestamp>1268940600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Own your own fiber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Own your own fiber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Own your own fiber.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525030</id>
	<title>Re:Buying rather than leasing costs money.</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1268937480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They don't want all that capital tied up in property."</p><p>I suppose that depends. If a company is large enough that it has the money it needs to both expand the business, *and* buy the buildings/land it occupies, then it probably makes sense to buy. Why? Because, in the end, when you rent/lease, you are still paying the mortgage, taxes, and upkeep. It's just that you pay the money in the form of monthly (or quarterly, whatever) rent checks you pay to your landlord. Whether you call your monthly payment a 'lease' or a 'mortgage', you're still making payments for the space you use. Shouldn't you at least be building up some equity in the property?</p><p>If, on the other hand, you are a startup or small business, I'm sure it often makes sense to rent or lease for a number of reasons. . . the 'upfront' costs are probably lower. The amount you pay per month may be lower. Particularly if you are using only a small portion of an office/retail building which is sectioned up and rented out to multiple different businesses (analogous to apartments for personal housing).</p><p>But, once you have enough income to both grow and pay for a building, it very much does make sense to own, just like for individuals, it usually does make sense to own a house or condo rather than to rent the house/apartment (although, when you are going to college, or have just graduated, it usually makes sense to rent, because you don't have enough money saved for a downpayment and closing costs).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They do n't want all that capital tied up in property .
" I suppose that depends .
If a company is large enough that it has the money it needs to both expand the business , * and * buy the buildings/land it occupies , then it probably makes sense to buy .
Why ? Because , in the end , when you rent/lease , you are still paying the mortgage , taxes , and upkeep .
It 's just that you pay the money in the form of monthly ( or quarterly , whatever ) rent checks you pay to your landlord .
Whether you call your monthly payment a 'lease ' or a 'mortgage ' , you 're still making payments for the space you use .
Should n't you at least be building up some equity in the property ? If , on the other hand , you are a startup or small business , I 'm sure it often makes sense to rent or lease for a number of reasons .
. .
the 'upfront ' costs are probably lower .
The amount you pay per month may be lower .
Particularly if you are using only a small portion of an office/retail building which is sectioned up and rented out to multiple different businesses ( analogous to apartments for personal housing ) .But , once you have enough income to both grow and pay for a building , it very much does make sense to own , just like for individuals , it usually does make sense to own a house or condo rather than to rent the house/apartment ( although , when you are going to college , or have just graduated , it usually makes sense to rent , because you do n't have enough money saved for a downpayment and closing costs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They don't want all that capital tied up in property.
"I suppose that depends.
If a company is large enough that it has the money it needs to both expand the business, *and* buy the buildings/land it occupies, then it probably makes sense to buy.
Why? Because, in the end, when you rent/lease, you are still paying the mortgage, taxes, and upkeep.
It's just that you pay the money in the form of monthly (or quarterly, whatever) rent checks you pay to your landlord.
Whether you call your monthly payment a 'lease' or a 'mortgage', you're still making payments for the space you use.
Shouldn't you at least be building up some equity in the property?If, on the other hand, you are a startup or small business, I'm sure it often makes sense to rent or lease for a number of reasons.
. .
the 'upfront' costs are probably lower.
The amount you pay per month may be lower.
Particularly if you are using only a small portion of an office/retail building which is sectioned up and rented out to multiple different businesses (analogous to apartments for personal housing).But, once you have enough income to both grow and pay for a building, it very much does make sense to own, just like for individuals, it usually does make sense to own a house or condo rather than to rent the house/apartment (although, when you are going to college, or have just graduated, it usually makes sense to rent, because you don't have enough money saved for a downpayment and closing costs).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525376</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just figured that out NOW?<br>It has been years.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just figured that out NOW ? It has been years...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just figured that out NOW?It has been years.......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096</id>
	<title>Payments are not the only costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268928360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Owning and maintaining all that fiber is costing Google money.  Even if they are not paying anything to other providers for handling YouTube traffic it is using bandwidth on their own fiber that they could otherwise sell or use for something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Owning and maintaining all that fiber is costing Google money .
Even if they are not paying anything to other providers for handling YouTube traffic it is using bandwidth on their own fiber that they could otherwise sell or use for something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Owning and maintaining all that fiber is costing Google money.
Even if they are not paying anything to other providers for handling YouTube traffic it is using bandwidth on their own fiber that they could otherwise sell or use for something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523282</id>
	<title>Re:So much data</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1268929320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's a whole lot of data without very much actionable information.</p></div><p>Do you seriously read slashdot looking for "actionable information"? <br> <br>

Man! and I thought that reading throught the ENTIRE summary was badass!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a whole lot of data without very much actionable information.Do you seriously read slashdot looking for " actionable information " ?
Man ! and I thought that reading throught the ENTIRE summary was badass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a whole lot of data without very much actionable information.Do you seriously read slashdot looking for "actionable information"?
Man! and I thought that reading throught the ENTIRE summary was badass!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522996</id>
	<title>clearly, maintaining that bandwidth costs nothing</title>
	<author>skelterjohn</author>
	<datestamp>1268927940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524770</id>
	<title>Re:It's obvious</title>
	<author>Duhavid</author>
	<datestamp>1268936460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "oh my, that turkey at ATT was right all along, Google is a freeloader" comments ( with the "they should be paying!" ) from "industry pundits" will commence in 5.. 4.. 3..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " oh my , that turkey at ATT was right all along , Google is a freeloader " comments ( with the " they should be paying !
" ) from " industry pundits " will commence in 5.. 4.. 3. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "oh my, that turkey at ATT was right all along, Google is a freeloader" comments ( with the "they should be paying!
" ) from "industry pundits" will commence in 5.. 4.. 3..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523184</id>
	<title>Re:So much data</title>
	<author>drachenstern</author>
	<datestamp>1268928840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What do I care that Google's bandwidth costs are zero when I'm stuck with my pathetic broadband connection?</p></div><p>"Less than free". If they don't have to pay extra for peering then they can continue the LtF business model and can disrupt whole sectors of markets. This works out in our benefit more often than it hurts us. I for one prefer to see innovation over the same ole same ole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do I care that Google 's bandwidth costs are zero when I 'm stuck with my pathetic broadband connection ?
" Less than free " .
If they do n't have to pay extra for peering then they can continue the LtF business model and can disrupt whole sectors of markets .
This works out in our benefit more often than it hurts us .
I for one prefer to see innovation over the same ole same ole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do I care that Google's bandwidth costs are zero when I'm stuck with my pathetic broadband connection?
"Less than free".
If they don't have to pay extra for peering then they can continue the LtF business model and can disrupt whole sectors of markets.
This works out in our benefit more often than it hurts us.
I for one prefer to see innovation over the same ole same ole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523016</id>
	<title>Except their network isn't free</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1268927940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, they are peering.  But running one of the largest networks in the world isn't exactly cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , they are peering .
But running one of the largest networks in the world is n't exactly cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, they are peering.
But running one of the largest networks in the world isn't exactly cheap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31531702</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1268922480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe magic pixies laid it for them.</p></div><p>They did.</p><p>Okay, not exactly magic pixies.  But in the dotcom bubble, there were a lot of companies laying fiber everywhere, companies which then evaporated when the bubble burst.  Google was then able to buy lots of already-laid fiber for a fraction of cost to lay.</p><p>One of the results of how Google got the fiber is that they're not paying interest charges on its construction (either explicit by borrowing to build, or implicit by internally financing and forgoing interest on the cash used to pay for it) anywhere near that of companies that laid their own fiber at their own expense.  So those companies are charging maintenance plus interest plus profit for access to non-peers, while Google is only paying maintenance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe magic pixies laid it for them.They did.Okay , not exactly magic pixies .
But in the dotcom bubble , there were a lot of companies laying fiber everywhere , companies which then evaporated when the bubble burst .
Google was then able to buy lots of already-laid fiber for a fraction of cost to lay.One of the results of how Google got the fiber is that they 're not paying interest charges on its construction ( either explicit by borrowing to build , or implicit by internally financing and forgoing interest on the cash used to pay for it ) anywhere near that of companies that laid their own fiber at their own expense .
So those companies are charging maintenance plus interest plus profit for access to non-peers , while Google is only paying maintenance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe magic pixies laid it for them.They did.Okay, not exactly magic pixies.
But in the dotcom bubble, there were a lot of companies laying fiber everywhere, companies which then evaporated when the bubble burst.
Google was then able to buy lots of already-laid fiber for a fraction of cost to lay.One of the results of how Google got the fiber is that they're not paying interest charges on its construction (either explicit by borrowing to build, or implicit by internally financing and forgoing interest on the cash used to pay for it) anywhere near that of companies that laid their own fiber at their own expense.
So those companies are charging maintenance plus interest plus profit for access to non-peers, while Google is only paying maintenance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523252</id>
	<title>Re:So it's like when I got my Brother a new PC</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1268929200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So... am I missing something or doesn't this mean it's still costing them? Okay they're paying for it with a trade of services instead of money, but that's still bandwidth they could have sold elsewhere if they didn't have to worry about Youtube, so it's still effective cost them the amount that they offset with the ISPs, which could conceivably be close to the amount in the original report.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So... am I missing something or does n't this mean it 's still costing them ?
Okay they 're paying for it with a trade of services instead of money , but that 's still bandwidth they could have sold elsewhere if they did n't have to worry about Youtube , so it 's still effective cost them the amount that they offset with the ISPs , which could conceivably be close to the amount in the original report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... am I missing something or doesn't this mean it's still costing them?
Okay they're paying for it with a trade of services instead of money, but that's still bandwidth they could have sold elsewhere if they didn't have to worry about Youtube, so it's still effective cost them the amount that they offset with the ISPs, which could conceivably be close to the amount in the original report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523516</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268930520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You guys are looking at this from a completely different angle than a business person would.  Google has that fiber REGARDLESS of YouTube's existence.  It has that fiber to run its core business, advertising.  Therefore the cost of maintaining the fiber is a cost to Google's advertising business.  Furthermore, the cost of laying the fiber has (likely) already been paid and is no longer considered a cost but a capital investment.</p><p>Therefore, since the YouTube division is not paying for the fiber to be laid and is not paying for the fiber to be maintained, YouTube could have $0 bandwidth cost to Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys are looking at this from a completely different angle than a business person would .
Google has that fiber REGARDLESS of YouTube 's existence .
It has that fiber to run its core business , advertising .
Therefore the cost of maintaining the fiber is a cost to Google 's advertising business .
Furthermore , the cost of laying the fiber has ( likely ) already been paid and is no longer considered a cost but a capital investment.Therefore , since the YouTube division is not paying for the fiber to be laid and is not paying for the fiber to be maintained , YouTube could have $ 0 bandwidth cost to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys are looking at this from a completely different angle than a business person would.
Google has that fiber REGARDLESS of YouTube's existence.
It has that fiber to run its core business, advertising.
Therefore the cost of maintaining the fiber is a cost to Google's advertising business.
Furthermore, the cost of laying the fiber has (likely) already been paid and is no longer considered a cost but a capital investment.Therefore, since the YouTube division is not paying for the fiber to be laid and is not paying for the fiber to be maintained, YouTube could have $0 bandwidth cost to Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525650</id>
	<title>Why are they peering with YouTube?</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1268940300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since YouTube's traffic goes largely one direction, why are level-one providers peering with them?</p><p>I thought that peering was largely about "you carry my bits and I'll carry yours and they'll roughly balance out".  I know that this isn't like physical mail, and that the fiber can be tuned to specialize the bits going in one direction, but I'd have thought that this wouldn't be like your bog-standard interconnect between Level 1 peers.</p><p>If I'm reading your post aright, it's because they're using the other bandwidth to provide connectivity between Tier 1 peers.  And so the traffic isn't just going one way; the YouTube traffic is only part of the traffic the YouTube network carries.</p><p>But they're not thought of as a Tier 1 peer in their own right.  Are you saying they should be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since YouTube 's traffic goes largely one direction , why are level-one providers peering with them ? I thought that peering was largely about " you carry my bits and I 'll carry yours and they 'll roughly balance out " .
I know that this is n't like physical mail , and that the fiber can be tuned to specialize the bits going in one direction , but I 'd have thought that this would n't be like your bog-standard interconnect between Level 1 peers.If I 'm reading your post aright , it 's because they 're using the other bandwidth to provide connectivity between Tier 1 peers .
And so the traffic is n't just going one way ; the YouTube traffic is only part of the traffic the YouTube network carries.But they 're not thought of as a Tier 1 peer in their own right .
Are you saying they should be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since YouTube's traffic goes largely one direction, why are level-one providers peering with them?I thought that peering was largely about "you carry my bits and I'll carry yours and they'll roughly balance out".
I know that this isn't like physical mail, and that the fiber can be tuned to specialize the bits going in one direction, but I'd have thought that this wouldn't be like your bog-standard interconnect between Level 1 peers.If I'm reading your post aright, it's because they're using the other bandwidth to provide connectivity between Tier 1 peers.
And so the traffic isn't just going one way; the YouTube traffic is only part of the traffic the YouTube network carries.But they're not thought of as a Tier 1 peer in their own right.
Are you saying they should be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523932</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1268932560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the <i>title</i> of the story. We are talking about <b>bandwidth</b>, not what it costs to run the whole YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the title of the story .
We are talking about bandwidth , not what it costs to run the whole YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the title of the story.
We are talking about bandwidth, not what it costs to run the whole YouTube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524004</id>
	<title>It's all about the peering agreements</title>
	<author>RingDev</author>
	<datestamp>1268932860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that's quite it. The deal here (as best as I can tell) is that Google is sharing their pipes with other providers, making a peering agreement. Google doesn't own pipes all the way to your house, so they have to pay other providers to take the huge amount of traffic coming from their pipes and continue the journey. If Google had no pipes what so ever, they would have to pay for every single bit they send out.</p><p>But Google does have pipes, they bought up huge swaths of that dark fiber that was getting rolled out in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Com bubble only to lie dormant. So when they work out their peering agreements, instead of paying cash for every bit, they can offer bandwidth instead.</p><p>So Google says "We're going to send out 1 terabyte of data per hour, and we have the bandwidth to accept 10 terabytes back." And some other peer comes along and says "We can take<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 terabytes from you if you can take<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 terabytes from us" and so on. Until Google has enough peers that they can move all of the data they want to.</p><p>This example is simplified to a point of silliness, but hopefully you get the idea. The "near zero costs" aren't implying that Google doesn't have to pay for maintaining it's own network, but that they don't have to pay cash to other providers to take the traffic from YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 's quite it .
The deal here ( as best as I can tell ) is that Google is sharing their pipes with other providers , making a peering agreement .
Google does n't own pipes all the way to your house , so they have to pay other providers to take the huge amount of traffic coming from their pipes and continue the journey .
If Google had no pipes what so ever , they would have to pay for every single bit they send out.But Google does have pipes , they bought up huge swaths of that dark fiber that was getting rolled out in the .Com bubble only to lie dormant .
So when they work out their peering agreements , instead of paying cash for every bit , they can offer bandwidth instead.So Google says " We 're going to send out 1 terabyte of data per hour , and we have the bandwidth to accept 10 terabytes back .
" And some other peer comes along and says " We can take .5 terabytes from you if you can take .5 terabytes from us " and so on .
Until Google has enough peers that they can move all of the data they want to.This example is simplified to a point of silliness , but hopefully you get the idea .
The " near zero costs " are n't implying that Google does n't have to pay for maintaining it 's own network , but that they do n't have to pay cash to other providers to take the traffic from YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that's quite it.
The deal here (as best as I can tell) is that Google is sharing their pipes with other providers, making a peering agreement.
Google doesn't own pipes all the way to your house, so they have to pay other providers to take the huge amount of traffic coming from their pipes and continue the journey.
If Google had no pipes what so ever, they would have to pay for every single bit they send out.But Google does have pipes, they bought up huge swaths of that dark fiber that was getting rolled out in the .Com bubble only to lie dormant.
So when they work out their peering agreements, instead of paying cash for every bit, they can offer bandwidth instead.So Google says "We're going to send out 1 terabyte of data per hour, and we have the bandwidth to accept 10 terabytes back.
" And some other peer comes along and says "We can take .5 terabytes from you if you can take .5 terabytes from us" and so on.
Until Google has enough peers that they can move all of the data they want to.This example is simplified to a point of silliness, but hopefully you get the idea.
The "near zero costs" aren't implying that Google doesn't have to pay for maintaining it's own network, but that they don't have to pay cash to other providers to take the traffic from YouTube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31528378</id>
	<title>Net neutrality?</title>
	<author>thule</author>
	<datestamp>1268904960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep pointing this out. This is how the Internet should work. We all should encourage peering. I had read a long time ago that Yahoo only payed for half of their bandwidth because they had content and the ISP's had eyeballs wanting that content.</p><p>So, how this effect net neutrality? The argument is that the big guys can prioritize packets for their own purposes while the small fry doesn't get that level service for their packets. It seems to me that badly written net neutrality laws will only make peering more common, but not necessarily make things more "fair". So, for example, instead of putting a QoS rule to make an ISP's VoIP service "better" than, say, Vonage, all they would have to do is setup an alternate network for all of their VoIP traffic and make sure that it is internally peered to all important routing points. That way, if their transit routers get congested their VoIP service will have plenty of breathing room. Is that "fair"? Of course it is. Big content providers get to be "closer" to users than a smaller independent person. At the same time, if they host their content at a large hosting company, they may also benefit from peering with ISP's. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep pointing this out .
This is how the Internet should work .
We all should encourage peering .
I had read a long time ago that Yahoo only payed for half of their bandwidth because they had content and the ISP 's had eyeballs wanting that content.So , how this effect net neutrality ?
The argument is that the big guys can prioritize packets for their own purposes while the small fry does n't get that level service for their packets .
It seems to me that badly written net neutrality laws will only make peering more common , but not necessarily make things more " fair " .
So , for example , instead of putting a QoS rule to make an ISP 's VoIP service " better " than , say , Vonage , all they would have to do is setup an alternate network for all of their VoIP traffic and make sure that it is internally peered to all important routing points .
That way , if their transit routers get congested their VoIP service will have plenty of breathing room .
Is that " fair " ?
Of course it is .
Big content providers get to be " closer " to users than a smaller independent person .
At the same time , if they host their content at a large hosting company , they may also benefit from peering with ISP 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep pointing this out.
This is how the Internet should work.
We all should encourage peering.
I had read a long time ago that Yahoo only payed for half of their bandwidth because they had content and the ISP's had eyeballs wanting that content.So, how this effect net neutrality?
The argument is that the big guys can prioritize packets for their own purposes while the small fry doesn't get that level service for their packets.
It seems to me that badly written net neutrality laws will only make peering more common, but not necessarily make things more "fair".
So, for example, instead of putting a QoS rule to make an ISP's VoIP service "better" than, say, Vonage, all they would have to do is setup an alternate network for all of their VoIP traffic and make sure that it is internally peered to all important routing points.
That way, if their transit routers get congested their VoIP service will have plenty of breathing room.
Is that "fair"?
Of course it is.
Big content providers get to be "closer" to users than a smaller independent person.
At the same time, if they host their content at a large hosting company, they may also benefit from peering with ISP's. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525922</id>
	<title>Re:It's obvious</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1268941200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.. even the place I work with peers directly with Google (and thus by extension YouTube).. it saves us from having to spend commodity-internet dollars on traffic to Google, improves the customer experience since it's fewer hops, and we can leverage more direct control (which means less finger pointing when/if something breaks.. either its us or google.. we don't have to worry about if our upstream peers are broken); and of course it works the other way around too.</p><p>As for the cost of fiber and routers.. ya that's expensive.. but it's not the cost of bandwidth.. those are sunk costs or O&amp;M generally.. I guess you could meter a per-bit charge for cooling and electricity, but there's only so many places to the right of the decimal point you can actually bill for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.. even the place I work with peers directly with Google ( and thus by extension YouTube ) .. it saves us from having to spend commodity-internet dollars on traffic to Google , improves the customer experience since it 's fewer hops , and we can leverage more direct control ( which means less finger pointing when/if something breaks.. either its us or google.. we do n't have to worry about if our upstream peers are broken ) ; and of course it works the other way around too.As for the cost of fiber and routers.. ya that 's expensive.. but it 's not the cost of bandwidth.. those are sunk costs or O&amp;M generally.. I guess you could meter a per-bit charge for cooling and electricity , but there 's only so many places to the right of the decimal point you can actually bill for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.. even the place I work with peers directly with Google (and thus by extension YouTube).. it saves us from having to spend commodity-internet dollars on traffic to Google, improves the customer experience since it's fewer hops, and we can leverage more direct control (which means less finger pointing when/if something breaks.. either its us or google.. we don't have to worry about if our upstream peers are broken); and of course it works the other way around too.As for the cost of fiber and routers.. ya that's expensive.. but it's not the cost of bandwidth.. those are sunk costs or O&amp;M generally.. I guess you could meter a per-bit charge for cooling and electricity, but there's only so many places to the right of the decimal point you can actually bill for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</id>
	<title>Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to run!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268927880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Epic. Fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Epic .
Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epic.
Fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620</id>
	<title>Re:by that logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268931060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more like you own a truck, and you are driving accost town anyway, so your friend asks you to pick up a box and deliver it.  Sure you had to burn a little more gas, and it took about fifteen minutes more, but it's your friend, and compared to what you were doing to start with it's not a big deal, aka 'free'. <p>The same thing works with Google and YouTube.  Compared to the whole cost of running Google, the cost of YouTube is little more than a rounding error, and odds are it is comfortably hosted in 'extra' space and run on 'extra' bandwidth that isn't needed right now, but has been paid for already, so it's basally 'free'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like you own a truck , and you are driving accost town anyway , so your friend asks you to pick up a box and deliver it .
Sure you had to burn a little more gas , and it took about fifteen minutes more , but it 's your friend , and compared to what you were doing to start with it 's not a big deal , aka 'free' .
The same thing works with Google and YouTube .
Compared to the whole cost of running Google , the cost of YouTube is little more than a rounding error , and odds are it is comfortably hosted in 'extra ' space and run on 'extra ' bandwidth that is n't needed right now , but has been paid for already , so it 's basally 'free' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like you own a truck, and you are driving accost town anyway, so your friend asks you to pick up a box and deliver it.
Sure you had to burn a little more gas, and it took about fifteen minutes more, but it's your friend, and compared to what you were doing to start with it's not a big deal, aka 'free'.
The same thing works with Google and YouTube.
Compared to the whole cost of running Google, the cost of YouTube is little more than a rounding error, and odds are it is comfortably hosted in 'extra' space and run on 'extra' bandwidth that isn't needed right now, but has been paid for already, so it's basally 'free'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523196</id>
	<title>Re:So much data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268928900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not even interesting data. The graphs make the whole presentation worse. I felt like I was reading a grad student's thesis, and a really dry one at that.</p></div><p>The graphs were lifted straight from the Web interface of the Arbor Networks product mentioned. It would have been nice and more professional to export the data and make some high resolution graphics instead and to provide more illuminating labels. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even interesting data .
The graphs make the whole presentation worse .
I felt like I was reading a grad student 's thesis , and a really dry one at that.The graphs were lifted straight from the Web interface of the Arbor Networks product mentioned .
It would have been nice and more professional to export the data and make some high resolution graphics instead and to provide more illuminating labels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even interesting data.
The graphs make the whole presentation worse.
I felt like I was reading a grad student's thesis, and a really dry one at that.The graphs were lifted straight from the Web interface of the Arbor Networks product mentioned.
It would have been nice and more professional to export the data and make some high resolution graphics instead and to provide more illuminating labels. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523228</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268929080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not so much the cost to run their own fiber (marginal cost), which could be very low.  The relevant cost here is opportunity cost; they could be charging other content providers to use that fiber and the revenue they're giving up is the real cost of using it for their own content.</p><p>There's a reason the concepts of scarcity and opportunity cost are introduced in the first lecture of every Econ 101 course that I know of.  Too bad the concepts don't stick!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much the cost to run their own fiber ( marginal cost ) , which could be very low .
The relevant cost here is opportunity cost ; they could be charging other content providers to use that fiber and the revenue they 're giving up is the real cost of using it for their own content.There 's a reason the concepts of scarcity and opportunity cost are introduced in the first lecture of every Econ 101 course that I know of .
Too bad the concepts do n't stick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much the cost to run their own fiber (marginal cost), which could be very low.
The relevant cost here is opportunity cost; they could be charging other content providers to use that fiber and the revenue they're giving up is the real cost of using it for their own content.There's a reason the concepts of scarcity and opportunity cost are introduced in the first lecture of every Econ 101 course that I know of.
Too bad the concepts don't stick!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523326</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268929680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Epic. Fail.</i></p><p>So why don't you write a book about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Epic .
Fail.So why do n't you write a book about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epic.
Fail.So why don't you write a book about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524068</id>
	<title>Re:Buying rather than leasing costs money.</title>
	<author>d1r3lnd</author>
	<datestamp>1268933160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, most companies lease their offices. I would imagine, though, that commercial real estate agencies might own their own offices. Similarly, when I go fishing, I don't buy a boat - but my guess is that most fishermen own theirs. If you're not seeing where I'm going with this, you may want to consider the industry that Google is in, and why having the physical infrastructure of an internet service provider might be of use to a company that provides services over the internet.

Why would they want to lease their bandwidth? Spending money on fiber isn't preventing them from business expansion - it IS business expansion. That's what makes YouTube so cheap for Google to operate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , most companies lease their offices .
I would imagine , though , that commercial real estate agencies might own their own offices .
Similarly , when I go fishing , I do n't buy a boat - but my guess is that most fishermen own theirs .
If you 're not seeing where I 'm going with this , you may want to consider the industry that Google is in , and why having the physical infrastructure of an internet service provider might be of use to a company that provides services over the internet .
Why would they want to lease their bandwidth ?
Spending money on fiber is n't preventing them from business expansion - it IS business expansion .
That 's what makes YouTube so cheap for Google to operate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, most companies lease their offices.
I would imagine, though, that commercial real estate agencies might own their own offices.
Similarly, when I go fishing, I don't buy a boat - but my guess is that most fishermen own theirs.
If you're not seeing where I'm going with this, you may want to consider the industry that Google is in, and why having the physical infrastructure of an internet service provider might be of use to a company that provides services over the internet.
Why would they want to lease their bandwidth?
Spending money on fiber isn't preventing them from business expansion - it IS business expansion.
That's what makes YouTube so cheap for Google to operate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524876</id>
	<title>They're significantly fungible</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1268936940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Bandwidth bill" != "infrastructure cost".</p></div></blockquote><p>No, but they're significantly fungible; if you pay enough for infrastructure costs, then you can use it to reduce your third party bandwidth bill, either by simply routing traffic through your own network, or by trading your bandwidth for theirs.  Which is why the "zero bandwidth bill" claim is disingenuous if true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bandwidth bill " ! = " infrastructure cost " .No , but they 're significantly fungible ; if you pay enough for infrastructure costs , then you can use it to reduce your third party bandwidth bill , either by simply routing traffic through your own network , or by trading your bandwidth for theirs .
Which is why the " zero bandwidth bill " claim is disingenuous if true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bandwidth bill" != "infrastructure cost".No, but they're significantly fungible; if you pay enough for infrastructure costs, then you can use it to reduce your third party bandwidth bill, either by simply routing traffic through your own network, or by trading your bandwidth for theirs.
Which is why the "zero bandwidth bill" claim is disingenuous if true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523376</id>
	<title>P&amp;L</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268929920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guarantee you that what's on their P&amp;L isn't zero.  Even putting aside what the actual cash outlays are for laying and maintaining a fiber infrastructure, these swaps are going to be used to book both expense and revenue at a "market price."</p><p>This is the same thing that the telcos (in particular Qwest) were doing in the 90s.  They were doing it with dark fiber though, which is where it turned into actual straight up fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guarantee you that what 's on their P&amp;L is n't zero .
Even putting aside what the actual cash outlays are for laying and maintaining a fiber infrastructure , these swaps are going to be used to book both expense and revenue at a " market price .
" This is the same thing that the telcos ( in particular Qwest ) were doing in the 90s .
They were doing it with dark fiber though , which is where it turned into actual straight up fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guarantee you that what's on their P&amp;L isn't zero.
Even putting aside what the actual cash outlays are for laying and maintaining a fiber infrastructure, these swaps are going to be used to book both expense and revenue at a "market price.
"This is the same thing that the telcos (in particular Qwest) were doing in the 90s.
They were doing it with dark fiber though, which is where it turned into actual straight up fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525186</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1268938200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to run!</p></div></blockquote><p>Carefully read the TITLE of article...  Staring at you from the browser toolbar right now.  Take note that it DOESN'T say <b>Google's</b> Bandwidth Bill May be Zero.  "Google" isn't in there at all.</p><p>But you might just see <b>YouTube</b> in there...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because Google 's fiber costs nothing to run ! Carefully read the TITLE of article... Staring at you from the browser toolbar right now .
Take note that it DOES N'T say Google 's Bandwidth Bill May be Zero .
" Google " is n't in there at all.But you might just see YouTube in there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to run!Carefully read the TITLE of article...  Staring at you from the browser toolbar right now.
Take note that it DOESN'T say Google's Bandwidth Bill May be Zero.
"Google" isn't in there at all.But you might just see YouTube in there...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523456</id>
	<title>Re:Payments are not the only costs.</title>
	<author>tibit</author>
	<datestamp>1268930280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no something else if you suddenly remove Google's/YouTube's traffic from the pipes. There's no lost opportunity cost, since there'd be a whole lot of underutilized infrastructure all around the world if Google/YouTube traffic had vanished.</p><p>It's not a zero-sum game. Without YouTube traffic, the sum decreases quite a bit, yet you still have all that infrastructure there's no use for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no something else if you suddenly remove Google 's/YouTube 's traffic from the pipes .
There 's no lost opportunity cost , since there 'd be a whole lot of underutilized infrastructure all around the world if Google/YouTube traffic had vanished.It 's not a zero-sum game .
Without YouTube traffic , the sum decreases quite a bit , yet you still have all that infrastructure there 's no use for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no something else if you suddenly remove Google's/YouTube's traffic from the pipes.
There's no lost opportunity cost, since there'd be a whole lot of underutilized infrastructure all around the world if Google/YouTube traffic had vanished.It's not a zero-sum game.
Without YouTube traffic, the sum decreases quite a bit, yet you still have all that infrastructure there's no use for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523008</id>
	<title>So much data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268927940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a whole lot of data without very much actionable information.</p><p>I'm not Google, nor am I an ISP. What do I care that Google's bandwidth costs are zero when I'm stuck with my pathetic broadband connection?</p><p>It's not even interesting data. The graphs make the whole presentation worse. I felt like I was reading a grad student's thesis, and a really dry one at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a whole lot of data without very much actionable information.I 'm not Google , nor am I an ISP .
What do I care that Google 's bandwidth costs are zero when I 'm stuck with my pathetic broadband connection ? It 's not even interesting data .
The graphs make the whole presentation worse .
I felt like I was reading a grad student 's thesis , and a really dry one at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a whole lot of data without very much actionable information.I'm not Google, nor am I an ISP.
What do I care that Google's bandwidth costs are zero when I'm stuck with my pathetic broadband connection?It's not even interesting data.
The graphs make the whole presentation worse.
I felt like I was reading a grad student's thesis, and a really dry one at that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31530486</id>
	<title>Old News Already...</title>
	<author>bkrausz</author>
	<datestamp>1268914260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I called this about 10 months ago... <a href="http://nerdlife.net/why-youtube-cant-cost-165m-a-day/" title="nerdlife.net" rel="nofollow">http://nerdlife.net/why-youtube-cant-cost-165m-a-day/</a> [nerdlife.net]
<br> <br>
Why do people listen to the very successful research firm, but not the punk-ass kid in Boston?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I called this about 10 months ago... http : //nerdlife.net/why-youtube-cant-cost-165m-a-day/ [ nerdlife.net ] Why do people listen to the very successful research firm , but not the punk-ass kid in Boston ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I called this about 10 months ago... http://nerdlife.net/why-youtube-cant-cost-165m-a-day/ [nerdlife.net]
 
Why do people listen to the very successful research firm, but not the punk-ass kid in Boston?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31534248</id>
	<title>Re:by that logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268997780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a truck you can just dump things on, it's a series of tubes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a truck you can just dump things on , it 's a series of tubes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a truck you can just dump things on, it's a series of tubes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31529506</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>shiftless</author>
	<datestamp>1268909220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is, idiot, those costs were already paid and accounted for long before Youtube came around. I guarantee that when Google laid in fiber, they laid in 100x what they ever thought they might need. I am sure they, of all people, have the foresight to see that the need for bandwidth is only going to increase and it's way cheaper to add more fiber now than to dig up and add more later. So I'm sure they have bundles of fibers in each of those datacenters that arent even connected to anything yet. The cost is already paid by the advertising department to install the fiber and maintain it. That's already accounted for. So when any new applications come along, like Youtube, the bandwidth provided to them is free. They have so much extra potential bandwidth sitting there untapped that practically speaking it is an unlimited resource to them. Therefore there is pretty much zero opportunity cost here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is , idiot , those costs were already paid and accounted for long before Youtube came around .
I guarantee that when Google laid in fiber , they laid in 100x what they ever thought they might need .
I am sure they , of all people , have the foresight to see that the need for bandwidth is only going to increase and it 's way cheaper to add more fiber now than to dig up and add more later .
So I 'm sure they have bundles of fibers in each of those datacenters that arent even connected to anything yet .
The cost is already paid by the advertising department to install the fiber and maintain it .
That 's already accounted for .
So when any new applications come along , like Youtube , the bandwidth provided to them is free .
They have so much extra potential bandwidth sitting there untapped that practically speaking it is an unlimited resource to them .
Therefore there is pretty much zero opportunity cost here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is, idiot, those costs were already paid and accounted for long before Youtube came around.
I guarantee that when Google laid in fiber, they laid in 100x what they ever thought they might need.
I am sure they, of all people, have the foresight to see that the need for bandwidth is only going to increase and it's way cheaper to add more fiber now than to dig up and add more later.
So I'm sure they have bundles of fibers in each of those datacenters that arent even connected to anything yet.
The cost is already paid by the advertising department to install the fiber and maintain it.
That's already accounted for.
So when any new applications come along, like Youtube, the bandwidth provided to them is free.
They have so much extra potential bandwidth sitting there untapped that practically speaking it is an unlimited resource to them.
Therefore there is pretty much zero opportunity cost here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31527756</id>
	<title>Re:by that logic</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1268903220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The same thing works with Google and YouTube. Compared to the whole cost of running Google, the cost of YouTube is little more than a rounding error, and odds are it is comfortably hosted in 'extra' space and run on 'extra' bandwidth that isn't needed right now, but has been paid for already, so it's basally 'free'</p></div><p>The Credite Suise guys calculated that Youtube is pumping out 30 million megabits per second, and you think that's a rounding error for Google?</p><p>The point of the article isn't that Youtube's bandwidth needs are so negligible they may as well be free (far from it).</p><p>It's that because Google has its own fiber, it's able to barter with other ISPs in kind.</p><p>So Google doesn't have to lay out cash to pay for the bandwidth it uses to stream dorky white kids covering R&amp;B songs and people throwing their wii-mote into their LCD-TV.</p><p>There's still an opportunity cost involved, since Google doesn't generate revenue on the bandwidth the other peers send through its lines, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing works with Google and YouTube .
Compared to the whole cost of running Google , the cost of YouTube is little more than a rounding error , and odds are it is comfortably hosted in 'extra ' space and run on 'extra ' bandwidth that is n't needed right now , but has been paid for already , so it 's basally 'free'The Credite Suise guys calculated that Youtube is pumping out 30 million megabits per second , and you think that 's a rounding error for Google ? The point of the article is n't that Youtube 's bandwidth needs are so negligible they may as well be free ( far from it ) .It 's that because Google has its own fiber , it 's able to barter with other ISPs in kind.So Google does n't have to lay out cash to pay for the bandwidth it uses to stream dorky white kids covering R&amp;B songs and people throwing their wii-mote into their LCD-TV.There 's still an opportunity cost involved , since Google does n't generate revenue on the bandwidth the other peers send through its lines , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing works with Google and YouTube.
Compared to the whole cost of running Google, the cost of YouTube is little more than a rounding error, and odds are it is comfortably hosted in 'extra' space and run on 'extra' bandwidth that isn't needed right now, but has been paid for already, so it's basally 'free'The Credite Suise guys calculated that Youtube is pumping out 30 million megabits per second, and you think that's a rounding error for Google?The point of the article isn't that Youtube's bandwidth needs are so negligible they may as well be free (far from it).It's that because Google has its own fiber, it's able to barter with other ISPs in kind.So Google doesn't have to lay out cash to pay for the bandwidth it uses to stream dorky white kids covering R&amp;B songs and people throwing their wii-mote into their LCD-TV.There's still an opportunity cost involved, since Google doesn't generate revenue on the bandwidth the other peers send through its lines, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523194</id>
	<title>Check out the Peering Chart from Arbor</title>
	<author>miller60</author>
	<datestamp>1268928900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Wired article is from last fall. Arbor's <a href="http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2010/03/how-big-is-google/" title="arbornetworks.com">blog post this week</a> [arbornetworks.com] by Labovitz has better information. The most interesting data is a chart showing how 60 percent of Google's traffic takes advantage of direct peering, up from 40 percent a year earlier. Given the volume of traffic, we're talking about, there's some meaningful economics in that change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wired article is from last fall .
Arbor 's blog post this week [ arbornetworks.com ] by Labovitz has better information .
The most interesting data is a chart showing how 60 percent of Google 's traffic takes advantage of direct peering , up from 40 percent a year earlier .
Given the volume of traffic , we 're talking about , there 's some meaningful economics in that change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wired article is from last fall.
Arbor's blog post this week [arbornetworks.com] by Labovitz has better information.
The most interesting data is a chart showing how 60 percent of Google's traffic takes advantage of direct peering, up from 40 percent a year earlier.
Given the volume of traffic, we're talking about, there's some meaningful economics in that change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523302</id>
	<title>It is NOT zero</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1268929440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cost involved in laying fiber, maintaining it and the network itself is far from free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost involved in laying fiber , maintaining it and the network itself is far from free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost involved in laying fiber, maintaining it and the network itself is far from free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31533372</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268939220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's not so much the cost to run their own fiber (marginal cost), which could be very low. The relevant cost here is opportunity cost; they could be charging other content providers to use that fiber and the revenue they're giving up is the real cost of using it for their own content.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Your theory falls apart when you consider that not every company is out to bleed every last cent out of whomever they can.<br> <br>

Perhaps Google simply did not wish to enter an overcrowded marketplace, or wanted more then one revenue stream from their investments (Google's Fiber does transmit more then just Google data, their ongoing data costs are near zero because they peer with other high tier providers). I do not believe diversification is in Intro to Economics but it's a fairly good idea for a large business.<br> <br>

It would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that Google gets more out of free peering then it would out of selling that bandwidth considering the amount of bandwidth Google would then have to pay for in order to run it other own services. Everyone wants a slice of the Google advertising pie, this way Google gets to tell them to sod off and has the support of other tier one providers when they want to start charging Google for bandwidth on other sites (and there's been plenty of talk about this).<br> <br>

This has been another reminder as to why libertarian views are blinkered and often just plain wrong, profit is never the only motive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much the cost to run their own fiber ( marginal cost ) , which could be very low .
The relevant cost here is opportunity cost ; they could be charging other content providers to use that fiber and the revenue they 're giving up is the real cost of using it for their own content .
Your theory falls apart when you consider that not every company is out to bleed every last cent out of whomever they can .
Perhaps Google simply did not wish to enter an overcrowded marketplace , or wanted more then one revenue stream from their investments ( Google 's Fiber does transmit more then just Google data , their ongoing data costs are near zero because they peer with other high tier providers ) .
I do not believe diversification is in Intro to Economics but it 's a fairly good idea for a large business .
It would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that Google gets more out of free peering then it would out of selling that bandwidth considering the amount of bandwidth Google would then have to pay for in order to run it other own services .
Everyone wants a slice of the Google advertising pie , this way Google gets to tell them to sod off and has the support of other tier one providers when they want to start charging Google for bandwidth on other sites ( and there 's been plenty of talk about this ) .
This has been another reminder as to why libertarian views are blinkered and often just plain wrong , profit is never the only motive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much the cost to run their own fiber (marginal cost), which could be very low.
The relevant cost here is opportunity cost; they could be charging other content providers to use that fiber and the revenue they're giving up is the real cost of using it for their own content.
Your theory falls apart when you consider that not every company is out to bleed every last cent out of whomever they can.
Perhaps Google simply did not wish to enter an overcrowded marketplace, or wanted more then one revenue stream from their investments (Google's Fiber does transmit more then just Google data, their ongoing data costs are near zero because they peer with other high tier providers).
I do not believe diversification is in Intro to Economics but it's a fairly good idea for a large business.
It would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that Google gets more out of free peering then it would out of selling that bandwidth considering the amount of bandwidth Google would then have to pay for in order to run it other own services.
Everyone wants a slice of the Google advertising pie, this way Google gets to tell them to sod off and has the support of other tier one providers when they want to start charging Google for bandwidth on other sites (and there's been plenty of talk about this).
This has been another reminder as to why libertarian views are blinkered and often just plain wrong, profit is never the only motive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524458</id>
	<title>Re:Buying rather than leasing costs money.</title>
	<author>denobug</author>
	<datestamp>1268934900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Almost all companies lease their offices. They could buy them and save rent. It would possibly be cheaper. They don;t though. They don't want all that capital tied up in property. They can use it for business expansion instead. </p></div><p>
Mega corporations like Intel, Microsoft, ang Google with significant real estate needs do not lease their main campuses.  They buy them and build them out the way they see fit.  It also comes with local government incentives so it makes a lot of sense actually for them to own instead of to lease.  Occassionally they sell the properties (like HP did) but in general they still own then property.  Same goes for Walmart.  I cannot recall a single store now in United States where Walmart does not own the property or the properties being held by subsidiaries or very close affiliates (i.e. Walmart owns shares of the company significantly enough to keep them from screwing with Walmart).  In fact I have seen signs of "Walmart Realty" signs pop-up before.
</p><p>
I am sure a few satellite office for their regional sales, etc. are on lease but they are more of the exceptions than the rule for those companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost all companies lease their offices .
They could buy them and save rent .
It would possibly be cheaper .
They don ; t though .
They do n't want all that capital tied up in property .
They can use it for business expansion instead .
Mega corporations like Intel , Microsoft , ang Google with significant real estate needs do not lease their main campuses .
They buy them and build them out the way they see fit .
It also comes with local government incentives so it makes a lot of sense actually for them to own instead of to lease .
Occassionally they sell the properties ( like HP did ) but in general they still own then property .
Same goes for Walmart .
I can not recall a single store now in United States where Walmart does not own the property or the properties being held by subsidiaries or very close affiliates ( i.e .
Walmart owns shares of the company significantly enough to keep them from screwing with Walmart ) .
In fact I have seen signs of " Walmart Realty " signs pop-up before .
I am sure a few satellite office for their regional sales , etc .
are on lease but they are more of the exceptions than the rule for those companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost all companies lease their offices.
They could buy them and save rent.
It would possibly be cheaper.
They don;t though.
They don't want all that capital tied up in property.
They can use it for business expansion instead.
Mega corporations like Intel, Microsoft, ang Google with significant real estate needs do not lease their main campuses.
They buy them and build them out the way they see fit.
It also comes with local government incentives so it makes a lot of sense actually for them to own instead of to lease.
Occassionally they sell the properties (like HP did) but in general they still own then property.
Same goes for Walmart.
I cannot recall a single store now in United States where Walmart does not own the property or the properties being held by subsidiaries or very close affiliates (i.e.
Walmart owns shares of the company significantly enough to keep them from screwing with Walmart).
In fact I have seen signs of "Walmart Realty" signs pop-up before.
I am sure a few satellite office for their regional sales, etc.
are on lease but they are more of the exceptions than the rule for those companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523398</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>nicolas.kassis</author>
	<datestamp>1268930040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>fiber cost don't go in the same column as bandwidth cost. Accounting solves it again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>fiber cost do n't go in the same column as bandwidth cost .
Accounting solves it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fiber cost don't go in the same column as bandwidth cost.
Accounting solves it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525302</id>
	<title>Bandwith and theora</title>
	<author>quantic\_oscillation7</author>
	<datestamp>1268938740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so the bandwith vs theora doesn't make any sense?!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so the bandwith vs theora does n't make any sense ? ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the bandwith vs theora doesn't make any sense?!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523350</id>
	<title>Infrastructure costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268929800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So due to Google's infrastructure they are able to use peering agreements to not pay bandwidth costs directly. That same infrastructure has costs associated with building and maintaining it. So my question is, what portion of the infrastructure was built for other purposes and is maintained for other purposes? How much of the infrastructure is there, built and serving bandwidth merely for the same of maintaining these peering agreements? That portion is still costing money to serve youtube videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So due to Google 's infrastructure they are able to use peering agreements to not pay bandwidth costs directly .
That same infrastructure has costs associated with building and maintaining it .
So my question is , what portion of the infrastructure was built for other purposes and is maintained for other purposes ?
How much of the infrastructure is there , built and serving bandwidth merely for the same of maintaining these peering agreements ?
That portion is still costing money to serve youtube videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So due to Google's infrastructure they are able to use peering agreements to not pay bandwidth costs directly.
That same infrastructure has costs associated with building and maintaining it.
So my question is, what portion of the infrastructure was built for other purposes and is maintained for other purposes?
How much of the infrastructure is there, built and serving bandwidth merely for the same of maintaining these peering agreements?
That portion is still costing money to serve youtube videos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523104</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268928420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. Switches cost nothing, neither do routers! Rack space? ha! Building datacenters? also free. Yup.

Google may pay pennies on the dollar because they don't need to buy transit, they can just peer-but there will always be cost involved.It's the same with any industry-uninstall the middleman, and your price goes down. When google becomes the ISP and content host, Companies like level3, cogent become moot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Switches cost nothing , neither do routers !
Rack space ?
ha ! Building datacenters ?
also free .
Yup . Google may pay pennies on the dollar because they do n't need to buy transit , they can just peer-but there will always be cost involved.It 's the same with any industry-uninstall the middleman , and your price goes down .
When google becomes the ISP and content host , Companies like level3 , cogent become moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Switches cost nothing, neither do routers!
Rack space?
ha! Building datacenters?
also free.
Yup.

Google may pay pennies on the dollar because they don't need to buy transit, they can just peer-but there will always be cost involved.It's the same with any industry-uninstall the middleman, and your price goes down.
When google becomes the ISP and content host, Companies like level3, cogent become moot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523778</id>
	<title>tore up street eight times in 1990s to add fiber</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1268931900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The telcom companies seemed to have the street in my office park in a perpetual state of construction during the dot.com boom.  First we'd see all the different paint mark symbols from the utilities and previous fiber. Then came the new digging.  There must be a ton of dark stuff still around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The telcom companies seemed to have the street in my office park in a perpetual state of construction during the dot.com boom .
First we 'd see all the different paint mark symbols from the utilities and previous fiber .
Then came the new digging .
There must be a ton of dark stuff still around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The telcom companies seemed to have the street in my office park in a perpetual state of construction during the dot.com boom.
First we'd see all the different paint mark symbols from the utilities and previous fiber.
Then came the new digging.
There must be a ton of dark stuff still around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524752</id>
	<title>Re:by that logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268936400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eggsactly, and because my car is free, I hate paying $1.50 for a bus fare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eggsactly , and because my car is free , I hate paying $ 1.50 for a bus fare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eggsactly, and because my car is free, I hate paying $1.50 for a bus fare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524180</id>
	<title>Correct me if I'm wrong, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268933700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't the fact that it would cost Google a lot of bandwidth, one of the main reasons why they couldn't adopt vorbis/theora in Youtube? If true, this kind of blows a whole in that argument<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't the fact that it would cost Google a lot of bandwidth , one of the main reasons why they could n't adopt vorbis/theora in Youtube ?
If true , this kind of blows a whole in that argument . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't the fact that it would cost Google a lot of bandwidth, one of the main reasons why they couldn't adopt vorbis/theora in Youtube?
If true, this kind of blows a whole in that argument ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524302</id>
	<title>Luckily</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1268934180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luckily, Google's fiber infrastructure is "free" - they don't pay for right of way, to maintain the connections,oversee the network, etc...</p><p>These really silly interpretations of "analysis" by financial folks is pretty amusing, actually - I suspect the report actually said something like <b>"ignoring the deployment and on-going costs of their infrastructure</b> Google has essentially free internet access"...</p><p>Do they think fiber, routers, switches, networking professionals, and right-of-ways are "free"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , Google 's fiber infrastructure is " free " - they do n't pay for right of way , to maintain the connections,oversee the network , etc...These really silly interpretations of " analysis " by financial folks is pretty amusing , actually - I suspect the report actually said something like " ignoring the deployment and on-going costs of their infrastructure Google has essentially free internet access " ...Do they think fiber , routers , switches , networking professionals , and right-of-ways are " free " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily, Google's fiber infrastructure is "free" - they don't pay for right of way, to maintain the connections,oversee the network, etc...These really silly interpretations of "analysis" by financial folks is pretty amusing, actually - I suspect the report actually said something like "ignoring the deployment and on-going costs of their infrastructure Google has essentially free internet access"...Do they think fiber, routers, switches, networking professionals, and right-of-ways are "free"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523716</id>
	<title>Opportunity Cost</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1268931540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If ISPs are willing to give Google half a billion dollars a year of traffic in exchange for Google giving them some equivalent value of traffic on its own fiber, we should at least consider the possibility that Google could otherwise sell that traffic.  Our best guess for the opportunity cost might still be half a billion dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If ISPs are willing to give Google half a billion dollars a year of traffic in exchange for Google giving them some equivalent value of traffic on its own fiber , we should at least consider the possibility that Google could otherwise sell that traffic .
Our best guess for the opportunity cost might still be half a billion dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ISPs are willing to give Google half a billion dollars a year of traffic in exchange for Google giving them some equivalent value of traffic on its own fiber, we should at least consider the possibility that Google could otherwise sell that traffic.
Our best guess for the opportunity cost might still be half a billion dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1268932260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, I'm looking at it from the angle of someone with half a brain.

</p><p>Capital investment is not free.  Laying fiber is not free.  But let's pretend that we're retarded, and ignore that just for the moment.  Maybe magic pixies laid it for them.

</p><p> <em>Maintaining</em> fiber is not free.  Cables get cut, hardware fails, you have to pay for electricity, and for people to maintain it.  You think that's free?  You don't want to pay?  Fine, your hardware fails, your power gets shut off, your admins go to work for AT&amp;T.  Kiss your business goodbye.

</p><p>Regardless of whether Google can trade bits 1-for-1 at the edge of their network, they still have to <em>pay extra</em> to maintain the capacity to perform that zero-benefit trade.  Trading 1-for-1 is not free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , I 'm looking at it from the angle of someone with half a brain .
Capital investment is not free .
Laying fiber is not free .
But let 's pretend that we 're retarded , and ignore that just for the moment .
Maybe magic pixies laid it for them .
Maintaining fiber is not free .
Cables get cut , hardware fails , you have to pay for electricity , and for people to maintain it .
You think that 's free ?
You do n't want to pay ?
Fine , your hardware fails , your power gets shut off , your admins go to work for AT&amp;T .
Kiss your business goodbye .
Regardless of whether Google can trade bits 1-for-1 at the edge of their network , they still have to pay extra to maintain the capacity to perform that zero-benefit trade .
Trading 1-for-1 is not free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, I'm looking at it from the angle of someone with half a brain.
Capital investment is not free.
Laying fiber is not free.
But let's pretend that we're retarded, and ignore that just for the moment.
Maybe magic pixies laid it for them.
Maintaining fiber is not free.
Cables get cut, hardware fails, you have to pay for electricity, and for people to maintain it.
You think that's free?
You don't want to pay?
Fine, your hardware fails, your power gets shut off, your admins go to work for AT&amp;T.
Kiss your business goodbye.
Regardless of whether Google can trade bits 1-for-1 at the edge of their network, they still have to pay extra to maintain the capacity to perform that zero-benefit trade.
Trading 1-for-1 is not free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524494</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>yankeessuck</author>
	<datestamp>1268935080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, there's maintenance and operational expense and upgrade capex but, at their scale, that still should be a whole lot cheaper than having no internal capacity and buying bandwidth externally. Also, assuming their fiber is shared with other Google businesses, Youtube will only be allocated a percentage of aforementioned costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there 's maintenance and operational expense and upgrade capex but , at their scale , that still should be a whole lot cheaper than having no internal capacity and buying bandwidth externally .
Also , assuming their fiber is shared with other Google businesses , Youtube will only be allocated a percentage of aforementioned costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there's maintenance and operational expense and upgrade capex but, at their scale, that still should be a whole lot cheaper than having no internal capacity and buying bandwidth externally.
Also, assuming their fiber is shared with other Google businesses, Youtube will only be allocated a percentage of aforementioned costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524158</id>
	<title>Re:Payments are not the only costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268933580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This only matters once they reach capacity. If the bandwidth now being used by YouTube was otherwise going to be idle, then they would gain nothing by not using it. Since they already have the fiber in place, and since at least some of it is idle, and since AFAIK it doesn't cost any more to use bandwidth on the lines they already have, have paid for, and are already maintaining, I would think their cost should be very close to 0.</p></div><p>I'd expect the average one-year maintenance cost of a run of fiber to be the following:</p><p>integral(f(x)*g(x),x,a,b)</p><p>where the interval [a,b] represents the span of the fiber, f(x) is the bdf (backhoe density function), the probability density that a backhoe will operate in the vicinity of a given point within the next year, and g(x) is the cost of sending a repair crew to that point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This only matters once they reach capacity .
If the bandwidth now being used by YouTube was otherwise going to be idle , then they would gain nothing by not using it .
Since they already have the fiber in place , and since at least some of it is idle , and since AFAIK it does n't cost any more to use bandwidth on the lines they already have , have paid for , and are already maintaining , I would think their cost should be very close to 0.I 'd expect the average one-year maintenance cost of a run of fiber to be the following : integral ( f ( x ) * g ( x ) ,x,a,b ) where the interval [ a,b ] represents the span of the fiber , f ( x ) is the bdf ( backhoe density function ) , the probability density that a backhoe will operate in the vicinity of a given point within the next year , and g ( x ) is the cost of sending a repair crew to that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This only matters once they reach capacity.
If the bandwidth now being used by YouTube was otherwise going to be idle, then they would gain nothing by not using it.
Since they already have the fiber in place, and since at least some of it is idle, and since AFAIK it doesn't cost any more to use bandwidth on the lines they already have, have paid for, and are already maintaining, I would think their cost should be very close to 0.I'd expect the average one-year maintenance cost of a run of fiber to be the following:integral(f(x)*g(x),x,a,b)where the interval [a,b] represents the span of the fiber, f(x) is the bdf (backhoe density function), the probability density that a backhoe will operate in the vicinity of a given point within the next year, and g(x) is the cost of sending a repair crew to that point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524090</id>
	<title>Telecom Company Spin</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1268933220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can hear the telecom companies gearing up to spin this already.  They're fond of claiming that Google "steals" their bandwidth and that they need to be able to charge Google for the "privilege" of getting access to the Telecom's users.  (Of course, one wonders if the telecoms would be willing to pay Google for the "privilege" of their users being able to access Google's services.)  I can just see them spinning the "Google maintains such a big network that they offset bandwidth costs via peering arrangements" into "Google doesn't pay anything for their bandwidth and just steals our bandwidth! WAH! WAH! WAH!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can hear the telecom companies gearing up to spin this already .
They 're fond of claiming that Google " steals " their bandwidth and that they need to be able to charge Google for the " privilege " of getting access to the Telecom 's users .
( Of course , one wonders if the telecoms would be willing to pay Google for the " privilege " of their users being able to access Google 's services .
) I can just see them spinning the " Google maintains such a big network that they offset bandwidth costs via peering arrangements " into " Google does n't pay anything for their bandwidth and just steals our bandwidth !
WAH ! WAH !
WAH ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can hear the telecom companies gearing up to spin this already.
They're fond of claiming that Google "steals" their bandwidth and that they need to be able to charge Google for the "privilege" of getting access to the Telecom's users.
(Of course, one wonders if the telecoms would be willing to pay Google for the "privilege" of their users being able to access Google's services.
)  I can just see them spinning the "Google maintains such a big network that they offset bandwidth costs via peering arrangements" into "Google doesn't pay anything for their bandwidth and just steals our bandwidth!
WAH! WAH!
WAH!"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523444</id>
	<title>Mandatory anti-NSA rant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268930220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NSA sucks!</p><p>Enough said.</p><p>Anarcho-Capitalism FTW!</p><p>Bite me.</p><p>(Signed:  Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA sucks ! Enough said.Anarcho-Capitalism FTW ! Bite me .
( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA sucks!Enough said.Anarcho-Capitalism FTW!Bite me.
(Signed:  Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523626</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, because Google's fiber costs nothing to ru</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268931060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>None of these have anything to do with the bandwidth bill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of these have anything to do with the bandwidth bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of these have anything to do with the bandwidth bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966</id>
	<title>It's obvious</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1268927760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't see why Google would be paying much. It seems the guy who wrote that article now discovered how peering works.</p><p><a href="http://www.robtex.com/as/as36561.html" title="robtex.com">Routing graph for YouTube AS</a> [robtex.com]<br><a href="http://www.robtex.com/as/as15169.html" title="robtex.com">Routing graph for Google AS</a> [robtex.com]</p><p>YouTube alone has direct peering contracts with AT&amp;T, RETN, TINET and via Google AS with Net Access, NTT Communications, Telia, Level3, SIG, Sprint, Global Crossing, MFN, Cogent, Port80, Internet2 and AOL.</p><p>Depending on the terms, it means Google can <i>also</i> act as a peering or transit point between these companies and or even have an IXP's at their locations, so theres incentive for ISP's to sign up beneficial transit agreement, especially considering Google has data centers around the world. Google has more power than Tier 1 ISP's alone. The article's note about "serving customers YouTube faster" is a moot point - Google's infrastructure and routing contracts alone act as a great incentive for ISP's to make a peering agreement with Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't see why Google would be paying much .
It seems the guy who wrote that article now discovered how peering works.Routing graph for YouTube AS [ robtex.com ] Routing graph for Google AS [ robtex.com ] YouTube alone has direct peering contracts with AT&amp;T , RETN , TINET and via Google AS with Net Access , NTT Communications , Telia , Level3 , SIG , Sprint , Global Crossing , MFN , Cogent , Port80 , Internet2 and AOL.Depending on the terms , it means Google can also act as a peering or transit point between these companies and or even have an IXP 's at their locations , so theres incentive for ISP 's to sign up beneficial transit agreement , especially considering Google has data centers around the world .
Google has more power than Tier 1 ISP 's alone .
The article 's note about " serving customers YouTube faster " is a moot point - Google 's infrastructure and routing contracts alone act as a great incentive for ISP 's to make a peering agreement with Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't see why Google would be paying much.
It seems the guy who wrote that article now discovered how peering works.Routing graph for YouTube AS [robtex.com]Routing graph for Google AS [robtex.com]YouTube alone has direct peering contracts with AT&amp;T, RETN, TINET and via Google AS with Net Access, NTT Communications, Telia, Level3, SIG, Sprint, Global Crossing, MFN, Cogent, Port80, Internet2 and AOL.Depending on the terms, it means Google can also act as a peering or transit point between these companies and or even have an IXP's at their locations, so theres incentive for ISP's to sign up beneficial transit agreement, especially considering Google has data centers around the world.
Google has more power than Tier 1 ISP's alone.
The article's note about "serving customers YouTube faster" is a moot point - Google's infrastructure and routing contracts alone act as a great incentive for ISP's to make a peering agreement with Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524396</id>
	<title>I work for one of your named ISPs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268934540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I can assure you they don't pay $0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I can assure you they do n't pay $ 0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I can assure you they don't pay $0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523714</id>
	<title>Which is the whole reason for peering</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1268931540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More or less in a peering situation, each provider agrees to cover their own costs. This includes laying the fiber, buying the high end routers needed for it, powering and maintaining all that, having the staff to handle problems, etc. Since each side is paying their own costs, and both have roughly equal amounts of data the other wants, it makes sense not to charge each other.</p><p>This is also why you do have to pay when you aren't one of the big guys. Your cable modem connection to your house you don't directly pay any of the costs other than perhaps buying the equipment needed to hook up. Everything else is handled by someone else. As such, they want money for it. It isn't as though all the equipment and effort that goes to making the HFC network operate costs nothing. Also they often have to pay for at least some of their transit.</p><p>At any rate, peering is basically a case where you want to trade data with someone, but each of you is maintaining your own part of it equally. As such you don't pay each other.</p><p>It isn't only done at the high levels either, sometimes smaller groups will peer. Your ISP might peer with another ISP in town, a university might peer with other universities (they actually do this, it's called Internet 2) and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More or less in a peering situation , each provider agrees to cover their own costs .
This includes laying the fiber , buying the high end routers needed for it , powering and maintaining all that , having the staff to handle problems , etc .
Since each side is paying their own costs , and both have roughly equal amounts of data the other wants , it makes sense not to charge each other.This is also why you do have to pay when you are n't one of the big guys .
Your cable modem connection to your house you do n't directly pay any of the costs other than perhaps buying the equipment needed to hook up .
Everything else is handled by someone else .
As such , they want money for it .
It is n't as though all the equipment and effort that goes to making the HFC network operate costs nothing .
Also they often have to pay for at least some of their transit.At any rate , peering is basically a case where you want to trade data with someone , but each of you is maintaining your own part of it equally .
As such you do n't pay each other.It is n't only done at the high levels either , sometimes smaller groups will peer .
Your ISP might peer with another ISP in town , a university might peer with other universities ( they actually do this , it 's called Internet 2 ) and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More or less in a peering situation, each provider agrees to cover their own costs.
This includes laying the fiber, buying the high end routers needed for it, powering and maintaining all that, having the staff to handle problems, etc.
Since each side is paying their own costs, and both have roughly equal amounts of data the other wants, it makes sense not to charge each other.This is also why you do have to pay when you aren't one of the big guys.
Your cable modem connection to your house you don't directly pay any of the costs other than perhaps buying the equipment needed to hook up.
Everything else is handled by someone else.
As such, they want money for it.
It isn't as though all the equipment and effort that goes to making the HFC network operate costs nothing.
Also they often have to pay for at least some of their transit.At any rate, peering is basically a case where you want to trade data with someone, but each of you is maintaining your own part of it equally.
As such you don't pay each other.It isn't only done at the high levels either, sometimes smaller groups will peer.
Your ISP might peer with another ISP in town, a university might peer with other universities (they actually do this, it's called Internet 2) and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524508</id>
	<title>Re:Buying rather than leasing costs money.</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1268935140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet, Google still doesn't pay much, if anything, to send data across another company's fiber.</p><p>Maintaining their own shit has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not it costs them money to send data across another person's lines.</p><p>The trade agreements basically say "I maintain my shit, you maintain your shit, and you can send all the data you want over my lines, and I can send all the data I want over your lines."</p><p>Value is gained on both sides, something is traded, yet it costs neither of them a dime to send the data on someone else's lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet , Google still does n't pay much , if anything , to send data across another company 's fiber.Maintaining their own shit has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not it costs them money to send data across another person 's lines.The trade agreements basically say " I maintain my shit , you maintain your shit , and you can send all the data you want over my lines , and I can send all the data I want over your lines .
" Value is gained on both sides , something is traded , yet it costs neither of them a dime to send the data on someone else 's lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet, Google still doesn't pay much, if anything, to send data across another company's fiber.Maintaining their own shit has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not it costs them money to send data across another person's lines.The trade agreements basically say "I maintain my shit, you maintain your shit, and you can send all the data you want over my lines, and I can send all the data I want over your lines.
"Value is gained on both sides, something is traded, yet it costs neither of them a dime to send the data on someone else's lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523344</id>
	<title>Re:Payments are not the only costs.</title>
	<author>Blimey85</author>
	<datestamp>1268929800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This only matters once they reach capacity. If the bandwidth now being used by YouTube was otherwise going to be idle, then they would gain nothing by not using it. Since they already have the fiber in place, and since at least some of it is idle, and since AFAIK it doesn't cost any more to use bandwidth on the lines they already have, have paid for, and are already maintaining, I would think their cost should be very close to 0.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This only matters once they reach capacity .
If the bandwidth now being used by YouTube was otherwise going to be idle , then they would gain nothing by not using it .
Since they already have the fiber in place , and since at least some of it is idle , and since AFAIK it does n't cost any more to use bandwidth on the lines they already have , have paid for , and are already maintaining , I would think their cost should be very close to 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This only matters once they reach capacity.
If the bandwidth now being used by YouTube was otherwise going to be idle, then they would gain nothing by not using it.
Since they already have the fiber in place, and since at least some of it is idle, and since AFAIK it doesn't cost any more to use bandwidth on the lines they already have, have paid for, and are already maintaining, I would think their cost should be very close to 0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31527964</id>
	<title>More bad analogies</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1268903880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's more like you own a truck, and you are driving accost town anyway, so your friend asks you to pick up a box and deliver it. Sure you had to burn a little more gas, and it took about fifteen minutes more, but it's your friend, and compared to what you were doing to start with it's not a big deal, aka 'free'.</p></div></blockquote><p>Except that given how much traffic YouTube requires, it's more like you're driving across town to do your weekly groceries for your family of four, but you need to do it in a trailer truck because you're also hauling along your friend's containerful of weightlifting gear for his fitness equipment store, which by the way, is not turning any profit.

</p><p>You wouldn't need the trailer and most of the gas if you were just doing your groceries; an SUV would do the job just fine.  (And yes, that last bit was saracsm.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like you own a truck , and you are driving accost town anyway , so your friend asks you to pick up a box and deliver it .
Sure you had to burn a little more gas , and it took about fifteen minutes more , but it 's your friend , and compared to what you were doing to start with it 's not a big deal , aka 'free'.Except that given how much traffic YouTube requires , it 's more like you 're driving across town to do your weekly groceries for your family of four , but you need to do it in a trailer truck because you 're also hauling along your friend 's containerful of weightlifting gear for his fitness equipment store , which by the way , is not turning any profit .
You would n't need the trailer and most of the gas if you were just doing your groceries ; an SUV would do the job just fine .
( And yes , that last bit was saracsm .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like you own a truck, and you are driving accost town anyway, so your friend asks you to pick up a box and deliver it.
Sure you had to burn a little more gas, and it took about fifteen minutes more, but it's your friend, and compared to what you were doing to start with it's not a big deal, aka 'free'.Except that given how much traffic YouTube requires, it's more like you're driving across town to do your weekly groceries for your family of four, but you need to do it in a trailer truck because you're also hauling along your friend's containerful of weightlifting gear for his fitness equipment store, which by the way, is not turning any profit.
You wouldn't need the trailer and most of the gas if you were just doing your groceries; an SUV would do the job just fine.
(And yes, that last bit was saracsm.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31527964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31531702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31578976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31529506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31533372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31527756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31534248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1214214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523856
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31531702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524430
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31529506
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31533372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31522966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31525030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31578976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31534248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31527756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31527964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1214214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31524158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1214214.31523456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
