<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1842243</id>
	<title>Disney Strikes Against Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244834940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>1 a bee writes <i>"Ars Technica is running a story by Matthew Lasar about how Disney's ESPN360.com is <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/cable-group-turns-net-neutrality-around-over-isp-access-fees.ars">charging ISPs for 'bulk' access to their content</a>. According to the article, if you visit ESPN using a 'non-subscribing' ISP, you're greeted with a message explaining why access is restricted for you. This raises a number of issues: '... it's one thing to charge users an access fee, another to charge the ISP, potentially passing the cost on to all the ISPs subscribers whether they're interested in the content or not.' Ironically, the issue came to the fore in a complaint from the American Cable Association (ACA) to the FCC. A quoted ACA press release warns, 'Media giants are in the early stages of becoming Internet gatekeepers by requiring broadband providers to pay for their Web-based content and services and include them as part of basic Internet access for all subscribers. These content providers are also preventing subscribers who are interested in the content from independently accessing it on broadband networks of providers that have refused to pay.' So, is this a real threat to net neutrality (and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end\_principle">end-to-end principle</a>) or just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 a bee writes " Ars Technica is running a story by Matthew Lasar about how Disney 's ESPN360.com is charging ISPs for 'bulk ' access to their content .
According to the article , if you visit ESPN using a 'non-subscribing ' ISP , you 're greeted with a message explaining why access is restricted for you .
This raises a number of issues : '... it 's one thing to charge users an access fee , another to charge the ISP , potentially passing the cost on to all the ISPs subscribers whether they 're interested in the content or not .
' Ironically , the issue came to the fore in a complaint from the American Cable Association ( ACA ) to the FCC .
A quoted ACA press release warns , 'Media giants are in the early stages of becoming Internet gatekeepers by requiring broadband providers to pay for their Web-based content and services and include them as part of basic Internet access for all subscribers .
These content providers are also preventing subscribers who are interested in the content from independently accessing it on broadband networks of providers that have refused to pay .
' So , is this a real threat to net neutrality ( and the end-to-end principle ) or just another bad business model that does n't stand a chance ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 a bee writes "Ars Technica is running a story by Matthew Lasar about how Disney's ESPN360.com is charging ISPs for 'bulk' access to their content.
According to the article, if you visit ESPN using a 'non-subscribing' ISP, you're greeted with a message explaining why access is restricted for you.
This raises a number of issues: '... it's one thing to charge users an access fee, another to charge the ISP, potentially passing the cost on to all the ISPs subscribers whether they're interested in the content or not.
' Ironically, the issue came to the fore in a complaint from the American Cable Association (ACA) to the FCC.
A quoted ACA press release warns, 'Media giants are in the early stages of becoming Internet gatekeepers by requiring broadband providers to pay for their Web-based content and services and include them as part of basic Internet access for all subscribers.
These content providers are also preventing subscribers who are interested in the content from independently accessing it on broadband networks of providers that have refused to pay.
' So, is this a real threat to net neutrality (and the end-to-end principle) or just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315253</id>
	<title>Re:From Europe seems fine...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244807580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but not from my ISP in Australia. I would guess that they have a deal in place with whoever your ISP peers with.</p><p>Sucks to be you, because that cost has been added to your bill somewhere along the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but not from my ISP in Australia .
I would guess that they have a deal in place with whoever your ISP peers with.Sucks to be you , because that cost has been added to your bill somewhere along the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but not from my ISP in Australia.
I would guess that they have a deal in place with whoever your ISP peers with.Sucks to be you, because that cost has been added to your bill somewhere along the line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314431</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1244802660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is soon to be extinct. The media companies run the show, hasn't everyone figured that out yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is soon to be extinct .
The media companies run the show , has n't everyone figured that out yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is soon to be extinct.
The media companies run the show, hasn't everyone figured that out yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313045</id>
	<title>What everyone forgets...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are two important concepts.  First, the 'Net was built to route around problem areas.  Second is human nature wanting things for free (or as close to free as possible).  Combine these two, and what you have is a business opportunity for some enterprising entrepreneur to bypass The Mouse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are two important concepts .
First , the 'Net was built to route around problem areas .
Second is human nature wanting things for free ( or as close to free as possible ) .
Combine these two , and what you have is a business opportunity for some enterprising entrepreneur to bypass The Mouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are two important concepts.
First, the 'Net was built to route around problem areas.
Second is human nature wanting things for free (or as close to free as possible).
Combine these two, and what you have is a business opportunity for some enterprising entrepreneur to bypass The Mouse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313849</id>
	<title>Nothing new...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244799780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's quite common for large document archives like LEXIS-NEXIS or JSTOR to sell subscriptions to IP ranges, which are typically bought by universities, corporations, or public libraries. To access it from a non-subscribing IP address, you need your university ID card/employee ID card/library card number.</p><p>IMHO, net neutrality means that your ISP doesn't filter anything. If a website wants to filter what comes OUT of their site by IP address, that's another thing.</p><p>Of course, then it turns into a battle of what it's OK to require a subscription to. If LEXIS-NEXIS started extorting money from ISPs for access to their site, they wouldn't get very many takers. Disney, on the other hand...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite common for large document archives like LEXIS-NEXIS or JSTOR to sell subscriptions to IP ranges , which are typically bought by universities , corporations , or public libraries .
To access it from a non-subscribing IP address , you need your university ID card/employee ID card/library card number.IMHO , net neutrality means that your ISP does n't filter anything .
If a website wants to filter what comes OUT of their site by IP address , that 's another thing.Of course , then it turns into a battle of what it 's OK to require a subscription to .
If LEXIS-NEXIS started extorting money from ISPs for access to their site , they would n't get very many takers .
Disney , on the other hand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite common for large document archives like LEXIS-NEXIS or JSTOR to sell subscriptions to IP ranges, which are typically bought by universities, corporations, or public libraries.
To access it from a non-subscribing IP address, you need your university ID card/employee ID card/library card number.IMHO, net neutrality means that your ISP doesn't filter anything.
If a website wants to filter what comes OUT of their site by IP address, that's another thing.Of course, then it turns into a battle of what it's OK to require a subscription to.
If LEXIS-NEXIS started extorting money from ISPs for access to their site, they wouldn't get very many takers.
Disney, on the other hand...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28322471</id>
	<title>A quick letter that I sent to my ISP</title>
	<author>catscan2000</author>
	<datestamp>1244888160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ESPN's web site has a link that makes it easy for users to tell ISPs that they want ESPN360, but ISPs need to hear our point of view and know that they have plenty of customers who don't want their ISP to give into ESPN360's shenanigans. I posted the following onto my ISP's customer feedback page. Please feel free to clean up and use in any way that you see fit.</p><p>-----------</p><p>I just wanted to give my feedback about ESPN360. I prefer that Speakeasy continues to operate as a neutral ISP regarding ESPN360 and does not pay ESPN360 to get their content for Speakeasy subscribers. I believe that individual end users who want to access ESPN360 content should pay ESPN360 directly and not through their ISP, especially as there are Speakeasy customers who do not use or have even heard of ESPN360. As an entertainment web site, ESPN360 is not offering a service that is of general public value that would warrant ISPs instead of individual end users to pay ESPN360 for access.</p><p>I enjoy my Speakeasy service as it exists today, and I hope that ESPN360's plan to get ISPs instead of end users to pay for their content fails. If ESPN360 succeeds, other web site operators may attempt the same strategy and lead to service fragmentation on the Internet, which raises the barrier to entry for new ISPs and also raises the operational costs of existing ISPs. It's an attempt to impose a cable company business model onto ISPs, which could additionally lead to ISP responsibility of delivered content.</p><p>Please keep Speakeasy as a neutral Internet connection by turning down any attempts from ESPN360 to get Speakeasy to pay for ESPN360 access.</p><p>Thank you for your attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ESPN 's web site has a link that makes it easy for users to tell ISPs that they want ESPN360 , but ISPs need to hear our point of view and know that they have plenty of customers who do n't want their ISP to give into ESPN360 's shenanigans .
I posted the following onto my ISP 's customer feedback page .
Please feel free to clean up and use in any way that you see fit.-----------I just wanted to give my feedback about ESPN360 .
I prefer that Speakeasy continues to operate as a neutral ISP regarding ESPN360 and does not pay ESPN360 to get their content for Speakeasy subscribers .
I believe that individual end users who want to access ESPN360 content should pay ESPN360 directly and not through their ISP , especially as there are Speakeasy customers who do not use or have even heard of ESPN360 .
As an entertainment web site , ESPN360 is not offering a service that is of general public value that would warrant ISPs instead of individual end users to pay ESPN360 for access.I enjoy my Speakeasy service as it exists today , and I hope that ESPN360 's plan to get ISPs instead of end users to pay for their content fails .
If ESPN360 succeeds , other web site operators may attempt the same strategy and lead to service fragmentation on the Internet , which raises the barrier to entry for new ISPs and also raises the operational costs of existing ISPs .
It 's an attempt to impose a cable company business model onto ISPs , which could additionally lead to ISP responsibility of delivered content.Please keep Speakeasy as a neutral Internet connection by turning down any attempts from ESPN360 to get Speakeasy to pay for ESPN360 access.Thank you for your attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ESPN's web site has a link that makes it easy for users to tell ISPs that they want ESPN360, but ISPs need to hear our point of view and know that they have plenty of customers who don't want their ISP to give into ESPN360's shenanigans.
I posted the following onto my ISP's customer feedback page.
Please feel free to clean up and use in any way that you see fit.-----------I just wanted to give my feedback about ESPN360.
I prefer that Speakeasy continues to operate as a neutral ISP regarding ESPN360 and does not pay ESPN360 to get their content for Speakeasy subscribers.
I believe that individual end users who want to access ESPN360 content should pay ESPN360 directly and not through their ISP, especially as there are Speakeasy customers who do not use or have even heard of ESPN360.
As an entertainment web site, ESPN360 is not offering a service that is of general public value that would warrant ISPs instead of individual end users to pay ESPN360 for access.I enjoy my Speakeasy service as it exists today, and I hope that ESPN360's plan to get ISPs instead of end users to pay for their content fails.
If ESPN360 succeeds, other web site operators may attempt the same strategy and lead to service fragmentation on the Internet, which raises the barrier to entry for new ISPs and also raises the operational costs of existing ISPs.
It's an attempt to impose a cable company business model onto ISPs, which could additionally lead to ISP responsibility of delivered content.Please keep Speakeasy as a neutral Internet connection by turning down any attempts from ESPN360 to get Speakeasy to pay for ESPN360 access.Thank you for your attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314077</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many people did not use usenet but everyone was paying for it? Discuss how this is different.</p></div><p>It's different because you're a fucking moron.</p><p>That's about as honest as your "devil's advocate" bullshit.  (Can you *honestly* not see the difference between a private company extorting money, and an ad-hoc network?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people did not use usenet but everyone was paying for it ?
Discuss how this is different.It 's different because you 're a fucking moron.That 's about as honest as your " devil 's advocate " bullshit .
( Can you * honestly * not see the difference between a private company extorting money , and an ad-hoc network ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people did not use usenet but everyone was paying for it?
Discuss how this is different.It's different because you're a fucking moron.That's about as honest as your "devil's advocate" bullshit.
(Can you *honestly* not see the difference between a private company extorting money, and an ad-hoc network?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313275</id>
	<title>sounds like cutting off your nose</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1244797620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to spite your face. Disney thinks that people will pressure their ISP into paying? Fat chance. There are too many other things to look at on the web.</htmltext>
<tokenext>to spite your face .
Disney thinks that people will pressure their ISP into paying ?
Fat chance .
There are too many other things to look at on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to spite your face.
Disney thinks that people will pressure their ISP into paying?
Fat chance.
There are too many other things to look at on the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28319529</id>
	<title>Am I the only one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244905020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's hoping that Disney's charge for the ISPs will cancel out the ISPs charge to ESPN360.com, and we can all go about our business. I mean, isn't this the exact opposite of the ISP's complaint the the big content providers are "getting a free ride"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's hoping that Disney 's charge for the ISPs will cancel out the ISPs charge to ESPN360.com , and we can all go about our business .
I mean , is n't this the exact opposite of the ISP 's complaint the the big content providers are " getting a free ride " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's hoping that Disney's charge for the ISPs will cancel out the ISPs charge to ESPN360.com, and we can all go about our business.
I mean, isn't this the exact opposite of the ISP's complaint the the big content providers are "getting a free ride"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313193</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the disney cult...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Walt's dead.  His vision of wholesomeness is also dead.  It has been replaced by just the faceless entity you mentioned.  To modern people, that IS wholesomeness.  It happened gradually enough that they never noticed it, and nowadays, they don't care, because that's all they've known.</p><p>Welcome to the wacky world of relativistic opinions on right and wrong!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Walt 's dead .
His vision of wholesomeness is also dead .
It has been replaced by just the faceless entity you mentioned .
To modern people , that IS wholesomeness .
It happened gradually enough that they never noticed it , and nowadays , they do n't care , because that 's all they 've known.Welcome to the wacky world of relativistic opinions on right and wrong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Walt's dead.
His vision of wholesomeness is also dead.
It has been replaced by just the faceless entity you mentioned.
To modern people, that IS wholesomeness.
It happened gradually enough that they never noticed it, and nowadays, they don't care, because that's all they've known.Welcome to the wacky world of relativistic opinions on right and wrong!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313201</id>
	<title>History repeats</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1244797380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was another ISP/company that did the same thing as these media company's are trying to do today. They are trying to erect a wall around some parts of Internet access, to protect their precious. More power to Disney and these other shit heads. The last company that tried to erect a similar wall was AOL, and now they are a worthless company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was another ISP/company that did the same thing as these media company 's are trying to do today .
They are trying to erect a wall around some parts of Internet access , to protect their precious .
More power to Disney and these other shit heads .
The last company that tried to erect a similar wall was AOL , and now they are a worthless company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was another ISP/company that did the same thing as these media company's are trying to do today.
They are trying to erect a wall around some parts of Internet access, to protect their precious.
More power to Disney and these other shit heads.
The last company that tried to erect a similar wall was AOL, and now they are a worthless company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315121</id>
	<title>Re:not net neutrality</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244806680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this has nothing to do with network neutrality; this is just about a content <i>provider</i> being stupid. The network neutrality version would be if an ISP were charging the content provider to carry his traffic; it's the opposite occurring here. Let the content provider shoot himself in the foot; he's not keeping ISP users from freely visiting other websites.

</p><p>Yet again a useful term is being misapplied in order to raise a negative response. File this along with "bricked", "censorship", "theft", etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this has nothing to do with network neutrality ; this is just about a content provider being stupid .
The network neutrality version would be if an ISP were charging the content provider to carry his traffic ; it 's the opposite occurring here .
Let the content provider shoot himself in the foot ; he 's not keeping ISP users from freely visiting other websites .
Yet again a useful term is being misapplied in order to raise a negative response .
File this along with " bricked " , " censorship " , " theft " , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this has nothing to do with network neutrality; this is just about a content provider being stupid.
The network neutrality version would be if an ISP were charging the content provider to carry his traffic; it's the opposite occurring here.
Let the content provider shoot himself in the foot; he's not keeping ISP users from freely visiting other websites.
Yet again a useful term is being misapplied in order to raise a negative response.
File this along with "bricked", "censorship", "theft", etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313599</id>
	<title>not net neutrality</title>
	<author>convolvatron</author>
	<datestamp>1244798760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its very different for a service to filter connections than a backbone. the real threat to end-to-end and neutrality<br>would be if transit providers start charging for traffic involving certain endpoints (which is how this discussion<br>got started)</p><p>endpoints can make whatever restrictions they like, even if they are as idiotic as trying to get access providers<br>to handle their sales and billing.</p><p>of course it would suck if i couldn't get internet access without also paying for some 'content plan', but thats a<br>different issue entirely</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its very different for a service to filter connections than a backbone .
the real threat to end-to-end and neutralitywould be if transit providers start charging for traffic involving certain endpoints ( which is how this discussiongot started ) endpoints can make whatever restrictions they like , even if they are as idiotic as trying to get access providersto handle their sales and billing.of course it would suck if i could n't get internet access without also paying for some 'content plan ' , but thats adifferent issue entirely</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its very different for a service to filter connections than a backbone.
the real threat to end-to-end and neutralitywould be if transit providers start charging for traffic involving certain endpoints (which is how this discussiongot started)endpoints can make whatever restrictions they like, even if they are as idiotic as trying to get access providersto handle their sales and billing.of course it would suck if i couldn't get internet access without also paying for some 'content plan', but thats adifferent issue entirely</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28318581</id>
	<title>Contact your ISP</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1244890800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've already drafted a letter to my internet company, which happens to be one of the ones paying money to espn360, asking why they are driving up my rates by making me pay for content I'm not using.    It will do nothing.   If everyone who saw this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ summery did this, it would do something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've already drafted a letter to my internet company , which happens to be one of the ones paying money to espn360 , asking why they are driving up my rates by making me pay for content I 'm not using .
It will do nothing .
If everyone who saw this ./ summery did this , it would do something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've already drafted a letter to my internet company, which happens to be one of the ones paying money to espn360, asking why they are driving up my rates by making me pay for content I'm not using.
It will do nothing.
If everyone who saw this ./ summery did this, it would do something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313329</id>
	<title>Campfire stories for your kids...</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1244797800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once upon a time, when I was your age, we were able to go anywhere on the internet that we wanted. Then the websites realized they couldn't make any money that way and started packaging themselves together and selling access rights to ISPs just like cable tv does. And guess what? The websites made money, and people payed more money to the ISPs for access, and all the corporations rejoiced. Thus died the golden age of the internet which we now just call 'interactive cable'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time , when I was your age , we were able to go anywhere on the internet that we wanted .
Then the websites realized they could n't make any money that way and started packaging themselves together and selling access rights to ISPs just like cable tv does .
And guess what ?
The websites made money , and people payed more money to the ISPs for access , and all the corporations rejoiced .
Thus died the golden age of the internet which we now just call 'interactive cable'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time, when I was your age, we were able to go anywhere on the internet that we wanted.
Then the websites realized they couldn't make any money that way and started packaging themselves together and selling access rights to ISPs just like cable tv does.
And guess what?
The websites made money, and people payed more money to the ISPs for access, and all the corporations rejoiced.
Thus died the golden age of the internet which we now just call 'interactive cable'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313299</id>
	<title>Re:Ooohhh, they have a "Feedback" feature!</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1244797680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What did you say?
<br> <br>
"I don't like your products so I'm not your customer base anyway."
<br>or<br>
"I'm an avid user of your products who will probably pay you anyway."
<br> <br>
Because that's how they're going to see it. I'm not saying you shouldn't voice your displeasure, just wondering how you framed it. This is a "win-win" for them. They get to charge more for the same works AND promote anti-net-neutrality which would eventually help them curb those pesky fair use works, parody works, and, of course, infringed copies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What did you say ?
" I do n't like your products so I 'm not your customer base anyway .
" or " I 'm an avid user of your products who will probably pay you anyway .
" Because that 's how they 're going to see it .
I 'm not saying you should n't voice your displeasure , just wondering how you framed it .
This is a " win-win " for them .
They get to charge more for the same works AND promote anti-net-neutrality which would eventually help them curb those pesky fair use works , parody works , and , of course , infringed copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did you say?
"I don't like your products so I'm not your customer base anyway.
"
or
"I'm an avid user of your products who will probably pay you anyway.
"
 
Because that's how they're going to see it.
I'm not saying you shouldn't voice your displeasure, just wondering how you framed it.
This is a "win-win" for them.
They get to charge more for the same works AND promote anti-net-neutrality which would eventually help them curb those pesky fair use works, parody works, and, of course, infringed copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315889</id>
	<title>WEll....</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1244812200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats, as described, doesn't seem like a net neutrality problem.  That's just a business model that will succeed or fail.</p><p>As a content provider, it costs me money to serve content.  (It also costs me money to make that content....).    Cutting a deal with a large provider so all their subscribers get access for a fee is a perk of using that provider.... and probably also involves cheaper network access and whatnot for the provider/content provider as well.  Fair play to them.</p><p>It's a stupid idea, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats , as described , does n't seem like a net neutrality problem .
That 's just a business model that will succeed or fail.As a content provider , it costs me money to serve content .
( It also costs me money to make that content.... ) .
Cutting a deal with a large provider so all their subscribers get access for a fee is a perk of using that provider.... and probably also involves cheaper network access and whatnot for the provider/content provider as well .
Fair play to them.It 's a stupid idea , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats, as described, doesn't seem like a net neutrality problem.
That's just a business model that will succeed or fail.As a content provider, it costs me money to serve content.
(It also costs me money to make that content....).
Cutting a deal with a large provider so all their subscribers get access for a fee is a perk of using that provider.... and probably also involves cheaper network access and whatnot for the provider/content provider as well.
Fair play to them.It's a stupid idea, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28318325</id>
	<title>Use of 'Net Neutrality'</title>
	<author>N1AK</author>
	<datestamp>1244886540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>According to the article, if you visit ESPN using a 'non-subscribing' ISP, you're greeted with a message explaining why access is restricted for you.</p></div></blockquote><p>Net neutrality is ISPs not prioritising traffic based on companies paying them, thus THIS ISN'T A FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE. I don't know whether people intentionally misuse the term for sensationalist reasons, or because they want to funnel the indignation the term causes onto something else but either way this isn't helpful.

<br> <br>I'm not crazy on the idea of ISPs buying content on users behalf, but that doesn't make it a net neutrality issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , if you visit ESPN using a 'non-subscribing ' ISP , you 're greeted with a message explaining why access is restricted for you.Net neutrality is ISPs not prioritising traffic based on companies paying them , thus THIS IS N'T A FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE .
I do n't know whether people intentionally misuse the term for sensationalist reasons , or because they want to funnel the indignation the term causes onto something else but either way this is n't helpful .
I 'm not crazy on the idea of ISPs buying content on users behalf , but that does n't make it a net neutrality issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, if you visit ESPN using a 'non-subscribing' ISP, you're greeted with a message explaining why access is restricted for you.Net neutrality is ISPs not prioritising traffic based on companies paying them, thus THIS ISN'T A FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE.
I don't know whether people intentionally misuse the term for sensationalist reasons, or because they want to funnel the indignation the term causes onto something else but either way this isn't helpful.
I'm not crazy on the idea of ISPs buying content on users behalf, but that doesn't make it a net neutrality issue.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28316739</id>
	<title>Really Disappointed with Comcast</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244820060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Comcast, who cut out included Usenet access late last year, and stood up to the NFL channel extortion, so I'm amazingly disappointed in them for giving in on this.  This whole idea would be DOA if none of the big ISP's signed on. I'm on the phone complaining to them about this right now.  If they hear about it from en</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast , who cut out included Usenet access late last year , and stood up to the NFL channel extortion , so I 'm amazingly disappointed in them for giving in on this .
This whole idea would be DOA if none of the big ISP 's signed on .
I 'm on the phone complaining to them about this right now .
If they hear about it from en</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast, who cut out included Usenet access late last year, and stood up to the NFL channel extortion, so I'm amazingly disappointed in them for giving in on this.
This whole idea would be DOA if none of the big ISP's signed on.
I'm on the phone complaining to them about this right now.
If they hear about it from en</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312941</id>
	<title>ISPs should tell Disney to go take a flying</title>
	<author>droidsURlooking4</author>
	<datestamp>1244839560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>leap off of Magic Mountain. Seriously, ISPs: Don't pay them shit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>leap off of Magic Mountain .
Seriously , ISPs : Do n't pay them shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>leap off of Magic Mountain.
Seriously, ISPs: Don't pay them shit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313143</id>
	<title>there are other websites, espn360 is not unique</title>
	<author>skywiseguy</author>
	<datestamp>1244840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>there are other websites out there that stream live sports, it's not like espn360 is unique in the content they deliver.  this is just extortion at its base level, from a company that has the legal muscle to do pretty much whatever they feel like doing.  if you want to watch a live baseball game, MLB has a pay per view site.  if you want to watch tennis, there's a pay per view site for that too.  in addition to at least one free site that i've used for all sports, www.myp2p.eu</htmltext>
<tokenext>there are other websites out there that stream live sports , it 's not like espn360 is unique in the content they deliver .
this is just extortion at its base level , from a company that has the legal muscle to do pretty much whatever they feel like doing .
if you want to watch a live baseball game , MLB has a pay per view site .
if you want to watch tennis , there 's a pay per view site for that too .
in addition to at least one free site that i 've used for all sports , www.myp2p.eu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are other websites out there that stream live sports, it's not like espn360 is unique in the content they deliver.
this is just extortion at its base level, from a company that has the legal muscle to do pretty much whatever they feel like doing.
if you want to watch a live baseball game, MLB has a pay per view site.
if you want to watch tennis, there's a pay per view site for that too.
in addition to at least one free site that i've used for all sports, www.myp2p.eu</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313165</id>
	<title>That was easy, NEXT!</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1244797200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance</htmltext>
<tokenext>just another bad business model that does n't stand a chance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314373</id>
	<title>Blah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney's ethics died with Walt,..</p><p>Now it's just another shit company</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney 's ethics died with Walt,..Now it 's just another shit company</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney's ethics died with Walt,..Now it's just another shit company</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315109</id>
	<title>If ISP didn't sign up...</title>
	<author>christurkel</author>
	<datestamp>1244806620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what you get when you try to play a video:<blockquote><div><p>How to Get Access to ESPN360.com

ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases.

Your current computer network falls outside of these categories. Here's how you can get access to ESPN360.com.

1. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and request ESPN360.com. Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com

2. If you already get ESPN360.com at home and activated remote access, sign in using the myESPN link in the upper right hand corner. In order to activate remote access, you must sign in through your ESPN360.com affiliate Internet Service Provider.

3. For Verizon Customers Only:
Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com

4. For Comcast Customers Only:
Great news! ESPN360.com will be free with your Comcast High-Speed Internet subscription beginning August 1st.
Click here to sign up to receive ESPN360.com newsletters and updates</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what you get when you try to play a video : How to Get Access to ESPN360.com ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider .
ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases .
Your current computer network falls outside of these categories .
Here 's how you can get access to ESPN360.com .
1. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and request ESPN360.com .
Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com 2 .
If you already get ESPN360.com at home and activated remote access , sign in using the myESPN link in the upper right hand corner .
In order to activate remote access , you must sign in through your ESPN360.com affiliate Internet Service Provider .
3. For Verizon Customers Only : Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com 4 .
For Comcast Customers Only : Great news !
ESPN360.com will be free with your Comcast High-Speed Internet subscription beginning August 1st .
Click here to sign up to receive ESPN360.com newsletters and updates</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what you get when you try to play a video:How to Get Access to ESPN360.com

ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider.
ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases.
Your current computer network falls outside of these categories.
Here's how you can get access to ESPN360.com.
1. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and request ESPN360.com.
Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com

2.
If you already get ESPN360.com at home and activated remote access, sign in using the myESPN link in the upper right hand corner.
In order to activate remote access, you must sign in through your ESPN360.com affiliate Internet Service Provider.
3. For Verizon Customers Only:
Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com

4.
For Comcast Customers Only:
Great news!
ESPN360.com will be free with your Comcast High-Speed Internet subscription beginning August 1st.
Click here to sign up to receive ESPN360.com newsletters and updates
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315563</id>
	<title>puppychow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244809680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know the approximate cost for an ISP to join this service?  ISP's need to grow some balls and choose not to sign up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know the approximate cost for an ISP to join this service ?
ISP 's need to grow some balls and choose not to sign up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know the approximate cost for an ISP to join this service?
ISP's need to grow some balls and choose not to sign up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314275</id>
	<title>Not profitable</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1244801940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISPs don't make that much money to start with, they're either going to raise their prices or tell Disney to jump in the lake.  ISPs that raise their rates will see their users telling *them* to go jump in the lake...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs do n't make that much money to start with , they 're either going to raise their prices or tell Disney to jump in the lake .
ISPs that raise their rates will see their users telling * them * to go jump in the lake.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs don't make that much money to start with, they're either going to raise their prices or tell Disney to jump in the lake.
ISPs that raise their rates will see their users telling *them* to go jump in the lake...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313987</id>
	<title>Re:Proper response by ISP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they obviously fail to realize is that users still don't necessarily need to get their content from their web site.  If I had to guess what the outcome would be if the content were in demand is that users who really wanted it, but perhaps don't have an ISP servicing their area that's paying this extra fee, will most likely find it conveniently on youtube or some bit torrent site.  I'm sure they would spin it as these sites causing monetary losses, but the truth is they would be the ones alienating prospective customers by ISP and driving the traffic elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they obviously fail to realize is that users still do n't necessarily need to get their content from their web site .
If I had to guess what the outcome would be if the content were in demand is that users who really wanted it , but perhaps do n't have an ISP servicing their area that 's paying this extra fee , will most likely find it conveniently on youtube or some bit torrent site .
I 'm sure they would spin it as these sites causing monetary losses , but the truth is they would be the ones alienating prospective customers by ISP and driving the traffic elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they obviously fail to realize is that users still don't necessarily need to get their content from their web site.
If I had to guess what the outcome would be if the content were in demand is that users who really wanted it, but perhaps don't have an ISP servicing their area that's paying this extra fee, will most likely find it conveniently on youtube or some bit torrent site.
I'm sure they would spin it as these sites causing monetary losses, but the truth is they would be the ones alienating prospective customers by ISP and driving the traffic elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312973</id>
	<title>Here's what I see</title>
	<author>twistedcubic</author>
	<datestamp>1244839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>as an Earthlink subscriber through Time Warner in Los Angeles.

<a href="http://imagebin.ca/view/Zt9dp58.html" title="imagebin.ca">http://imagebin.ca/view/Zt9dp58.html</a> [imagebin.ca]</htmltext>
<tokenext>as an Earthlink subscriber through Time Warner in Los Angeles .
http : //imagebin.ca/view/Zt9dp58.html [ imagebin.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as an Earthlink subscriber through Time Warner in Los Angeles.
http://imagebin.ca/view/Zt9dp58.html [imagebin.ca]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314941</id>
	<title>Re:Ooohhh, they have a "Feedback" feature!</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244805600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What 'they' do you think is reading the message?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 'they ' do you think is reading the message ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What 'they' do you think is reading the message?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312987</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usenet vs. Disney 360<br>How many people did not use usenet but everyone was paying for it?  Discuss how this is different.</p><p>Trollish yes but most devil's advocates are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usenet vs. Disney 360How many people did not use usenet but everyone was paying for it ?
Discuss how this is different.Trollish yes but most devil 's advocates are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usenet vs. Disney 360How many people did not use usenet but everyone was paying for it?
Discuss how this is different.Trollish yes but most devil's advocates are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314963</id>
	<title>The Other Boot</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1244805720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So, is this a real threat to net neutrality (and the end-to-end principle) or just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance?</i></p><p>This is the other boot dropping.</p><p>1. ISPs try to charge media companies for discriminatory access to their customers.<br>2. Media companies try to charge ISPs for content.<br>3. Big ISPs and big media discover that they can scratch each others' backs and put the cost on the independents.</p><p>We're on the first part of step 2. Step 3 is absolutely inevitable if we do not pass net neutrality. The Internet will become as inaccessible to individuals and small business as television, radio, and print.</p><p>"Freedom of the press belongs to those who have one." The big ISPs and big media will eventually realize that is a value proposition if they can buy enough power from the DC corrupt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is this a real threat to net neutrality ( and the end-to-end principle ) or just another bad business model that does n't stand a chance ? This is the other boot dropping.1 .
ISPs try to charge media companies for discriminatory access to their customers.2 .
Media companies try to charge ISPs for content.3 .
Big ISPs and big media discover that they can scratch each others ' backs and put the cost on the independents.We 're on the first part of step 2 .
Step 3 is absolutely inevitable if we do not pass net neutrality .
The Internet will become as inaccessible to individuals and small business as television , radio , and print .
" Freedom of the press belongs to those who have one .
" The big ISPs and big media will eventually realize that is a value proposition if they can buy enough power from the DC corrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is this a real threat to net neutrality (and the end-to-end principle) or just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance?This is the other boot dropping.1.
ISPs try to charge media companies for discriminatory access to their customers.2.
Media companies try to charge ISPs for content.3.
Big ISPs and big media discover that they can scratch each others' backs and put the cost on the independents.We're on the first part of step 2.
Step 3 is absolutely inevitable if we do not pass net neutrality.
The Internet will become as inaccessible to individuals and small business as television, radio, and print.
"Freedom of the press belongs to those who have one.
" The big ISPs and big media will eventually realize that is a value proposition if they can buy enough power from the DC corrupt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313107</id>
	<title>more buffets, less carrying change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244840220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like this trend.<br>One of the biggest things I love about america is the buffet, the free refills of coke and water.<br>I know they aren't really free, that someone is paying for them.<br>But, the convenience, and not having to think about money for that choice of getting more soda is great.</p><p>I don't want to have to put in my credit card information everytime i want premium content on the net...<br>I am willing to splurge a little, even be wasteful in the amount of content i have access to, if its one bill at the end of the month.</p><p>Now it would be really nice, if this concept extended to blogs, and something like wordpress joined...<br>Then, even the little bloggers could get into the action.</p><p>While I love opensource, and release 99\% of code i write, not everyone has the luxury of coding or creating entertainment for a hobby.</p><p>Maybe welfare will cover your internet costs someday if you can't afford decent entertainment... Then as the isp's pass the cost down to you, you can pass it down to the tax paying media corp...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this trend.One of the biggest things I love about america is the buffet , the free refills of coke and water.I know they are n't really free , that someone is paying for them.But , the convenience , and not having to think about money for that choice of getting more soda is great.I do n't want to have to put in my credit card information everytime i want premium content on the net...I am willing to splurge a little , even be wasteful in the amount of content i have access to , if its one bill at the end of the month.Now it would be really nice , if this concept extended to blogs , and something like wordpress joined...Then , even the little bloggers could get into the action.While I love opensource , and release 99 \ % of code i write , not everyone has the luxury of coding or creating entertainment for a hobby.Maybe welfare will cover your internet costs someday if you ca n't afford decent entertainment... Then as the isp 's pass the cost down to you , you can pass it down to the tax paying media corp.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this trend.One of the biggest things I love about america is the buffet, the free refills of coke and water.I know they aren't really free, that someone is paying for them.But, the convenience, and not having to think about money for that choice of getting more soda is great.I don't want to have to put in my credit card information everytime i want premium content on the net...I am willing to splurge a little, even be wasteful in the amount of content i have access to, if its one bill at the end of the month.Now it would be really nice, if this concept extended to blogs, and something like wordpress joined...Then, even the little bloggers could get into the action.While I love opensource, and release 99\% of code i write, not everyone has the luxury of coding or creating entertainment for a hobby.Maybe welfare will cover your internet costs someday if you can't afford decent entertainment... Then as the isp's pass the cost down to you, you can pass it down to the tax paying media corp...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312679</id>
	<title>Well, the cable industry should know.</title>
	<author>Shag</author>
	<datestamp>1244838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're experts on charging everyone for content, whether they want it or not.</p><p>(Whatever happened to all those proposals for 'ala carte' cable?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're experts on charging everyone for content , whether they want it or not .
( Whatever happened to all those proposals for 'ala carte ' cable ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're experts on charging everyone for content, whether they want it or not.
(Whatever happened to all those proposals for 'ala carte' cable?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313351</id>
	<title>Oh the irony of it all</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244797860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony of it being a cable organization complaining about this is cable (and satellite) companies do the *exact same thing* with cable programming like ESPN...the large expense (ESPN is one of the more expensive programming packages) of a cable system getting ESPN is passed on to almost all of their subscribers, whether they want to watch it or not.  And in some cases whether they even subscribe to a tier that includes ESPN programming or not.  Its kind of funny to watch them get a taste of their own medicine.  This is one of those proverbial pot and kettle situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony of it being a cable organization complaining about this is cable ( and satellite ) companies do the * exact same thing * with cable programming like ESPN...the large expense ( ESPN is one of the more expensive programming packages ) of a cable system getting ESPN is passed on to almost all of their subscribers , whether they want to watch it or not .
And in some cases whether they even subscribe to a tier that includes ESPN programming or not .
Its kind of funny to watch them get a taste of their own medicine .
This is one of those proverbial pot and kettle situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony of it being a cable organization complaining about this is cable (and satellite) companies do the *exact same thing* with cable programming like ESPN...the large expense (ESPN is one of the more expensive programming packages) of a cable system getting ESPN is passed on to almost all of their subscribers, whether they want to watch it or not.
And in some cases whether they even subscribe to a tier that includes ESPN programming or not.
Its kind of funny to watch them get a taste of their own medicine.
This is one of those proverbial pot and kettle situations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28317919</id>
	<title>Either great success or great failure</title>
	<author>Doctor High</author>
	<datestamp>1244836680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to think that this move on the part of the content owners will be a massive failure without any intervention by government.  If a typical computer user goes to a content owner's site and sees a message saying that the ISP has not purchased the "ESPN360" package and that the user will not be able to access ESPN360 videos, I expect that the user will just go download it via bittorrent or the like.  Or just ignore ESPN360 and go to a competitor's site for the scores and highlights.  So ESPN360 loses out on a potential sale (to the individual) either way.</p><p>I would understand if users from an ISP which did not pay for the ESPN360 access for its customers get a "give me your credit card info to see this video" page, whereas users from an ISP which did pay for access for its customers get to see the video free of charge.  That might actually end up being a viable business model.</p><p>Of course, it's entirely possible that I don't know consumer behavior as well as I think I do.  The foolish choices made by consumers continually impresses me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to think that this move on the part of the content owners will be a massive failure without any intervention by government .
If a typical computer user goes to a content owner 's site and sees a message saying that the ISP has not purchased the " ESPN360 " package and that the user will not be able to access ESPN360 videos , I expect that the user will just go download it via bittorrent or the like .
Or just ignore ESPN360 and go to a competitor 's site for the scores and highlights .
So ESPN360 loses out on a potential sale ( to the individual ) either way.I would understand if users from an ISP which did not pay for the ESPN360 access for its customers get a " give me your credit card info to see this video " page , whereas users from an ISP which did pay for access for its customers get to see the video free of charge .
That might actually end up being a viable business model.Of course , it 's entirely possible that I do n't know consumer behavior as well as I think I do .
The foolish choices made by consumers continually impresses me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to think that this move on the part of the content owners will be a massive failure without any intervention by government.
If a typical computer user goes to a content owner's site and sees a message saying that the ISP has not purchased the "ESPN360" package and that the user will not be able to access ESPN360 videos, I expect that the user will just go download it via bittorrent or the like.
Or just ignore ESPN360 and go to a competitor's site for the scores and highlights.
So ESPN360 loses out on a potential sale (to the individual) either way.I would understand if users from an ISP which did not pay for the ESPN360 access for its customers get a "give me your credit card info to see this video" page, whereas users from an ISP which did pay for access for its customers get to see the video free of charge.
That might actually end up being a viable business model.Of course, it's entirely possible that I don't know consumer behavior as well as I think I do.
The foolish choices made by consumers continually impresses me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313301</id>
	<title>Re:Ooohhh, they have a "Feedback" feature!</title>
	<author>CoolCash</author>
	<datestamp>1244797680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just posted some feedback also. Basically, I will not use their services and I will suggest to all my friends not to use them either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just posted some feedback also .
Basically , I will not use their services and I will suggest to all my friends not to use them either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just posted some feedback also.
Basically, I will not use their services and I will suggest to all my friends not to use them either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313991</id>
	<title>Re:Ooohhh, they have a "Feedback" feature!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sent the following:
<br>
"I recently noticed that your sites performance had degraded substantially. Unable to enjoy my usual offerings from ESPN, I went looking for alternatives on the internet. To my surprise, I found a much better source for my sporting news needs. I just wanted to wish ESPN the best of luck and fond wishes, it was a wonderful 30 years."
<br>
The email address I provided was "aoltriedthis@history.com", I wonder if they will even notice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sent the following : " I recently noticed that your sites performance had degraded substantially .
Unable to enjoy my usual offerings from ESPN , I went looking for alternatives on the internet .
To my surprise , I found a much better source for my sporting news needs .
I just wanted to wish ESPN the best of luck and fond wishes , it was a wonderful 30 years .
" The email address I provided was " aoltriedthis @ history.com " , I wonder if they will even notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sent the following:

"I recently noticed that your sites performance had degraded substantially.
Unable to enjoy my usual offerings from ESPN, I went looking for alternatives on the internet.
To my surprise, I found a much better source for my sporting news needs.
I just wanted to wish ESPN the best of luck and fond wishes, it was a wonderful 30 years.
"

The email address I provided was "aoltriedthis@history.com", I wonder if they will even notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315499</id>
	<title>Someone tell BT</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1244809320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>08:54AM: <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/12/0335204/BT-Wants-Cash-For-iPlayer-Video-Bandwidth" title="slashdot.org">British Telecom is asking for more money for the bandwidth that iPlayer and video streaming sites eat up</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
07:29PM: <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/12/1842243/Disney-Strikes-Against-Net-Neutrality" title="slashdot.org">Disney's ESPN360.com is charging ISPs for 'bulk' access to their content</a> [slashdot.org] </p><p>Heh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>08 : 54AM : British Telecom is asking for more money for the bandwidth that iPlayer and video streaming sites eat up [ slashdot.org ] 07 : 29PM : Disney 's ESPN360.com is charging ISPs for 'bulk ' access to their content [ slashdot.org ] Heh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>08:54AM: British Telecom is asking for more money for the bandwidth that iPlayer and video streaming sites eat up [slashdot.org] 
07:29PM: Disney's ESPN360.com is charging ISPs for 'bulk' access to their content [slashdot.org] Heh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313491</id>
	<title>This might work if people had much choice for ISPs</title>
	<author>flibbidyfloo</author>
	<datestamp>1244798400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the average consumer of Disney stuff online had a choice between multiple comparable ISPs, then their gambit might make sense. But most Americans don't have such a choice. <br>

For example, if Comcast refuses to pay, subscribers aren't going to switch in droves to something else, because for many Comcast subscribers, there effectively <i>isn't</i> anyone else.<br>

Disney will lose far more business with this move than any ISP will. It's not like there is a shortage of sources for Disney content. People will just keep getting it elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the average consumer of Disney stuff online had a choice between multiple comparable ISPs , then their gambit might make sense .
But most Americans do n't have such a choice .
For example , if Comcast refuses to pay , subscribers are n't going to switch in droves to something else , because for many Comcast subscribers , there effectively is n't anyone else .
Disney will lose far more business with this move than any ISP will .
It 's not like there is a shortage of sources for Disney content .
People will just keep getting it elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the average consumer of Disney stuff online had a choice between multiple comparable ISPs, then their gambit might make sense.
But most Americans don't have such a choice.
For example, if Comcast refuses to pay, subscribers aren't going to switch in droves to something else, because for many Comcast subscribers, there effectively isn't anyone else.
Disney will lose far more business with this move than any ISP will.
It's not like there is a shortage of sources for Disney content.
People will just keep getting it elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313985</id>
	<title>Why can't the Disney channel be like HBO like it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't the Disney channel be like HBO like it used to be where you only pay for it if you want it.</p><p>I want to have ESPN and the other networks and drop Disney Channel, Disney Channel West, and Disney XD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't the Disney channel be like HBO like it used to be where you only pay for it if you want it.I want to have ESPN and the other networks and drop Disney Channel , Disney Channel West , and Disney XD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't the Disney channel be like HBO like it used to be where you only pay for it if you want it.I want to have ESPN and the other networks and drop Disney Channel, Disney Channel West, and Disney XD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28320849</id>
	<title>The way of Cable?</title>
	<author>awarrenfells</author>
	<datestamp>1244916960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would really suck if ISPs went the way of cable down the road, and charged you for x number of media outlets and websites, when most people likely wont ever intend to use those sites.

I mean seriously, I only watch 2 channels on TV anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would really suck if ISPs went the way of cable down the road , and charged you for x number of media outlets and websites , when most people likely wont ever intend to use those sites .
I mean seriously , I only watch 2 channels on TV anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would really suck if ISPs went the way of cable down the road, and charged you for x number of media outlets and websites, when most people likely wont ever intend to use those sites.
I mean seriously, I only watch 2 channels on TV anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315489</id>
	<title>UPDATE: Comcast Caving to this.</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1244809260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I visited the afore mentioned site in this article, according to ESPN360 "comcast customers will have access starting on aug 1"</p><p>if i see so much as a penny added to my bill im switching to another ISP and telling them why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I visited the afore mentioned site in this article , according to ESPN360 " comcast customers will have access starting on aug 1 " if i see so much as a penny added to my bill im switching to another ISP and telling them why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I visited the afore mentioned site in this article, according to ESPN360 "comcast customers will have access starting on aug 1"if i see so much as a penny added to my bill im switching to another ISP and telling them why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313427</id>
	<title>Proper response by ISP</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1244798220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fsck you.  And when their customers complain about their limited access, tell them to take it up with the broken website they are trying to visit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fsck you .
And when their customers complain about their limited access , tell them to take it up with the broken website they are trying to visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fsck you.
And when their customers complain about their limited access, tell them to take it up with the broken website they are trying to visit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313331</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the disney cult...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, I don't worship Disney or anything...but when I went down to Disneyworld with my wife and son, we had a pretty good time. Yeah, it was expensive, but it was fun. I didn't once think to myself "wow, what a faceless corporation raping all of us here on Space Mountain".</p><p>Also, why does one person's enjoyment...like one of your relatives that decorated their bathroom... threaten you? How is that "scary"? Do you really consider yourself better than them because you're cynical about everything and actually know about "a(n) a Urotsukidji manga"? You're not one of those people that hate everything popular are you? Here's a test, ever use the term "sheeple" in a conversation or forum post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , I do n't worship Disney or anything...but when I went down to Disneyworld with my wife and son , we had a pretty good time .
Yeah , it was expensive , but it was fun .
I did n't once think to myself " wow , what a faceless corporation raping all of us here on Space Mountain " .Also , why does one person 's enjoyment...like one of your relatives that decorated their bathroom... threaten you ?
How is that " scary " ?
Do you really consider yourself better than them because you 're cynical about everything and actually know about " a ( n ) a Urotsukidji manga " ?
You 're not one of those people that hate everything popular are you ?
Here 's a test , ever use the term " sheeple " in a conversation or forum post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, I don't worship Disney or anything...but when I went down to Disneyworld with my wife and son, we had a pretty good time.
Yeah, it was expensive, but it was fun.
I didn't once think to myself "wow, what a faceless corporation raping all of us here on Space Mountain".Also, why does one person's enjoyment...like one of your relatives that decorated their bathroom... threaten you?
How is that "scary"?
Do you really consider yourself better than them because you're cynical about everything and actually know about "a(n) a Urotsukidji manga"?
You're not one of those people that hate everything popular are you?
Here's a test, ever use the term "sheeple" in a conversation or forum post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314533</id>
	<title>Re:Ooohhh, they have a "Feedback" feature!</title>
	<author>poopdeville</author>
	<datestamp>1244803140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I told them I was emailing my ISP, specifically telling them to not pay Disney's extortion...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I told them I was emailing my ISP , specifically telling them to not pay Disney 's extortion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I told them I was emailing my ISP, specifically telling them to not pay Disney's extortion...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312949</id>
	<title>Everything old is new again</title>
	<author>aaronrp</author>
	<datestamp>1244839620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Selling to the ISP, not the user, was ClariNet's model too (see ).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Selling to the ISP , not the user , was ClariNet 's model too ( see ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selling to the ISP, not the user, was ClariNet's model too (see ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313975</id>
	<title>Why do they not want me?</title>
	<author>hurfy</author>
	<datestamp>1244800380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do they not want me to see their programs?</p><p>On the off-chance that i wanted to see this all the web pages in the world saying my ISP should buy it is not going to change anything. Unless they have some really awesome payment plan per subscriber with no minimum or base amount i suppose it is possible, but a suitable pricing plan is unlikely. I can ask the ISP all i want but i can't imagine them buying it for their (only/dozen/few dozen) residential customers.</p><p>Not offering me a way to get it would sure reduce any qualms about finding my own source...That doesn't feel like the best idea.</p><p>*ISP is a Qwest reseller that has not been on the reseller list for years. For all i know i am the only residential customer left although i could imagine there may be a few. Tech support is the usually the same guy that is programming their routers, not that i have called him in years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they not want me to see their programs ? On the off-chance that i wanted to see this all the web pages in the world saying my ISP should buy it is not going to change anything .
Unless they have some really awesome payment plan per subscriber with no minimum or base amount i suppose it is possible , but a suitable pricing plan is unlikely .
I can ask the ISP all i want but i ca n't imagine them buying it for their ( only/dozen/few dozen ) residential customers.Not offering me a way to get it would sure reduce any qualms about finding my own source...That does n't feel like the best idea .
* ISP is a Qwest reseller that has not been on the reseller list for years .
For all i know i am the only residential customer left although i could imagine there may be a few .
Tech support is the usually the same guy that is programming their routers , not that i have called him in years : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they not want me to see their programs?On the off-chance that i wanted to see this all the web pages in the world saying my ISP should buy it is not going to change anything.
Unless they have some really awesome payment plan per subscriber with no minimum or base amount i suppose it is possible, but a suitable pricing plan is unlikely.
I can ask the ISP all i want but i can't imagine them buying it for their (only/dozen/few dozen) residential customers.Not offering me a way to get it would sure reduce any qualms about finding my own source...That doesn't feel like the best idea.
*ISP is a Qwest reseller that has not been on the reseller list for years.
For all i know i am the only residential customer left although i could imagine there may be a few.
Tech support is the usually the same guy that is programming their routers, not that i have called him in years :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314029</id>
	<title>Market-based arguments in non-free markets = fail!</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1244800620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If ISPs don't offer enough service for price, people won't buy the service.</p></div><p>For many people, having an ISP is better than not having an ISP, and <em>the</em> ISP---because there often is only one---has to be very expensive and/or crappy (in terms of bandwidth and/or AUP/restrictions/caps/ads/etc.) before people say "No, I'll rather not have Internet access."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If <b>Microsoft</b> don't offer enough <b>software</b> for price, people won't buy the <b>software</b>.</p></div><p>Guess what, Microsoft has tried (and probably still is trying) to make it so you don't <em>really</em> (you know, in practice) have a choice if you want to use computers.</p><p>Making market-based arguments should be reserved for the cases in which the free market actually works.  Dealing with (unregulated) monopolies is the first example of the opposite in my Microeconomics 101 textbook.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If ISPs do n't offer enough service for price , people wo n't buy the service.For many people , having an ISP is better than not having an ISP , and the ISP---because there often is only one---has to be very expensive and/or crappy ( in terms of bandwidth and/or AUP/restrictions/caps/ads/etc .
) before people say " No , I 'll rather not have Internet access .
" If Microsoft do n't offer enough software for price , people wo n't buy the software.Guess what , Microsoft has tried ( and probably still is trying ) to make it so you do n't really ( you know , in practice ) have a choice if you want to use computers.Making market-based arguments should be reserved for the cases in which the free market actually works .
Dealing with ( unregulated ) monopolies is the first example of the opposite in my Microeconomics 101 textbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ISPs don't offer enough service for price, people won't buy the service.For many people, having an ISP is better than not having an ISP, and the ISP---because there often is only one---has to be very expensive and/or crappy (in terms of bandwidth and/or AUP/restrictions/caps/ads/etc.
) before people say "No, I'll rather not have Internet access.
"If Microsoft don't offer enough software for price, people won't buy the software.Guess what, Microsoft has tried (and probably still is trying) to make it so you don't really (you know, in practice) have a choice if you want to use computers.Making market-based arguments should be reserved for the cases in which the free market actually works.
Dealing with (unregulated) monopolies is the first example of the opposite in my Microeconomics 101 textbook.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312985</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised it's ESPN starting this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ESPN loves to milk tons of money out of cable systems, and in fact, their channels are amongst the most expensive for cable providers, mostly because Disney insists that they be on the "basic" tier.  Funny thing is the more ESPN channels they add the worse their programming seems to get, and my days of making sure I didn't miss SportsCenter are LONG gone thanks to the Internet, but I digress.</p><p>So, I'm not surprised that they are trying the same thing with ISP's.  I don't think this is going to work out that well though.  Getting to see broadcasts of games online won't be more than a niche until much faster broadband is available and wireless broadband is more ubiquitous. ESPN was one of the first to start charging for web content in the first place, which is where I'd think it'd be appropriate to sell subscriptions to their video service, but it seems to me that they want to force the ISP's to pay, hence forcing every SUBSCRIBER of that ISP to pay for it as it will be passed on, thus netting them cash from people who don't want their video service and won't use it.</p><p>Given how they've been larding up their website with screaming video ads that start playing immediately I've been going to it less and less.  They really are living on past reputation only as their content has really gone down hill the past couple years.  I certainly don't want my ISP to pay and pass the charges on to me.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ESPN loves to milk tons of money out of cable systems , and in fact , their channels are amongst the most expensive for cable providers , mostly because Disney insists that they be on the " basic " tier .
Funny thing is the more ESPN channels they add the worse their programming seems to get , and my days of making sure I did n't miss SportsCenter are LONG gone thanks to the Internet , but I digress.So , I 'm not surprised that they are trying the same thing with ISP 's .
I do n't think this is going to work out that well though .
Getting to see broadcasts of games online wo n't be more than a niche until much faster broadband is available and wireless broadband is more ubiquitous .
ESPN was one of the first to start charging for web content in the first place , which is where I 'd think it 'd be appropriate to sell subscriptions to their video service , but it seems to me that they want to force the ISP 's to pay , hence forcing every SUBSCRIBER of that ISP to pay for it as it will be passed on , thus netting them cash from people who do n't want their video service and wo n't use it.Given how they 've been larding up their website with screaming video ads that start playing immediately I 've been going to it less and less .
They really are living on past reputation only as their content has really gone down hill the past couple years .
I certainly do n't want my ISP to pay and pass the charges on to me .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>ESPN loves to milk tons of money out of cable systems, and in fact, their channels are amongst the most expensive for cable providers, mostly because Disney insists that they be on the "basic" tier.
Funny thing is the more ESPN channels they add the worse their programming seems to get, and my days of making sure I didn't miss SportsCenter are LONG gone thanks to the Internet, but I digress.So, I'm not surprised that they are trying the same thing with ISP's.
I don't think this is going to work out that well though.
Getting to see broadcasts of games online won't be more than a niche until much faster broadband is available and wireless broadband is more ubiquitous.
ESPN was one of the first to start charging for web content in the first place, which is where I'd think it'd be appropriate to sell subscriptions to their video service, but it seems to me that they want to force the ISP's to pay, hence forcing every SUBSCRIBER of that ISP to pay for it as it will be passed on, thus netting them cash from people who don't want their video service and won't use it.Given how they've been larding up their website with screaming video ads that start playing immediately I've been going to it less and less.
They really are living on past reputation only as their content has really gone down hill the past couple years.
I certainly don't want my ISP to pay and pass the charges on to me.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314715</id>
	<title>block them back?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244803980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we should all just put blocks on Disney's IP ranges from accessing out websites. I'm sure someone can come up with a nice friendly message to show those IP address's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we should all just put blocks on Disney 's IP ranges from accessing out websites .
I 'm sure someone can come up with a nice friendly message to show those IP address 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we should all just put blocks on Disney's IP ranges from accessing out websites.
I'm sure someone can come up with a nice friendly message to show those IP address's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313129</id>
	<title>Preventing competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If an ISP pays them for content, what are the chances he will pay a competing network for similar content?  Or a small startup?  This is simply a ploy to limit competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If an ISP pays them for content , what are the chances he will pay a competing network for similar content ?
Or a small startup ?
This is simply a ploy to limit competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an ISP pays them for content, what are the chances he will pay a competing network for similar content?
Or a small startup?
This is simply a ploy to limit competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313583</id>
	<title>I don't think this is a net neutrality issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney is the content provider, not the mechanism I use to get to the Internet. I think it's the latter point you make - a stupid "monetization" idea. This is all the better. Less people will have access to worship to the golden mouse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney is the content provider , not the mechanism I use to get to the Internet .
I think it 's the latter point you make - a stupid " monetization " idea .
This is all the better .
Less people will have access to worship to the golden mouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney is the content provider, not the mechanism I use to get to the Internet.
I think it's the latter point you make - a stupid "monetization" idea.
This is all the better.
Less people will have access to worship to the golden mouse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313339</id>
	<title>A work-around to Net Neutrality for the Big Wigs?</title>
	<author>dmomo</author>
	<datestamp>1244797860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The excuses they use in opposition to Net Neutrality have viable compromises/work-arounds.  It seems like they can still be evil to the consumer in a Net Neutral World.  It's just harder to but a barrier to competition, so that consumer would have alternatives.  The only reason I can see is that they are trying to be anti-competitive which is, well.. monopolistic/evil/illegal.</p><p>Suppose Net Neutrality were there accepted rule:</p><p>Would it be in violation for a website to offer a faster experience to premium users?  I don't think so.  I think it's okay for a site to throttle their out-going traffic.  This has nothing to do with shaping traffic en-route.</p><p>Would it then be in violation of Net Neutrality to run a promotion with Comcast, say: "Sign up now and get a life time pass to the ESPN Express Lane (TM)".  I don't think so.  They are not restricting access by messing with the Tubes.</p><p>I think the real reason they wouldn't do something like this is because it wouldn't stop a newcomer for providing a better experience for free.  It's clearly an intent to squeeze out the competition and limit choice for consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The excuses they use in opposition to Net Neutrality have viable compromises/work-arounds .
It seems like they can still be evil to the consumer in a Net Neutral World .
It 's just harder to but a barrier to competition , so that consumer would have alternatives .
The only reason I can see is that they are trying to be anti-competitive which is , well.. monopolistic/evil/illegal.Suppose Net Neutrality were there accepted rule : Would it be in violation for a website to offer a faster experience to premium users ?
I do n't think so .
I think it 's okay for a site to throttle their out-going traffic .
This has nothing to do with shaping traffic en-route.Would it then be in violation of Net Neutrality to run a promotion with Comcast , say : " Sign up now and get a life time pass to the ESPN Express Lane ( TM ) " .
I do n't think so .
They are not restricting access by messing with the Tubes.I think the real reason they would n't do something like this is because it would n't stop a newcomer for providing a better experience for free .
It 's clearly an intent to squeeze out the competition and limit choice for consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The excuses they use in opposition to Net Neutrality have viable compromises/work-arounds.
It seems like they can still be evil to the consumer in a Net Neutral World.
It's just harder to but a barrier to competition, so that consumer would have alternatives.
The only reason I can see is that they are trying to be anti-competitive which is, well.. monopolistic/evil/illegal.Suppose Net Neutrality were there accepted rule:Would it be in violation for a website to offer a faster experience to premium users?
I don't think so.
I think it's okay for a site to throttle their out-going traffic.
This has nothing to do with shaping traffic en-route.Would it then be in violation of Net Neutrality to run a promotion with Comcast, say: "Sign up now and get a life time pass to the ESPN Express Lane (TM)".
I don't think so.
They are not restricting access by messing with the Tubes.I think the real reason they wouldn't do something like this is because it wouldn't stop a newcomer for providing a better experience for free.
It's clearly an intent to squeeze out the competition and limit choice for consumers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313919</id>
	<title>Re:Campfire stories for your kids...</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244800080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And guess what? The websites made money, and people payed more money to the ISPs for access, and all the corporations rejoiced. Thus died the golden age of the internet which we now just call 'interactive cable'.</i></p><p>Take a hike.  I'm sick of this sort of apocalyptic, hysterically alarmist crap.  It's the same bullshit that Stallman's been shovelling for years, and it's been garbage for as long as he's been doing it, too.</p><p>Usenet still exists.  You can still download mp3s or pirated books on IRC as much as you want.  Bit torrent might be throttled somewhat and watched a bit more these days, but that's a long way from saying you can't use it at all.  A cam for Terminator Salvation came out very quickly.  eMule only died (and it still hasn't completely) because of the cartels scaring people away from it, but not because they were able to physically shut it down; they couldn't.</p><p>If Usenet exists to a lesser extent than it used to, it's purely because people started realising that web-based forums were simply a better idea.  Moderation abilities mean you don't have to put up with the sort of gibbering, barking, locked-in-their-basement headcases that Usenet has always suffered from.</p><p>Anyone who complains about piracy becoming more difficult on YouTube can also cry me a fucking river.  Self-host your own bit torrent tracker; problem solved.</p><p>Piracy is still very much alive and kicking, and the idea that the Internet is or ever will become purely a home shopping network has been bullshit from the first moment it was dreamed up.</p><p>Richard Stallman is *not* a genius...and neither are you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And guess what ?
The websites made money , and people payed more money to the ISPs for access , and all the corporations rejoiced .
Thus died the golden age of the internet which we now just call 'interactive cable'.Take a hike .
I 'm sick of this sort of apocalyptic , hysterically alarmist crap .
It 's the same bullshit that Stallman 's been shovelling for years , and it 's been garbage for as long as he 's been doing it , too.Usenet still exists .
You can still download mp3s or pirated books on IRC as much as you want .
Bit torrent might be throttled somewhat and watched a bit more these days , but that 's a long way from saying you ca n't use it at all .
A cam for Terminator Salvation came out very quickly .
eMule only died ( and it still has n't completely ) because of the cartels scaring people away from it , but not because they were able to physically shut it down ; they could n't.If Usenet exists to a lesser extent than it used to , it 's purely because people started realising that web-based forums were simply a better idea .
Moderation abilities mean you do n't have to put up with the sort of gibbering , barking , locked-in-their-basement headcases that Usenet has always suffered from.Anyone who complains about piracy becoming more difficult on YouTube can also cry me a fucking river .
Self-host your own bit torrent tracker ; problem solved.Piracy is still very much alive and kicking , and the idea that the Internet is or ever will become purely a home shopping network has been bullshit from the first moment it was dreamed up.Richard Stallman is * not * a genius...and neither are you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And guess what?
The websites made money, and people payed more money to the ISPs for access, and all the corporations rejoiced.
Thus died the golden age of the internet which we now just call 'interactive cable'.Take a hike.
I'm sick of this sort of apocalyptic, hysterically alarmist crap.
It's the same bullshit that Stallman's been shovelling for years, and it's been garbage for as long as he's been doing it, too.Usenet still exists.
You can still download mp3s or pirated books on IRC as much as you want.
Bit torrent might be throttled somewhat and watched a bit more these days, but that's a long way from saying you can't use it at all.
A cam for Terminator Salvation came out very quickly.
eMule only died (and it still hasn't completely) because of the cartels scaring people away from it, but not because they were able to physically shut it down; they couldn't.If Usenet exists to a lesser extent than it used to, it's purely because people started realising that web-based forums were simply a better idea.
Moderation abilities mean you don't have to put up with the sort of gibbering, barking, locked-in-their-basement headcases that Usenet has always suffered from.Anyone who complains about piracy becoming more difficult on YouTube can also cry me a fucking river.
Self-host your own bit torrent tracker; problem solved.Piracy is still very much alive and kicking, and the idea that the Internet is or ever will become purely a home shopping network has been bullshit from the first moment it was dreamed up.Richard Stallman is *not* a genius...and neither are you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315989</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised it's ESPN starting this</title>
	<author>Sun.Jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1244813220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They really are living on past reputation only as their content has really gone down hill the past couple years.</p></div><p>This isn't the 80's... we will all survive without Berman, his tired old football shtick with that mouth Tom Jackson, and that racist prick, Michael Irvin. That show made ESPN what it is... and now revenue humping to pay the the lifetime contracts will kill it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They really are living on past reputation only as their content has really gone down hill the past couple years.This is n't the 80 's... we will all survive without Berman , his tired old football shtick with that mouth Tom Jackson , and that racist prick , Michael Irvin .
That show made ESPN what it is... and now revenue humping to pay the the lifetime contracts will kill it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They really are living on past reputation only as their content has really gone down hill the past couple years.This isn't the 80's... we will all survive without Berman, his tired old football shtick with that mouth Tom Jackson, and that racist prick, Michael Irvin.
That show made ESPN what it is... and now revenue humping to pay the the lifetime contracts will kill it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312863</id>
	<title>It's a feature!</title>
	<author>macemoneta</author>
	<datestamp>1244839320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No access to Disney content resulting in lower ISP charges?  Win-Win!  How do I sign up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No access to Disney content resulting in lower ISP charges ?
Win-Win ! How do I sign up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No access to Disney content resulting in lower ISP charges?
Win-Win!  How do I sign up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28317447</id>
	<title>Re:What about basic DSL?</title>
	<author>cattrain</author>
	<datestamp>1244829060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T is on the list of "Participating Providers".

<a href="http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/affList" title="go.com" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/affList</a> [go.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T is on the list of " Participating Providers " .
http : //espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/affList [ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T is on the list of "Participating Providers".
http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/affList [go.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28323917</id>
	<title>Re:Here's what I see</title>
	<author>jabelli</author>
	<datestamp>1244903280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same thing, but Cortland, NY. Then again, I really don't care at all about sports. Im college, I would go to superbowl parties for the beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing , but Cortland , NY .
Then again , I really do n't care at all about sports .
Im college , I would go to superbowl parties for the beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing, but Cortland, NY.
Then again, I really don't care at all about sports.
Im college, I would go to superbowl parties for the beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28316187</id>
	<title>Need to relax after disney blocked your isp?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1244814840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.losdisneys.com/" title="losdisneys.com">http://www.losdisneys.com/</a> [losdisneys.com] <br>
An open source conversion for your Linux, Mac or Windows OS.<br>Based on Bungie's Marathon 2 open source code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.losdisneys.com/ [ losdisneys.com ] An open source conversion for your Linux , Mac or Windows OS.Based on Bungie 's Marathon 2 open source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.losdisneys.com/ [losdisneys.com] 
An open source conversion for your Linux, Mac or Windows OS.Based on Bungie's Marathon 2 open source code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911</id>
	<title>I hate the disney cult...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have relatives that worship Disney.  They go to Disneyland 4-5 times a year, buy up every DVD they put out, and one of them even has their bathroom painted to look like a Dalmatian, with little Dalmatian statues scattered about everywhere.  It's scary.

That being said I hope this blows up in their face.  I hope that people realize that the good wholesome fantasy world Walt set out to create is dead, and what's left is just a giant faceless corporation with their tentacles raping our society like a scene out of a Urotsukidji manga.

It would be nice to see a boycott over this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have relatives that worship Disney .
They go to Disneyland 4-5 times a year , buy up every DVD they put out , and one of them even has their bathroom painted to look like a Dalmatian , with little Dalmatian statues scattered about everywhere .
It 's scary .
That being said I hope this blows up in their face .
I hope that people realize that the good wholesome fantasy world Walt set out to create is dead , and what 's left is just a giant faceless corporation with their tentacles raping our society like a scene out of a Urotsukidji manga .
It would be nice to see a boycott over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have relatives that worship Disney.
They go to Disneyland 4-5 times a year, buy up every DVD they put out, and one of them even has their bathroom painted to look like a Dalmatian, with little Dalmatian statues scattered about everywhere.
It's scary.
That being said I hope this blows up in their face.
I hope that people realize that the good wholesome fantasy world Walt set out to create is dead, and what's left is just a giant faceless corporation with their tentacles raping our society like a scene out of a Urotsukidji manga.
It would be nice to see a boycott over this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312957</id>
	<title>Their loss</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1244839620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lousy place to ask, but do any of yous go to their site?  Last time I did was three years ago to watch World Cup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lousy place to ask , but do any of yous go to their site ?
Last time I did was three years ago to watch World Cup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lousy place to ask, but do any of yous go to their site?
Last time I did was three years ago to watch World Cup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312993</id>
	<title>stuck or uninspired</title>
	<author>glebovitz</author>
	<datestamp>1244839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like Disney, along with the other media giants, have become bean counters instead of creative thinkers. One would think that with all their experience and finances they would be able to come up with an innovated business model. Instead, they come up with uninspired plans that mirror their vapid and insipid media products.</p><p>If I were a media company, I would be giving revenue shares to ISPs who signed up individual subscribers to my service. Get my ISP to offer an ESPN / Fox sports / MLB or NFL bundle that gives access to all three sites and offer them a cut of the revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like Disney , along with the other media giants , have become bean counters instead of creative thinkers .
One would think that with all their experience and finances they would be able to come up with an innovated business model .
Instead , they come up with uninspired plans that mirror their vapid and insipid media products.If I were a media company , I would be giving revenue shares to ISPs who signed up individual subscribers to my service .
Get my ISP to offer an ESPN / Fox sports / MLB or NFL bundle that gives access to all three sites and offer them a cut of the revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like Disney, along with the other media giants, have become bean counters instead of creative thinkers.
One would think that with all their experience and finances they would be able to come up with an innovated business model.
Instead, they come up with uninspired plans that mirror their vapid and insipid media products.If I were a media company, I would be giving revenue shares to ISPs who signed up individual subscribers to my service.
Get my ISP to offer an ESPN / Fox sports / MLB or NFL bundle that gives access to all three sites and offer them a cut of the revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313127</id>
	<title>Honestly, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me..</title>
	<author>sirwired</author>
	<datestamp>1244840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am making a wild guess that this service is one fanned-out locally by an ISP instead of fed individually to all users from a central source.  (NBC did something like that for the olympics.)  ESPN is offering this as a service to ISP's who would like to provide these live feeds to their customers.  I see no difference between this and an e-mail provider offering to provide e-mail services to a particular ISP.  This looks no different than any other subscription service, only in this case the subscribers are ISPs instead of individual users.  Given the bandwidth live content requires, this makes perfect sense.</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am making a wild guess that this service is one fanned-out locally by an ISP instead of fed individually to all users from a central source .
( NBC did something like that for the olympics .
) ESPN is offering this as a service to ISP 's who would like to provide these live feeds to their customers .
I see no difference between this and an e-mail provider offering to provide e-mail services to a particular ISP .
This looks no different than any other subscription service , only in this case the subscribers are ISPs instead of individual users .
Given the bandwidth live content requires , this makes perfect sense.SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am making a wild guess that this service is one fanned-out locally by an ISP instead of fed individually to all users from a central source.
(NBC did something like that for the olympics.
)  ESPN is offering this as a service to ISP's who would like to provide these live feeds to their customers.
I see no difference between this and an e-mail provider offering to provide e-mail services to a particular ISP.
This looks no different than any other subscription service, only in this case the subscribers are ISPs instead of individual users.
Given the bandwidth live content requires, this makes perfect sense.SirWired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313591</id>
	<title>Discussed on Slashdot</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1244798700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I'm against dupes that invoke a good discussion, but here's the last one:</p><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/news/09/02/06/1444258.shtml" title="slashdot.org">http://news.slashdot.org/news/09/02/06/1444258.shtml</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm against dupes that invoke a good discussion , but here 's the last one : http : //news.slashdot.org/news/09/02/06/1444258.shtml [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm against dupes that invoke a good discussion, but here's the last one:http://news.slashdot.org/news/09/02/06/1444258.shtml [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313159</id>
	<title>Cancel your cable</title>
	<author>jayemcee</author>
	<datestamp>1244797200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, ESPN is terrible, especially Tommy Smythe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) I canceled my cable and rarely miss it. Hulu does a good job for most of the mainstream content, but I subscribe to Setanta Broadband and FSC Broadband for my football (soccer) fix. Now that Setanta is seemingly no more I may be facing having to go back to cable since only FIOS carries 360 around here (Cablevision country). ESPN will get to bid for the US rights formerly owned by Setanta and no doubt put it on 360 if they win. Or I can go back to the dodgy Chinese broadcasts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , ESPN is terrible , especially Tommy Smythe : ) I canceled my cable and rarely miss it .
Hulu does a good job for most of the mainstream content , but I subscribe to Setanta Broadband and FSC Broadband for my football ( soccer ) fix .
Now that Setanta is seemingly no more I may be facing having to go back to cable since only FIOS carries 360 around here ( Cablevision country ) .
ESPN will get to bid for the US rights formerly owned by Setanta and no doubt put it on 360 if they win .
Or I can go back to the dodgy Chinese broadcasts : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, ESPN is terrible, especially Tommy Smythe :) I canceled my cable and rarely miss it.
Hulu does a good job for most of the mainstream content, but I subscribe to Setanta Broadband and FSC Broadband for my football (soccer) fix.
Now that Setanta is seemingly no more I may be facing having to go back to cable since only FIOS carries 360 around here (Cablevision country).
ESPN will get to bid for the US rights formerly owned by Setanta and no doubt put it on 360 if they win.
Or I can go back to the dodgy Chinese broadcasts :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313149</id>
	<title>Cable Internet is Why They'll Get Away With It!</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1244840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, the reason Disney can do it is because they can tie paying the internet license with their TV Content.  Just how they forced all the cable companies to make Disney Channel(s) a required basic cable package channel (raising everyone bill by a couple bucks a month to boot).  Because they can force the cable companies to pay for it that will put large Telco based ISPs at a disadvantage.  That will hurt the few independent ISPs still out there in each market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , the reason Disney can do it is because they can tie paying the internet license with their TV Content .
Just how they forced all the cable companies to make Disney Channel ( s ) a required basic cable package channel ( raising everyone bill by a couple bucks a month to boot ) .
Because they can force the cable companies to pay for it that will put large Telco based ISPs at a disadvantage .
That will hurt the few independent ISPs still out there in each market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, the reason Disney can do it is because they can tie paying the internet license with their TV Content.
Just how they forced all the cable companies to make Disney Channel(s) a required basic cable package channel (raising everyone bill by a couple bucks a month to boot).
Because they can force the cable companies to pay for it that will put large Telco based ISPs at a disadvantage.
That will hurt the few independent ISPs still out there in each market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312849</id>
	<title>Small problem here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called the WORLD-WIDE web for a reason.</p><p>Good luck trying to push your fees on all the ISPs of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the WORLD-WIDE web for a reason.Good luck trying to push your fees on all the ISPs of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the WORLD-WIDE web for a reason.Good luck trying to push your fees on all the ISPs of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313851</id>
	<title>Thanks!</title>
	<author>TyIzaeL</author>
	<datestamp>1244799780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I'll be able to let them know how I liked their sites better when the Konami Code worked!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'll be able to let them know how I liked their sites better when the Konami Code worked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'll be able to let them know how I liked their sites better when the Konami Code worked!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315637</id>
	<title>Same old song and dance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244810220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney has a history of offering what it considers to be premium Internet content on a paid subscription basis, with certain ISPs picking up the tab for their subscribers as a way of differentiating themselves from competing providers (Comcast has offered its subscribers free limited access to Disney's ToonTown online game over the past few years). I would be very surprised if ISPs did not push back for the right to run ads alongside this content rather than having to eat the cost or pass it along to their subscribers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney has a history of offering what it considers to be premium Internet content on a paid subscription basis , with certain ISPs picking up the tab for their subscribers as a way of differentiating themselves from competing providers ( Comcast has offered its subscribers free limited access to Disney 's ToonTown online game over the past few years ) .
I would be very surprised if ISPs did not push back for the right to run ads alongside this content rather than having to eat the cost or pass it along to their subscribers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney has a history of offering what it considers to be premium Internet content on a paid subscription basis, with certain ISPs picking up the tab for their subscribers as a way of differentiating themselves from competing providers (Comcast has offered its subscribers free limited access to Disney's ToonTown online game over the past few years).
I would be very surprised if ISPs did not push back for the right to run ads alongside this content rather than having to eat the cost or pass it along to their subscribers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313829</id>
	<title>The answer is..</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1244799660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, is this a real threat to net neutrality (and the end-to-end principle) or just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes.</p><p>Just because it may be a bad business model does not mean that Disney is not powerful enough to force it down consumers'  (and ISPs') throats.   The problem is, by removing themselves from a direct relationship with the end consumer, they protect themselves from any "market" penalties.  What's a consumer who doesn't want to pay for ESPN or an ISP do?  Unlike the mythical "free market" there really isn't a way for one party in the transaction to influence the other without hurting themselves.  Often, they won't even <i>know</i> that they're paying more for ESPN, so how could they make an informed decision even if they wanted to?</p><p>It's a lot like the current insurance-industry controlled health care system we have in the US.  How could it ever be a "free market" since the consumer/patient (us) have our relationship with our employer, who then has a transaction with the insurance company, who then has a transaction with the provider (our doctor or hospital).  If there's something we don't like about our care, who do we complain to?  Our employer?  No, because they don't have a direct relationship with our provider. Do we complain to the insurance company?  No, because we don't have a transaction with the insurance company, our employer does, and since we're only one patient, what are the odds that we can convince our employer, who's just trying to hang on themselves, to break their relationship with the miserable fucking insurance company, who's only interested in collecting profits, not treating patients.</p><p>This plan, of companies putting themselves out of reach of consumers, is becoming very popular in our pseudo-capitalist system.  We get fucked and they get rich.  Disney, HMOs, Telcos, what's the fucking difference?  They're all hostile to us.</p><p>I'll wait and see <i>Up</i> when it shows up on TPB.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is this a real threat to net neutrality ( and the end-to-end principle ) or just another bad business model that does n't stand a chance ? Yes.Just because it may be a bad business model does not mean that Disney is not powerful enough to force it down consumers ' ( and ISPs ' ) throats .
The problem is , by removing themselves from a direct relationship with the end consumer , they protect themselves from any " market " penalties .
What 's a consumer who does n't want to pay for ESPN or an ISP do ?
Unlike the mythical " free market " there really is n't a way for one party in the transaction to influence the other without hurting themselves .
Often , they wo n't even know that they 're paying more for ESPN , so how could they make an informed decision even if they wanted to ? It 's a lot like the current insurance-industry controlled health care system we have in the US .
How could it ever be a " free market " since the consumer/patient ( us ) have our relationship with our employer , who then has a transaction with the insurance company , who then has a transaction with the provider ( our doctor or hospital ) .
If there 's something we do n't like about our care , who do we complain to ?
Our employer ?
No , because they do n't have a direct relationship with our provider .
Do we complain to the insurance company ?
No , because we do n't have a transaction with the insurance company , our employer does , and since we 're only one patient , what are the odds that we can convince our employer , who 's just trying to hang on themselves , to break their relationship with the miserable fucking insurance company , who 's only interested in collecting profits , not treating patients.This plan , of companies putting themselves out of reach of consumers , is becoming very popular in our pseudo-capitalist system .
We get fucked and they get rich .
Disney , HMOs , Telcos , what 's the fucking difference ?
They 're all hostile to us.I 'll wait and see Up when it shows up on TPB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is this a real threat to net neutrality (and the end-to-end principle) or just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance?Yes.Just because it may be a bad business model does not mean that Disney is not powerful enough to force it down consumers'  (and ISPs') throats.
The problem is, by removing themselves from a direct relationship with the end consumer, they protect themselves from any "market" penalties.
What's a consumer who doesn't want to pay for ESPN or an ISP do?
Unlike the mythical "free market" there really isn't a way for one party in the transaction to influence the other without hurting themselves.
Often, they won't even know that they're paying more for ESPN, so how could they make an informed decision even if they wanted to?It's a lot like the current insurance-industry controlled health care system we have in the US.
How could it ever be a "free market" since the consumer/patient (us) have our relationship with our employer, who then has a transaction with the insurance company, who then has a transaction with the provider (our doctor or hospital).
If there's something we don't like about our care, who do we complain to?
Our employer?
No, because they don't have a direct relationship with our provider.
Do we complain to the insurance company?
No, because we don't have a transaction with the insurance company, our employer does, and since we're only one patient, what are the odds that we can convince our employer, who's just trying to hang on themselves, to break their relationship with the miserable fucking insurance company, who's only interested in collecting profits, not treating patients.This plan, of companies putting themselves out of reach of consumers, is becoming very popular in our pseudo-capitalist system.
We get fucked and they get rich.
Disney, HMOs, Telcos, what's the fucking difference?
They're all hostile to us.I'll wait and see Up when it shows up on TPB.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28316421</id>
	<title>Get a life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244817060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. I ordered a cheeseburger, but didnt want pickles on it. I paid the same price as someone who did. Why am I paying for your ketchup!</p><p>I bought a car, it has a CD player in it. I have an Ipod. Guess what!? I still have to pay full price for the car.</p><p>If you don't like that your ISP is giving you ESPN360, change your ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I ordered a cheeseburger , but didnt want pickles on it .
I paid the same price as someone who did .
Why am I paying for your ketchup ! I bought a car , it has a CD player in it .
I have an Ipod .
Guess what ! ?
I still have to pay full price for the car.If you do n't like that your ISP is giving you ESPN360 , change your ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I ordered a cheeseburger, but didnt want pickles on it.
I paid the same price as someone who did.
Why am I paying for your ketchup!I bought a car, it has a CD player in it.
I have an Ipod.
Guess what!?
I still have to pay full price for the car.If you don't like that your ISP is giving you ESPN360, change your ISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314797</id>
	<title>Oblig. Quote</title>
	<author>Dragonshed</author>
	<datestamp>1244804400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Buddha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no fire like passion , there is no shark like hatred , there is no snare like folly , there is no torrent like greed .
      -Buddha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed.
      -Buddha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313365</id>
	<title>From Europe seems fine...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The site in question seems to work fine from Europe. That was actually my guess beforehand: indeed, how could Disney make deals with all the ISP from overseas...<br>So it seems that Disney has chosen to only close it to 'some US citizins', ie those of certain ISP's.<br>(Those which are not one of their choosing).</p><p>Guess Disney should be glad to be in the States, and not somewhere in Europe where our Dutch Neelie could get at them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-0<br>(See e.g. <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/1328249" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/1328249</a> [slashdot.org] ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The site in question seems to work fine from Europe .
That was actually my guess beforehand : indeed , how could Disney make deals with all the ISP from overseas...So it seems that Disney has chosen to only close it to 'some US citizins ' , ie those of certain ISP 's .
( Those which are not one of their choosing ) .Guess Disney should be glad to be in the States , and not somewhere in Europe where our Dutch Neelie could get at them ; -0 ( See e.g .
http : //politics.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 06/03/31/1328249 [ slashdot.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The site in question seems to work fine from Europe.
That was actually my guess beforehand: indeed, how could Disney make deals with all the ISP from overseas...So it seems that Disney has chosen to only close it to 'some US citizins', ie those of certain ISP's.
(Those which are not one of their choosing).Guess Disney should be glad to be in the States, and not somewhere in Europe where our Dutch Neelie could get at them ;-0(See e.g.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/1328249 [slashdot.org] ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314233</id>
	<title>Back to the original question ...</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1244801760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's ESPN, they may get away with this.  Look at how sports fans are gouged at every event.  They'll pay whatever it takes to see their heroes play.  ESPN/Disney know this and that is who they cater to.  "Serious" sports fans/addicts are also very vocal about their favorite events being available and some of these fans are politicians or the "mentors" of politicians.  The cable companies catch a lot of grief when they don't offer some sports channel - like the Big 10 channel or NFL channel or what have you. I can imagine the complaints to the ISP's and their regulators. Look at how taxpayers end up paying for stadiums for these highly profitable teams to play in. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's ESPN , they may get away with this .
Look at how sports fans are gouged at every event .
They 'll pay whatever it takes to see their heroes play .
ESPN/Disney know this and that is who they cater to .
" Serious " sports fans/addicts are also very vocal about their favorite events being available and some of these fans are politicians or the " mentors " of politicians .
The cable companies catch a lot of grief when they do n't offer some sports channel - like the Big 10 channel or NFL channel or what have you .
I can imagine the complaints to the ISP 's and their regulators .
Look at how taxpayers end up paying for stadiums for these highly profitable teams to play in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's ESPN, they may get away with this.
Look at how sports fans are gouged at every event.
They'll pay whatever it takes to see their heroes play.
ESPN/Disney know this and that is who they cater to.
"Serious" sports fans/addicts are also very vocal about their favorite events being available and some of these fans are politicians or the "mentors" of politicians.
The cable companies catch a lot of grief when they don't offer some sports channel - like the Big 10 channel or NFL channel or what have you.
I can imagine the complaints to the ISP's and their regulators.
Look at how taxpayers end up paying for stadiums for these highly profitable teams to play in. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28316745</id>
	<title>cable TV internet plans</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1244820060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(*&amp;^&amp;\%^\%!!#\%$^^&amp; those *(&amp;^\%$$$$#!holes never give up! Turning the net into a combo of some cellphone plan and a cable TV package. They've been skunks and liars ever since they first lied about commercials on cable TV and got all their local monopolies, and disney, the original copyright until the sun goes supernova jerks.. And as a non sports watcher on either TV or the net, dang if I want to pay my ISP to subsidize that "access".</p><p>Here's a thought for all the couch jocks, instead of like WATCHING sports, why not actually go DO some sports instead, ya know, like in meatspace? Even at night you can go to some gym.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( * &amp; ^ &amp; \ % ^ \ % !
! # \ % $ ^ ^ &amp; those * ( &amp; ^ \ % $ $ $ $ # ! holes never give up !
Turning the net into a combo of some cellphone plan and a cable TV package .
They 've been skunks and liars ever since they first lied about commercials on cable TV and got all their local monopolies , and disney , the original copyright until the sun goes supernova jerks.. And as a non sports watcher on either TV or the net , dang if I want to pay my ISP to subsidize that " access " .Here 's a thought for all the couch jocks , instead of like WATCHING sports , why not actually go DO some sports instead , ya know , like in meatspace ?
Even at night you can go to some gym .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(*&amp;^&amp;\%^\%!
!#\%$^^&amp; those *(&amp;^\%$$$$#!holes never give up!
Turning the net into a combo of some cellphone plan and a cable TV package.
They've been skunks and liars ever since they first lied about commercials on cable TV and got all their local monopolies, and disney, the original copyright until the sun goes supernova jerks.. And as a non sports watcher on either TV or the net, dang if I want to pay my ISP to subsidize that "access".Here's a thought for all the couch jocks, instead of like WATCHING sports, why not actually go DO some sports instead, ya know, like in meatspace?
Even at night you can go to some gym.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28316525</id>
	<title>what ISP?</title>
	<author>stine2469</author>
	<datestamp>1244817840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Ok, so any ISP that has a direct connection to espn360.com is not going to be paying this fee, right?????&nbsp; &nbsp; Since Disney is already paying for that bandwidth.&nbsp; &nbsp;Its just a matter of finding their AS number and sending them a little note to the effect that Disney wants free internet access...</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so any ISP that has a direct connection to espn360.com is not going to be paying this fee , right ? ? ? ?
?     Since Disney is already paying for that bandwidth.     Its just a matter of finding their AS number and sending them a little note to the effect that Disney wants free internet access.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so any ISP that has a direct connection to espn360.com is not going to be paying this fee, right????
?    Since Disney is already paying for that bandwidth.   Its just a matter of finding their AS number and sending them a little note to the effect that Disney wants free internet access...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314399</id>
	<title>Where's the ice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? No Hockey? Absolute barbarians, who would want to visit that site anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
No Hockey ?
Absolute barbarians , who would want to visit that site anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
No Hockey?
Absolute barbarians, who would want to visit that site anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312891</id>
	<title>Isn't ESPN360 the channel itself?</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1244839380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now isn't ESPN360 the actual channel that just happens to also have a website? espn.com is not being blocked, content that hasn't been paid for is, as well as they can do without plugging into ISP's databases and figuring out if you've paid to watch the ESPN360 channel.<br> <br>I subscribe to a magazine that keeps it's archives online but available only to subscribers. I don't see how this is any different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now is n't ESPN360 the actual channel that just happens to also have a website ?
espn.com is not being blocked , content that has n't been paid for is , as well as they can do without plugging into ISP 's databases and figuring out if you 've paid to watch the ESPN360 channel .
I subscribe to a magazine that keeps it 's archives online but available only to subscribers .
I do n't see how this is any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now isn't ESPN360 the actual channel that just happens to also have a website?
espn.com is not being blocked, content that hasn't been paid for is, as well as they can do without plugging into ISP's databases and figuring out if you've paid to watch the ESPN360 channel.
I subscribe to a magazine that keeps it's archives online but available only to subscribers.
I don't see how this is any different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847</id>
	<title>Ooohhh, they have a "Feedback" feature!</title>
	<author>volxdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1244839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess they want some feedback on this topic:</p><p><a href="http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback" title="go.com">http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback</a> [go.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess they want some feedback on this topic : http : //espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback [ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess they want some feedback on this topic:http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback [go.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313797</id>
	<title>Re:No brain surgery here</title>
	<author>atfrase</author>
	<datestamp>1244799540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your argument rests on the premise that the average US household has a choice for broadband internet service, which is not generally true.  So, how consumers feel about the price is irrelevant; the vast majority of them will have no meaningful way to express their disapproval, short of going back to dialup, which would be far more painful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument rests on the premise that the average US household has a choice for broadband internet service , which is not generally true .
So , how consumers feel about the price is irrelevant ; the vast majority of them will have no meaningful way to express their disapproval , short of going back to dialup , which would be far more painful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument rests on the premise that the average US household has a choice for broadband internet service, which is not generally true.
So, how consumers feel about the price is irrelevant; the vast majority of them will have no meaningful way to express their disapproval, short of going back to dialup, which would be far more painful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313083</id>
	<title>Technological issues and the government</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1244840100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can imagine several ways to work around this "issue" through IP packet forwarding and other related methods to get around this sort of blocking and fee schedule.  I would imagine that to do this would result in legal actions of various sorts and regulating how you can access stuff like this through "terms of service" agreements that are draconian.</p><p>The big issue here... and hit squarely on with the original<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posting here... is that this is a business model for getting somebody to pay for content.  They are certainly free to try different business models, but IMHO it is flat-out wrong for the government to guarantee that a particular business model will work.  If folks can find a way to work around this and ensure that this particular business model isn't profitable, it shouldn't be tried.</p><p>I could say the same thing about P2P networks, and in a funny way it is.  Forwarding content of this nature would merely be another "service" provided by P2P networks, as just one more example of how this could be worked around.  Disney is trying to find a technological solution to a social problem... which never works in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine several ways to work around this " issue " through IP packet forwarding and other related methods to get around this sort of blocking and fee schedule .
I would imagine that to do this would result in legal actions of various sorts and regulating how you can access stuff like this through " terms of service " agreements that are draconian.The big issue here... and hit squarely on with the original / .
posting here... is that this is a business model for getting somebody to pay for content .
They are certainly free to try different business models , but IMHO it is flat-out wrong for the government to guarantee that a particular business model will work .
If folks can find a way to work around this and ensure that this particular business model is n't profitable , it should n't be tried.I could say the same thing about P2P networks , and in a funny way it is .
Forwarding content of this nature would merely be another " service " provided by P2P networks , as just one more example of how this could be worked around .
Disney is trying to find a technological solution to a social problem... which never works in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine several ways to work around this "issue" through IP packet forwarding and other related methods to get around this sort of blocking and fee schedule.
I would imagine that to do this would result in legal actions of various sorts and regulating how you can access stuff like this through "terms of service" agreements that are draconian.The big issue here... and hit squarely on with the original /.
posting here... is that this is a business model for getting somebody to pay for content.
They are certainly free to try different business models, but IMHO it is flat-out wrong for the government to guarantee that a particular business model will work.
If folks can find a way to work around this and ensure that this particular business model isn't profitable, it shouldn't be tried.I could say the same thing about P2P networks, and in a funny way it is.
Forwarding content of this nature would merely be another "service" provided by P2P networks, as just one more example of how this could be worked around.
Disney is trying to find a technological solution to a social problem... which never works in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313013</id>
	<title>Fuck them and the animated horse they rode in on!</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1244839800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple solution: Boycott their content completely. Do not need DO NOT WANT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple solution : Boycott their content completely .
Do not need DO NOT WANT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple solution: Boycott their content completely.
Do not need DO NOT WANT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314079</id>
	<title>Comcasts Contact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244800920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like Comcast paid them. According to the ESPN 360 site Comcast customers will get access August 1st.</p><p>I suggest contacting Comcast and complaining. At the very least it will give Comcast ammunition to lower the price it pays.</p><p>http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/contactus/ContactUs.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like Comcast paid them .
According to the ESPN 360 site Comcast customers will get access August 1st.I suggest contacting Comcast and complaining .
At the very least it will give Comcast ammunition to lower the price it pays.http : //www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/contactus/ContactUs.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like Comcast paid them.
According to the ESPN 360 site Comcast customers will get access August 1st.I suggest contacting Comcast and complaining.
At the very least it will give Comcast ammunition to lower the price it pays.http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/contactus/ContactUs.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313691</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the disney cult...</title>
	<author>Dutch Gun</author>
	<datestamp>1244799120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be honest - the fact that you're referencing tentacle-rape manga by name concerns me a hell of a lot more than your Disney-obsessed relatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be honest - the fact that you 're referencing tentacle-rape manga by name concerns me a hell of a lot more than your Disney-obsessed relatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be honest - the fact that you're referencing tentacle-rape manga by name concerns me a hell of a lot more than your Disney-obsessed relatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28316035</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1244813640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usenet made the internet <em>cheaper</em>.  The local-caches (and their size depending only on how much the companies felt like spending on them), reduced the cross-backbone transport of bits in favor of the much, much, cheaper local transport, which benefitted everyone, even the people who didn't use usenet (by ameliorating some of the capacity improvements the providers would have otherwise had to make.)</p><p>When the equation didn't factor so well, usenet started to be phased out.</p><p>Geeks were <em>saddened</em> by this, but recognize the economic realities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usenet made the internet cheaper .
The local-caches ( and their size depending only on how much the companies felt like spending on them ) , reduced the cross-backbone transport of bits in favor of the much , much , cheaper local transport , which benefitted everyone , even the people who did n't use usenet ( by ameliorating some of the capacity improvements the providers would have otherwise had to make .
) When the equation did n't factor so well , usenet started to be phased out.Geeks were saddened by this , but recognize the economic realities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usenet made the internet cheaper.
The local-caches (and their size depending only on how much the companies felt like spending on them), reduced the cross-backbone transport of bits in favor of the much, much, cheaper local transport, which benefitted everyone, even the people who didn't use usenet (by ameliorating some of the capacity improvements the providers would have otherwise had to make.
)When the equation didn't factor so well, usenet started to be phased out.Geeks were saddened by this, but recognize the economic realities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314055</id>
	<title>Re:local broadband monopolies</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1244800800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It shouldn't be a flat value paid to Disney.  If they want to set up a per GB contract, thats find, then just don't go to any disney sites and they wouldn't get any money.  Having it be a flat fee for access and taxed to everyone is wrong. The ISP knows exactly how much bandwidth Disney websites are using and we shouldn't have to pay one red cent above what is being used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should n't be a flat value paid to Disney .
If they want to set up a per GB contract , thats find , then just do n't go to any disney sites and they would n't get any money .
Having it be a flat fee for access and taxed to everyone is wrong .
The ISP knows exactly how much bandwidth Disney websites are using and we should n't have to pay one red cent above what is being used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It shouldn't be a flat value paid to Disney.
If they want to set up a per GB contract, thats find, then just don't go to any disney sites and they wouldn't get any money.
Having it be a flat fee for access and taxed to everyone is wrong.
The ISP knows exactly how much bandwidth Disney websites are using and we shouldn't have to pay one red cent above what is being used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314267</id>
	<title>Thank goodness I live in NYC</title>
	<author>walkoff</author>
	<datestamp>1244801880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in NYC so thankfully I can't get ESPN360

can't get DSL as i'm too far from the CO (and the copper is all degraded anyway), can't get Satellite as too many trees and high buildings and as it's NYC no other cable company is allowed to encroach on Roadrunners territory.

please oh please RR don't cave in</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in NYC so thankfully I ca n't get ESPN360 ca n't get DSL as i 'm too far from the CO ( and the copper is all degraded anyway ) , ca n't get Satellite as too many trees and high buildings and as it 's NYC no other cable company is allowed to encroach on Roadrunners territory .
please oh please RR do n't cave in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in NYC so thankfully I can't get ESPN360

can't get DSL as i'm too far from the CO (and the copper is all degraded anyway), can't get Satellite as too many trees and high buildings and as it's NYC no other cable company is allowed to encroach on Roadrunners territory.
please oh please RR don't cave in</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28317219</id>
	<title>I actually don't have a problem with this</title>
	<author>Asmor</author>
	<datestamp>1244825640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My initial knee-jerk reaction is to be against this and feel that something should be done about it... If nothing else, it feels like it sets a bad precedent for Net Neutrality.</p><p>However, after some thought, there are a couple key issues here which make this a fundamentally different issue from that of ISPs charging websites for preferred access.</p><p>First, ISPs have had a lot of help from government getting established, and thus I don't have a problem with government regulating them much more heavily. Disney's ESPN website is for the most part a standard commercial venture. I'm sure there are some "gotchas" in there about some minor government crap that's inescapable with a company as large as Disney, but it's minor compared to what the ISPs have.</p><p>Second, ESPN isn't a monopoly. In fact, it's practically an anti-monopoly. If Disney drives people away from ESPN, it costs them literally nothing in terms of time, money or effort to find an alternative provider. Relatively few people in the US have a choice of broadband ISPs, and of those who do the choice is almost always limited to just two providers.</p><p>So yeah, in this case, I think Disney's perfectly welcome (and perfectly stupid) to do this, and I think the correct response is for absolutely no ISP to pay them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My initial knee-jerk reaction is to be against this and feel that something should be done about it... If nothing else , it feels like it sets a bad precedent for Net Neutrality.However , after some thought , there are a couple key issues here which make this a fundamentally different issue from that of ISPs charging websites for preferred access.First , ISPs have had a lot of help from government getting established , and thus I do n't have a problem with government regulating them much more heavily .
Disney 's ESPN website is for the most part a standard commercial venture .
I 'm sure there are some " gotchas " in there about some minor government crap that 's inescapable with a company as large as Disney , but it 's minor compared to what the ISPs have.Second , ESPN is n't a monopoly .
In fact , it 's practically an anti-monopoly .
If Disney drives people away from ESPN , it costs them literally nothing in terms of time , money or effort to find an alternative provider .
Relatively few people in the US have a choice of broadband ISPs , and of those who do the choice is almost always limited to just two providers.So yeah , in this case , I think Disney 's perfectly welcome ( and perfectly stupid ) to do this , and I think the correct response is for absolutely no ISP to pay them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My initial knee-jerk reaction is to be against this and feel that something should be done about it... If nothing else, it feels like it sets a bad precedent for Net Neutrality.However, after some thought, there are a couple key issues here which make this a fundamentally different issue from that of ISPs charging websites for preferred access.First, ISPs have had a lot of help from government getting established, and thus I don't have a problem with government regulating them much more heavily.
Disney's ESPN website is for the most part a standard commercial venture.
I'm sure there are some "gotchas" in there about some minor government crap that's inescapable with a company as large as Disney, but it's minor compared to what the ISPs have.Second, ESPN isn't a monopoly.
In fact, it's practically an anti-monopoly.
If Disney drives people away from ESPN, it costs them literally nothing in terms of time, money or effort to find an alternative provider.
Relatively few people in the US have a choice of broadband ISPs, and of those who do the choice is almost always limited to just two providers.So yeah, in this case, I think Disney's perfectly welcome (and perfectly stupid) to do this, and I think the correct response is for absolutely no ISP to pay them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313253</id>
	<title>Re:Here's what I see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gotta say... That's is complete, fucking, bullshit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got ta say... That 's is complete , fucking , bullshit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gotta say... That's is complete, fucking, bullshit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28328115</id>
	<title>Fascinating Experiment</title>
	<author>PMuse</author>
	<datestamp>1245009720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope that a large portion of ISPs hold out for several months.  It will be very instructive to see what happens when a category-leading site like ESPN walls out huge portions of its audience.</p><p>My prediction?  Users/ad revenue will flow immediately to ESPN's competitors.  It's a lot easier to switch sports websites than it is to switch ISPs.  Let's find out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that a large portion of ISPs hold out for several months .
It will be very instructive to see what happens when a category-leading site like ESPN walls out huge portions of its audience.My prediction ?
Users/ad revenue will flow immediately to ESPN 's competitors .
It 's a lot easier to switch sports websites than it is to switch ISPs .
Let 's find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that a large portion of ISPs hold out for several months.
It will be very instructive to see what happens when a category-leading site like ESPN walls out huge portions of its audience.My prediction?
Users/ad revenue will flow immediately to ESPN's competitors.
It's a lot easier to switch sports websites than it is to switch ISPs.
Let's find out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313409</id>
	<title>What about basic DSL?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1244798100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not sure about all ISPs, but I know ATT is required by the federal government to offer basic DSL for cheap. I should think that bundled ESPN != basic, so it would be illegal for ATT to charge for ESPN on this tier. That means either ATT gets no ESPN, or Disney is forced to allow some consumer choice whether to go with this scheme.<br> <br>
I would love to see that happen, and then enough people downgrade to the Disney-free tier that ATT notices the loss in profits, and kills the contract ASAP. I doubt that could happen given how Americans treat sports...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure about all ISPs , but I know ATT is required by the federal government to offer basic DSL for cheap .
I should think that bundled ESPN ! = basic , so it would be illegal for ATT to charge for ESPN on this tier .
That means either ATT gets no ESPN , or Disney is forced to allow some consumer choice whether to go with this scheme .
I would love to see that happen , and then enough people downgrade to the Disney-free tier that ATT notices the loss in profits , and kills the contract ASAP .
I doubt that could happen given how Americans treat sports.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure about all ISPs, but I know ATT is required by the federal government to offer basic DSL for cheap.
I should think that bundled ESPN != basic, so it would be illegal for ATT to charge for ESPN on this tier.
That means either ATT gets no ESPN, or Disney is forced to allow some consumer choice whether to go with this scheme.
I would love to see that happen, and then enough people downgrade to the Disney-free tier that ATT notices the loss in profits, and kills the contract ASAP.
I doubt that could happen given how Americans treat sports...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313171</id>
	<title>No brain surgery here</title>
	<author>steve buttgereit</author>
	<datestamp>1244797200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the ISPs feel it isn't a good investment or feel that it's unfair: they shouldn't pay for it.  If they do think it provides enough value: they should if Disney asks them to.</p><p>Yes they will pass those costs on, but they can only put their prices up so high before they lose value to their customers and they walk.  And yes even cable providers and ISPs have a threshold to their value beyond which the price ain't worth it.</p><p>If enough of their customers want Disney, they'll continue, if not they'll buck the deal.</p><p>Think about it: if Disney and other majors cost the ISPs too much, the ISPs may well tier their services for consumers; if consumers feel the extra price to access Disney is worth it more power to Disney and the ISP.  The extra value will be worth it... I suspect on the Internet people would find other content (maybe even non-Disney content, shudder) rather than pay a premium.  If ISPs don't offer enough service for price, people won't buy the service.</p><p>Going to the FCC or trying to steal the content isn't going to solve anything and ultimately punishes those that create the value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ISPs feel it is n't a good investment or feel that it 's unfair : they should n't pay for it .
If they do think it provides enough value : they should if Disney asks them to.Yes they will pass those costs on , but they can only put their prices up so high before they lose value to their customers and they walk .
And yes even cable providers and ISPs have a threshold to their value beyond which the price ai n't worth it.If enough of their customers want Disney , they 'll continue , if not they 'll buck the deal.Think about it : if Disney and other majors cost the ISPs too much , the ISPs may well tier their services for consumers ; if consumers feel the extra price to access Disney is worth it more power to Disney and the ISP .
The extra value will be worth it... I suspect on the Internet people would find other content ( maybe even non-Disney content , shudder ) rather than pay a premium .
If ISPs do n't offer enough service for price , people wo n't buy the service.Going to the FCC or trying to steal the content is n't going to solve anything and ultimately punishes those that create the value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ISPs feel it isn't a good investment or feel that it's unfair: they shouldn't pay for it.
If they do think it provides enough value: they should if Disney asks them to.Yes they will pass those costs on, but they can only put their prices up so high before they lose value to their customers and they walk.
And yes even cable providers and ISPs have a threshold to their value beyond which the price ain't worth it.If enough of their customers want Disney, they'll continue, if not they'll buck the deal.Think about it: if Disney and other majors cost the ISPs too much, the ISPs may well tier their services for consumers; if consumers feel the extra price to access Disney is worth it more power to Disney and the ISP.
The extra value will be worth it... I suspect on the Internet people would find other content (maybe even non-Disney content, shudder) rather than pay a premium.
If ISPs don't offer enough service for price, people won't buy the service.Going to the FCC or trying to steal the content isn't going to solve anything and ultimately punishes those that create the value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313445</id>
	<title>ESPN should charge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>a rate proportional to the IQ of the visitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a rate proportional to the IQ of the visitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a rate proportional to the IQ of the visitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28318365</id>
	<title>pretty simple or not?</title>
	<author>KingBenny</author>
	<datestamp>1244887380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So no one gets access to disney content, and Disney gets nothing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... see who bends over first then. First 'obligation' any ISP has (like any company) is to its customers, so (unless you live in Belgium where you can choose between two ISPs only that happen to have the same price for the same limited-beyond-belief-bandwith) who would pay for it? If one isp charges for content you never want to see, and another doesn't that's a pretty simple choice imo. These 'ancient' companies will have to get with the program sooner or later. Look at the warez scene : any hollywood movie is released via a RUSSIAN warez site first, almost 80\% of the time. What to do about that? Charge Americans more lol ? Have the CIA scan all collegekids computers to see if they've been hacking it with the commies ? roflmao indeed</htmltext>
<tokenext>So no one gets access to disney content , and Disney gets nothing ... see who bends over first then .
First 'obligation ' any ISP has ( like any company ) is to its customers , so ( unless you live in Belgium where you can choose between two ISPs only that happen to have the same price for the same limited-beyond-belief-bandwith ) who would pay for it ?
If one isp charges for content you never want to see , and another does n't that 's a pretty simple choice imo .
These 'ancient ' companies will have to get with the program sooner or later .
Look at the warez scene : any hollywood movie is released via a RUSSIAN warez site first , almost 80 \ % of the time .
What to do about that ?
Charge Americans more lol ?
Have the CIA scan all collegekids computers to see if they 've been hacking it with the commies ?
roflmao indeed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So no one gets access to disney content, and Disney gets nothing ... see who bends over first then.
First 'obligation' any ISP has (like any company) is to its customers, so (unless you live in Belgium where you can choose between two ISPs only that happen to have the same price for the same limited-beyond-belief-bandwith) who would pay for it?
If one isp charges for content you never want to see, and another doesn't that's a pretty simple choice imo.
These 'ancient' companies will have to get with the program sooner or later.
Look at the warez scene : any hollywood movie is released via a RUSSIAN warez site first, almost 80\% of the time.
What to do about that?
Charge Americans more lol ?
Have the CIA scan all collegekids computers to see if they've been hacking it with the commies ?
roflmao indeed</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313367</id>
	<title>FirSt p0st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>grandstanders, the standards Should you join today! dicks produced</htmltext>
<tokenext>grandstanders , the standards Should you join today !
dicks produced</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grandstanders, the standards Should you join today!
dicks produced</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312967</id>
	<title>local broadband monopolies</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1244839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem at the bottom of all this is the existence of local broadband monopolies. If local broadband markets weren't monopolies, there'd be no problem. Disney could try to extort money from ISP #1, in order to force all of 1's customers to pay an ESPN tax, regardless of whether they wanted to view ESPN via the internet or not. If there was a second ISP, then ISP #2 could position itself as the no-frills ISP in the area, not offering ESPN, and people like me who aren't interested in ESPN would go with ISP #2. In this competitive economic environment, Disney's business plan wouldn't work. All they'd accomplish would be to create a class of users, the customers of ISP #2, who wouldn't even have the option of paying to view ESPN if they wanted to. Disney would recognize that, and wouldn't try this business plan in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem at the bottom of all this is the existence of local broadband monopolies .
If local broadband markets were n't monopolies , there 'd be no problem .
Disney could try to extort money from ISP # 1 , in order to force all of 1 's customers to pay an ESPN tax , regardless of whether they wanted to view ESPN via the internet or not .
If there was a second ISP , then ISP # 2 could position itself as the no-frills ISP in the area , not offering ESPN , and people like me who are n't interested in ESPN would go with ISP # 2 .
In this competitive economic environment , Disney 's business plan would n't work .
All they 'd accomplish would be to create a class of users , the customers of ISP # 2 , who would n't even have the option of paying to view ESPN if they wanted to .
Disney would recognize that , and would n't try this business plan in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem at the bottom of all this is the existence of local broadband monopolies.
If local broadband markets weren't monopolies, there'd be no problem.
Disney could try to extort money from ISP #1, in order to force all of 1's customers to pay an ESPN tax, regardless of whether they wanted to view ESPN via the internet or not.
If there was a second ISP, then ISP #2 could position itself as the no-frills ISP in the area, not offering ESPN, and people like me who aren't interested in ESPN would go with ISP #2.
In this competitive economic environment, Disney's business plan wouldn't work.
All they'd accomplish would be to create a class of users, the customers of ISP #2, who wouldn't even have the option of paying to view ESPN if they wanted to.
Disney would recognize that, and wouldn't try this business plan in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28317513</id>
	<title>Re:Ooohhh, they have a "Feedback" feature!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Guess they want some feedback on this topic:</p><p> <a href="http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback" title="go.com" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback</a> [go.com] </p></div><p>done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess they want some feedback on this topic : http : //espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback [ go.com ] done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess they want some feedback on this topic: http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback [go.com] done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313255</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the disney cult...</title>
	<author>WCMI92</author>
	<datestamp>1244797560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have relatives that worship Disney. They go to Disneyland 4-5 times a year, buy up every DVD they put out, and one of them even has their bathroom painted to look like a Dalmatian, with little Dalmatian statues scattered about everywhere. It's scary. That being said I hope this blows up in their face. I hope that people realize that the good wholesome fantasy world Walt set out to create is dead, and what's left is just a giant faceless corporation with their tentacles raping our society like a scene out of a Urotsukidji manga. It would be nice to see a boycott over this.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is very true.  When Walt Disney was alive, that company used to stand for something and mean something.  Now it's no better than any other entertainment company, except that they haven't yet depleted all of the past reputation of the "Old" Disney.</p><p>They've been in decline, actually for years now.  I expect that in another generation or two (once the last of the generations that grew up with the "Old" Disney quit having kids, the nostalgia will be gone  and they will be in a world of hurt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have relatives that worship Disney .
They go to Disneyland 4-5 times a year , buy up every DVD they put out , and one of them even has their bathroom painted to look like a Dalmatian , with little Dalmatian statues scattered about everywhere .
It 's scary .
That being said I hope this blows up in their face .
I hope that people realize that the good wholesome fantasy world Walt set out to create is dead , and what 's left is just a giant faceless corporation with their tentacles raping our society like a scene out of a Urotsukidji manga .
It would be nice to see a boycott over this.This is very true .
When Walt Disney was alive , that company used to stand for something and mean something .
Now it 's no better than any other entertainment company , except that they have n't yet depleted all of the past reputation of the " Old " Disney.They 've been in decline , actually for years now .
I expect that in another generation or two ( once the last of the generations that grew up with the " Old " Disney quit having kids , the nostalgia will be gone and they will be in a world of hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have relatives that worship Disney.
They go to Disneyland 4-5 times a year, buy up every DVD they put out, and one of them even has their bathroom painted to look like a Dalmatian, with little Dalmatian statues scattered about everywhere.
It's scary.
That being said I hope this blows up in their face.
I hope that people realize that the good wholesome fantasy world Walt set out to create is dead, and what's left is just a giant faceless corporation with their tentacles raping our society like a scene out of a Urotsukidji manga.
It would be nice to see a boycott over this.This is very true.
When Walt Disney was alive, that company used to stand for something and mean something.
Now it's no better than any other entertainment company, except that they haven't yet depleted all of the past reputation of the "Old" Disney.They've been in decline, actually for years now.
I expect that in another generation or two (once the last of the generations that grew up with the "Old" Disney quit having kids, the nostalgia will be gone  and they will be in a world of hurt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315731</id>
	<title>One word: Passwords</title>
	<author>Darth Hubris</author>
	<datestamp>1244810940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ESPN needs to put a password on ESPN.com's content to "protect it".  I swear to God I will never access their content nor any of the mouse's content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ESPN needs to put a password on ESPN.com 's content to " protect it " .
I swear to God I will never access their content nor any of the mouse 's content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ESPN needs to put a password on ESPN.com's content to "protect it".
I swear to God I will never access their content nor any of the mouse's content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313859</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't ESPN360 the channel itself?</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1244799840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they could just give you a login name and password and you can sign in if you pay for the channel. Then they aren't charging thousands or millions of people for content that they don't want or need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they could just give you a login name and password and you can sign in if you pay for the channel .
Then they are n't charging thousands or millions of people for content that they do n't want or need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they could just give you a login name and password and you can sign in if you pay for the channel.
Then they aren't charging thousands or millions of people for content that they don't want or need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313515</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't ESPN360 the channel itself?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have Internet access through Comcast. I do NOT have ESPN 360 (or want anything to do with it). I do NOT want to be charged fees or increased cost for this on my bill for Internet access. Charge the individuals, NOT EVERYONE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Internet access through Comcast .
I do NOT have ESPN 360 ( or want anything to do with it ) .
I do NOT want to be charged fees or increased cost for this on my bill for Internet access .
Charge the individuals , NOT EVERYONE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Internet access through Comcast.
I do NOT have ESPN 360 (or want anything to do with it).
I do NOT want to be charged fees or increased cost for this on my bill for Internet access.
Charge the individuals, NOT EVERYONE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315057</id>
	<title>Re:Why can't the Disney channel be like HBO like i</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1244806320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And why can't Hanna Montana have more death and cursing in it, like the sopranos?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why ca n't Hanna Montana have more death and cursing in it , like the sopranos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why can't Hanna Montana have more death and cursing in it, like the sopranos?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313985</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28323917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28317513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28317447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1842243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28316035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28317513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28316035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28317447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28323917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28314797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28312891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1842243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28313985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1842243.28315057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
