<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_18_1521237</id>
	<title>Bill Ready To Ban ISP Caps In the US</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245343200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>xclr8r writes <i>"Eric Massa,  a congressman representing a district in western New York, <a href="http://massa.house.gov/uploads/BroadbandInternetFairnessAct.pdf">has a bill ready</a> that would start <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/congressman-has-a-bill-ready-to-combat-usage-caps.ars">treating Internet providers like a utility</a> and stop the use of caps.  Nearby locales have been used as test beds for the new caps, so this may have made the constituents raise the issue with their representative."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>xclr8r writes " Eric Massa , a congressman representing a district in western New York , has a bill ready that would start treating Internet providers like a utility and stop the use of caps .
Nearby locales have been used as test beds for the new caps , so this may have made the constituents raise the issue with their representative .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xclr8r writes "Eric Massa,  a congressman representing a district in western New York, has a bill ready that would start treating Internet providers like a utility and stop the use of caps.
Nearby locales have been used as test beds for the new caps, so this may have made the constituents raise the issue with their representative.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375741</id>
	<title>wireless data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245346980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would this apply to wireless data? I.E. AT&amp;T/Sprint/Verizon mobile broadband cards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would this apply to wireless data ?
I.E. AT&amp;T/Sprint/Verizon mobile broadband cards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would this apply to wireless data?
I.E. AT&amp;T/Sprint/Verizon mobile broadband cards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376931</id>
	<title>Re:It's a Stupid Idea, if Competion Exists</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1245351420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A big part of the reason for regulating ISPs like utilities is because, in very many areas, free competition does not exist (even in places where there is some competition, it may only be between a local monopoly telco and a local monopoly cable company).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big part of the reason for regulating ISPs like utilities is because , in very many areas , free competition does not exist ( even in places where there is some competition , it may only be between a local monopoly telco and a local monopoly cable company ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big part of the reason for regulating ISPs like utilities is because, in very many areas, free competition does not exist (even in places where there is some competition, it may only be between a local monopoly telco and a local monopoly cable company).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28387747</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245415560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who is comparing ISPs and bandwidth to other utilities such as electricity, water, or anything tangible should simply stop posting... immediately.  The Internet is not a series of tubes, your comparisons are invalid, and you are ignorant.</p><p>Please cease in the proliferation of these ludicrous analogies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who is comparing ISPs and bandwidth to other utilities such as electricity , water , or anything tangible should simply stop posting... immediately. The Internet is not a series of tubes , your comparisons are invalid , and you are ignorant.Please cease in the proliferation of these ludicrous analogies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who is comparing ISPs and bandwidth to other utilities such as electricity, water, or anything tangible should simply stop posting... immediately.  The Internet is not a series of tubes, your comparisons are invalid, and you are ignorant.Please cease in the proliferation of these ludicrous analogies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375869</id>
	<title>Just like a utility? What about rolling blackouts?</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1245347460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure.  Make it just like a utility.  They won't be able to cap usage in their plans, but they will (eventually) be able to have rolling blackouts using the claim that their networks simply don't have the capacity for everyone.<br> <br>I'm not in favor of caps.  I'm just anticipating how some of the carrier weasels will try to get around this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Make it just like a utility .
They wo n't be able to cap usage in their plans , but they will ( eventually ) be able to have rolling blackouts using the claim that their networks simply do n't have the capacity for everyone .
I 'm not in favor of caps .
I 'm just anticipating how some of the carrier weasels will try to get around this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Make it just like a utility.
They won't be able to cap usage in their plans, but they will (eventually) be able to have rolling blackouts using the claim that their networks simply don't have the capacity for everyone.
I'm not in favor of caps.
I'm just anticipating how some of the carrier weasels will try to get around this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376199</id>
	<title>Unnecessary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245348600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just compel the ISPs to state that there is actually a limit to what they will allow you to use, the penalties/limits they impose if you exceed that limit, and what it takes to get past the limit.  I'm not sure we should be legislating that Internet service be UNlimited.  Sooner or later, someone will claim cell phone service is a 'right', and all plans need to be UNlimited.  Not so smart, but it sounds good.</p><p>In other words, make them say 'limited' when they try to say 'unlimited', and it is NOT.</p><p>Truth in advertising.  Yes, an oxymoron.  Shouldn't be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just compel the ISPs to state that there is actually a limit to what they will allow you to use , the penalties/limits they impose if you exceed that limit , and what it takes to get past the limit .
I 'm not sure we should be legislating that Internet service be UNlimited .
Sooner or later , someone will claim cell phone service is a 'right ' , and all plans need to be UNlimited .
Not so smart , but it sounds good.In other words , make them say 'limited ' when they try to say 'unlimited ' , and it is NOT.Truth in advertising .
Yes , an oxymoron .
Should n't be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just compel the ISPs to state that there is actually a limit to what they will allow you to use, the penalties/limits they impose if you exceed that limit, and what it takes to get past the limit.
I'm not sure we should be legislating that Internet service be UNlimited.
Sooner or later, someone will claim cell phone service is a 'right', and all plans need to be UNlimited.
Not so smart, but it sounds good.In other words, make them say 'limited' when they try to say 'unlimited', and it is NOT.Truth in advertising.
Yes, an oxymoron.
Shouldn't be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376727</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Mordok-DestroyerOfWo</author>
	<datestamp>1245350700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the electric company advertised their service as "unlimited" then your argument would make some sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the electric company advertised their service as " unlimited " then your argument would make some sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the electric company advertised their service as "unlimited" then your argument would make some sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376623</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1245350280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gaming of a <b>poorly</b> deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.</p></div><p>FTFY.  The way California went from regulation to de-regulation was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_electricity\_crisis#Effects\_of\_deregulation" title="wikipedia.org">pretty stupid.</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
First they had price caps, removing any incentive to conserve energy.  (Different situation than internet here where there is a fairly linear cost to produce the product.)
<br> <br>
Second, they released the caps on wholesale prices first, but not retail prices.  So you had end users with no incentive to conserve being fed by producers who had no incentive to lower prices because the end users were gobbling up as much as they could get at capped prices.  The middlemen distributors, were, well, trapped in the middle.
<br> <br>
When things came to a head?  Brownouts.
<br> <br>
Sure, Enron manipulated the system and were a bunch of assholes.  California's regulations created the system for them to manipulate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaming of a poorly deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.FTFY .
The way California went from regulation to de-regulation was pretty stupid .
[ wikipedia.org ] First they had price caps , removing any incentive to conserve energy .
( Different situation than internet here where there is a fairly linear cost to produce the product .
) Second , they released the caps on wholesale prices first , but not retail prices .
So you had end users with no incentive to conserve being fed by producers who had no incentive to lower prices because the end users were gobbling up as much as they could get at capped prices .
The middlemen distributors , were , well , trapped in the middle .
When things came to a head ?
Brownouts . Sure , Enron manipulated the system and were a bunch of assholes .
California 's regulations created the system for them to manipulate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaming of a poorly deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.FTFY.
The way California went from regulation to de-regulation was pretty stupid.
[wikipedia.org]
 
First they had price caps, removing any incentive to conserve energy.
(Different situation than internet here where there is a fairly linear cost to produce the product.
)
 
Second, they released the caps on wholesale prices first, but not retail prices.
So you had end users with no incentive to conserve being fed by producers who had no incentive to lower prices because the end users were gobbling up as much as they could get at capped prices.
The middlemen distributors, were, well, trapped in the middle.
When things came to a head?
Brownouts.
 
Sure, Enron manipulated the system and were a bunch of assholes.
California's regulations created the system for them to manipulate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380371</id>
	<title>CA was not deregulated</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245318420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you want to say you don't want government involvement, that's fine as an argument, but there's evidence that deregulation in California and abuse of this deregulation by Enron and other such companies had more to do with the situation</i></p><p>CA energy was not deregulated but you like so many other have fallen for the lie that the rolling blackouts in CA were caused by deregulation.  Sure some regulations were dropped but others were added.  See <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1273671&amp;cid=28380109&amp;art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">this post</a> [slashdot.org] of mine.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to say you do n't want government involvement , that 's fine as an argument , but there 's evidence that deregulation in California and abuse of this deregulation by Enron and other such companies had more to do with the situationCA energy was not deregulated but you like so many other have fallen for the lie that the rolling blackouts in CA were caused by deregulation .
Sure some regulations were dropped but others were added .
See this post [ slashdot.org ] of mine .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to say you don't want government involvement, that's fine as an argument, but there's evidence that deregulation in California and abuse of this deregulation by Enron and other such companies had more to do with the situationCA energy was not deregulated but you like so many other have fallen for the lie that the rolling blackouts in CA were caused by deregulation.
Sure some regulations were dropped but others were added.
See this post [slashdot.org] of mine.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375851</id>
	<title>SLASHDOT SUX0RZ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt> <b>\_0\_<br>\''\<br>'=o='<br>.|!|<br>.| |<br>
 </b> </tt>
<br>
<a href="http://www.goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Bill ready to ban goatse in the US</a> [goatse.fr]</htmltext>
<tokenext>\ _0 \ _ \ ' ' \ ' = o = '. | ! | . | | Bill ready to ban goatse in the US [ goatse.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> \_0\_\''\'=o='.|!|.| |
  

Bill ready to ban goatse in the US [goatse.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376591</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Trahloc</author>
	<datestamp>1245350160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really, speaking as someone who connects directly to Tier1 providers the transit is there and its ever growing.  The failure is on the ISP side of not upgrading their infrastructure to handle it.  I know of several ISP's who run a profit and provide excellent service to their clients, if these guys can't its their failure not the capacity of the internet infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , speaking as someone who connects directly to Tier1 providers the transit is there and its ever growing .
The failure is on the ISP side of not upgrading their infrastructure to handle it .
I know of several ISP 's who run a profit and provide excellent service to their clients , if these guys ca n't its their failure not the capacity of the internet infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, speaking as someone who connects directly to Tier1 providers the transit is there and its ever growing.
The failure is on the ISP side of not upgrading their infrastructure to handle it.
I know of several ISP's who run a profit and provide excellent service to their clients, if these guys can't its their failure not the capacity of the internet infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376467</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245349620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Water and electricity have costs that scale with how much is being used. Bandwidth does not, it has only infrastructure costs and negligible electrical costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Water and electricity have costs that scale with how much is being used .
Bandwidth does not , it has only infrastructure costs and negligible electrical costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Water and electricity have costs that scale with how much is being used.
Bandwidth does not, it has only infrastructure costs and negligible electrical costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380019</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1245317280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have unmetered water.  No matter how much I use, I get the same bill.  Most don't do it that way, but it isn't uncommon.  Also, almost all sewer bills are on unlimited usage.  It doesn't matter how much you use it, the bill is the same.  Local phone service also. Unlimited, and local calls are always free, even though they tried to fight that with early dial-up ISPs.<br> <br>Unlimited services aren't as outrageous as some seem to assert.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have unmetered water .
No matter how much I use , I get the same bill .
Most do n't do it that way , but it is n't uncommon .
Also , almost all sewer bills are on unlimited usage .
It does n't matter how much you use it , the bill is the same .
Local phone service also .
Unlimited , and local calls are always free , even though they tried to fight that with early dial-up ISPs .
Unlimited services are n't as outrageous as some seem to assert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have unmetered water.
No matter how much I use, I get the same bill.
Most don't do it that way, but it isn't uncommon.
Also, almost all sewer bills are on unlimited usage.
It doesn't matter how much you use it, the bill is the same.
Local phone service also.
Unlimited, and local calls are always free, even though they tried to fight that with early dial-up ISPs.
Unlimited services aren't as outrageous as some seem to assert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381135</id>
	<title>Re:They Aren't the ISPs Bits to Sell</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1245321480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you pay for water and electricity, you are actually buying them.</p> </div><p>
Nonsense! Most of the electrons I buy from the power company are sent back to them. A similar thing happens with water, but at least I can think of it as buying clean water.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you pay for water and electricity , you are actually buying them .
Nonsense ! Most of the electrons I buy from the power company are sent back to them .
A similar thing happens with water , but at least I can think of it as buying clean water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you pay for water and electricity, you are actually buying them.
Nonsense! Most of the electrons I buy from the power company are sent back to them.
A similar thing happens with water, but at least I can think of it as buying clean water.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376043</id>
	<title>Re:How do people help</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245348000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contact your congress person a let them knwo you support it and want them to show support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contact your congress person a let them knwo you support it and want them to show support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contact your congress person a let them knwo you support it and want them to show support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376829</id>
	<title>Re:ISP like my utilities - Bad idea.</title>
	<author>Viewsonic</author>
	<datestamp>1245351060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really depends. If reasonable is 0.10 per gig, then I think most of us could live with that. The ISP would still be making a profit even at that price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends .
If reasonable is 0.10 per gig , then I think most of us could live with that .
The ISP would still be making a profit even at that price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends.
If reasonable is 0.10 per gig, then I think most of us could live with that.
The ISP would still be making a profit even at that price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379995</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1245317220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it hadn't occured to me... Perhaps because it sounds patently idiotic on the face of it.</p><p>Water shortages in CA are simply because CA is the most populous state in the county, and half the state happens to be desert.  Add-in the fact that California doesn't get any higher priority over interstate rivers than other, vastly less-populous states, and the recent restictions on water usage because of endangered species, and it's pretty amazing CA doesn't run out of water after a decade-long drought.  Other southwestern states have managed to avoid the same fate just because of their minuscule populations.  OTOH, I hear Atlanta has been having even more serious water shortages than Los Angeles.</p><p>The infamous rolling blackouts had everything to do with deregulation.  Before then, when SoCal Edison/PG&amp;E were in charge of everything, there were no rolling blackouts.  Once Enron went bust, things got back under control.</p><p>Of course, power issues in CA are also related to that same issue of massive population, in the desert (innumerable tons of air conditioning dragging the grid down) also combined with stringent state regulations on air pollution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating " utilities " like utilities is what 's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA ? No , it had n't occured to me... Perhaps because it sounds patently idiotic on the face of it.Water shortages in CA are simply because CA is the most populous state in the county , and half the state happens to be desert .
Add-in the fact that California does n't get any higher priority over interstate rivers than other , vastly less-populous states , and the recent restictions on water usage because of endangered species , and it 's pretty amazing CA does n't run out of water after a decade-long drought .
Other southwestern states have managed to avoid the same fate just because of their minuscule populations .
OTOH , I hear Atlanta has been having even more serious water shortages than Los Angeles.The infamous rolling blackouts had everything to do with deregulation .
Before then , when SoCal Edison/PG&amp;E were in charge of everything , there were no rolling blackouts .
Once Enron went bust , things got back under control.Of course , power issues in CA are also related to that same issue of massive population , in the desert ( innumerable tons of air conditioning dragging the grid down ) also combined with stringent state regulations on air pollution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?No, it hadn't occured to me... Perhaps because it sounds patently idiotic on the face of it.Water shortages in CA are simply because CA is the most populous state in the county, and half the state happens to be desert.
Add-in the fact that California doesn't get any higher priority over interstate rivers than other, vastly less-populous states, and the recent restictions on water usage because of endangered species, and it's pretty amazing CA doesn't run out of water after a decade-long drought.
Other southwestern states have managed to avoid the same fate just because of their minuscule populations.
OTOH, I hear Atlanta has been having even more serious water shortages than Los Angeles.The infamous rolling blackouts had everything to do with deregulation.
Before then, when SoCal Edison/PG&amp;E were in charge of everything, there were no rolling blackouts.
Once Enron went bust, things got back under control.Of course, power issues in CA are also related to that same issue of massive population, in the desert (innumerable tons of air conditioning dragging the grid down) also combined with stringent state regulations on air pollution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376375</id>
	<title>Re:They can justify it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245349200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hrm. Regarding this and the language about "Volume" service plans being unjust unless based on actual usage sounds less like "Hey, let's outlaw caps" and more like "Let's make unlimited unavailable, and you will ALL be billed $x(hopefully 0.00x) per Megabyte. After all, how can you offer "non-discriminatory" unlimited usage plans if you charge someone else by usage?
<br> <br>

Any step away from "fee for unlimited" is a step backwards. Internet plans evolved from the old "x hours per month" to unlimited, cell phones are evolving off of the "x/min" and on to unlimited (see T-mobile, AT&amp;T for instance). Heck, part of the reason VOIP is so popular is it gets away from $.05/min for long distance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hrm .
Regarding this and the language about " Volume " service plans being unjust unless based on actual usage sounds less like " Hey , let 's outlaw caps " and more like " Let 's make unlimited unavailable , and you will ALL be billed $ x ( hopefully 0.00x ) per Megabyte .
After all , how can you offer " non-discriminatory " unlimited usage plans if you charge someone else by usage ?
Any step away from " fee for unlimited " is a step backwards .
Internet plans evolved from the old " x hours per month " to unlimited , cell phones are evolving off of the " x/min " and on to unlimited ( see T-mobile , AT&amp;T for instance ) .
Heck , part of the reason VOIP is so popular is it gets away from $ .05/min for long distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hrm.
Regarding this and the language about "Volume" service plans being unjust unless based on actual usage sounds less like "Hey, let's outlaw caps" and more like "Let's make unlimited unavailable, and you will ALL be billed $x(hopefully 0.00x) per Megabyte.
After all, how can you offer "non-discriminatory" unlimited usage plans if you charge someone else by usage?
Any step away from "fee for unlimited" is a step backwards.
Internet plans evolved from the old "x hours per month" to unlimited, cell phones are evolving off of the "x/min" and on to unlimited (see T-mobile, AT&amp;T for instance).
Heck, part of the reason VOIP is so popular is it gets away from $.05/min for long distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378303</id>
	<title>Bandwidth, throughput an utilities</title>
	<author>Funk\_dat69</author>
	<datestamp>1245355380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In these discussions there is a serious misunderstanding and misuse of the term "bandwidth".</p><p>Typically, 'bandwidth' means the amount of data a specific part will be able to send at specific point in time.(the 'width' of your 'bands') It does *not* mean the aggregate amount of data the user of said part has sent/received between two points in time. That is more like 'throughput', but not even that.</p><p>I think it's important to remember that, unlike utilities which are metered because there is a finite amount of the resource, there is never a shortage of data. There may be a shortage of bandwidth at a particular moment, but as soon as a few people stop transmitting data, that bandwidth is available again. The worst that can happen is a slow down of network performance.</p><p>Comparisons of 'bandwidth' to utilities is folly.</p><p>Now if the ISPs somehow pay for access to the larger 'backbone' or other large networks by GB/month, then I can see why they would want to pass that cost on to the runaway downloaders, but technically there really is no sensible argument to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In these discussions there is a serious misunderstanding and misuse of the term " bandwidth " .Typically , 'bandwidth ' means the amount of data a specific part will be able to send at specific point in time .
( the 'width ' of your 'bands ' ) It does * not * mean the aggregate amount of data the user of said part has sent/received between two points in time .
That is more like 'throughput ' , but not even that.I think it 's important to remember that , unlike utilities which are metered because there is a finite amount of the resource , there is never a shortage of data .
There may be a shortage of bandwidth at a particular moment , but as soon as a few people stop transmitting data , that bandwidth is available again .
The worst that can happen is a slow down of network performance.Comparisons of 'bandwidth ' to utilities is folly.Now if the ISPs somehow pay for access to the larger 'backbone ' or other large networks by GB/month , then I can see why they would want to pass that cost on to the runaway downloaders , but technically there really is no sensible argument to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In these discussions there is a serious misunderstanding and misuse of the term "bandwidth".Typically, 'bandwidth' means the amount of data a specific part will be able to send at specific point in time.
(the 'width' of your 'bands') It does *not* mean the aggregate amount of data the user of said part has sent/received between two points in time.
That is more like 'throughput', but not even that.I think it's important to remember that, unlike utilities which are metered because there is a finite amount of the resource, there is never a shortage of data.
There may be a shortage of bandwidth at a particular moment, but as soon as a few people stop transmitting data, that bandwidth is available again.
The worst that can happen is a slow down of network performance.Comparisons of 'bandwidth' to utilities is folly.Now if the ISPs somehow pay for access to the larger 'backbone' or other large networks by GB/month, then I can see why they would want to pass that cost on to the runaway downloaders, but technically there really is no sensible argument to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375885</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad comment!  No point for you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad comment !
No point for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad comment!
No point for you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379071</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245357600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't buy chickens by the gallon, or pay a monthly minimum fee for the gas you use in your car.  So why should you pay your water bill by the gallon?</p><p>Bad analogies are bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't buy chickens by the gallon , or pay a monthly minimum fee for the gas you use in your car .
So why should you pay your water bill by the gallon ? Bad analogies are bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't buy chickens by the gallon, or pay a monthly minimum fee for the gas you use in your car.
So why should you pay your water bill by the gallon?Bad analogies are bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377705</id>
	<title>Wildblue and Hughes</title>
	<author>Jeff Archambeault</author>
	<datestamp>1245353940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a wildblue.com user (directv customer) with a 17GB down, 5GB up 30-day rolling cap, I don't think satellite ISPs will like the idea. For me, it's $70/mo for 1.5mbps down, 254kbps up.  The unrealistic all up or all down prices would be $4.12/GB down, $14/GB up.  Cellular 5GB cap would be $8GB/mo, at $40/mo.  Satellite transmit bandwidth is inherently less than receive (ie xmit power in consumer vs pro gear), so it is like ADSL in that respect, but I get penalized twice!</p><p>For only $2500 per customer, the cable company will bring cable service 5 poles further up the road to service 3 customers.  The phone company mentioned that they would have to install "expensive equipment", roughly half way between the current local COs, and there is no available copper due to capacity and damage.  It's not like these companies invest in system-wide upgrades, just those where they can get the best RoI.</p><p>I haven't read all the comments yet, but I'd expect someone to mention "volume discounts" for greater usage. There is still no internet equivalent to the "dial tone", or to "long distance".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a wildblue.com user ( directv customer ) with a 17GB down , 5GB up 30-day rolling cap , I do n't think satellite ISPs will like the idea .
For me , it 's $ 70/mo for 1.5mbps down , 254kbps up .
The unrealistic all up or all down prices would be $ 4.12/GB down , $ 14/GB up .
Cellular 5GB cap would be $ 8GB/mo , at $ 40/mo .
Satellite transmit bandwidth is inherently less than receive ( ie xmit power in consumer vs pro gear ) , so it is like ADSL in that respect , but I get penalized twice ! For only $ 2500 per customer , the cable company will bring cable service 5 poles further up the road to service 3 customers .
The phone company mentioned that they would have to install " expensive equipment " , roughly half way between the current local COs , and there is no available copper due to capacity and damage .
It 's not like these companies invest in system-wide upgrades , just those where they can get the best RoI.I have n't read all the comments yet , but I 'd expect someone to mention " volume discounts " for greater usage .
There is still no internet equivalent to the " dial tone " , or to " long distance " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a wildblue.com user (directv customer) with a 17GB down, 5GB up 30-day rolling cap, I don't think satellite ISPs will like the idea.
For me, it's $70/mo for 1.5mbps down, 254kbps up.
The unrealistic all up or all down prices would be $4.12/GB down, $14/GB up.
Cellular 5GB cap would be $8GB/mo, at $40/mo.
Satellite transmit bandwidth is inherently less than receive (ie xmit power in consumer vs pro gear), so it is like ADSL in that respect, but I get penalized twice!For only $2500 per customer, the cable company will bring cable service 5 poles further up the road to service 3 customers.
The phone company mentioned that they would have to install "expensive equipment", roughly half way between the current local COs, and there is no available copper due to capacity and damage.
It's not like these companies invest in system-wide upgrades, just those where they can get the best RoI.I haven't read all the comments yet, but I'd expect someone to mention "volume discounts" for greater usage.
There is still no internet equivalent to the "dial tone", or to "long distance".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376667</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245350520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is already well established that the rolling blackouts in Ca were the result of a combination of felonious market manipulation made possible by de-regulation and of deregulating just part of the industry.</p><p>The latter part was from wholesale prices rising while retail prices were held firm by regulation. Unlike the energy situation, wholesale bandwidth prices continue a downward trend driven by new technology routinely doubling (or more) the bandwidth that can be provided over existing fiber.</p><p>The water shortages are a tough problem. Market pricing could leave low income families without an essential service or shut down businesses. OTOH, banning things like private swimming pools will affect exactly the segment of the population that is most likely to make political contributions. Meanwhile, unlike bandwidth, new technology will not magically wave more water into existence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is already well established that the rolling blackouts in Ca were the result of a combination of felonious market manipulation made possible by de-regulation and of deregulating just part of the industry.The latter part was from wholesale prices rising while retail prices were held firm by regulation .
Unlike the energy situation , wholesale bandwidth prices continue a downward trend driven by new technology routinely doubling ( or more ) the bandwidth that can be provided over existing fiber.The water shortages are a tough problem .
Market pricing could leave low income families without an essential service or shut down businesses .
OTOH , banning things like private swimming pools will affect exactly the segment of the population that is most likely to make political contributions .
Meanwhile , unlike bandwidth , new technology will not magically wave more water into existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is already well established that the rolling blackouts in Ca were the result of a combination of felonious market manipulation made possible by de-regulation and of deregulating just part of the industry.The latter part was from wholesale prices rising while retail prices were held firm by regulation.
Unlike the energy situation, wholesale bandwidth prices continue a downward trend driven by new technology routinely doubling (or more) the bandwidth that can be provided over existing fiber.The water shortages are a tough problem.
Market pricing could leave low income families without an essential service or shut down businesses.
OTOH, banning things like private swimming pools will affect exactly the segment of the population that is most likely to make political contributions.
Meanwhile, unlike bandwidth, new technology will not magically wave more water into existence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28384281</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1245336540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Portugal, my ISP has (for some years) a double billing system: capped to 20GB for the traffic between 9am and 1am, and "Happy Hours" (unlimited) for the other 8 hours.<br>It keeps the downloaders happy, as they can download hundreds of GBs/month, and keeps the other people happy as the downloaders don't use the pipes during the day.</p><p>Win/win, IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Portugal , my ISP has ( for some years ) a double billing system : capped to 20GB for the traffic between 9am and 1am , and " Happy Hours " ( unlimited ) for the other 8 hours.It keeps the downloaders happy , as they can download hundreds of GBs/month , and keeps the other people happy as the downloaders do n't use the pipes during the day.Win/win , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Portugal, my ISP has (for some years) a double billing system: capped to 20GB for the traffic between 9am and 1am, and "Happy Hours" (unlimited) for the other 8 hours.It keeps the downloaders happy, as they can download hundreds of GBs/month, and keeps the other people happy as the downloaders don't use the pipes during the day.Win/win, IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376949</id>
	<title>Re:Billed like water?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 1000 gallons of water equalled 1000 GB of data, then you'd have a great pricing scheme for consumers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 1000 gallons of water equalled 1000 GB of data , then you 'd have a great pricing scheme for consumers ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 1000 gallons of water equalled 1000 GB of data, then you'd have a great pricing scheme for consumers ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380049</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1245317340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing is though when what other utilities advertise, you do get that as do all your neighbours. With internet access they can claim you'll get 10 meg speeds but the actual speed could be anything and one person may get 10 meg speeds but his friend down the road may not.
<br> <br>
Until broadband is much more reliable and consistent, I don't think they can justify metered usage.
<br> <br>
Other utilities give you discounts for poor service or no service. With broadband you'd have an absolute nightmare sorting that out and, yes if I was metered, my expectations would be much higher than they are now. I don't mind paying for what I use but it better work not cause me hassle.
<br> <br>
I don't have to struggle to get the water out of the tap or electricity out of the socket and I expect no less from metered broadband.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is though when what other utilities advertise , you do get that as do all your neighbours .
With internet access they can claim you 'll get 10 meg speeds but the actual speed could be anything and one person may get 10 meg speeds but his friend down the road may not .
Until broadband is much more reliable and consistent , I do n't think they can justify metered usage .
Other utilities give you discounts for poor service or no service .
With broadband you 'd have an absolute nightmare sorting that out and , yes if I was metered , my expectations would be much higher than they are now .
I do n't mind paying for what I use but it better work not cause me hassle .
I do n't have to struggle to get the water out of the tap or electricity out of the socket and I expect no less from metered broadband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is though when what other utilities advertise, you do get that as do all your neighbours.
With internet access they can claim you'll get 10 meg speeds but the actual speed could be anything and one person may get 10 meg speeds but his friend down the road may not.
Until broadband is much more reliable and consistent, I don't think they can justify metered usage.
Other utilities give you discounts for poor service or no service.
With broadband you'd have an absolute nightmare sorting that out and, yes if I was metered, my expectations would be much higher than they are now.
I don't mind paying for what I use but it better work not cause me hassle.
I don't have to struggle to get the water out of the tap or electricity out of the socket and I expect no less from metered broadband.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378039</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245354720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the end result is to move to a per-bit plan... hell, push it through faster!  I HATE the system of "you get X amount of bandwidth for Y price".  I use MAYBE 5 gigs a month... and most of that is streaming video.  Why the hell should I pay the same as someone who downloads 10 gigs of data per day?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the end result is to move to a per-bit plan... hell , push it through faster !
I HATE the system of " you get X amount of bandwidth for Y price " .
I use MAYBE 5 gigs a month... and most of that is streaming video .
Why the hell should I pay the same as someone who downloads 10 gigs of data per day ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the end result is to move to a per-bit plan... hell, push it through faster!
I HATE the system of "you get X amount of bandwidth for Y price".
I use MAYBE 5 gigs a month... and most of that is streaming video.
Why the hell should I pay the same as someone who downloads 10 gigs of data per day?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375833</id>
	<title>I see levitating swine</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1245347280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this actually gets passed we're all going to need really good thermal undergarments when the earth's core becomes frozen solid.</p><p>Of course let's see if/how they handle the recent Disney/ESPN <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/12/1842243" title="slashdot.org">"strongarming"</a> [slashdot.org] attempts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this actually gets passed we 're all going to need really good thermal undergarments when the earth 's core becomes frozen solid.Of course let 's see if/how they handle the recent Disney/ESPN " strongarming " [ slashdot.org ] attempts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this actually gets passed we're all going to need really good thermal undergarments when the earth's core becomes frozen solid.Of course let's see if/how they handle the recent Disney/ESPN "strongarming" [slashdot.org] attempts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377413</id>
	<title>This would not solve the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though this bill is worded in such a way that it seems like it would accomplish what we want, the reality could not be further from the truth.</p><p>The bill would let the god-awful FCC control ISP's. You think there is a single regulator at the FCC that's NOT already paid for by TimeWarner?</p><p>This would give the biggest ISP's in the industry the MOST power over regulators, not a good thing.</p><p>Right now the ISP's that are trying to cap bandwidth usage are having to acquiesce to angry customers who threaten to switch service providers. The consumers are doing a pretty good job fighting this fight. If this legislation where to pass the biggest ISP's would get FEDERAL AUTHORITY to cap bandwith usage. Essentially taking all choice out of the marketplace and consumers would loose.</p><p>I'm sure the legislator had good intentions, but we all know where those lead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though this bill is worded in such a way that it seems like it would accomplish what we want , the reality could not be further from the truth.The bill would let the god-awful FCC control ISP 's .
You think there is a single regulator at the FCC that 's NOT already paid for by TimeWarner ? This would give the biggest ISP 's in the industry the MOST power over regulators , not a good thing.Right now the ISP 's that are trying to cap bandwidth usage are having to acquiesce to angry customers who threaten to switch service providers .
The consumers are doing a pretty good job fighting this fight .
If this legislation where to pass the biggest ISP 's would get FEDERAL AUTHORITY to cap bandwith usage .
Essentially taking all choice out of the marketplace and consumers would loose.I 'm sure the legislator had good intentions , but we all know where those lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though this bill is worded in such a way that it seems like it would accomplish what we want, the reality could not be further from the truth.The bill would let the god-awful FCC control ISP's.
You think there is a single regulator at the FCC that's NOT already paid for by TimeWarner?This would give the biggest ISP's in the industry the MOST power over regulators, not a good thing.Right now the ISP's that are trying to cap bandwidth usage are having to acquiesce to angry customers who threaten to switch service providers.
The consumers are doing a pretty good job fighting this fight.
If this legislation where to pass the biggest ISP's would get FEDERAL AUTHORITY to cap bandwith usage.
Essentially taking all choice out of the marketplace and consumers would loose.I'm sure the legislator had good intentions, but we all know where those lead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025</id>
	<title>Billed like water?</title>
	<author>Albanach</author>
	<datestamp>1245347880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>My water is provided and billed by the local service authority.<br><br>I'm billed for usage in tiers like this:<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp;0-3000 gallons&nbsp; &nbsp; $3.30 per 1000 gallons<br>3001-6000 gallons&nbsp; &nbsp; $6.60 per 1000 gallons<br>6001-9000 gallons&nbsp; &nbsp;$10.00 per 1000 gallons<br>9001+&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;gallons&nbsp; &nbsp;$13.30 per 1000 gallons<br><br>Presumably, utility style billing for internet connections would be similar - very cheap for the first few GB, then progressively more expensive where the heaviest users could find themselves a lot worse off.<br><br>Not sure I like it. I suspect the internet companies would think it a great idea.<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>My water is provided and billed by the local service authority.I 'm billed for usage in tiers like this :     0-3000 gallons     $ 3.30 per 1000 gallons3001-6000 gallons     $ 6.60 per 1000 gallons6001-9000 gallons     $ 10.00 per 1000 gallons9001 +       gallons     $ 13.30 per 1000 gallonsPresumably , utility style billing for internet connections would be similar - very cheap for the first few GB , then progressively more expensive where the heaviest users could find themselves a lot worse off.Not sure I like it .
I suspect the internet companies would think it a great idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My water is provided and billed by the local service authority.I'm billed for usage in tiers like this:   0-3000 gallons    $3.30 per 1000 gallons3001-6000 gallons    $6.60 per 1000 gallons6001-9000 gallons   $10.00 per 1000 gallons9001+     gallons   $13.30 per 1000 gallonsPresumably, utility style billing for internet connections would be similar - very cheap for the first few GB, then progressively more expensive where the heaviest users could find themselves a lot worse off.Not sure I like it.
I suspect the internet companies would think it a great idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375843</id>
	<title>How do people help</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1245347340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is light on details on how people can help to push this through and make it law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is light on details on how people can help to push this through and make it law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is light on details on how people can help to push this through and make it law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391815</id>
	<title>Re:ISP like my utilities - Bad idea.</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1245434220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I pay my utilities by usage. </i></p><p>Probably only for power.  Water, sewage and garbage, not so much.  So your comparison is 25\% Scottish, 75\% Not Scottish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay my utilities by usage .
Probably only for power .
Water , sewage and garbage , not so much .
So your comparison is 25 \ % Scottish , 75 \ % Not Scottish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay my utilities by usage.
Probably only for power.
Water, sewage and garbage, not so much.
So your comparison is 25\% Scottish, 75\% Not Scottish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376209</id>
	<title>ISP like my utilities - Bad idea.</title>
	<author>backbyter</author>
	<datestamp>1245348600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I pay my utilities by usage.  They don't offer an "unlimited" water or electricity plan.

Additionally, I pay a lower rate for the first X units of usage, then a higher rate for further units, in addition to the service fees..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay my utilities by usage .
They do n't offer an " unlimited " water or electricity plan .
Additionally , I pay a lower rate for the first X units of usage , then a higher rate for further units , in addition to the service fees. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay my utilities by usage.
They don't offer an "unlimited" water or electricity plan.
Additionally, I pay a lower rate for the first X units of usage, then a higher rate for further units, in addition to the service fees..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376797</id>
	<title>Re:It's a Stupid Idea, if Competion Exists</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245350880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the problem, competetion DOESN'T exist in most places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the problem , competetion DOES N'T exist in most places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the problem, competetion DOESN'T exist in most places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377993</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1245354600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is not what caused the brown-outs in California a few years ago.  It was deliberate manipulation of the power market that arose due to a lack of regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not what caused the brown-outs in California a few years ago .
It was deliberate manipulation of the power market that arose due to a lack of regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is not what caused the brown-outs in California a few years ago.
It was deliberate manipulation of the power market that arose due to a lack of regulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376219</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245348660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, there are a lot of laws dictating ways contracts can be sued.</p><p>Hiong as a utility is the best way you ahve of eventually getting pay for what you use plans.<br>The current plan stems from the Cable TV model, not some government utility program.</p><p>"You don't pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, "<br>Actually that is a factor in many areas. It can also cause your sewer bill to change.</p><p>"or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge."<br>that as well.</p><p>"So why should you pay your internet because of the maximum throughput possible?"<br>This should be under "Thing to have discussed in 1995."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , there are a lot of laws dictating ways contracts can be sued.Hiong as a utility is the best way you ahve of eventually getting pay for what you use plans.The current plan stems from the Cable TV model , not some government utility program .
" You do n't pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter , " Actually that is a factor in many areas .
It can also cause your sewer bill to change .
" or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge .
" that as well .
" So why should you pay your internet because of the maximum throughput possible ?
" This should be under " Thing to have discussed in 1995 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, there are a lot of laws dictating ways contracts can be sued.Hiong as a utility is the best way you ahve of eventually getting pay for what you use plans.The current plan stems from the Cable TV model, not some government utility program.
"You don't pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, "Actually that is a factor in many areas.
It can also cause your sewer bill to change.
"or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.
"that as well.
"So why should you pay your internet because of the maximum throughput possible?
"This should be under "Thing to have discussed in 1995.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378871</id>
	<title>Unlimited Electric, Gas and Water, No Way</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245356880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>that would start treating Internet providers like a utility and stop the use of caps</i> </p><p>The regulated utility isn't required to deliver unlimited gas, electric, and water service to your home - without regard to cost or competing demands on its resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that would start treating Internet providers like a utility and stop the use of caps The regulated utility is n't required to deliver unlimited gas , electric , and water service to your home - without regard to cost or competing demands on its resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that would start treating Internet providers like a utility and stop the use of caps The regulated utility isn't required to deliver unlimited gas, electric, and water service to your home - without regard to cost or competing demands on its resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377779</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1245354120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a good point.  Perhaps then it will start to bite people who are completely unaware that their computers have been compromised.  Then maybe they'd get interested in fixing the problems their computers have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a good point .
Perhaps then it will start to bite people who are completely unaware that their computers have been compromised .
Then maybe they 'd get interested in fixing the problems their computers have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a good point.
Perhaps then it will start to bite people who are completely unaware that their computers have been compromised.
Then maybe they'd get interested in fixing the problems their computers have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799</id>
	<title>They can justify it.</title>
	<author>Drakin020</author>
	<datestamp>1245347160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>FTB</b>

<p><i>13(a) PROHIBITION.--It shall be unlawful for major
</i></p><p><i>14 broadband Internet service providers to offer volume usage
</i></p><p><i>15 service plans imposing rates, terms and conditions that
</i></p><p><i>16 are unjust, unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory.
</i>
</p><p>
I'm sure they can somehow find a way to "Justify" the caps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTB 13 ( a ) PROHIBITION.--It shall be unlawful for major 14 broadband Internet service providers to offer volume usage 15 service plans imposing rates , terms and conditions that 16 are unjust , unreasonable , or unreasonably discriminatory .
I 'm sure they can somehow find a way to " Justify " the caps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTB

13(a) PROHIBITION.--It shall be unlawful for major
14 broadband Internet service providers to offer volume usage
15 service plans imposing rates, terms and conditions that
16 are unjust, unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory.
I'm sure they can somehow find a way to "Justify" the caps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376951</id>
	<title>Re:Nice! Wish we had this in Canada</title>
	<author>Satanicolas</author>
	<datestamp>1245351540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>try velcom.ca
real 5MBps+ MLPPP + no cap 31$/month</htmltext>
<tokenext>try velcom.ca real 5MBps + MLPPP + no cap 31 $ /month</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try velcom.ca
real 5MBps+ MLPPP + no cap 31$/month</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376893</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1245351300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>switching to a per-byte type of plan would mean that their highest usage customers would pay through the nose while the majority of customers pay a few bucks a month for the bandwidth</p></div><p>Not necessarily. You're assume that they'll be charging a flat rate per byte (or perhaps you're thinking they'll sock it to the heavy downloaders to "punish" them).</p><p>There are two basic types of tiered rates: inverted/increasing block rates, where heavy users get charged more per unit, and decreasing/declining ones, where heavy users get charged <em>less</em> per unit.</p><p>The inverted block rates are intended <strong>to motivate people to conserve the resource</strong>. For instance, in locations where water tends to be scarce, inverted rates are used to help conserve it.</p><p>The decreasing ones are designed <strong>to appeal to heavy users</strong>, since they pay the highest bills and could hurt your profits if they started drastically conserving (or if they moved to a competitor who offered better rates for their usage level, as you suggested). In locations where water is relatively plentiful, the decreasing rates tend to be used.</p><p><a href="http://www.awwa.org/Resources/topicspecific.cfm?ItemNumber=3649&amp;navItemNumber=3650" title="awwa.org">A Discussion of Tiered Rate Structures</a> [awwa.org] as they apply to the water industry</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>switching to a per-byte type of plan would mean that their highest usage customers would pay through the nose while the majority of customers pay a few bucks a month for the bandwidthNot necessarily .
You 're assume that they 'll be charging a flat rate per byte ( or perhaps you 're thinking they 'll sock it to the heavy downloaders to " punish " them ) .There are two basic types of tiered rates : inverted/increasing block rates , where heavy users get charged more per unit , and decreasing/declining ones , where heavy users get charged less per unit.The inverted block rates are intended to motivate people to conserve the resource .
For instance , in locations where water tends to be scarce , inverted rates are used to help conserve it.The decreasing ones are designed to appeal to heavy users , since they pay the highest bills and could hurt your profits if they started drastically conserving ( or if they moved to a competitor who offered better rates for their usage level , as you suggested ) .
In locations where water is relatively plentiful , the decreasing rates tend to be used.A Discussion of Tiered Rate Structures [ awwa.org ] as they apply to the water industry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>switching to a per-byte type of plan would mean that their highest usage customers would pay through the nose while the majority of customers pay a few bucks a month for the bandwidthNot necessarily.
You're assume that they'll be charging a flat rate per byte (or perhaps you're thinking they'll sock it to the heavy downloaders to "punish" them).There are two basic types of tiered rates: inverted/increasing block rates, where heavy users get charged more per unit, and decreasing/declining ones, where heavy users get charged less per unit.The inverted block rates are intended to motivate people to conserve the resource.
For instance, in locations where water tends to be scarce, inverted rates are used to help conserve it.The decreasing ones are designed to appeal to heavy users, since they pay the highest bills and could hurt your profits if they started drastically conserving (or if they moved to a competitor who offered better rates for their usage level, as you suggested).
In locations where water is relatively plentiful, the decreasing rates tend to be used.A Discussion of Tiered Rate Structures [awwa.org] as they apply to the water industry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378737</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245356520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Especially</em> as long as they have people like you, being their strongest believers.<br>You have to understand the principle of mindsets and strong realities.</p><p>A strong reality needs two sides. The one stating it. And the other, believing in it.<br>Which you do in such a strong way, that you really think, lobbying power will never end.</p><p>But the first step to change this situation... even before doing anything... is to start believing that this <em>will</em> change, and that we will change it.<br>If your reality is stronger, others (especially the mindless ones) will start to believe in you, instead of them.<br>And if this goes on with enough strength, and for long enough, it <em>will</em> change. Because then people will allow themselves, to think up, and get trough, with ideas that realistically work.</p><p>You can learn this in psychology.</p><p>I say: You are over 300 million people. MILLION. Against what? A hand full of ISPs? And you think you can't put a stronger lobbying force together? Are you freaking kidding me?<br>Half the hillbillies already follow you, when you tell them that this grassroots power is in the true philosophy of the USA. (Be sure to emphasize "USA".)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially as long as they have people like you , being their strongest believers.You have to understand the principle of mindsets and strong realities.A strong reality needs two sides .
The one stating it .
And the other , believing in it.Which you do in such a strong way , that you really think , lobbying power will never end.But the first step to change this situation... even before doing anything... is to start believing that this will change , and that we will change it.If your reality is stronger , others ( especially the mindless ones ) will start to believe in you , instead of them.And if this goes on with enough strength , and for long enough , it will change .
Because then people will allow themselves , to think up , and get trough , with ideas that realistically work.You can learn this in psychology.I say : You are over 300 million people .
MILLION. Against what ?
A hand full of ISPs ?
And you think you ca n't put a stronger lobbying force together ?
Are you freaking kidding me ? Half the hillbillies already follow you , when you tell them that this grassroots power is in the true philosophy of the USA .
( Be sure to emphasize " USA " .
) ; ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially as long as they have people like you, being their strongest believers.You have to understand the principle of mindsets and strong realities.A strong reality needs two sides.
The one stating it.
And the other, believing in it.Which you do in such a strong way, that you really think, lobbying power will never end.But the first step to change this situation... even before doing anything... is to start believing that this will change, and that we will change it.If your reality is stronger, others (especially the mindless ones) will start to believe in you, instead of them.And if this goes on with enough strength, and for long enough, it will change.
Because then people will allow themselves, to think up, and get trough, with ideas that realistically work.You can learn this in psychology.I say: You are over 300 million people.
MILLION. Against what?
A hand full of ISPs?
And you think you can't put a stronger lobbying force together?
Are you freaking kidding me?Half the hillbillies already follow you, when you tell them that this grassroots power is in the true philosophy of the USA.
(Be sure to emphasize "USA".
) ;))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380075</id>
	<title>Ghost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245317400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean "the ghost of Lilly Tomin"? Last time I checked, she was still alive.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily\_Tomlin<br>And we're a better world for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean " the ghost of Lilly Tomin " ?
Last time I checked , she was still alive.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily \ _TomlinAnd we 're a better world for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean "the ghost of Lilly Tomin"?
Last time I checked, she was still alive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily\_TomlinAnd we're a better world for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380779</id>
	<title>Re:It's a Stupid Idea, if Competion Exists</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245320040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, I really don't understand why so many people are up in arms against billing the usage (by traffic, probably). So long as prices are reasonable (and I wouldn't mind the govt stepping in to control that, given how many ISPs are natural monopolists), how is it unfair? Granted, the existing "unlimited" ISP contracts should be honored until they expire, but aside from that?..</p><p>Or is it just because everyone wants to have their free lunch, so long as someone else pays for it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I really do n't understand why so many people are up in arms against billing the usage ( by traffic , probably ) .
So long as prices are reasonable ( and I would n't mind the govt stepping in to control that , given how many ISPs are natural monopolists ) , how is it unfair ?
Granted , the existing " unlimited " ISP contracts should be honored until they expire , but aside from that ? ..Or is it just because everyone wants to have their free lunch , so long as someone else pays for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I really don't understand why so many people are up in arms against billing the usage (by traffic, probably).
So long as prices are reasonable (and I wouldn't mind the govt stepping in to control that, given how many ISPs are natural monopolists), how is it unfair?
Granted, the existing "unlimited" ISP contracts should be honored until they expire, but aside from that?..Or is it just because everyone wants to have their free lunch, so long as someone else pays for it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907</id>
	<title>ISP's like Utilities?  Be careful what you ask for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to get a new water, sewer, or electric hookup can be an exercise in frustration because of the bureaucracy and safeguards in the system.</p><p>Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years.  Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you.  (Unless you want something fancy like a business line or a T3, then welcome back to the Bad Old Days.)</p><p>I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin:  "We don't care, we don't have to.  We're the phone company."</p><p>And if you think that usage on Utilities isn't capped, you're naive.  If you didn't have those teeny-tiny water pipes and electric lines to your house you'd find out real quick there are all kinds of regulations and arbitrary rules about water and electric usage.  For industry -- which have much larger access to electric and water -- there are often "monthy maximums" for water use, and obscenely high electric rates for peak usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to get a new water , sewer , or electric hookup can be an exercise in frustration because of the bureaucracy and safeguards in the system.Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years .
Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they 're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you .
( Unless you want something fancy like a business line or a T3 , then welcome back to the Bad Old Days .
) I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin : " We do n't care , we do n't have to .
We 're the phone company .
" And if you think that usage on Utilities is n't capped , you 're naive .
If you did n't have those teeny-tiny water pipes and electric lines to your house you 'd find out real quick there are all kinds of regulations and arbitrary rules about water and electric usage .
For industry -- which have much larger access to electric and water -- there are often " monthy maximums " for water use , and obscenely high electric rates for peak usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to get a new water, sewer, or electric hookup can be an exercise in frustration because of the bureaucracy and safeguards in the system.Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years.
Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you.
(Unless you want something fancy like a business line or a T3, then welcome back to the Bad Old Days.
)I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin:  "We don't care, we don't have to.
We're the phone company.
"And if you think that usage on Utilities isn't capped, you're naive.
If you didn't have those teeny-tiny water pipes and electric lines to your house you'd find out real quick there are all kinds of regulations and arbitrary rules about water and electric usage.
For industry -- which have much larger access to electric and water -- there are often "monthy maximums" for water use, and obscenely high electric rates for peak usage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377109</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245352200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They certainly don't complain when the contracted price for running their cables under and over my property is dictated to be zero even if I choose not to use their service. They don't complain when potential competition is legally barred from entry into the area. They don't complain when the courts and/or state legislatures bar local governments from building community networks.</p><p>Various municipal networks that have been implemented demonstrate that the monthly bill for broadband has practically nothing to do with the cost of the bandwidth. (given that those have provided a LOT more for less money).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They certainly do n't complain when the contracted price for running their cables under and over my property is dictated to be zero even if I choose not to use their service .
They do n't complain when potential competition is legally barred from entry into the area .
They do n't complain when the courts and/or state legislatures bar local governments from building community networks.Various municipal networks that have been implemented demonstrate that the monthly bill for broadband has practically nothing to do with the cost of the bandwidth .
( given that those have provided a LOT more for less money ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They certainly don't complain when the contracted price for running their cables under and over my property is dictated to be zero even if I choose not to use their service.
They don't complain when potential competition is legally barred from entry into the area.
They don't complain when the courts and/or state legislatures bar local governments from building community networks.Various municipal networks that have been implemented demonstrate that the monthly bill for broadband has practically nothing to do with the cost of the bandwidth.
(given that those have provided a LOT more for less money).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391735</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>jgostling</author>
	<datestamp>1245433920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, the ISPs would finally have an incentive to increase effective speeds, since the faster your connection the more data you can move around.<br> <br>
Cheers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the ISPs would finally have an incentive to increase effective speeds , since the faster your connection the more data you can move around .
Cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the ISPs would finally have an incentive to increase effective speeds, since the faster your connection the more data you can move around.
Cheers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381553</id>
	<title>Re:It's a Stupid Idea, if Competion Exists</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245323220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a Stupid Idea, if Competion Exists</p></div><p>Or in other words, it'd be a stupid idea if competition existed...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a Stupid Idea , if Competion ExistsOr in other words , it 'd be a stupid idea if competition existed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a Stupid Idea, if Competion ExistsOr in other words, it'd be a stupid idea if competition existed...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380449</id>
	<title>Re:They Aren't the ISPs Bits to Sell</title>
	<author>jcam2</author>
	<datestamp>1245318840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong wrong wrong!</p><p>Do you think Comcast has a connection they own all the way to every website you visit? Of course not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. which means that they have to pay higher-tier internet providers for links of various speeds. If Comcast's customers then generate too much traffic for those links, they have to pay more for greater capacity.</p><p>And even at the tier-1 ISP level, fibre in the ground or under the ocean only has limited capacity. When that gets used up, they have to lay more fibre<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. why else do you think ISPs and telcos have been building new undersea and cross-country cables?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong wrong wrong ! Do you think Comcast has a connection they own all the way to every website you visit ?
Of course not .. which means that they have to pay higher-tier internet providers for links of various speeds .
If Comcast 's customers then generate too much traffic for those links , they have to pay more for greater capacity.And even at the tier-1 ISP level , fibre in the ground or under the ocean only has limited capacity .
When that gets used up , they have to lay more fibre .. why else do you think ISPs and telcos have been building new undersea and cross-country cables ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong wrong wrong!Do you think Comcast has a connection they own all the way to every website you visit?
Of course not .. which means that they have to pay higher-tier internet providers for links of various speeds.
If Comcast's customers then generate too much traffic for those links, they have to pay more for greater capacity.And even at the tier-1 ISP level, fibre in the ground or under the ocean only has limited capacity.
When that gets used up, they have to lay more fibre .. why else do you think ISPs and telcos have been building new undersea and cross-country cables?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376745</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's like Utilities? Be careful what you ask f</title>
	<author>eht</author>
	<datestamp>1245350700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My grandfather recently had the water company install a smaller pipe to his house because he doesn't use enough water to warrant the pipe he had and he gets a cut in his water bill rates because of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My grandfather recently had the water company install a smaller pipe to his house because he does n't use enough water to warrant the pipe he had and he gets a cut in his water bill rates because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My grandfather recently had the water company install a smaller pipe to his house because he doesn't use enough water to warrant the pipe he had and he gets a cut in his water bill rates because of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376371</id>
	<title>Re:Just like a utility? What about rolling blackou</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1245349200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't need rolling blackouts to a utility to act like a dick. Just ask my power company who keeps increasing my rate aver few months without adding any service. Now your ISP can do the same thing, what are you going to do? Go somewhere else?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need rolling blackouts to a utility to act like a dick .
Just ask my power company who keeps increasing my rate aver few months without adding any service .
Now your ISP can do the same thing , what are you going to do ?
Go somewhere else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need rolling blackouts to a utility to act like a dick.
Just ask my power company who keeps increasing my rate aver few months without adding any service.
Now your ISP can do the same thing, what are you going to do?
Go somewhere else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376141</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>bickle</author>
	<datestamp>1245348300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, some legislation to stop all those noobs from using Caps Lock!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , some legislation to stop all those noobs from using Caps Lock !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, some legislation to stop all those noobs from using Caps Lock!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376247</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245348780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it hasn't ecasue that's not true, at all.</p><p>Brown out were caused by people operating illegally and trying to pressure a rate increase. You do notice that the company behind that ceased to exist, right? and that you still get power?</p><p>Water Utilities don't cause water shortages. Lack of water for demand does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it has n't ecasue that 's not true , at all.Brown out were caused by people operating illegally and trying to pressure a rate increase .
You do notice that the company behind that ceased to exist , right ?
and that you still get power ? Water Utilities do n't cause water shortages .
Lack of water for demand does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it hasn't ecasue that's not true, at all.Brown out were caused by people operating illegally and trying to pressure a rate increase.
You do notice that the company behind that ceased to exist, right?
and that you still get power?Water Utilities don't cause water shortages.
Lack of water for demand does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375881</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1245347520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could the water shortages have been caused by simply having too many people for the amount of water nearby?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could the water shortages have been caused by simply having too many people for the amount of water nearby ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could the water shortages have been caused by simply having too many people for the amount of water nearby?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378155</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245355020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post grossly misrepresents what the costs of circuits actually are.</p><p>Your analogy is flawed.  It costs them more money to send 20A down the line constantly than it does to send 1A down the line.</p><p>In conventional internet connections this is simply not the case.  A connection is capable of handling X amount of data.  It costs the same for the connection to move 0 bytes/second or max it out, the cost to run it does not change.  Power companies cost DOES change based on your usage.  ISP cost doesn't change based on your usage, its a flat rate.</p><p>Exception: Due to the massive amount of overselling, its not uncommon for an ISP to pay more for 'using too much bandwidth'  but this is a purely artificial cost that is added as a surcharge and only exists due to the overselling of circuits as a way to keep people within their limits through fear of overruns.</p><p>This is true for all connections types, wired to sat based.  They all truely have a flat fee to keep them operational, any variable fees or metered usage is purely a artificial charge to extract more than the service is actually worth from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post grossly misrepresents what the costs of circuits actually are.Your analogy is flawed .
It costs them more money to send 20A down the line constantly than it does to send 1A down the line.In conventional internet connections this is simply not the case .
A connection is capable of handling X amount of data .
It costs the same for the connection to move 0 bytes/second or max it out , the cost to run it does not change .
Power companies cost DOES change based on your usage .
ISP cost does n't change based on your usage , its a flat rate.Exception : Due to the massive amount of overselling , its not uncommon for an ISP to pay more for 'using too much bandwidth ' but this is a purely artificial cost that is added as a surcharge and only exists due to the overselling of circuits as a way to keep people within their limits through fear of overruns.This is true for all connections types , wired to sat based .
They all truely have a flat fee to keep them operational , any variable fees or metered usage is purely a artificial charge to extract more than the service is actually worth from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post grossly misrepresents what the costs of circuits actually are.Your analogy is flawed.
It costs them more money to send 20A down the line constantly than it does to send 1A down the line.In conventional internet connections this is simply not the case.
A connection is capable of handling X amount of data.
It costs the same for the connection to move 0 bytes/second or max it out, the cost to run it does not change.
Power companies cost DOES change based on your usage.
ISP cost doesn't change based on your usage, its a flat rate.Exception: Due to the massive amount of overselling, its not uncommon for an ISP to pay more for 'using too much bandwidth'  but this is a purely artificial cost that is added as a surcharge and only exists due to the overselling of circuits as a way to keep people within their limits through fear of overruns.This is true for all connections types, wired to sat based.
They all truely have a flat fee to keep them operational, any variable fees or metered usage is purely a artificial charge to extract more than the service is actually worth from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378349</id>
	<title>Re:They Aren't the ISPs Bits to Sell</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245355500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely correct, very well written explanation.  "Bits" cost the ISP essentially nothing.  "Bits per second" cost them something.  I'll only quibble on this:</p><p><i>With ISPs, they want to limit your use because the speeds they charge you for aren't actually the speeds they can deliver if everyone actually uses their connection.</i></p><p>Except they can't deliver those speeds even with their caps because all the "light" users downloading 10-100MB a month all hop on the net at the same time and saturate the available bandwidth.  Whereas your overnight dl of 20GB is screaming fast because nobody else is using the pipe and there's plenty of bw to spare for anyone who is.  Get rid of those heavy users, and the prime-time slowdown will still occur.  Usage caps don't even come close to solving the problem they're allegedly supposed to.</p><p><i>Of course there is the totally separate issue of most ISPs also selling content that they would much rather you get via pay per view, etc than via the Internet...</i></p><p>Totally separate, but ultimately the <b>real</b> issue.  Crap about providing quality internet service is just a diversion from the ISPs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely correct , very well written explanation .
" Bits " cost the ISP essentially nothing .
" Bits per second " cost them something .
I 'll only quibble on this : With ISPs , they want to limit your use because the speeds they charge you for are n't actually the speeds they can deliver if everyone actually uses their connection.Except they ca n't deliver those speeds even with their caps because all the " light " users downloading 10-100MB a month all hop on the net at the same time and saturate the available bandwidth .
Whereas your overnight dl of 20GB is screaming fast because nobody else is using the pipe and there 's plenty of bw to spare for anyone who is .
Get rid of those heavy users , and the prime-time slowdown will still occur .
Usage caps do n't even come close to solving the problem they 're allegedly supposed to.Of course there is the totally separate issue of most ISPs also selling content that they would much rather you get via pay per view , etc than via the Internet...Totally separate , but ultimately the real issue .
Crap about providing quality internet service is just a diversion from the ISPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely correct, very well written explanation.
"Bits" cost the ISP essentially nothing.
"Bits per second" cost them something.
I'll only quibble on this:With ISPs, they want to limit your use because the speeds they charge you for aren't actually the speeds they can deliver if everyone actually uses their connection.Except they can't deliver those speeds even with their caps because all the "light" users downloading 10-100MB a month all hop on the net at the same time and saturate the available bandwidth.
Whereas your overnight dl of 20GB is screaming fast because nobody else is using the pipe and there's plenty of bw to spare for anyone who is.
Get rid of those heavy users, and the prime-time slowdown will still occur.
Usage caps don't even come close to solving the problem they're allegedly supposed to.Of course there is the totally separate issue of most ISPs also selling content that they would much rather you get via pay per view, etc than via the Internet...Totally separate, but ultimately the real issue.
Crap about providing quality internet service is just a diversion from the ISPs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376381</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1245349200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you realized that in CA, the fact that CA had been refusing to build baseload power plants in the state for a number of years is the reason for the rolling brownouts? (Note: a baseload plant is one which produces continual energy need, and is a major component of what is needed for a stable power grid... wind and solar are NOT baseload plants because they are affected by the weather conditions and can not be relied upon to continuously output power 24/7)<br> <br>CA just finally started building new plants again. But if you look at what came online during the last 20 years, you will see that they were not building as many plants as needed and instead were importing more and more energy from neighbouring states to meet their energy needs (at a HUGE cost to consumers due to the transmission line losses). It was basically the not in my backyard issue for plants in CA. Well, if you don't have one in your backyard, then you will either deal with no power or extremely expensive power... Which they have both of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you realized that in CA , the fact that CA had been refusing to build baseload power plants in the state for a number of years is the reason for the rolling brownouts ?
( Note : a baseload plant is one which produces continual energy need , and is a major component of what is needed for a stable power grid... wind and solar are NOT baseload plants because they are affected by the weather conditions and can not be relied upon to continuously output power 24/7 ) CA just finally started building new plants again .
But if you look at what came online during the last 20 years , you will see that they were not building as many plants as needed and instead were importing more and more energy from neighbouring states to meet their energy needs ( at a HUGE cost to consumers due to the transmission line losses ) .
It was basically the not in my backyard issue for plants in CA .
Well , if you do n't have one in your backyard , then you will either deal with no power or extremely expensive power... Which they have both of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you realized that in CA, the fact that CA had been refusing to build baseload power plants in the state for a number of years is the reason for the rolling brownouts?
(Note: a baseload plant is one which produces continual energy need, and is a major component of what is needed for a stable power grid... wind and solar are NOT baseload plants because they are affected by the weather conditions and can not be relied upon to continuously output power 24/7) CA just finally started building new plants again.
But if you look at what came online during the last 20 years, you will see that they were not building as many plants as needed and instead were importing more and more energy from neighbouring states to meet their energy needs (at a HUGE cost to consumers due to the transmission line losses).
It was basically the not in my backyard issue for plants in CA.
Well, if you don't have one in your backyard, then you will either deal with no power or extremely expensive power... Which they have both of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375837</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1245347280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381641</id>
	<title>"everyone": someone sleeps at weird hours</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245323700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rather it's during Internet Prime Time when <em>everyone</em>, even "light" users, hop on the net and download some Youtube videos</p></div><p>For "everyone" to have their heaviest usage at the same time, that would require people in some parts of the world to sleep when the sun's up.  Either those in Moscow, if they follow US prime time, or most of the US, if they follow western Russia prime time.</p><p>I'm sure you're not actually suggesting this to be the case.</p><p>And even if we restrict ourselves to a single country... there are some pretty frigging wide countries out there, timezone-wise (Russia, China, Canada, US).  MIT prime time is off of Caltech prime time by a few hours.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather it 's during Internet Prime Time when everyone , even " light " users , hop on the net and download some Youtube videosFor " everyone " to have their heaviest usage at the same time , that would require people in some parts of the world to sleep when the sun 's up .
Either those in Moscow , if they follow US prime time , or most of the US , if they follow western Russia prime time.I 'm sure you 're not actually suggesting this to be the case.And even if we restrict ourselves to a single country... there are some pretty frigging wide countries out there , timezone-wise ( Russia , China , Canada , US ) .
MIT prime time is off of Caltech prime time by a few hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather it's during Internet Prime Time when everyone, even "light" users, hop on the net and download some Youtube videosFor "everyone" to have their heaviest usage at the same time, that would require people in some parts of the world to sleep when the sun's up.
Either those in Moscow, if they follow US prime time, or most of the US, if they follow western Russia prime time.I'm sure you're not actually suggesting this to be the case.And even if we restrict ourselves to a single country... there are some pretty frigging wide countries out there, timezone-wise (Russia, China, Canada, US).
MIT prime time is off of Caltech prime time by a few hours.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377245</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245352680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan (which works given the comparison with utilities. I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!"), and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.</i></p><p>No, that wouldn't be in our best interest though it would probably happen, even though the comparison to utilities fails for the exact same reason that fixed download caps are stupid in the first place, which is this:  Bits are free.  The total amount of power you use in a month directly affects the amount of fuel a power utility has to burn, or the amount of water you consumer affects how much water the utility has to treat.  Bits on a connection aren't like that.  If you "don't use" a bit on their fiber link to the backbone, that doesn't leave them with an extra bit, and if you use a bit, the next one is coming at the same time and same cost anyway.  Combined with how most peering relationships work, other than a tiny amount of electricity in their routers, it doesn't make any difference to them if a bit is used or not and thus the total number of bits you consume is by itself meaningless.</p><p><i>Bits per second</i>, aka bandwidth, is a different matter.  That's what costs them money to provide, and money to improve.  And no single user's cable modem/DSL connection is going to saturate their ISPs bandwidth even if it is used continuously.  Rather it's during Internet Prime Time when <i>everyone</i>, even "light" users, hop on the net and download some Youtube videos which in aggregate suck up every last bps and make the ISP's pipe choke.  It's Prime Time peak usage that makes the ISP have to go out and buy new hardware in order to keep their customers happy.  Utilities have maximum rates too, which is why electricity is cheaper at night and the water company will have designated days for watering your lawn based on addresses.  But they also have per-unit expenses.  With an ISP, someone who downloads 100GB a month but does it all at 2am will cost them less than someone who downloads 20MB but does it all at 8pm.</p><p>So here's what makes sense with an ISP:  You charge your user for bandwidth.  "Unlimited" bits -- as in as many as you can download -- goes without saying because its irrelevant. During Prime Time, when the ISP's link is saturated, then everyone's performance degrades, ideally in proportion to the amount of bandwidth they payed for (as in if the link is at 120\% utilization, everyone's bandwidth goes down by 18\%).  Thus just like with electricity everyone is encouraged to use off-peak bandwidth to get better performance.  If prime time performance degrades too much, the ISP buys more hardware.</p><p>Unfortunately, while this is completely fair to everyone, it's not going to happen because 1) the ISPs probably believe they can make more money charging per-bit and 2) most of the biggest ISPs are also content providers, and thus for them total number of bits -- as in total number of movies/shows you could download without paying for their more expensive media services -- matters a <i>great</i> deal.  <b>That</b> is what download caps are all about.  Not conserving their precious bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan ( which works given the comparison with utilities .
I do n't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free , complaining that " they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free !
" ) , and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer 's best interest.No , that would n't be in our best interest though it would probably happen , even though the comparison to utilities fails for the exact same reason that fixed download caps are stupid in the first place , which is this : Bits are free .
The total amount of power you use in a month directly affects the amount of fuel a power utility has to burn , or the amount of water you consumer affects how much water the utility has to treat .
Bits on a connection are n't like that .
If you " do n't use " a bit on their fiber link to the backbone , that does n't leave them with an extra bit , and if you use a bit , the next one is coming at the same time and same cost anyway .
Combined with how most peering relationships work , other than a tiny amount of electricity in their routers , it does n't make any difference to them if a bit is used or not and thus the total number of bits you consume is by itself meaningless.Bits per second , aka bandwidth , is a different matter .
That 's what costs them money to provide , and money to improve .
And no single user 's cable modem/DSL connection is going to saturate their ISPs bandwidth even if it is used continuously .
Rather it 's during Internet Prime Time when everyone , even " light " users , hop on the net and download some Youtube videos which in aggregate suck up every last bps and make the ISP 's pipe choke .
It 's Prime Time peak usage that makes the ISP have to go out and buy new hardware in order to keep their customers happy .
Utilities have maximum rates too , which is why electricity is cheaper at night and the water company will have designated days for watering your lawn based on addresses .
But they also have per-unit expenses .
With an ISP , someone who downloads 100GB a month but does it all at 2am will cost them less than someone who downloads 20MB but does it all at 8pm.So here 's what makes sense with an ISP : You charge your user for bandwidth .
" Unlimited " bits -- as in as many as you can download -- goes without saying because its irrelevant .
During Prime Time , when the ISP 's link is saturated , then everyone 's performance degrades , ideally in proportion to the amount of bandwidth they payed for ( as in if the link is at 120 \ % utilization , everyone 's bandwidth goes down by 18 \ % ) .
Thus just like with electricity everyone is encouraged to use off-peak bandwidth to get better performance .
If prime time performance degrades too much , the ISP buys more hardware.Unfortunately , while this is completely fair to everyone , it 's not going to happen because 1 ) the ISPs probably believe they can make more money charging per-bit and 2 ) most of the biggest ISPs are also content providers , and thus for them total number of bits -- as in total number of movies/shows you could download without paying for their more expensive media services -- matters a great deal .
That is what download caps are all about .
Not conserving their precious bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan (which works given the comparison with utilities.
I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!
"), and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.No, that wouldn't be in our best interest though it would probably happen, even though the comparison to utilities fails for the exact same reason that fixed download caps are stupid in the first place, which is this:  Bits are free.
The total amount of power you use in a month directly affects the amount of fuel a power utility has to burn, or the amount of water you consumer affects how much water the utility has to treat.
Bits on a connection aren't like that.
If you "don't use" a bit on their fiber link to the backbone, that doesn't leave them with an extra bit, and if you use a bit, the next one is coming at the same time and same cost anyway.
Combined with how most peering relationships work, other than a tiny amount of electricity in their routers, it doesn't make any difference to them if a bit is used or not and thus the total number of bits you consume is by itself meaningless.Bits per second, aka bandwidth, is a different matter.
That's what costs them money to provide, and money to improve.
And no single user's cable modem/DSL connection is going to saturate their ISPs bandwidth even if it is used continuously.
Rather it's during Internet Prime Time when everyone, even "light" users, hop on the net and download some Youtube videos which in aggregate suck up every last bps and make the ISP's pipe choke.
It's Prime Time peak usage that makes the ISP have to go out and buy new hardware in order to keep their customers happy.
Utilities have maximum rates too, which is why electricity is cheaper at night and the water company will have designated days for watering your lawn based on addresses.
But they also have per-unit expenses.
With an ISP, someone who downloads 100GB a month but does it all at 2am will cost them less than someone who downloads 20MB but does it all at 8pm.So here's what makes sense with an ISP:  You charge your user for bandwidth.
"Unlimited" bits -- as in as many as you can download -- goes without saying because its irrelevant.
During Prime Time, when the ISP's link is saturated, then everyone's performance degrades, ideally in proportion to the amount of bandwidth they payed for (as in if the link is at 120\% utilization, everyone's bandwidth goes down by 18\%).
Thus just like with electricity everyone is encouraged to use off-peak bandwidth to get better performance.
If prime time performance degrades too much, the ISP buys more hardware.Unfortunately, while this is completely fair to everyone, it's not going to happen because 1) the ISPs probably believe they can make more money charging per-bit and 2) most of the biggest ISPs are also content providers, and thus for them total number of bits -- as in total number of movies/shows you could download without paying for their more expensive media services -- matters a great deal.
That is what download caps are all about.
Not conserving their precious bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743</id>
	<title>Unfortunately...</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1245346980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, it'll never happen. It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it 'll never happen .
It 'd be nice if it did but , so long as ISPs have lobbying power , which they do , it 'll never come to pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it'll never happen.
It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376719</id>
	<title>Contact your representitive</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1245350700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Unfortunately, it'll never happen. It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.</i></p><p>Well, if you support the bill, then you should contact your senator and push to have this supported. We talk about lobby groups, but often fail to contact our politicos ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it 'll never happen .
It 'd be nice if it did but , so long as ISPs have lobbying power , which they do , it 'll never come to pass.Well , if you support the bill , then you should contact your senator and push to have this supported .
We talk about lobby groups , but often fail to contact our politicos ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it'll never happen.
It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.Well, if you support the bill, then you should contact your senator and push to have this supported.
We talk about lobby groups, but often fail to contact our politicos ourselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376601</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's like Utilities? Be careful what you ask f</title>
	<author>ultraexactzz</author>
	<datestamp>1245350220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin: "We don't care, we don't have to. We're the phone company."</p></div></blockquote><p>I agree with the sentiment, but Ms. Tomlin is, thankfully, still alive. At least, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily\_Tomlin" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin : " We do n't care , we do n't have to .
We 're the phone company .
" I agree with the sentiment , but Ms. Tomlin is , thankfully , still alive .
At least , according to Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin: "We don't care, we don't have to.
We're the phone company.
"I agree with the sentiment, but Ms. Tomlin is, thankfully, still alive.
At least, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377999</id>
	<title>Re:Billed like water?</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1245354600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They might go with more of a phone bill style instead (since we're using capacity and not consuming resources). Which means it'd probably go something like:<br> <br>
$9.99 per month + $.001 per megabyte<br> <br>
These are random guesses, not sure what a reasonable 'usage rate' would be.
But I'm with you, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that style of billing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They might go with more of a phone bill style instead ( since we 're using capacity and not consuming resources ) .
Which means it 'd probably go something like : $ 9.99 per month + $ .001 per megabyte These are random guesses , not sure what a reasonable 'usage rate ' would be .
But I 'm with you , I 'm pretty sure I would n't like that style of billing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They might go with more of a phone bill style instead (since we're using capacity and not consuming resources).
Which means it'd probably go something like: 
$9.99 per month + $.001 per megabyte 
These are random guesses, not sure what a reasonable 'usage rate' would be.
But I'm with you, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that style of billing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</id>
	<title>Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1245347040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?  Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating " utilities " like utilities is what 's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA ?
Maybe it 's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?
Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28382385</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245327060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The summary grossly misrepresents what the congressman is proposing.</i></p><p>I haven't read many accurate summaries lately. I mean it was always bad but now they're so bad that it must be a plot to have us all RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary grossly misrepresents what the congressman is proposing.I have n't read many accurate summaries lately .
I mean it was always bad but now they 're so bad that it must be a plot to have us all RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary grossly misrepresents what the congressman is proposing.I haven't read many accurate summaries lately.
I mean it was always bad but now they're so bad that it must be a plot to have us all RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377189</id>
	<title>Do we get blackouts and brownouts now also?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we get blackouts and brownouts every month now also?  How about that friendly custom service that utilities provide?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we get blackouts and brownouts every month now also ?
How about that friendly custom service that utilities provide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we get blackouts and brownouts every month now also?
How about that friendly custom service that utilities provide?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377067</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1245352020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Caps are a way of ripping off customers (unless you are smart enough to use right up to your cap and not go over). The cell phone companies have known that for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Caps are a way of ripping off customers ( unless you are smart enough to use right up to your cap and not go over ) .
The cell phone companies have known that for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caps are a way of ripping off customers (unless you are smart enough to use right up to your cap and not go over).
The cell phone companies have known that for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379973</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>zxjio</author>
	<datestamp>1245317160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Telephone companies like unlimited local etc. calling because they've found that tracking each little usage of a minute here, fifteen minutes there, for all of their subscribers is not worth the cost of the bureaucracy and systems needed. They are then renting the line, not any physical good that can diminish, like water or electricity. It's much the same situation with ISPs. Their tiered plans have rates ridiculously profitable, and if those rates were brought back to something reasonable for the cost involved, flat plans would still be attractive for everyone involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telephone companies like unlimited local etc .
calling because they 've found that tracking each little usage of a minute here , fifteen minutes there , for all of their subscribers is not worth the cost of the bureaucracy and systems needed .
They are then renting the line , not any physical good that can diminish , like water or electricity .
It 's much the same situation with ISPs .
Their tiered plans have rates ridiculously profitable , and if those rates were brought back to something reasonable for the cost involved , flat plans would still be attractive for everyone involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telephone companies like unlimited local etc.
calling because they've found that tracking each little usage of a minute here, fifteen minutes there, for all of their subscribers is not worth the cost of the bureaucracy and systems needed.
They are then renting the line, not any physical good that can diminish, like water or electricity.
It's much the same situation with ISPs.
Their tiered plans have rates ridiculously profitable, and if those rates were brought back to something reasonable for the cost involved, flat plans would still be attractive for everyone involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378229</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245355200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every one.<br>Each one.<br>Each and every one.<br>One.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every one.Each one.Each and every one.One .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every one.Each one.Each and every one.One.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376635</id>
	<title>Bill Ready To Ban ISP Caps In the US</title>
	<author>cakeypower</author>
	<datestamp>1245350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bill who?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill who ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill who?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376817</id>
	<title>Hell Ya!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1245351000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK I know this is a more complex issue, but I sure wish this would happen in Canada. We have the exact same problem, but I would say it is worse, as there is even less competition.</p><p>I would like to see caps gone. I think really what we are talking about here has little about caps or how the service is delivered. The bottom line is that there is no competition and these companies are raping their customers, as they have NO alternative. The premis of the bill is that, like utilities the internet has reached the stage of importance that they need to be regulated better, much like utilities. This would reign in (maybe) the shenanigans that the Phone and Cable companies have been doing for the last decade. The cost of these services has steadily gone up, while service improvements have been negligible.</p><p>A good example of this is where I live in Ontario, Canada. Cogeco Cable my ISP provider recently changed my agreement to say that if I go over my cap, I will be charged for it. Which on principle, makes sense. However what doesn't is that they wish to change me 6 times the going rate to do so. It should cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-50 cents per GB. Teksavvy last I checked charged 25 cents a GB over and beyond their limited cap account (they also have an unlimited account with no caps). You could even think ahead and pre-pay for 100 extra GB for 10$ or about 10 cents a GB. Shit like that makes sense to me. Now what does Cogeco want? 1.50$ per GB!</p><p>I got to thinking why they would make it so high, other than they are just greedy bastards of course. Then it came to me, it is because they are greedy bastards, and they also wish to make it unattractive to do so. The thing is both Phone and Cable companies have varies packages which various caps, and speeds etc... all at different prices. I bet they don't want to eat into their sales of other services due to cap related issues, so they just overcharge the heck out of it, making or forcing consumers to pick their packages.</p><p>This is exactly the point of this bill. You can't have you cake and eat it to. This is also why all the above analogies about Gas or electric service does not work. Sure just because I get 20A at the line doesn't mean that I can sure 20A all day every day. However I also don't pay for an base electrical package as well. So either you are a pay for service or you charge for the rate, not both, particularly if you like to arbitrary raise the prices of one both whenever you please. This is where regulation would come in.</p><p>Anyway I really do hope something like this comes to Canada, it only to bring awareness that there is significant work that needs to be done in our telecommunication industry, it has been a long time coming, and been ignored by most, and there are serious ramifications if we do not do something about it soon. It would also show the shortfalls of the CRTC and their inability to regulate this industry as it has developed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK I know this is a more complex issue , but I sure wish this would happen in Canada .
We have the exact same problem , but I would say it is worse , as there is even less competition.I would like to see caps gone .
I think really what we are talking about here has little about caps or how the service is delivered .
The bottom line is that there is no competition and these companies are raping their customers , as they have NO alternative .
The premis of the bill is that , like utilities the internet has reached the stage of importance that they need to be regulated better , much like utilities .
This would reign in ( maybe ) the shenanigans that the Phone and Cable companies have been doing for the last decade .
The cost of these services has steadily gone up , while service improvements have been negligible.A good example of this is where I live in Ontario , Canada .
Cogeco Cable my ISP provider recently changed my agreement to say that if I go over my cap , I will be charged for it .
Which on principle , makes sense .
However what does n't is that they wish to change me 6 times the going rate to do so .
It should cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-50 cents per GB .
Teksavvy last I checked charged 25 cents a GB over and beyond their limited cap account ( they also have an unlimited account with no caps ) .
You could even think ahead and pre-pay for 100 extra GB for 10 $ or about 10 cents a GB .
Shit like that makes sense to me .
Now what does Cogeco want ?
1.50 $ per GB ! I got to thinking why they would make it so high , other than they are just greedy bastards of course .
Then it came to me , it is because they are greedy bastards , and they also wish to make it unattractive to do so .
The thing is both Phone and Cable companies have varies packages which various caps , and speeds etc... all at different prices .
I bet they do n't want to eat into their sales of other services due to cap related issues , so they just overcharge the heck out of it , making or forcing consumers to pick their packages.This is exactly the point of this bill .
You ca n't have you cake and eat it to .
This is also why all the above analogies about Gas or electric service does not work .
Sure just because I get 20A at the line does n't mean that I can sure 20A all day every day .
However I also do n't pay for an base electrical package as well .
So either you are a pay for service or you charge for the rate , not both , particularly if you like to arbitrary raise the prices of one both whenever you please .
This is where regulation would come in.Anyway I really do hope something like this comes to Canada , it only to bring awareness that there is significant work that needs to be done in our telecommunication industry , it has been a long time coming , and been ignored by most , and there are serious ramifications if we do not do something about it soon .
It would also show the shortfalls of the CRTC and their inability to regulate this industry as it has developed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK I know this is a more complex issue, but I sure wish this would happen in Canada.
We have the exact same problem, but I would say it is worse, as there is even less competition.I would like to see caps gone.
I think really what we are talking about here has little about caps or how the service is delivered.
The bottom line is that there is no competition and these companies are raping their customers, as they have NO alternative.
The premis of the bill is that, like utilities the internet has reached the stage of importance that they need to be regulated better, much like utilities.
This would reign in (maybe) the shenanigans that the Phone and Cable companies have been doing for the last decade.
The cost of these services has steadily gone up, while service improvements have been negligible.A good example of this is where I live in Ontario, Canada.
Cogeco Cable my ISP provider recently changed my agreement to say that if I go over my cap, I will be charged for it.
Which on principle, makes sense.
However what doesn't is that they wish to change me 6 times the going rate to do so.
It should cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-50 cents per GB.
Teksavvy last I checked charged 25 cents a GB over and beyond their limited cap account (they also have an unlimited account with no caps).
You could even think ahead and pre-pay for 100 extra GB for 10$ or about 10 cents a GB.
Shit like that makes sense to me.
Now what does Cogeco want?
1.50$ per GB!I got to thinking why they would make it so high, other than they are just greedy bastards of course.
Then it came to me, it is because they are greedy bastards, and they also wish to make it unattractive to do so.
The thing is both Phone and Cable companies have varies packages which various caps, and speeds etc... all at different prices.
I bet they don't want to eat into their sales of other services due to cap related issues, so they just overcharge the heck out of it, making or forcing consumers to pick their packages.This is exactly the point of this bill.
You can't have you cake and eat it to.
This is also why all the above analogies about Gas or electric service does not work.
Sure just because I get 20A at the line doesn't mean that I can sure 20A all day every day.
However I also don't pay for an base electrical package as well.
So either you are a pay for service or you charge for the rate, not both, particularly if you like to arbitrary raise the prices of one both whenever you please.
This is where regulation would come in.Anyway I really do hope something like this comes to Canada, it only to bring awareness that there is significant work that needs to be done in our telecommunication industry, it has been a long time coming, and been ignored by most, and there are serious ramifications if we do not do something about it soon.
It would also show the shortfalls of the CRTC and their inability to regulate this industry as it has developed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376309</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245348960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except everyone is becoming mass downloaders.</p><p>or is that 'are becoming'?</p><p>Sure, there is a good argument for the pay per bit, but utilities don't need that.</p><p>Of course, the cost in metering, billing, and the addition of customer support for a pay per bit may not be worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except everyone is becoming mass downloaders.or is that 'are becoming ' ? Sure , there is a good argument for the pay per bit , but utilities do n't need that.Of course , the cost in metering , billing , and the addition of customer support for a pay per bit may not be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except everyone is becoming mass downloaders.or is that 'are becoming'?Sure, there is a good argument for the pay per bit, but utilities don't need that.Of course, the cost in metering, billing, and the addition of customer support for a pay per bit may not be worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375943</id>
	<title>You can't get something for nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are your options: Cheap, Open, Caps.  Pick 2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are your options : Cheap , Open , Caps .
Pick 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are your options: Cheap, Open, Caps.
Pick 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377535</id>
	<title>Re:Billed like water?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>9001+     gallons   $13.30 per 1000 gallons</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>It's over nine thousaaaaaaand!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>9001 + gallons $ 13.30 per 1000 gallons It 's over nine thousaaaaaaand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 9001+     gallons   $13.30 per 1000 gallons It's over nine thousaaaaaaand!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28382473</id>
	<title>Re:How do people help</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245327600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is light on details on how people can help to push this through and make it law.</i></p><p>This is light on how competition would help more than regulations would.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is light on details on how people can help to push this through and make it law.This is light on how competition would help more than regulations would .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is light on details on how people can help to push this through and make it law.This is light on how competition would help more than regulations would.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377619</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1245353700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was my first reaction also.  I've never seen a flat on any of my utilities.  This would almost bring us back to the older billing schemes that AOL used of $X per month plus $Y per minute.  The difference being instead of minutes, it's be charging per byte.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was my first reaction also .
I 've never seen a flat on any of my utilities .
This would almost bring us back to the older billing schemes that AOL used of $ X per month plus $ Y per minute .
The difference being instead of minutes , it 's be charging per byte .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was my first reaction also.
I've never seen a flat on any of my utilities.
This would almost bring us back to the older billing schemes that AOL used of $X per month plus $Y per minute.
The difference being instead of minutes, it's be charging per byte.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377203</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>lordtrickster</author>
	<datestamp>1245352500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The electric company is burning fuel to generate that electricity.  The water company is pumping a finite though renewing supply of water to you.
<br>
The ISPs aren't mining a finite supply of bits from the great bit mines of the Rockies.
<br>
Being a utility has more to do with providing infrastructure than it does with how things are priced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The electric company is burning fuel to generate that electricity .
The water company is pumping a finite though renewing supply of water to you .
The ISPs are n't mining a finite supply of bits from the great bit mines of the Rockies .
Being a utility has more to do with providing infrastructure than it does with how things are priced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The electric company is burning fuel to generate that electricity.
The water company is pumping a finite though renewing supply of water to you.
The ISPs aren't mining a finite supply of bits from the great bit mines of the Rockies.
Being a utility has more to do with providing infrastructure than it does with how things are priced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377719</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1245354000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, we didn't have rolling brownouts until the Republicans got to "de-regulate" the market.  I was there and I saw it happen.  Before that we had a nice stable utility service with reasonable pricing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , we did n't have rolling brownouts until the Republicans got to " de-regulate " the market .
I was there and I saw it happen .
Before that we had a nice stable utility service with reasonable pricing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, we didn't have rolling brownouts until the Republicans got to "de-regulate" the market.
I was there and I saw it happen.
Before that we had a nice stable utility service with reasonable pricing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376387</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245349260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan (which works given the comparison with utilities. I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!"), and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.</p></div><p>Except that switching to a per-byte type of plan would mean that their highest usage customers would pay through the nose while the majority of customers pay a few bucks a month for the bandwidth for their email.</p><p>If they charge too high per-byte, the high-volume customers will go somewhere cheaper, reducing their income.  These cheaper competitors will likely draw in the low-volume users as well, since it should be cheaper for them too, unless the usage is unlimited, which most people would pay a slight premium for anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan ( which works given the comparison with utilities .
I do n't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free , complaining that " they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free !
" ) , and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer 's best interest.Except that switching to a per-byte type of plan would mean that their highest usage customers would pay through the nose while the majority of customers pay a few bucks a month for the bandwidth for their email.If they charge too high per-byte , the high-volume customers will go somewhere cheaper , reducing their income .
These cheaper competitors will likely draw in the low-volume users as well , since it should be cheaper for them too , unless the usage is unlimited , which most people would pay a slight premium for anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan (which works given the comparison with utilities.
I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!
"), and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.Except that switching to a per-byte type of plan would mean that their highest usage customers would pay through the nose while the majority of customers pay a few bucks a month for the bandwidth for their email.If they charge too high per-byte, the high-volume customers will go somewhere cheaper, reducing their income.
These cheaper competitors will likely draw in the low-volume users as well, since it should be cheaper for them too, unless the usage is unlimited, which most people would pay a slight premium for anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378133</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>cawpin</author>
	<datestamp>1245355020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan (which works given the comparison with utilities. I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!"),</p></div><p>
That isn't the correct comparison. The electric company doesn't cut you down to 100 volts AND charge you per kilowatt. They provide you with full voltage (full speed) electricity and charge per kilowatt. The ISPs want to charge you both per speed AND per kilobyte. That is unacceptable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan ( which works given the comparison with utilities .
I do n't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free , complaining that " they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free !
" ) , That is n't the correct comparison .
The electric company does n't cut you down to 100 volts AND charge you per kilowatt .
They provide you with full voltage ( full speed ) electricity and charge per kilowatt .
The ISPs want to charge you both per speed AND per kilobyte .
That is unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan (which works given the comparison with utilities.
I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!
"),
That isn't the correct comparison.
The electric company doesn't cut you down to 100 volts AND charge you per kilowatt.
They provide you with full voltage (full speed) electricity and charge per kilowatt.
The ISPs want to charge you both per speed AND per kilobyte.
That is unacceptable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380109</id>
	<title>CA rolling blackouts</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245317520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.</i></p><p>Except CA did not deregulate energy.  Unfortunately many others think like you, that it was deregulated.  Sure some regulations were dropped but others were added.  First, generation and transmission were separated.  The same company that generated energy could not also distribute it.  Secondly while distributors had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_electricity\_crisis" title="wikipedia.org">price controls</a> [wikipedia.org], ie could not raise their prices, generators did not.  Here's a paper from Stanford on <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~robc1/work/deregulation.pdf" title="stanford.edu">California Electricity Deregulation[pdf]</a> [stanford.edu].</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.Except CA did not deregulate energy .
Unfortunately many others think like you , that it was deregulated .
Sure some regulations were dropped but others were added .
First , generation and transmission were separated .
The same company that generated energy could not also distribute it .
Secondly while distributors had price controls [ wikipedia.org ] , ie could not raise their prices , generators did not .
Here 's a paper from Stanford on California Electricity Deregulation [ pdf ] [ stanford.edu ] .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.Except CA did not deregulate energy.
Unfortunately many others think like you, that it was deregulated.
Sure some regulations were dropped but others were added.
First, generation and transmission were separated.
The same company that generated energy could not also distribute it.
Secondly while distributors had price controls [wikipedia.org], ie could not raise their prices, generators did not.
Here's a paper from Stanford on California Electricity Deregulation[pdf] [stanford.edu].
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</id>
	<title>Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>imsabbel</author>
	<datestamp>1245347160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard?<br>Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?</p><p>You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.<br>So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard ? Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot ? You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter , or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard?Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377025</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>ergo98</author>
	<datestamp>1245351840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV. Why should internet service be any different?</p></div></blockquote><p>So we're comparing with cable TV now?</p><p>Well aside from the fact that it is largely unidirectional multicasting -- you DO pay to watching those VoD shows -- with cable you pay for the breadth of the available multicasting you can even view.</p><p>So given this purportedly favourable situation, I take it you would be good with the idea of signing up for the Google/YouTube/Yahoo package, or maybe you want the Facebook/Twitter/Digg combo?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV .
Why should internet service be any different ? So we 're comparing with cable TV now ? Well aside from the fact that it is largely unidirectional multicasting -- you DO pay to watching those VoD shows -- with cable you pay for the breadth of the available multicasting you can even view.So given this purportedly favourable situation , I take it you would be good with the idea of signing up for the Google/YouTube/Yahoo package , or maybe you want the Facebook/Twitter/Digg combo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV.
Why should internet service be any different?So we're comparing with cable TV now?Well aside from the fact that it is largely unidirectional multicasting -- you DO pay to watching those VoD shows -- with cable you pay for the breadth of the available multicasting you can even view.So given this purportedly favourable situation, I take it you would be good with the idea of signing up for the Google/YouTube/Yahoo package, or maybe you want the Facebook/Twitter/Digg combo?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377739</id>
	<title>Re:They can justify it.</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1245354060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only there were some sort of analogy that used trucks, or pipes that would help Congresscritters understand...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only there were some sort of analogy that used trucks , or pipes that would help Congresscritters understand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only there were some sort of analogy that used trucks, or pipes that would help Congresscritters understand...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376085</id>
	<title>And this hasn't been shot down yet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245348120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh.  This has been posted for a whole 15 minutes, and there isn't an influx of stories in the Firehose about how a horde of lobbyists from major ISPs descended upon Washington, DC like a cloud of pure, unadulterated blackness, utterly destroying the minds of all who looked upon them, consuming the very souls of any congressperson whose minds strayed from the wills of their masters to thoughts of considering this bill?</p><p>Wow.  I suppose the major ISPs are getting hurt by the economic downturn, too.  I would've expected far more efficiency in the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh .
This has been posted for a whole 15 minutes , and there is n't an influx of stories in the Firehose about how a horde of lobbyists from major ISPs descended upon Washington , DC like a cloud of pure , unadulterated blackness , utterly destroying the minds of all who looked upon them , consuming the very souls of any congressperson whose minds strayed from the wills of their masters to thoughts of considering this bill ? Wow .
I suppose the major ISPs are getting hurt by the economic downturn , too .
I would 've expected far more efficiency in the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh.
This has been posted for a whole 15 minutes, and there isn't an influx of stories in the Firehose about how a horde of lobbyists from major ISPs descended upon Washington, DC like a cloud of pure, unadulterated blackness, utterly destroying the minds of all who looked upon them, consuming the very souls of any congressperson whose minds strayed from the wills of their masters to thoughts of considering this bill?Wow.
I suppose the major ISPs are getting hurt by the economic downturn, too.
I would've expected far more efficiency in the matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376741</id>
	<title>Re:Nice! Wish we had this in Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245350700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I remember well, selling something you don't have is called fraud.</p></div><p>That is only for individuals. Big banks,  ISP, usually don't have bother about these silly nuisances . They can lend money that they don't have and they can sell network capacity that they don't have.,and in case they mess up with something Uncle SAM is always willing to give them your TAX PAYER money.<br>You should really know better than to ask silly question like this !!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember well , selling something you do n't have is called fraud.That is only for individuals .
Big banks , ISP , usually do n't have bother about these silly nuisances .
They can lend money that they do n't have and they can sell network capacity that they do n't have.,and in case they mess up with something Uncle SAM is always willing to give them your TAX PAYER money.You should really know better than to ask silly question like this !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember well, selling something you don't have is called fraud.That is only for individuals.
Big banks,  ISP, usually don't have bother about these silly nuisances .
They can lend money that they don't have and they can sell network capacity that they don't have.,and in case they mess up with something Uncle SAM is always willing to give them your TAX PAYER money.You should really know better than to ask silly question like this !
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376119</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245348240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, deregulation did that.  It gave Enron the opportunity to create fake shortages and drive up demand to the point they were unable to handle it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , deregulation did that .
It gave Enron the opportunity to create fake shortages and drive up demand to the point they were unable to handle it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, deregulation did that.
It gave Enron the opportunity to create fake shortages and drive up demand to the point they were unable to handle it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377989</id>
	<title>Be careful what you wish for</title>
	<author>McGregorMortis</author>
	<datestamp>1245354600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we treat ISP as utilities (no caps), then don't be surprised if they treat us like utilities treat their customers: billed by usage.</p><p>For some reason I've never quite understood, the idea of being billed by the megabyte seems to draw a very negative reaction around here.  People seem to think  unlimited internet at a flat rate is a basic human right.  But nobody could reasonably expect unlimited killowatt-hours for $20/month.</p><p>An ISP advertised as "unlimited" certainly should be unlimited, I wouldn't argue with that.  They should either make it truly unlimited, or stop calling it "unlimited".  One way or the other.  That's just simple honesty.  Unstated secret caps on an "unlimited" internet package are fraudulent.  But realistically, you just have to know that truly unlimited internet is not going to happen.  It's just not practical, any more than unlimited electricity or unlimited natural gas.</p><p>The other problem with "unlimited" internet or even flat-fee-with-a-cap internet is that it really means that the light users end up subsidizing the heavy users.  And that doesn't seem fair.</p><p>Isn't it just easier and more natural all around to just pay by the megabyte, the same way you pay for your killowatt-hours?  I think they could work out some kind of sliding scale, so that heavy use or running a popular web-site doesn't become economically infeasible.</p><p>And then, once that's in place, maybe we can convince (or force) the ISPs to stop thinking they're anything other than a pipe.  A dumb pipe.  A dumb pipe that doesn't and shouldn't know or care what goes through it.  A pipe whose entire job is to carry bits from one place to another, and not #$#$ with them.  Just like the electric company doesn't know or care what you do with your killowatt-hours.  It's none of their damn business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we treat ISP as utilities ( no caps ) , then do n't be surprised if they treat us like utilities treat their customers : billed by usage.For some reason I 've never quite understood , the idea of being billed by the megabyte seems to draw a very negative reaction around here .
People seem to think unlimited internet at a flat rate is a basic human right .
But nobody could reasonably expect unlimited killowatt-hours for $ 20/month.An ISP advertised as " unlimited " certainly should be unlimited , I would n't argue with that .
They should either make it truly unlimited , or stop calling it " unlimited " .
One way or the other .
That 's just simple honesty .
Unstated secret caps on an " unlimited " internet package are fraudulent .
But realistically , you just have to know that truly unlimited internet is not going to happen .
It 's just not practical , any more than unlimited electricity or unlimited natural gas.The other problem with " unlimited " internet or even flat-fee-with-a-cap internet is that it really means that the light users end up subsidizing the heavy users .
And that does n't seem fair.Is n't it just easier and more natural all around to just pay by the megabyte , the same way you pay for your killowatt-hours ?
I think they could work out some kind of sliding scale , so that heavy use or running a popular web-site does n't become economically infeasible.And then , once that 's in place , maybe we can convince ( or force ) the ISPs to stop thinking they 're anything other than a pipe .
A dumb pipe .
A dumb pipe that does n't and should n't know or care what goes through it .
A pipe whose entire job is to carry bits from one place to another , and not # $ # $ with them .
Just like the electric company does n't know or care what you do with your killowatt-hours .
It 's none of their damn business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we treat ISP as utilities (no caps), then don't be surprised if they treat us like utilities treat their customers: billed by usage.For some reason I've never quite understood, the idea of being billed by the megabyte seems to draw a very negative reaction around here.
People seem to think  unlimited internet at a flat rate is a basic human right.
But nobody could reasonably expect unlimited killowatt-hours for $20/month.An ISP advertised as "unlimited" certainly should be unlimited, I wouldn't argue with that.
They should either make it truly unlimited, or stop calling it "unlimited".
One way or the other.
That's just simple honesty.
Unstated secret caps on an "unlimited" internet package are fraudulent.
But realistically, you just have to know that truly unlimited internet is not going to happen.
It's just not practical, any more than unlimited electricity or unlimited natural gas.The other problem with "unlimited" internet or even flat-fee-with-a-cap internet is that it really means that the light users end up subsidizing the heavy users.
And that doesn't seem fair.Isn't it just easier and more natural all around to just pay by the megabyte, the same way you pay for your killowatt-hours?
I think they could work out some kind of sliding scale, so that heavy use or running a popular web-site doesn't become economically infeasible.And then, once that's in place, maybe we can convince (or force) the ISPs to stop thinking they're anything other than a pipe.
A dumb pipe.
A dumb pipe that doesn't and shouldn't know or care what goes through it.
A pipe whose entire job is to carry bits from one place to another, and not #$#$ with them.
Just like the electric company doesn't know or care what you do with your killowatt-hours.
It's none of their damn business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376765</id>
	<title>I hate to sound like those whiny libertarians...</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1245350760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, uh, how about you introduce competition or conditions that encourage competition first and then see what happens?  If you find collusion,etc, later, then add more laws/regulation.  This is a band-aid.  How about we address the real problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , uh , how about you introduce competition or conditions that encourage competition first and then see what happens ?
If you find collusion,etc , later , then add more laws/regulation .
This is a band-aid .
How about we address the real problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, uh, how about you introduce competition or conditions that encourage competition first and then see what happens?
If you find collusion,etc, later, then add more laws/regulation.
This is a band-aid.
How about we address the real problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376529</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>StringBlade</author>
	<datestamp>1245349860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're not really going after the <i> <b>producers</b> </i> of traffic, just the <i> <b>consumers</b> </i> of traffic.  Many traffic-generating sites do indeed pay for the bandwidth they use...just ask Slashdot how much they have to pay for their bandwidth costs.  The costs gets skewed when you start thinking about Google and Yahoo and Amazon.  Clearly they generate so much traffic that they must pay an extremely low rate for their bandwidth or they could not possibly be profitable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not really going after the producers of traffic , just the consumers of traffic .
Many traffic-generating sites do indeed pay for the bandwidth they use...just ask Slashdot how much they have to pay for their bandwidth costs .
The costs gets skewed when you start thinking about Google and Yahoo and Amazon .
Clearly they generate so much traffic that they must pay an extremely low rate for their bandwidth or they could not possibly be profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not really going after the  producers  of traffic, just the  consumers  of traffic.
Many traffic-generating sites do indeed pay for the bandwidth they use...just ask Slashdot how much they have to pay for their bandwidth costs.
The costs gets skewed when you start thinking about Google and Yahoo and Amazon.
Clearly they generate so much traffic that they must pay an extremely low rate for their bandwidth or they could not possibly be profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377737</id>
	<title>You are wrong about what rates are for</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245354060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why should the rate go up per usage? It should go down. Whatever happened to bulk discounts? The progressive water rates are to encourage conservation. There's not an inherent limited supply of bits, so why treat it the same?</i></p><p>But there is an inherently limited supply of bits - it's how many the ISP itself can send in a month.</p><p>Similarly water is sort of endless (as long as it keeps cycling through the atmosphere).  The progressive rates are there because only so much water can be treated by local water plants, and if you use too much it will run out of capacity.  If you wanted to encourage conservation you would price the initial water such that it was not absurdly cheap (for what you get).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the rate go up per usage ?
It should go down .
Whatever happened to bulk discounts ?
The progressive water rates are to encourage conservation .
There 's not an inherent limited supply of bits , so why treat it the same ? But there is an inherently limited supply of bits - it 's how many the ISP itself can send in a month.Similarly water is sort of endless ( as long as it keeps cycling through the atmosphere ) .
The progressive rates are there because only so much water can be treated by local water plants , and if you use too much it will run out of capacity .
If you wanted to encourage conservation you would price the initial water such that it was not absurdly cheap ( for what you get ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the rate go up per usage?
It should go down.
Whatever happened to bulk discounts?
The progressive water rates are to encourage conservation.
There's not an inherent limited supply of bits, so why treat it the same?But there is an inherently limited supply of bits - it's how many the ISP itself can send in a month.Similarly water is sort of endless (as long as it keeps cycling through the atmosphere).
The progressive rates are there because only so much water can be treated by local water plants, and if you use too much it will run out of capacity.
If you wanted to encourage conservation you would price the initial water such that it was not absurdly cheap (for what you get).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377231</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245352620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the uninitiated, what is that evidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the uninitiated , what is that evidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the uninitiated, what is that evidence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376503</id>
	<title>Re:They can justify it.</title>
	<author>Trojan35</author>
	<datestamp>1245349740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that would be for a judge to determine. At least with this law you have the ability to argue they're unjust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that would be for a judge to determine .
At least with this law you have the ability to argue they 're unjust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that would be for a judge to determine.
At least with this law you have the ability to argue they're unjust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28384109</id>
	<title>metered access?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245335520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if were talking metered access here, what happens to my next months bill when i upgrade xubuntu to the next public release? thats a lot of bits and bytes that will appear on my bill. i dont like the idea. i would rather have a cap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if were talking metered access here , what happens to my next months bill when i upgrade xubuntu to the next public release ?
thats a lot of bits and bytes that will appear on my bill .
i dont like the idea .
i would rather have a cap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if were talking metered access here, what happens to my next months bill when i upgrade xubuntu to the next public release?
thats a lot of bits and bytes that will appear on my bill.
i dont like the idea.
i would rather have a cap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376639</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1245350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pay by your water usage which is really just a means to charge for water treatment of your waste water which is not metered.<br>If you use no water; you pay almost nothing, yet you can dump tons of horrible waste into the system like many businesses do currently without added expense. A friend of mine invented a meter for waste water but nobody wants it.</p><p>I see nothing wrong with charging for throughput like we do with water and power utilities. Initial hook ups cost if you want a 'bigger pipe' but unless you get a different wire/fibre cable that cost wouldn't differ.</p><p>At least this would encourage more bandwidth usage... by users-- and discourage bloated web content.  I'd much rather have an internet meter next to my power meter; even though it would cost me more because I'm not within the normal user they project their pricing scale for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay by your water usage which is really just a means to charge for water treatment of your waste water which is not metered.If you use no water ; you pay almost nothing , yet you can dump tons of horrible waste into the system like many businesses do currently without added expense .
A friend of mine invented a meter for waste water but nobody wants it.I see nothing wrong with charging for throughput like we do with water and power utilities .
Initial hook ups cost if you want a 'bigger pipe ' but unless you get a different wire/fibre cable that cost would n't differ.At least this would encourage more bandwidth usage... by users-- and discourage bloated web content .
I 'd much rather have an internet meter next to my power meter ; even though it would cost me more because I 'm not within the normal user they project their pricing scale for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay by your water usage which is really just a means to charge for water treatment of your waste water which is not metered.If you use no water; you pay almost nothing, yet you can dump tons of horrible waste into the system like many businesses do currently without added expense.
A friend of mine invented a meter for waste water but nobody wants it.I see nothing wrong with charging for throughput like we do with water and power utilities.
Initial hook ups cost if you want a 'bigger pipe' but unless you get a different wire/fibre cable that cost wouldn't differ.At least this would encourage more bandwidth usage... by users-- and discourage bloated web content.
I'd much rather have an internet meter next to my power meter; even though it would cost me more because I'm not within the normal user they project their pricing scale for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391927</id>
	<title>Re:Unnecessary...</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1245434820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not going to help with a monopoly - you can't take your business elsewhere if there is no other place to go.  Instead, pass a law stating that if ISP's start implementing these caps, that they have to start paying rent on all the public and private land that their lines run across.  Should get them to STFU real quick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not going to help with a monopoly - you ca n't take your business elsewhere if there is no other place to go .
Instead , pass a law stating that if ISP 's start implementing these caps , that they have to start paying rent on all the public and private land that their lines run across .
Should get them to STFU real quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not going to help with a monopoly - you can't take your business elsewhere if there is no other place to go.
Instead, pass a law stating that if ISP's start implementing these caps, that they have to start paying rent on all the public and private land that their lines run across.
Should get them to STFU real quick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376871</id>
	<title>Re:They can justify it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, that I'm sure that they will find a loophole regardless... I just hope that they take google's definition of "unjust"</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=define\%3Aunjust&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=wiki+unjust&amp;aqi=&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g10" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">define:unjust</a> [google.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p># unfair: not fair; marked by injustice or partiality or deception; "used unfair methods"; "it was an unfair trial"; "took an unfair advantage"<br># violating principles of justice; "unjust punishment"; "an unjust judge"; "an unjust accusation"<br># inequitable: not equitable or fair; "the inequitable division of wealth"; "inequitable taxation"<br>wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn</p><p># Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity. A conception of justice is one of the key features of society.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust</p></div><p>One can always dream...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , that I 'm sure that they will find a loophole regardless... I just hope that they take google 's definition of " unjust " define : unjust [ google.com ] # unfair : not fair ; marked by injustice or partiality or deception ; " used unfair methods " ; " it was an unfair trial " ; " took an unfair advantage " # violating principles of justice ; " unjust punishment " ; " an unjust judge " ; " an unjust accusation " # inequitable : not equitable or fair ; " the inequitable division of wealth " ; " inequitable taxation " wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics , rationality , law , natural law , fairness and equity .
A conception of justice is one of the key features of society .
...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnjustOne can always dream.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, that I'm sure that they will find a loophole regardless... I just hope that they take google's definition of "unjust"define:unjust [google.com] # unfair: not fair; marked by injustice or partiality or deception; "used unfair methods"; "it was an unfair trial"; "took an unfair advantage"# violating principles of justice; "unjust punishment"; "an unjust judge"; "an unjust accusation"# inequitable: not equitable or fair; "the inequitable division of wealth"; "inequitable taxation"wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn# Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity.
A conception of justice is one of the key features of society.
...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnjustOne can always dream...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376895</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245351300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard?</i></p><p>None, if it was a free market. But it isn't; I only have once choice of high speed internet. Monopolies need heavy regulation.</p><p>Your examples are specious; water and electricity are not communications. I pay a flat fee for my phone, I pay a flat fee for my cable. Why should an ISP be treated any differently? And I actually have choices for my phone, which is how I managed to get a cell phone for $50 per month without paying for minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard ? None , if it was a free market .
But it is n't ; I only have once choice of high speed internet .
Monopolies need heavy regulation.Your examples are specious ; water and electricity are not communications .
I pay a flat fee for my phone , I pay a flat fee for my cable .
Why should an ISP be treated any differently ?
And I actually have choices for my phone , which is how I managed to get a cell phone for $ 50 per month without paying for minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard?None, if it was a free market.
But it isn't; I only have once choice of high speed internet.
Monopolies need heavy regulation.Your examples are specious; water and electricity are not communications.
I pay a flat fee for my phone, I pay a flat fee for my cable.
Why should an ISP be treated any differently?
And I actually have choices for my phone, which is how I managed to get a cell phone for $50 per month without paying for minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381717</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>RDeichsel</author>
	<datestamp>1245324060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You pay the company generating electricity.
You pay the company purifying your water.
You pay the company with the natural gas.

ISPs do not create the content on Slashdot. ISPs do not need to filter, purify, or stock internet. ISPs are only 'pipes' and should be paid as such.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay the company generating electricity .
You pay the company purifying your water .
You pay the company with the natural gas .
ISPs do not create the content on Slashdot .
ISPs do not need to filter , purify , or stock internet .
ISPs are only 'pipes ' and should be paid as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay the company generating electricity.
You pay the company purifying your water.
You pay the company with the natural gas.
ISPs do not create the content on Slashdot.
ISPs do not need to filter, purify, or stock internet.
ISPs are only 'pipes' and should be paid as such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378079</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245354840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't all you guys that want unlimited accounts for $14.95 a month, go out and startup an ISP and bring that great idea to yourself and the masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't all you guys that want unlimited accounts for $ 14.95 a month , go out and startup an ISP and bring that great idea to yourself and the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't all you guys that want unlimited accounts for $14.95 a month, go out and startup an ISP and bring that great idea to yourself and the masses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245348000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary grossly misrepresents what the congressman is proposing.</p><p>This bill doesn't "ban ISP caps". It simply says that ISPs will start to become regulated in the same way that phone companies, for instance, are, so that a given ISP would have to put in a submission to raise their rates, explaining why they need to do so, etc.</p><p>Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan (which works given the comparison with utilities. I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!"), and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary grossly misrepresents what the congressman is proposing.This bill does n't " ban ISP caps " .
It simply says that ISPs will start to become regulated in the same way that phone companies , for instance , are , so that a given ISP would have to put in a submission to raise their rates , explaining why they need to do so , etc.Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan ( which works given the comparison with utilities .
I do n't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free , complaining that " they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free !
" ) , and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer 's best interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary grossly misrepresents what the congressman is proposing.This bill doesn't "ban ISP caps".
It simply says that ISPs will start to become regulated in the same way that phone companies, for instance, are, so that a given ISP would have to put in a submission to raise their rates, explaining why they need to do so, etc.Most ISPs solution to this would be to immediately switch all plans to a per-byte type of plan (which works given the comparison with utilities.
I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!
"), and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375873</id>
	<title>Excellent Bill</title>
	<author>RemoWilliams84</author>
	<datestamp>1245347460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure who this new Bill guy is, but I like him already.</p><p>A lot better than most of the other Bills around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure who this new Bill guy is , but I like him already.A lot better than most of the other Bills around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure who this new Bill guy is, but I like him already.A lot better than most of the other Bills around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009</id>
	<title>It's a Stupid Idea, if Competion Exists</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1245347820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blog.ioshints.info/2009/06/internet-socialism-all-i-can-eat.html" title="ioshints.info">Internet Socialism: All-I-can-eat mentality</a> [ioshints.info]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet Socialism : All-I-can-eat mentality [ ioshints.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet Socialism: All-I-can-eat mentality [ioshints.info]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375951</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>codeonezero</author>
	<datestamp>1245347700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to say you don't want government involvement, that's fine as an argument, but there's evidence that deregulation in California and abuse of this deregulation by Enron and other such companies had more to do with the situation, than simply "treating 'utilities' like utilities" as you put it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to say you do n't want government involvement , that 's fine as an argument , but there 's evidence that deregulation in California and abuse of this deregulation by Enron and other such companies had more to do with the situation , than simply " treating 'utilities ' like utilities " as you put it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to say you don't want government involvement, that's fine as an argument, but there's evidence that deregulation in California and abuse of this deregulation by Enron and other such companies had more to do with the situation, than simply "treating 'utilities' like utilities" as you put it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378397</id>
	<title>ZOMG</title>
	<author>revxul</author>
	<datestamp>1245355620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I CAN TYPE CAPS IF I WANT TO LULZ</p><p>really now...</p><p>ZOMG HEID IN UR BUNKERZ</p><p>hahaha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I CAN TYPE CAPS IF I WANT TO LULZreally now...ZOMG HEID IN UR BUNKERZhahaha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I CAN TYPE CAPS IF I WANT TO LULZreally now...ZOMG HEID IN UR BUNKERZhahaha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375801</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>spykemail</author>
	<datestamp>1245347160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that internet service is going to be provided by local monopolies like most utilities are? Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that internet service is going to be provided by local monopolies like most utilities are ?
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that internet service is going to be provided by local monopolies like most utilities are?
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381049</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>ergo98</author>
	<datestamp>1245321180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Landlines have always been unlimited. It's a single (cheap) flat rate and I could call my buddy with his landline and we could just leave the phones connected all month.</p></div></blockquote><p>But of course you didn't just keep it off the hook all month long, did you? Because if you did, the phone company would have been calling (or rather mailing given that they couldn't get through) and forcing you to sign up for a dedicated line.</p><p>This was big news in the modem era, when more and more users started exceeding the infrastructure expectations, staying online all night downloading those low resolution TGA swimsuit pics.</p><p>And of course, all that was included in the "flat" rate was local calls within a very small radius. Once you started using more of the shared network, including the networks of other telcos, you go hit by massive long distance fees. Don't you remember paying like $0.60 / minute to make an out of state call?</p><p>Yeah, landlines are a terrible comparison, because telcos have been one of the most egregious abusers of the "utility" status.</p><p>As an aside, from years my telco was trying to get the CRTC to allow them to charge $0.25 per call.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Landlines have always been unlimited .
It 's a single ( cheap ) flat rate and I could call my buddy with his landline and we could just leave the phones connected all month.But of course you did n't just keep it off the hook all month long , did you ?
Because if you did , the phone company would have been calling ( or rather mailing given that they could n't get through ) and forcing you to sign up for a dedicated line.This was big news in the modem era , when more and more users started exceeding the infrastructure expectations , staying online all night downloading those low resolution TGA swimsuit pics.And of course , all that was included in the " flat " rate was local calls within a very small radius .
Once you started using more of the shared network , including the networks of other telcos , you go hit by massive long distance fees .
Do n't you remember paying like $ 0.60 / minute to make an out of state call ? Yeah , landlines are a terrible comparison , because telcos have been one of the most egregious abusers of the " utility " status.As an aside , from years my telco was trying to get the CRTC to allow them to charge $ 0.25 per call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Landlines have always been unlimited.
It's a single (cheap) flat rate and I could call my buddy with his landline and we could just leave the phones connected all month.But of course you didn't just keep it off the hook all month long, did you?
Because if you did, the phone company would have been calling (or rather mailing given that they couldn't get through) and forcing you to sign up for a dedicated line.This was big news in the modem era, when more and more users started exceeding the infrastructure expectations, staying online all night downloading those low resolution TGA swimsuit pics.And of course, all that was included in the "flat" rate was local calls within a very small radius.
Once you started using more of the shared network, including the networks of other telcos, you go hit by massive long distance fees.
Don't you remember paying like $0.60 / minute to make an out of state call?Yeah, landlines are a terrible comparison, because telcos have been one of the most egregious abusers of the "utility" status.As an aside, from years my telco was trying to get the CRTC to allow them to charge $0.25 per call.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376235</id>
	<title>goodluckwiththat Tagging...</title>
	<author>RobBebop</author>
	<datestamp>1245348720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do all articles that express certain ideas that haven't been implemented yet get the tag "goodluckwiththat" and articles that ideas that have just been implemented get "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense".

</p><p>Does it speak to the pessimism of the community to influence technology towards the mass market or is the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd just a bunch of crabby whiners?

</p><p>Responding to the topic at hand... I don't think they should make the internet a regulated utility until such a time when the nation's government is capable of using it as a mechanism to broadcast emergency information/communication.  For the time being, television for 1-way communication and telephone for 2-way communication are the standard and they should stay that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do all articles that express certain ideas that have n't been implemented yet get the tag " goodluckwiththat " and articles that ideas that have just been implemented get " suddenoutbreakofcommonsense " .
Does it speak to the pessimism of the community to influence technology towards the mass market or is the / .
crowd just a bunch of crabby whiners ?
Responding to the topic at hand... I do n't think they should make the internet a regulated utility until such a time when the nation 's government is capable of using it as a mechanism to broadcast emergency information/communication .
For the time being , television for 1-way communication and telephone for 2-way communication are the standard and they should stay that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do all articles that express certain ideas that haven't been implemented yet get the tag "goodluckwiththat" and articles that ideas that have just been implemented get "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense".
Does it speak to the pessimism of the community to influence technology towards the mass market or is the /.
crowd just a bunch of crabby whiners?
Responding to the topic at hand... I don't think they should make the internet a regulated utility until such a time when the nation's government is capable of using it as a mechanism to broadcast emergency information/communication.
For the time being, television for 1-way communication and telephone for 2-way communication are the standard and they should stay that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376971</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1245351600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.<br>So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible?</p></div><p>It's more accurate to compare internet service to phone service, where both cell and home phone companies offer unlimited plans at flat monthly rates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter , or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible ? It 's more accurate to compare internet service to phone service , where both cell and home phone companies offer unlimited plans at flat monthly rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible?It's more accurate to compare internet service to phone service, where both cell and home phone companies offer unlimited plans at flat monthly rates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28386439</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's like Utilities? Be careful what you ask f</title>
	<author>Triv</author>
	<datestamp>1245443460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
'I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin: "We don't care, we don't have to. We're the phone company."'
</p><p>
It's Lily, not Lilly, and she's very much alive. Still funny, too.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin : " We do n't care , we do n't have to .
We 're the phone company .
" ' It 's Lily , not Lilly , and she 's very much alive .
Still funny , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
'I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin: "We don't care, we don't have to.
We're the phone company.
"'

It's Lily, not Lilly, and she's very much alive.
Still funny, too.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379615</id>
	<title>CA rolling blackouts</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245315960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?</i></p><p>Treating utilities as utilities isn't what caused the roll blackouts in CA.  Neither did deregulation.  CA electric companies were not deregulated, instead some regulations were dropped and others added.  One such regulation was that power generators could not distribute power, ie generation and transmission were separated.  Another regulation added was that power distributors  could not raise their prices, ie there were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_electricity\_crisis" title="wikipedia.org">price controls</a> [wikipedia.org].  But generators were allowed to and when a transmitter has to pay more but can't charge more to cover their costs then they can't stay in business long.</p><p>Nor were they about a shortage of generation capacity, during the blackouts there was a wind farm capable of generating megawatts of power that sat <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0331-01.htm" title="commondreams.org">idle</a> [commondreams.org].  Why did it sit idle?  Because no body would erect the cable transmission lines.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating " utilities " like utilities is what 's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA ? Treating utilities as utilities is n't what caused the roll blackouts in CA .
Neither did deregulation .
CA electric companies were not deregulated , instead some regulations were dropped and others added .
One such regulation was that power generators could not distribute power , ie generation and transmission were separated .
Another regulation added was that power distributors could not raise their prices , ie there were price controls [ wikipedia.org ] .
But generators were allowed to and when a transmitter has to pay more but ca n't charge more to cover their costs then they ca n't stay in business long.Nor were they about a shortage of generation capacity , during the blackouts there was a wind farm capable of generating megawatts of power that sat idle [ commondreams.org ] .
Why did it sit idle ?
Because no body would erect the cable transmission lines .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?Treating utilities as utilities isn't what caused the roll blackouts in CA.
Neither did deregulation.
CA electric companies were not deregulated, instead some regulations were dropped and others added.
One such regulation was that power generators could not distribute power, ie generation and transmission were separated.
Another regulation added was that power distributors  could not raise their prices, ie there were price controls [wikipedia.org].
But generators were allowed to and when a transmitter has to pay more but can't charge more to cover their costs then they can't stay in business long.Nor were they about a shortage of generation capacity, during the blackouts there was a wind farm capable of generating megawatts of power that sat idle [commondreams.org].
Why did it sit idle?
Because no body would erect the cable transmission lines.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377329</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hmmm something I don't get. They want internet access to be treated like a utility. Let's see...</i></p><p><i>The more electricity I use, the higher my bill.</i></p><p><i>The more water I use, the higher my bill.</i></p><p><i>The more natural gas I use, the higher my bill.</i> </p><p>Wait a minute...you left out two other utilities.  One of them is telephone service, the other is cable service.  Both of them are far more comparable to ISP service than the traditional utilities that you cited.  Why?  Because while the traditional utilities deal in scarce goods (power, water, gas), the phone and cable companies deal in access to a network.</p><p>I don't know about where you live, but in most parts of the US you can get flat-rate telephone service (less long distance, which is typically priced higher because you rely on a separate carrier).  You also get flat-rate cable service.  You don't pay more for watching more cable TV.  So why should you pay more for downloading more files?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm something I do n't get .
They want internet access to be treated like a utility .
Let 's see...The more electricity I use , the higher my bill.The more water I use , the higher my bill.The more natural gas I use , the higher my bill .
Wait a minute...you left out two other utilities .
One of them is telephone service , the other is cable service .
Both of them are far more comparable to ISP service than the traditional utilities that you cited .
Why ? Because while the traditional utilities deal in scarce goods ( power , water , gas ) , the phone and cable companies deal in access to a network.I do n't know about where you live , but in most parts of the US you can get flat-rate telephone service ( less long distance , which is typically priced higher because you rely on a separate carrier ) .
You also get flat-rate cable service .
You do n't pay more for watching more cable TV .
So why should you pay more for downloading more files ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm something I don't get.
They want internet access to be treated like a utility.
Let's see...The more electricity I use, the higher my bill.The more water I use, the higher my bill.The more natural gas I use, the higher my bill.
Wait a minute...you left out two other utilities.
One of them is telephone service, the other is cable service.
Both of them are far more comparable to ISP service than the traditional utilities that you cited.
Why?  Because while the traditional utilities deal in scarce goods (power, water, gas), the phone and cable companies deal in access to a network.I don't know about where you live, but in most parts of the US you can get flat-rate telephone service (less long distance, which is typically priced higher because you rely on a separate carrier).
You also get flat-rate cable service.
You don't pay more for watching more cable TV.
So why should you pay more for downloading more files?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376995</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!"), and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.</p></div><p>Your understanding of electricity could use some help.  You aren't billed based on amps, you are billed on kilowatt hours.</p><p>Once the infrastructure is in place for an ISP, sending additional bytes through the network has a very negligible cost.  For electricity, every kilowatt hour does have a fuel cost for the electric company, therefore justifying their method of billing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free , complaining that " they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free !
" ) , and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer 's best interest.Your understanding of electricity could use some help .
You are n't billed based on amps , you are billed on kilowatt hours.Once the infrastructure is in place for an ISP , sending additional bytes through the network has a very negligible cost .
For electricity , every kilowatt hour does have a fuel cost for the electric company , therefore justifying their method of billing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free, complaining that "they provide 20A to the house so I should be able to use 20A around the clock for free!
"), and this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.Your understanding of electricity could use some help.
You aren't billed based on amps, you are billed on kilowatt hours.Once the infrastructure is in place for an ISP, sending additional bytes through the network has a very negligible cost.
For electricity, every kilowatt hour does have a fuel cost for the electric company, therefore justifying their method of billing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376991</id>
	<title>Re:Billed like water?</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1245351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the price represented the actual costs, it would be opposite to that of water. You would see a large initial cost with small bandwidth cost.</p><p>Pipes cost relatively little compared with the volume of treated water they can carry in a given time-frame. On the other hand, a cable connection costs more to set up than the data it can carry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the price represented the actual costs , it would be opposite to that of water .
You would see a large initial cost with small bandwidth cost.Pipes cost relatively little compared with the volume of treated water they can carry in a given time-frame .
On the other hand , a cable connection costs more to set up than the data it can carry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the price represented the actual costs, it would be opposite to that of water.
You would see a large initial cost with small bandwidth cost.Pipes cost relatively little compared with the volume of treated water they can carry in a given time-frame.
On the other hand, a cable connection costs more to set up than the data it can carry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376337</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245349020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?  Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.</p></div><p>Banning caps in the US makes benefits for  the consumer in the long run.  This force ISP to develop systems to mitigate or advert risk of broadband defficiency, also promotes  to not oversell their network or risk fines. This can mean upgrading their system for more network traffic and broadband to stay competitive  (as they should have done) or have a contingency plan that do not penalize users  (like they should have done) this would be essential to acquire revenue and promotes innovation.   In the case of the cable  industry, cable placement outside a residential home or commercial buldingare paid by tax payer money LIKE OTHER UTILITIES<br>
&nbsp; if they always lobby  to have the same benefits as utilities it is only appropiate  they should accept the obligations that comes also for  the benefits of consumers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating " utilities " like utilities is what 's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA ?
Maybe it 's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.Banning caps in the US makes benefits for the consumer in the long run .
This force ISP to develop systems to mitigate or advert risk of broadband defficiency , also promotes to not oversell their network or risk fines .
This can mean upgrading their system for more network traffic and broadband to stay competitive ( as they should have done ) or have a contingency plan that do not penalize users ( like they should have done ) this would be essential to acquire revenue and promotes innovation .
In the case of the cable industry , cable placement outside a residential home or commercial buldingare paid by tax payer money LIKE OTHER UTILITIES   if they always lobby to have the same benefits as utilities it is only appropiate they should accept the obligations that comes also for the benefits of consumers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?
Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.Banning caps in the US makes benefits for  the consumer in the long run.
This force ISP to develop systems to mitigate or advert risk of broadband defficiency, also promotes  to not oversell their network or risk fines.
This can mean upgrading their system for more network traffic and broadband to stay competitive  (as they should have done) or have a contingency plan that do not penalize users  (like they should have done) this would be essential to acquire revenue and promotes innovation.
In the case of the cable  industry, cable placement outside a residential home or commercial buldingare paid by tax payer money LIKE OTHER UTILITIES
  if they always lobby  to have the same benefits as utilities it is only appropiate  they should accept the obligations that comes also for  the benefits of consumers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376323</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1245349020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.</p></div><p>Gaming a badly/partially deregulated system, which IIRC they were involved in determining the structure of the not-quite-deregulation (I think it was something like, fixed retail prices and deregulated wholesale prices, because they (incorrectly) predicted that wholesale prices would drop significantly). There were other states that did things properly and it worked fairly well, or at least didn't cause problems like in CA.</p><p> <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0425/p02s01-usec.html" title="csmonitor.com">This article</a> [csmonitor.com] from 2006 indicate that deregulation doesn't actually lower prices like it "should", apparently because providers don't want to compete and don't bid to serve the same areas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.Gaming a badly/partially deregulated system , which IIRC they were involved in determining the structure of the not-quite-deregulation ( I think it was something like , fixed retail prices and deregulated wholesale prices , because they ( incorrectly ) predicted that wholesale prices would drop significantly ) .
There were other states that did things properly and it worked fairly well , or at least did n't cause problems like in CA .
This article [ csmonitor.com ] from 2006 indicate that deregulation does n't actually lower prices like it " should " , apparently because providers do n't want to compete and do n't bid to serve the same areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.Gaming a badly/partially deregulated system, which IIRC they were involved in determining the structure of the not-quite-deregulation (I think it was something like, fixed retail prices and deregulated wholesale prices, because they (incorrectly) predicted that wholesale prices would drop significantly).
There were other states that did things properly and it worked fairly well, or at least didn't cause problems like in CA.
This article [csmonitor.com] from 2006 indicate that deregulation doesn't actually lower prices like it "should", apparently because providers don't want to compete and don't bid to serve the same areas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377509</id>
	<title>Re:Billed like water?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245353400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No problem, I can just send back as many bits as they send me, then I won't get charged anything!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No problem , I can just send back as many bits as they send me , then I wo n't get charged anything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No problem, I can just send back as many bits as they send me, then I won't get charged anything!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731</id>
	<title>sounds like an</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1245346920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>excellent idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>excellent idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>excellent idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376427</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>nickruiz</author>
	<datestamp>1245349440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard?
Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?</p><p>You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.
So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible?</p></div><p>In many places, you are charged on your electric bill for demand. Take your peak usage across the utility's time interval, and you're charged on your bill to ensure that at any given point of time, the utility can provide you with that much electricity (even if you only hit that peak once). So, while you don't pay your electric bill by wire-gauge, you do pay by how much you may possibly use by your maximum usage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard ?
Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot ? You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter , or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge .
So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible ? In many places , you are charged on your electric bill for demand .
Take your peak usage across the utility 's time interval , and you 're charged on your bill to ensure that at any given point of time , the utility can provide you with that much electricity ( even if you only hit that peak once ) .
So , while you do n't pay your electric bill by wire-gauge , you do pay by how much you may possibly use by your maximum usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard?
Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.
So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible?In many places, you are charged on your electric bill for demand.
Take your peak usage across the utility's time interval, and you're charged on your bill to ensure that at any given point of time, the utility can provide you with that much electricity (even if you only hit that peak once).
So, while you don't pay your electric bill by wire-gauge, you do pay by how much you may possibly use by your maximum usage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377021</id>
	<title>This wont help...</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1245351840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In principle I like the idea of having no caps on usage. However, while I don't doubt that ISPs love to nickle and dime us, increased usage must put additional load on the system. If everyone is downloading HD movies, for examples, ISP providers are going to have additional expense meeting that demand.</p><p>As others have pointed out, switching to a utility-type model isn't necessarily a good one. Sure, I can use electricity, water or natural gas as much as I like. But I'm also paying for every little bit I use. And it certainly doesn't prevent the providers from increasing rates.</p><p>But who knows? Perhaps this is a more logical model for internet usage. However, I suspect it wouldn't work quite the same way. With electricity or natural gas I pay for what I use, which means if I didn't use any I'd pay next to nothing. I'm guessing ISPs make more money with the current model than they would under that one.</p><p>I suspect providers will charge a flat fee in addition to usage charges, pretty much like mobile phones. I personally think that sucks and I expect internet service would be more expensive than it is now. I think more competition would address this problem far more effectively than any legislation, as well-intentioned as it might be. The government is inevitably going to compromise somehow if they force these rules on providers which likely means we'll get screwed one way or another. Open things up so that it's easier for competitors to enter the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In principle I like the idea of having no caps on usage .
However , while I do n't doubt that ISPs love to nickle and dime us , increased usage must put additional load on the system .
If everyone is downloading HD movies , for examples , ISP providers are going to have additional expense meeting that demand.As others have pointed out , switching to a utility-type model is n't necessarily a good one .
Sure , I can use electricity , water or natural gas as much as I like .
But I 'm also paying for every little bit I use .
And it certainly does n't prevent the providers from increasing rates.But who knows ?
Perhaps this is a more logical model for internet usage .
However , I suspect it would n't work quite the same way .
With electricity or natural gas I pay for what I use , which means if I did n't use any I 'd pay next to nothing .
I 'm guessing ISPs make more money with the current model than they would under that one.I suspect providers will charge a flat fee in addition to usage charges , pretty much like mobile phones .
I personally think that sucks and I expect internet service would be more expensive than it is now .
I think more competition would address this problem far more effectively than any legislation , as well-intentioned as it might be .
The government is inevitably going to compromise somehow if they force these rules on providers which likely means we 'll get screwed one way or another .
Open things up so that it 's easier for competitors to enter the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In principle I like the idea of having no caps on usage.
However, while I don't doubt that ISPs love to nickle and dime us, increased usage must put additional load on the system.
If everyone is downloading HD movies, for examples, ISP providers are going to have additional expense meeting that demand.As others have pointed out, switching to a utility-type model isn't necessarily a good one.
Sure, I can use electricity, water or natural gas as much as I like.
But I'm also paying for every little bit I use.
And it certainly doesn't prevent the providers from increasing rates.But who knows?
Perhaps this is a more logical model for internet usage.
However, I suspect it wouldn't work quite the same way.
With electricity or natural gas I pay for what I use, which means if I didn't use any I'd pay next to nothing.
I'm guessing ISPs make more money with the current model than they would under that one.I suspect providers will charge a flat fee in addition to usage charges, pretty much like mobile phones.
I personally think that sucks and I expect internet service would be more expensive than it is now.
I think more competition would address this problem far more effectively than any legislation, as well-intentioned as it might be.
The government is inevitably going to compromise somehow if they force these rules on providers which likely means we'll get screwed one way or another.
Open things up so that it's easier for competitors to enter the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376347</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>i.r.id10t</author>
	<datestamp>1245349080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, if you are out of town for a month or you have no power for 3 weeks due to hurricane damage, you have a *really* low electric bill.  But your ISP bill stays the same...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , if you are out of town for a month or you have no power for 3 weeks due to hurricane damage , you have a * really * low electric bill .
But your ISP bill stays the same.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, if you are out of town for a month or you have no power for 3 weeks due to hurricane damage, you have a *really* low electric bill.
But your ISP bill stays the same...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376603</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245350220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ant thatswhy power companies aren't utilities~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ant thatswhy power companies are n't utilities ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ant thatswhy power companies aren't utilities~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28385989</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>grrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1245353100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone is becoming *a* mass downloader. (singular-singular)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone is becoming * a * mass downloader .
( singular-singular )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone is becoming *a* mass downloader.
(singular-singular)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376423</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1245349440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. On the Utility part.<br>Just because i use more doesn't mean my access is cut off.<br>That is what this bill aims at.<br>Nobody is disputing that internet can be billed on usage.<br>Everybody is  disputing that internet access can b e cut off, because i exceeded a limit set by my Telco.<br>Get it first through your thick head before you post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
On the Utility part.Just because i use more does n't mean my access is cut off.That is what this bill aims at.Nobody is disputing that internet can be billed on usage.Everybody is disputing that internet access can b e cut off , because i exceeded a limit set by my Telco.Get it first through your thick head before you post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
On the Utility part.Just because i use more doesn't mean my access is cut off.That is what this bill aims at.Nobody is disputing that internet can be billed on usage.Everybody is  disputing that internet access can b e cut off, because i exceeded a limit set by my Telco.Get it first through your thick head before you post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379329</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245358320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh goody - use Enron as an example. Great way to bolster the argument</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh goody - use Enron as an example .
Great way to bolster the argument</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh goody - use Enron as an example.
Great way to bolster the argument</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380059</id>
	<title>Cultural problem for yanks</title>
	<author>labnet</author>
	<datestamp>1245317400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australia has always had caps on internet use so we are used to it.<br>The point is it does cost more money for the ISP to deliver more data.<br>If my capped account is 10G/month but then I as an ISP was mandated for no caps and lets say usage doubled, then I need more routers, more electricity to produce the data, more access to terrestial and undersea data cables.<br>So it does cost more money to deliver more data, and I don't mind paying for the quantity of data delivered.<br>(typical plans maybe $50=10GB $60=20GB etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia has always had caps on internet use so we are used to it.The point is it does cost more money for the ISP to deliver more data.If my capped account is 10G/month but then I as an ISP was mandated for no caps and lets say usage doubled , then I need more routers , more electricity to produce the data , more access to terrestial and undersea data cables.So it does cost more money to deliver more data , and I do n't mind paying for the quantity of data delivered .
( typical plans maybe $ 50 = 10GB $ 60 = 20GB etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia has always had caps on internet use so we are used to it.The point is it does cost more money for the ISP to deliver more data.If my capped account is 10G/month but then I as an ISP was mandated for no caps and lets say usage doubled, then I need more routers, more electricity to produce the data, more access to terrestial and undersea data cables.So it does cost more money to deliver more data, and I don't mind paying for the quantity of data delivered.
(typical plans maybe $50=10GB $60=20GB etc)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376447</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's like Utilities? Be careful what you ask f</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1245349560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think public utilities are more obnoxious and bureaucratic than the cable or phone company?</p><p>Are you ignorant, or just toeing some sort of market fundamentalist party line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think public utilities are more obnoxious and bureaucratic than the cable or phone company ? Are you ignorant , or just toeing some sort of market fundamentalist party line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think public utilities are more obnoxious and bureaucratic than the cable or phone company?Are you ignorant, or just toeing some sort of market fundamentalist party line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376115</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1245348240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately, it'll never happen. It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.</p></div></blockquote><p>If the bill banned caps, I would believe it.</p><p>It actually just requires the FCC approval for caps. If ISPs with the most political pull think it will let them have caps while denying them to their competitors, they might well not work too hard to prevent the bill from passing (though they'd still probably say they didn't want it.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it 'll never happen .
It 'd be nice if it did but , so long as ISPs have lobbying power , which they do , it 'll never come to pass.If the bill banned caps , I would believe it.It actually just requires the FCC approval for caps .
If ISPs with the most political pull think it will let them have caps while denying them to their competitors , they might well not work too hard to prevent the bill from passing ( though they 'd still probably say they did n't want it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it'll never happen.
It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.If the bill banned caps, I would believe it.It actually just requires the FCC approval for caps.
If ISPs with the most political pull think it will let them have caps while denying them to their competitors, they might well not work too hard to prevent the bill from passing (though they'd still probably say they didn't want it.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377069</id>
	<title>unstable billing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last thing I need is to have another bill (like my power/water is) that is difficult to accurately budget for. I get paid a set amount of money... months where I pay more suck. I know I would be easier able to monitor my consumption network access, but I'd still rather pay a set amount each month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last thing I need is to have another bill ( like my power/water is ) that is difficult to accurately budget for .
I get paid a set amount of money... months where I pay more suck .
I know I would be easier able to monitor my consumption network access , but I 'd still rather pay a set amount each month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last thing I need is to have another bill (like my power/water is) that is difficult to accurately budget for.
I get paid a set amount of money... months where I pay more suck.
I know I would be easier able to monitor my consumption network access, but I'd still rather pay a set amount each month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376139</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>dword</author>
	<datestamp>1245348300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can't afford people thinking they should use less bandwidth. For them: bandwidth used by people = money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't afford people thinking they should use less bandwidth .
For them : bandwidth used by people = money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't afford people thinking they should use less bandwidth.
For them: bandwidth used by people = money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376637</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for free</i></p><p>The electric company doesn't provide communications. I had carte blanche phone service all my life until I switched to a cell phone, and now I have it again - $50 per month, no minutes, free voicemail, free texting, free internet (Boost Mobile). I don't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV. Why should internet service be any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for freeThe electric company does n't provide communications .
I had carte blanche phone service all my life until I switched to a cell phone , and now I have it again - $ 50 per month , no minutes , free voicemail , free texting , free internet ( Boost Mobile ) .
I do n't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV .
Why should internet service be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get carte blanche from the electric company to use it all for freeThe electric company doesn't provide communications.
I had carte blanche phone service all my life until I switched to a cell phone, and now I have it again - $50 per month, no minutes, free voicemail, free texting, free internet (Boost Mobile).
I don't have to pay by the minute to watch cable TV.
Why should internet service be any different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376861</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea</title>
	<author>Trahloc</author>
	<datestamp>1245351180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?</p></div><p>

Maybe because there isn't a data reservoir underground or giant reactor burning fuel thats generating all your bits?  Networks are limited by speed not the amount of data you transfer.  So logically limits should be based on speed.  But to give you a useful response<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I believe ISP's should sell two types of connectivity, much like we do in data centers.  You have your "shared" usage where you get a certain speed and a transfer limit.  Then you offer "dedicated" bandwidth where your guaranteed to be able to push and pull 100\% of your bandwidth at all times (or 99.9\% of the time).  That would let the user in your example who sips their internet have nice fast speeds at a discounted rate while letting the people who gorge on their bandwidth to get exactly what the salesman promises.  This would be logical... so it'll never happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot ?
Maybe because there is n't a data reservoir underground or giant reactor burning fuel thats generating all your bits ?
Networks are limited by speed not the amount of data you transfer .
So logically limits should be based on speed .
But to give you a useful response ... I believe ISP 's should sell two types of connectivity , much like we do in data centers .
You have your " shared " usage where you get a certain speed and a transfer limit .
Then you offer " dedicated " bandwidth where your guaranteed to be able to push and pull 100 \ % of your bandwidth at all times ( or 99.9 \ % of the time ) .
That would let the user in your example who sips their internet have nice fast speeds at a discounted rate while letting the people who gorge on their bandwidth to get exactly what the salesman promises .
This would be logical... so it 'll never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?
Maybe because there isn't a data reservoir underground or giant reactor burning fuel thats generating all your bits?
Networks are limited by speed not the amount of data you transfer.
So logically limits should be based on speed.
But to give you a useful response ... I believe ISP's should sell two types of connectivity, much like we do in data centers.
You have your "shared" usage where you get a certain speed and a transfer limit.
Then you offer "dedicated" bandwidth where your guaranteed to be able to push and pull 100\% of your bandwidth at all times (or 99.9\% of the time).
That would let the user in your example who sips their internet have nice fast speeds at a discounted rate while letting the people who gorge on their bandwidth to get exactly what the salesman promises.
This would be logical... so it'll never happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</id>
	<title>How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>Sandman1971</author>
	<datestamp>1245348600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm something I don't get. They want internet access to be treated like a utility. Let's see...<br> <br>

The more electricity I use, the higher my bill.<br>
The more water I use, the higher my bill.<br>
The more natural gas I use, the higher my bill.<br>
<br> <br>
By treating internet connectivity like a utility, that would mean that I would get billed according to usage... Which is what bandwidth caps mostly are (pay extra if you surpass a certain amount of utilization in a month). So how does this bill have any type of impact, other than ISPs having to prove to the FCC what the cost:utilization ratio is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm something I do n't get .
They want internet access to be treated like a utility .
Let 's see.. . The more electricity I use , the higher my bill .
The more water I use , the higher my bill .
The more natural gas I use , the higher my bill .
By treating internet connectivity like a utility , that would mean that I would get billed according to usage... Which is what bandwidth caps mostly are ( pay extra if you surpass a certain amount of utilization in a month ) .
So how does this bill have any type of impact , other than ISPs having to prove to the FCC what the cost : utilization ratio is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm something I don't get.
They want internet access to be treated like a utility.
Let's see... 

The more electricity I use, the higher my bill.
The more water I use, the higher my bill.
The more natural gas I use, the higher my bill.
By treating internet connectivity like a utility, that would mean that I would get billed according to usage... Which is what bandwidth caps mostly are (pay extra if you surpass a certain amount of utilization in a month).
So how does this bill have any type of impact, other than ISPs having to prove to the FCC what the cost:utilization ratio is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377205</id>
	<title>Socialise it</title>
	<author>thefringthing</author>
	<datestamp>1245352500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Telcos will continue to screw their customers as hard and long as they can. They're all more or less the same, so you can't really improve your situation by changing service providers.
As the Internet becomes more and more a necessary utility for the average citizen (consider how many government services are now on the Internet), it becomes the government's responsibility to ensure everyone can have a good, fast, un-capped and un-throttled Internet connection that is within the financial reach of even those below the poverty line. Internet at public libraries just doesn't cut it anymore.
Wait, nevermind. I forgot, you Americans can't stand to pay any taxes at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Telcos will continue to screw their customers as hard and long as they can .
They 're all more or less the same , so you ca n't really improve your situation by changing service providers .
As the Internet becomes more and more a necessary utility for the average citizen ( consider how many government services are now on the Internet ) , it becomes the government 's responsibility to ensure everyone can have a good , fast , un-capped and un-throttled Internet connection that is within the financial reach of even those below the poverty line .
Internet at public libraries just does n't cut it anymore .
Wait , nevermind .
I forgot , you Americans ca n't stand to pay any taxes at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Telcos will continue to screw their customers as hard and long as they can.
They're all more or less the same, so you can't really improve your situation by changing service providers.
As the Internet becomes more and more a necessary utility for the average citizen (consider how many government services are now on the Internet), it becomes the government's responsibility to ensure everyone can have a good, fast, un-capped and un-throttled Internet connection that is within the financial reach of even those below the poverty line.
Internet at public libraries just doesn't cut it anymore.
Wait, nevermind.
I forgot, you Americans can't stand to pay any taxes at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376987</id>
	<title>Re:Billed like water? [running out of bits?]</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should the rate go up per usage? It should go down. Whatever happened to <b>bulk discounts</b>? The progressive water rates are to encourage conservation. There's not an inherent limited supply of bits, so why treat it the same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the rate go up per usage ?
It should go down .
Whatever happened to bulk discounts ?
The progressive water rates are to encourage conservation .
There 's not an inherent limited supply of bits , so why treat it the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the rate go up per usage?
It should go down.
Whatever happened to bulk discounts?
The progressive water rates are to encourage conservation.
There's not an inherent limited supply of bits, so why treat it the same?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377377</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1245353100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I recall correctly, there was also a situation where no power plants had been built in ages, so they had to import power from other states and growth in CA and the other states was a factor.. So you do run into the same situation with the net, if it's growth continues.. And then of course we have the same problems with oil refineries and gasoline.. no new refineries being built, which would do a lot for reducing the price of gas.. Yes I agree conservation is nice, but I also think it's sad that people can't afford to travel the country and have adventurous vacations by automobile or RV.. We will all just sit at home and look at pictures of Yosemite and Yellowstone on the Internet.. that's conservation for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , there was also a situation where no power plants had been built in ages , so they had to import power from other states and growth in CA and the other states was a factor.. So you do run into the same situation with the net , if it 's growth continues.. And then of course we have the same problems with oil refineries and gasoline.. no new refineries being built , which would do a lot for reducing the price of gas.. Yes I agree conservation is nice , but I also think it 's sad that people ca n't afford to travel the country and have adventurous vacations by automobile or RV.. We will all just sit at home and look at pictures of Yosemite and Yellowstone on the Internet.. that 's conservation for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, there was also a situation where no power plants had been built in ages, so they had to import power from other states and growth in CA and the other states was a factor.. So you do run into the same situation with the net, if it's growth continues.. And then of course we have the same problems with oil refineries and gasoline.. no new refineries being built, which would do a lot for reducing the price of gas.. Yes I agree conservation is nice, but I also think it's sad that people can't afford to travel the country and have adventurous vacations by automobile or RV.. We will all just sit at home and look at pictures of Yosemite and Yellowstone on the Internet.. that's conservation for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376891</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lovely bit of logic there.</p><p>Rolling BLACKouts (they were not brownouts) were caused by DEregulation, and resultant gaming of the system from several out-of-state providers who were not previously allowed access to the state.  California had electrical generation at similar capacity for many years prior to that rather sudden decision.  The lesson from this SHOULD have been that utilities provide necessities and some regulation is required to prevent "market forces" from diverting it elsewhere.</p><p>Water problems in California come from poor growth management.  Period.  People decided to build houses and farms in stupid parts of the state.</p><p>Now, which of these applies to ISPs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovely bit of logic there.Rolling BLACKouts ( they were not brownouts ) were caused by DEregulation , and resultant gaming of the system from several out-of-state providers who were not previously allowed access to the state .
California had electrical generation at similar capacity for many years prior to that rather sudden decision .
The lesson from this SHOULD have been that utilities provide necessities and some regulation is required to prevent " market forces " from diverting it elsewhere.Water problems in California come from poor growth management .
Period. People decided to build houses and farms in stupid parts of the state.Now , which of these applies to ISPs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovely bit of logic there.Rolling BLACKouts (they were not brownouts) were caused by DEregulation, and resultant gaming of the system from several out-of-state providers who were not previously allowed access to the state.
California had electrical generation at similar capacity for many years prior to that rather sudden decision.
The lesson from this SHOULD have been that utilities provide necessities and some regulation is required to prevent "market forces" from diverting it elsewhere.Water problems in California come from poor growth management.
Period.  People decided to build houses and farms in stupid parts of the state.Now, which of these applies to ISPs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380503</id>
	<title>Congress shouldnt micro-manage business</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1245319020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I think caps are bad, having Congress stick its fingers into business practices is worse.
<br>
<br>
A similar thing is happening with Chrysler and GM re-organizations. Congress is trying tell them which factories and dealerships to close ("not the one in my district"). The companies should figure that out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I think caps are bad , having Congress stick its fingers into business practices is worse .
A similar thing is happening with Chrysler and GM re-organizations .
Congress is trying tell them which factories and dealerships to close ( " not the one in my district " ) .
The companies should figure that out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I think caps are bad, having Congress stick its fingers into business practices is worse.
A similar thing is happening with Chrysler and GM re-organizations.
Congress is trying tell them which factories and dealerships to close ("not the one in my district").
The companies should figure that out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28392021</id>
	<title>stupid post, since competitition DOESN'T exist</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1245435240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....for large swaths of the country.  And then maybe you'd like to explain why socialisticky Asian and European countries have faster personal connections at home for a fraction of the cost, while having more bandwidth than your typical American university.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....for large swaths of the country .
And then maybe you 'd like to explain why socialisticky Asian and European countries have faster personal connections at home for a fraction of the cost , while having more bandwidth than your typical American university .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....for large swaths of the country.
And then maybe you'd like to explain why socialisticky Asian and European countries have faster personal connections at home for a fraction of the cost, while having more bandwidth than your typical American university.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377613</id>
	<title>Wireless carriers</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1245353700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweet, let's do wireless carriers next.</p><p>Their "heads I win, tails you lose" billing system is downright abusive.</p><p>Don't use all your minutes? it's still $39.99!  What, did you think you would get to pay less since your phone as off all month?</p><p>Use more than your cap allows? $1.50 per minute!  Enjoy your $359 bill!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweet , let 's do wireless carriers next.Their " heads I win , tails you lose " billing system is downright abusive.Do n't use all your minutes ?
it 's still $ 39.99 !
What , did you think you would get to pay less since your phone as off all month ? Use more than your cap allows ?
$ 1.50 per minute !
Enjoy your $ 359 bill !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweet, let's do wireless carriers next.Their "heads I win, tails you lose" billing system is downright abusive.Don't use all your minutes?
it's still $39.99!
What, did you think you would get to pay less since your phone as off all month?Use more than your cap allows?
$1.50 per minute!
Enjoy your $359 bill!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376461</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245349560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Landlines have always been unlimited.  It's a single (cheap) flat rate and I could call my buddy with his landline and we could just leave the phones connected all month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Landlines have always been unlimited .
It 's a single ( cheap ) flat rate and I could call my buddy with his landline and we could just leave the phones connected all month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Landlines have always been unlimited.
It's a single (cheap) flat rate and I could call my buddy with his landline and we could just leave the phones connected all month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377463</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's like Utilities? Be careful what you ask f</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1245353280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years. Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you.</p></div><p>Yeah, just look at how quick Verizon has been to roll out FIOS.  It's not as though there's anyone in this country still stuck on dialup!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And if you think that usage on Utilities isn't capped, you're naive.</p></div><p>Maybe, but it's pretty rare that I have a problem where the water stops running or the electricity stops flowing, caps or no caps.  I spend more on Internet than I do on my electrical bill, and my connection seems to die at least a few times a week (besides which the connection is slow and the service stinks).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years .
Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they 're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you.Yeah , just look at how quick Verizon has been to roll out FIOS .
It 's not as though there 's anyone in this country still stuck on dialup ! And if you think that usage on Utilities is n't capped , you 're naive.Maybe , but it 's pretty rare that I have a problem where the water stops running or the electricity stops flowing , caps or no caps .
I spend more on Internet than I do on my electrical bill , and my connection seems to die at least a few times a week ( besides which the connection is slow and the service stinks ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years.
Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you.Yeah, just look at how quick Verizon has been to roll out FIOS.
It's not as though there's anyone in this country still stuck on dialup!And if you think that usage on Utilities isn't capped, you're naive.Maybe, but it's pretty rare that I have a problem where the water stops running or the electricity stops flowing, caps or no caps.
I spend more on Internet than I do on my electrical bill, and my connection seems to die at least a few times a week (besides which the connection is slow and the service stinks).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375915</id>
	<title>However,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are more of Us than there are of Them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are more of Us than there are of Them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are more of Us than there are of Them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379865</id>
	<title>At one time...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1245316740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At one time the thought of bandwidth caps irked the shit out of me. I am a Comcast customer, and about 3 months ago, Comcast dropped a notice on me that pretty much nullified my original contract with them. It instituted a 250GB/Month cap, after which point the additional bandwidth would be subject to a fee (reasonably priced, IMHO).</p><p>I ranted and raved. I reread all my paperwork. I ranted some more.</p><p>Then I actually installed a bandwidth meter on my machine and let 'er rip for a month. Turns out that with heavy e-mail use, daily MMO play, regular torrenting, plenty of streaming video and near constant VoiP connections, I used less then a third of the cap.</p><p>In other words, the cap had ZERO effect on me.</p><p>I suspect the only people (that don't have business connections) that are still bitching about caps ARE the ones using up the lion's share of bandwidth. Why doesn't that surprise me?</p><p>If nothing else, caps are an additional factor that the ISPs have take into account in order to compete against each other. Those with the highest caps get the business. Competition is good, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At one time the thought of bandwidth caps irked the shit out of me .
I am a Comcast customer , and about 3 months ago , Comcast dropped a notice on me that pretty much nullified my original contract with them .
It instituted a 250GB/Month cap , after which point the additional bandwidth would be subject to a fee ( reasonably priced , IMHO ) .I ranted and raved .
I reread all my paperwork .
I ranted some more.Then I actually installed a bandwidth meter on my machine and let 'er rip for a month .
Turns out that with heavy e-mail use , daily MMO play , regular torrenting , plenty of streaming video and near constant VoiP connections , I used less then a third of the cap.In other words , the cap had ZERO effect on me.I suspect the only people ( that do n't have business connections ) that are still bitching about caps ARE the ones using up the lion 's share of bandwidth .
Why does n't that surprise me ? If nothing else , caps are an additional factor that the ISPs have take into account in order to compete against each other .
Those with the highest caps get the business .
Competition is good , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one time the thought of bandwidth caps irked the shit out of me.
I am a Comcast customer, and about 3 months ago, Comcast dropped a notice on me that pretty much nullified my original contract with them.
It instituted a 250GB/Month cap, after which point the additional bandwidth would be subject to a fee (reasonably priced, IMHO).I ranted and raved.
I reread all my paperwork.
I ranted some more.Then I actually installed a bandwidth meter on my machine and let 'er rip for a month.
Turns out that with heavy e-mail use, daily MMO play, regular torrenting, plenty of streaming video and near constant VoiP connections, I used less then a third of the cap.In other words, the cap had ZERO effect on me.I suspect the only people (that don't have business connections) that are still bitching about caps ARE the ones using up the lion's share of bandwidth.
Why doesn't that surprise me?If nothing else, caps are an additional factor that the ISPs have take into account in order to compete against each other.
Those with the highest caps get the business.
Competition is good, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>Shanrak</author>
	<datestamp>1245347220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, and those utilities are usually billed based on usage.

Unless ISPs convert over to a $ per bit pay plan, removing the cap will only benefit the small amount of mass downloaders and make the internet less usable for everyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , and those utilities are usually billed based on usage .
Unless ISPs convert over to a $ per bit pay plan , removing the cap will only benefit the small amount of mass downloaders and make the internet less usable for everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, and those utilities are usually billed based on usage.
Unless ISPs convert over to a $ per bit pay plan, removing the cap will only benefit the small amount of mass downloaders and make the internet less usable for everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376231</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1245348720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA? Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.</p></div><p>Someone already linked brown-outs and Enron, so I'll tackle water shortages.<br>In a few words: poor planning + droughts</p><p>Because more growth = more taxes, all those Western and Mid-Western states that are currently parched did fuck-all to limit growth. The water shortages are self-inflicted because no one that mattered had the foresight or policital courage to say "no more building unless you can arrange for your own water." This is 95\% the result of failtacular (sub*)urban planning. The other 5\% is the serious lack of rain, but good urban planning accounts for that possibility.</p><p>*Yes, enormous suburbs are also to blame. Everyone wants an acre of lush green grass and a white picket fence <i>in the middle of a desert</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating " utilities " like utilities is what 's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA ?
Maybe it 's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.Someone already linked brown-outs and Enron , so I 'll tackle water shortages.In a few words : poor planning + droughtsBecause more growth = more taxes , all those Western and Mid-Western states that are currently parched did fuck-all to limit growth .
The water shortages are self-inflicted because no one that mattered had the foresight or policital courage to say " no more building unless you can arrange for your own water .
" This is 95 \ % the result of failtacular ( sub * ) urban planning .
The other 5 \ % is the serious lack of rain , but good urban planning accounts for that possibility .
* Yes , enormous suburbs are also to blame .
Everyone wants an acre of lush green grass and a white picket fence in the middle of a desert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?
Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.Someone already linked brown-outs and Enron, so I'll tackle water shortages.In a few words: poor planning + droughtsBecause more growth = more taxes, all those Western and Mid-Western states that are currently parched did fuck-all to limit growth.
The water shortages are self-inflicted because no one that mattered had the foresight or policital courage to say "no more building unless you can arrange for your own water.
" This is 95\% the result of failtacular (sub*)urban planning.
The other 5\% is the serious lack of rain, but good urban planning accounts for that possibility.
*Yes, enormous suburbs are also to blame.
Everyone wants an acre of lush green grass and a white picket fence in the middle of a desert.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376709</id>
	<title>Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . .</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245350700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?</i></p><p>No, your problem is you're NOT treating them like utilities. You're treating them like commodity brokers. Your brownouts and shortages are the result of underregulation, not overregulation. Monopolies must be heavily regulated; with a monopoly, there is no free market. I can't choose gas, electric, or cable companies. Hell, I have only one choice of high speed internet here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating " utilities " like utilities is what 's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA ? No , your problem is you 're NOT treating them like utilities .
You 're treating them like commodity brokers .
Your brownouts and shortages are the result of underregulation , not overregulation .
Monopolies must be heavily regulated ; with a monopoly , there is no free market .
I ca n't choose gas , electric , or cable companies .
Hell , I have only one choice of high speed internet here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?No, your problem is you're NOT treating them like utilities.
You're treating them like commodity brokers.
Your brownouts and shortages are the result of underregulation, not overregulation.
Monopolies must be heavily regulated; with a monopoly, there is no free market.
I can't choose gas, electric, or cable companies.
Hell, I have only one choice of high speed internet here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376505</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like an</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1245349740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.</p></div><p>Only if the ISP's are lying about 1\% of users using 90\% of bandwidth.  If they're telling the truth with that statistic 99\% of users will see their bills drop significantly because they will no longer be subsidizing the 1\% that are power-users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this would almost certainly not be in the consumer 's best interest.Only if the ISP 's are lying about 1 \ % of users using 90 \ % of bandwidth .
If they 're telling the truth with that statistic 99 \ % of users will see their bills drop significantly because they will no longer be subsidizing the 1 \ % that are power-users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this would almost certainly not be in the consumer's best interest.Only if the ISP's are lying about 1\% of users using 90\% of bandwidth.
If they're telling the truth with that statistic 99\% of users will see their bills drop significantly because they will no longer be subsidizing the 1\% that are power-users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376039</id>
	<title>Nice! Wish we had this in Canada</title>
	<author>werfu</author>
	<datestamp>1245347940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I whish we had an MP in Canada that would dare to push a similar law. Caps are the rule here and it they are realy low (20Gigs down / 7Mbps is what I got).

Actualy, I think it's a pretty good idea to ban caps. In fact, caps are just an excuse for not serving you with the full capacity of the service you're paying for. It's like going into eat-as-much-as-you-can restaurant and getting kick after an hour because you eated too much. It's false publicity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a massive downloader. But I realy hate to get to pay 7$ per gigabyte when I get over my quota. I last the maximum fee is set to 30$.

Tell me, why would they want caps if it wasn't that they're selling capacity they don't have? If I remember well, selling something you don't have is called fraud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I whish we had an MP in Canada that would dare to push a similar law .
Caps are the rule here and it they are realy low ( 20Gigs down / 7Mbps is what I got ) .
Actualy , I think it 's a pretty good idea to ban caps .
In fact , caps are just an excuse for not serving you with the full capacity of the service you 're paying for .
It 's like going into eat-as-much-as-you-can restaurant and getting kick after an hour because you eated too much .
It 's false publicity .
Do n't get me wrong , I 'm not a massive downloader .
But I realy hate to get to pay 7 $ per gigabyte when I get over my quota .
I last the maximum fee is set to 30 $ .
Tell me , why would they want caps if it was n't that they 're selling capacity they do n't have ?
If I remember well , selling something you do n't have is called fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I whish we had an MP in Canada that would dare to push a similar law.
Caps are the rule here and it they are realy low (20Gigs down / 7Mbps is what I got).
Actualy, I think it's a pretty good idea to ban caps.
In fact, caps are just an excuse for not serving you with the full capacity of the service you're paying for.
It's like going into eat-as-much-as-you-can restaurant and getting kick after an hour because you eated too much.
It's false publicity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a massive downloader.
But I realy hate to get to pay 7$ per gigabyte when I get over my quota.
I last the maximum fee is set to 30$.
Tell me, why would they want caps if it wasn't that they're selling capacity they don't have?
If I remember well, selling something you don't have is called fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617</id>
	<title>They Aren't the ISPs Bits to Sell</title>
	<author>hax0r\_this</author>
	<datestamp>1245350280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you pay for water and electricity, you are actually buying them. The utility company produces them (well, with water they pump and purify it, and might have to pay for their water source depending where you are and how the service works) and sells them to you.<br> <br>
Comcast doesn't produce the bits they deliver to me, they simply transfer them from someone else who I might be paying for the bits. If they can actually deliver the 16Mb/s they claim they can to me at any time of day regardless of "congestion" (of course they can't), then the cost difference to them of delivering nothing for a month and maxing out that connection for a month is negligible. Their routers might draw slightly more power, but the total cost of delivering an additional bit (or 100GB) is next to nothing compared to the cost of making the network available to me.<br> <br>
The idea behind ISP transfer limits is totally different than paying per unit for water or electricity. With water and electricity you pay per unit (usually - in my hometown of Anchorage, AK water is actually a fixed rate I think) because it costs the company to sell you a unit. With ISPs, they want to limit your use because the speeds they charge you for aren't actually the speeds they can deliver if everyone actually uses their connection. So instead of telling you realistic speeds, they just make sure people can't actually use their connection, making it more likely that you will be able to use yours (until you too hit the cap).<br> <br>
Of course there is the totally separate issue of most ISPs also selling content that they would much rather you get via pay per view, etc than via the Internet...</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you pay for water and electricity , you are actually buying them .
The utility company produces them ( well , with water they pump and purify it , and might have to pay for their water source depending where you are and how the service works ) and sells them to you .
Comcast does n't produce the bits they deliver to me , they simply transfer them from someone else who I might be paying for the bits .
If they can actually deliver the 16Mb/s they claim they can to me at any time of day regardless of " congestion " ( of course they ca n't ) , then the cost difference to them of delivering nothing for a month and maxing out that connection for a month is negligible .
Their routers might draw slightly more power , but the total cost of delivering an additional bit ( or 100GB ) is next to nothing compared to the cost of making the network available to me .
The idea behind ISP transfer limits is totally different than paying per unit for water or electricity .
With water and electricity you pay per unit ( usually - in my hometown of Anchorage , AK water is actually a fixed rate I think ) because it costs the company to sell you a unit .
With ISPs , they want to limit your use because the speeds they charge you for are n't actually the speeds they can deliver if everyone actually uses their connection .
So instead of telling you realistic speeds , they just make sure people ca n't actually use their connection , making it more likely that you will be able to use yours ( until you too hit the cap ) .
Of course there is the totally separate issue of most ISPs also selling content that they would much rather you get via pay per view , etc than via the Internet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you pay for water and electricity, you are actually buying them.
The utility company produces them (well, with water they pump and purify it, and might have to pay for their water source depending where you are and how the service works) and sells them to you.
Comcast doesn't produce the bits they deliver to me, they simply transfer them from someone else who I might be paying for the bits.
If they can actually deliver the 16Mb/s they claim they can to me at any time of day regardless of "congestion" (of course they can't), then the cost difference to them of delivering nothing for a month and maxing out that connection for a month is negligible.
Their routers might draw slightly more power, but the total cost of delivering an additional bit (or 100GB) is next to nothing compared to the cost of making the network available to me.
The idea behind ISP transfer limits is totally different than paying per unit for water or electricity.
With water and electricity you pay per unit (usually - in my hometown of Anchorage, AK water is actually a fixed rate I think) because it costs the company to sell you a unit.
With ISPs, they want to limit your use because the speeds they charge you for aren't actually the speeds they can deliver if everyone actually uses their connection.
So instead of telling you realistic speeds, they just make sure people can't actually use their connection, making it more likely that you will be able to use yours (until you too hit the cap).
Of course there is the totally separate issue of most ISPs also selling content that they would much rather you get via pay per view, etc than via the Internet...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376787</id>
	<title>BZZZZT wrong</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1245350880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the government should be threatening is an anti-trust lawsuit.  In many areas of the country there is only one broadband provider.  That provider is protected by 100s of zoning laws that make it virtually impossible for a competitor to run their own wire.   And even if the poles WERE opened up we probably don't want 10 different companies running wire through our neighborhoods.
<br> <br>
As a convicted monopolist many of the broadband providers would be subject to very close scrutiny regarding pricing, throughput, etc.  We would not have a nutty situation where an extremely profitable business screams like they are losing money every quarter.  The only check on TWC from screwing millions of people is the threat of greater government scrutiny.  If you are in an area with no competition please write to your congresspeople as well as the FCC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the government should be threatening is an anti-trust lawsuit .
In many areas of the country there is only one broadband provider .
That provider is protected by 100s of zoning laws that make it virtually impossible for a competitor to run their own wire .
And even if the poles WERE opened up we probably do n't want 10 different companies running wire through our neighborhoods .
As a convicted monopolist many of the broadband providers would be subject to very close scrutiny regarding pricing , throughput , etc .
We would not have a nutty situation where an extremely profitable business screams like they are losing money every quarter .
The only check on TWC from screwing millions of people is the threat of greater government scrutiny .
If you are in an area with no competition please write to your congresspeople as well as the FCC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the government should be threatening is an anti-trust lawsuit.
In many areas of the country there is only one broadband provider.
That provider is protected by 100s of zoning laws that make it virtually impossible for a competitor to run their own wire.
And even if the poles WERE opened up we probably don't want 10 different companies running wire through our neighborhoods.
As a convicted monopolist many of the broadband providers would be subject to very close scrutiny regarding pricing, throughput, etc.
We would not have a nutty situation where an extremely profitable business screams like they are losing money every quarter.
The only check on TWC from screwing millions of people is the threat of greater government scrutiny.
If you are in an area with no competition please write to your congresspeople as well as the FCC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377667</id>
	<title>Anything that restrict telecom's from charging you</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1245353820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is doomed to failure given that this administration seems<br>to be financed by the telecom industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is doomed to failure given that this administration seemsto be financed by the telecom industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is doomed to failure given that this administration seemsto be financed by the telecom industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377243</id>
	<title>Re:How does this bill make a difference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utilities don't just exist to regulate monopolies--they help regulate *natural* monopolies, where if a company or individual would acquire all of a resource, society would suffer.  Thus, they make *sense* with water.  Even with things like the phone or electricity--we simply don't have the actual capacity to just transmit more electricity--you try to send more down the wires, and they'll melt.  Phone service--well...that's old school analog--only so many per wire.</p><p>In the case of bandwidth -- several things are different.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1) It's an artificial monopoly despite limited resources in the real world.  There's thousands of miles of dark fiber they refuse to light which would cost virtually nothing to do so.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2) Unlike every other resource, the trend is massive increases in consumption.  It's not a case (like with phone or water) that I can only physically drink X gallons a day, or only talk for 24 hours--bandwidth is something with a continually growing consumption--and that consumption is furthermore correlated with productivity and economic profit.  Unlike water--if I'm using more bandwidth, I'm *probably* getting more work done (all jokes about porn aside please).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3) Unlike water or electricity--the more I use, the cheaper per unit it becomes for everyone.  There may be a break point in this--but society hasn't arrived at it today.  Yes, using massive quantities "congests" a network--but in many cases it's all but impossible to take out a modern, well provisioned network.  I can have three phone calls and video going to every person in our office--and it still doesn't take out a 100M nic on our crap firewall.</p><p>It's just not a good candidate for a utility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utilities do n't just exist to regulate monopolies--they help regulate * natural * monopolies , where if a company or individual would acquire all of a resource , society would suffer .
Thus , they make * sense * with water .
Even with things like the phone or electricity--we simply do n't have the actual capacity to just transmit more electricity--you try to send more down the wires , and they 'll melt .
Phone service--well...that 's old school analog--only so many per wire.In the case of bandwidth -- several things are different .
    1 ) It 's an artificial monopoly despite limited resources in the real world .
There 's thousands of miles of dark fiber they refuse to light which would cost virtually nothing to do so .
    2 ) Unlike every other resource , the trend is massive increases in consumption .
It 's not a case ( like with phone or water ) that I can only physically drink X gallons a day , or only talk for 24 hours--bandwidth is something with a continually growing consumption--and that consumption is furthermore correlated with productivity and economic profit .
Unlike water--if I 'm using more bandwidth , I 'm * probably * getting more work done ( all jokes about porn aside please ) .
    3 ) Unlike water or electricity--the more I use , the cheaper per unit it becomes for everyone .
There may be a break point in this--but society has n't arrived at it today .
Yes , using massive quantities " congests " a network--but in many cases it 's all but impossible to take out a modern , well provisioned network .
I can have three phone calls and video going to every person in our office--and it still does n't take out a 100M nic on our crap firewall.It 's just not a good candidate for a utility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utilities don't just exist to regulate monopolies--they help regulate *natural* monopolies, where if a company or individual would acquire all of a resource, society would suffer.
Thus, they make *sense* with water.
Even with things like the phone or electricity--we simply don't have the actual capacity to just transmit more electricity--you try to send more down the wires, and they'll melt.
Phone service--well...that's old school analog--only so many per wire.In the case of bandwidth -- several things are different.
    1) It's an artificial monopoly despite limited resources in the real world.
There's thousands of miles of dark fiber they refuse to light which would cost virtually nothing to do so.
    2) Unlike every other resource, the trend is massive increases in consumption.
It's not a case (like with phone or water) that I can only physically drink X gallons a day, or only talk for 24 hours--bandwidth is something with a continually growing consumption--and that consumption is furthermore correlated with productivity and economic profit.
Unlike water--if I'm using more bandwidth, I'm *probably* getting more work done (all jokes about porn aside please).
    3) Unlike water or electricity--the more I use, the cheaper per unit it becomes for everyone.
There may be a break point in this--but society hasn't arrived at it today.
Yes, using massive quantities "congests" a network--but in many cases it's all but impossible to take out a modern, well provisioned network.
I can have three phone calls and video going to every person in our office--and it still doesn't take out a 100M nic on our crap firewall.It's just not a good candidate for a utility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28382385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28384281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28392021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28385989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28382473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28387747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28386439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1521237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28382385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28387747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377245
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376637
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28382473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28381553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28392021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380109
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376309
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28385989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28384281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28379995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28380075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28386439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28378737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28377989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28376199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28391927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1521237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1521237.28375741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
