<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_16_001254</id>
	<title>Cisco, Motorola, and Other Companies Take Aim At Net Neutrality Rules</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255694880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced last month that he would seek to develop formal rules prohibiting Internet service providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and applications. However, 44 companies &mdash; including Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia &mdash; have sent a letter to the FCC  <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/322375">saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet</a>. A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced last month that he would seek to develop formal rules prohibiting Internet service providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and applications .
However , 44 companies    including Cisco Systems , Alcatel-Lucent , Corning , Ericsson , Motorola and Nokia    have sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet .
A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced last month that he would seek to develop formal rules prohibiting Internet service providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and applications.
However, 44 companies — including Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia — have sent a letter to the FCC  saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet.
A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765463</id>
	<title>I had a nice ISP...</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1255623120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a nice ISP...</p><p>They were bought by EarthLink.</p><p>So I changed ISPs to another nice ISP.</p><p>They were bought by a different company.</p><p>That company was then bought by EarthLink.</p><p>I changed to a third ISP.</p><p>A while later, they were bought by EarthLink.</p><p>In any unregulated market, natural monopolies will arise as bigger players buy out the smaller players, and they will go after smaller and smaller players as their marginal ability to increase their business is eroded by their own success in controlling the market.</p><p>Unless you are suggesting regulating ownership of ISPs in a given area in the same way that newspaper and media ownership was regulated by market so that there was not a single monopoly news source, I don't see this changing in such a way that your "everyone should have a choice of providers" utopia will ever come about.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a nice ISP...They were bought by EarthLink.So I changed ISPs to another nice ISP.They were bought by a different company.That company was then bought by EarthLink.I changed to a third ISP.A while later , they were bought by EarthLink.In any unregulated market , natural monopolies will arise as bigger players buy out the smaller players , and they will go after smaller and smaller players as their marginal ability to increase their business is eroded by their own success in controlling the market.Unless you are suggesting regulating ownership of ISPs in a given area in the same way that newspaper and media ownership was regulated by market so that there was not a single monopoly news source , I do n't see this changing in such a way that your " everyone should have a choice of providers " utopia will ever come about.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a nice ISP...They were bought by EarthLink.So I changed ISPs to another nice ISP.They were bought by a different company.That company was then bought by EarthLink.I changed to a third ISP.A while later, they were bought by EarthLink.In any unregulated market, natural monopolies will arise as bigger players buy out the smaller players, and they will go after smaller and smaller players as their marginal ability to increase their business is eroded by their own success in controlling the market.Unless you are suggesting regulating ownership of ISPs in a given area in the same way that newspaper and media ownership was regulated by market so that there was not a single monopoly news source, I don't see this changing in such a way that your "everyone should have a choice of providers" utopia will ever come about.-- Terry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766995</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255693140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUCK ME, someone woke up on the wrong side of bed today.</p><p>The OP you replied to was OBVIOUSLY joking about it, hence the title of his post.<br>Perhaps you should use that Public Education point you pointed out instead of jumping the gun, maybe you'll make less enemies.</p><p>Also, all those points are in the minority compared to the "evil" things they have done, this is common knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK ME , someone woke up on the wrong side of bed today.The OP you replied to was OBVIOUSLY joking about it , hence the title of his post.Perhaps you should use that Public Education point you pointed out instead of jumping the gun , maybe you 'll make less enemies.Also , all those points are in the minority compared to the " evil " things they have done , this is common knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK ME, someone woke up on the wrong side of bed today.The OP you replied to was OBVIOUSLY joking about it, hence the title of his post.Perhaps you should use that Public Education point you pointed out instead of jumping the gun, maybe you'll make less enemies.Also, all those points are in the minority compared to the "evil" things they have done, this is common knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768641</id>
	<title>"could hinder the development of the Internet"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255708080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the statement "could hinder the development of the Internet" should be changed into<br>"could make us compete for business we already have and force us to serve many more customers than just the top 10 broadband providers.</p><p>I'd be shocked if Comcast and AT&amp;T and Verizon **didn't** ask these other companies to send the letters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the statement " could hinder the development of the Internet " should be changed into " could make us compete for business we already have and force us to serve many more customers than just the top 10 broadband providers.I 'd be shocked if Comcast and AT&amp;T and Verizon * * did n't * * ask these other companies to send the letters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the statement "could hinder the development of the Internet" should be changed into"could make us compete for business we already have and force us to serve many more customers than just the top 10 broadband providers.I'd be shocked if Comcast and AT&amp;T and Verizon **didn't** ask these other companies to send the letters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764985</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>stms</author>
	<datestamp>1255617180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, if you have something against being self righteous on the internet (A.K.A. criticizing the government)  you should just leave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , if you have something against being self righteous on the internet ( A.K.A .
criticizing the government ) you should just leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, if you have something against being self righteous on the internet (A.K.A.
criticizing the government)  you should just leave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766035</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1255631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Caps work pretty well. I've said it before and I'll say it again.</p><p>I live in Australia now, and I've got a 10 GB monthly cap on a 24mb connection. It costs me about $AU50, I could get substantially more for not much more, though I don't need it so I don't. If I go over my cap I get shaped(down to 256k as I recall), but not charged extra, but I don't generally do that.</p><p>I know this idea sounds scary, but unlike nearly every ISP in the US, I get what I pay for. I get as much as my connection is capable of giving(obviously there's some attenuation with distance from the exchange and latency to US sites and all that).</p><p>It works for me, and it works for the ISP because they get more money if they sell more capacity, and they're up front and neutral about it for the most part(there are occasional deals with certain providers that their traffic doesn't count towards your cap, but it doesn't affect service delivery in any way).</p><p>The current system in the US does not work, and cannot work, because the only way to ISPs to increase revenue is to increase the number of subscribers on their current infrastructure which leads to the problems you currently have. If they increase capacity their subscribers will just use it all up and they won't make any more money. It's hard to give up totally uncapped bandwidth, but simple economics should show you that no for profit company can ever deliver on that promise in the long term. In the old days no one really used much so they could sell things they didn't think you'd use, but everyone uses it now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Caps work pretty well .
I 've said it before and I 'll say it again.I live in Australia now , and I 've got a 10 GB monthly cap on a 24mb connection .
It costs me about $ AU50 , I could get substantially more for not much more , though I do n't need it so I do n't .
If I go over my cap I get shaped ( down to 256k as I recall ) , but not charged extra , but I do n't generally do that.I know this idea sounds scary , but unlike nearly every ISP in the US , I get what I pay for .
I get as much as my connection is capable of giving ( obviously there 's some attenuation with distance from the exchange and latency to US sites and all that ) .It works for me , and it works for the ISP because they get more money if they sell more capacity , and they 're up front and neutral about it for the most part ( there are occasional deals with certain providers that their traffic does n't count towards your cap , but it does n't affect service delivery in any way ) .The current system in the US does not work , and can not work , because the only way to ISPs to increase revenue is to increase the number of subscribers on their current infrastructure which leads to the problems you currently have .
If they increase capacity their subscribers will just use it all up and they wo n't make any more money .
It 's hard to give up totally uncapped bandwidth , but simple economics should show you that no for profit company can ever deliver on that promise in the long term .
In the old days no one really used much so they could sell things they did n't think you 'd use , but everyone uses it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caps work pretty well.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.I live in Australia now, and I've got a 10 GB monthly cap on a 24mb connection.
It costs me about $AU50, I could get substantially more for not much more, though I don't need it so I don't.
If I go over my cap I get shaped(down to 256k as I recall), but not charged extra, but I don't generally do that.I know this idea sounds scary, but unlike nearly every ISP in the US, I get what I pay for.
I get as much as my connection is capable of giving(obviously there's some attenuation with distance from the exchange and latency to US sites and all that).It works for me, and it works for the ISP because they get more money if they sell more capacity, and they're up front and neutral about it for the most part(there are occasional deals with certain providers that their traffic doesn't count towards your cap, but it doesn't affect service delivery in any way).The current system in the US does not work, and cannot work, because the only way to ISPs to increase revenue is to increase the number of subscribers on their current infrastructure which leads to the problems you currently have.
If they increase capacity their subscribers will just use it all up and they won't make any more money.
It's hard to give up totally uncapped bandwidth, but simple economics should show you that no for profit company can ever deliver on that promise in the long term.
In the old days no one really used much so they could sell things they didn't think you'd use, but everyone uses it now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765553</id>
	<title>Re:So be it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255624200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it the height of hypocrisy that these so called free market advocates are actively campaigning for the ability of an authoritarian entity to arbitrarily interfere in the market for the exchange of privately owned data.  Net neutrality is the Golden Rule of the Internet; treat other peoples data (i.e. property) as you would treat your own. For such a simple concept it is amazing that those so blinded by avarice are incapable of comprehending it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it the height of hypocrisy that these so called free market advocates are actively campaigning for the ability of an authoritarian entity to arbitrarily interfere in the market for the exchange of privately owned data .
Net neutrality is the Golden Rule of the Internet ; treat other peoples data ( i.e .
property ) as you would treat your own .
For such a simple concept it is amazing that those so blinded by avarice are incapable of comprehending it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it the height of hypocrisy that these so called free market advocates are actively campaigning for the ability of an authoritarian entity to arbitrarily interfere in the market for the exchange of privately owned data.
Net neutrality is the Golden Rule of the Internet; treat other peoples data (i.e.
property) as you would treat your own.
For such a simple concept it is amazing that those so blinded by avarice are incapable of comprehending it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764961</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, what is the problem with price per byte? It seems pretty fair to me, then I don't have to subsidize people who use more than me, and people who use less than me will not be subsidizing my bandwidth. As long as there is competition, then the prices will be fair.<br> <br>
Of course, if you live in a place where there is only one internet carrier, then the prices might not be fair, but that is a separate problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what is the problem with price per byte ?
It seems pretty fair to me , then I do n't have to subsidize people who use more than me , and people who use less than me will not be subsidizing my bandwidth .
As long as there is competition , then the prices will be fair .
Of course , if you live in a place where there is only one internet carrier , then the prices might not be fair , but that is a separate problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what is the problem with price per byte?
It seems pretty fair to me, then I don't have to subsidize people who use more than me, and people who use less than me will not be subsidizing my bandwidth.
As long as there is competition, then the prices will be fair.
Of course, if you live in a place where there is only one internet carrier, then the prices might not be fair, but that is a separate problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764989</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1255617180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A universal price-pet-byte structure a la the 56k days has little, if anything, to do with net neutrality.</p><p>This is one of the things of portions of the net neutrality crowd I don't get.  "Net neutrality" is -sometimes- used as a buzzword to mean "ISPs doing anything I don't like" due to people sloppily mixing up their agendas.  Truthfully, a price-per-byte structure may not be a bad thing.  The people that are the biggest problems for ISPs are those that max their connections 24/7. While I agree that ISPs shouldn't advertise "unlimited" if they aren't or cannot provide "unlimited," as I understand it there are a often a minority of people use the greatest amount of bandwidth.  A price-per-byte structure, if properly implemented, could result in reduced monthly payments for grandma and a higher portion for the guy with the strange habit of downloading "Linux ISOs" all the time.  I don't think this is -necessarily- unfair, and I think most of the people that complain about this are likely the (like me) nerdier people that use their connection more.  It would also give people an incentive to make sure their PCs weren't clogged with trojans that turn home PCs into spam servers or zombies.</p><p>Net neutrality only enters here when it is not universal, i.e., some content is not pay-per-byte depending upon its origin; perhaps content directly delivered by the ISP would fall under this category.  But I don't see why that is -inherently- wrong.  Desirable for us nerds?  Probably not.  But the fact that we are used to one pricing scheme doesn't give us the moral right to that pricing scheme.</p><p>You say "greedy pricks" here for a business trying to maximize its profits, yet you do not seem to think of yourself as a "greedy prick" for wanting to minimize your expenses.  I am not fan of the monopoly status ISPs have been granted by the state governments and various laws in place, but you and I are not much different than they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A universal price-pet-byte structure a la the 56k days has little , if anything , to do with net neutrality.This is one of the things of portions of the net neutrality crowd I do n't get .
" Net neutrality " is -sometimes- used as a buzzword to mean " ISPs doing anything I do n't like " due to people sloppily mixing up their agendas .
Truthfully , a price-per-byte structure may not be a bad thing .
The people that are the biggest problems for ISPs are those that max their connections 24/7 .
While I agree that ISPs should n't advertise " unlimited " if they are n't or can not provide " unlimited , " as I understand it there are a often a minority of people use the greatest amount of bandwidth .
A price-per-byte structure , if properly implemented , could result in reduced monthly payments for grandma and a higher portion for the guy with the strange habit of downloading " Linux ISOs " all the time .
I do n't think this is -necessarily- unfair , and I think most of the people that complain about this are likely the ( like me ) nerdier people that use their connection more .
It would also give people an incentive to make sure their PCs were n't clogged with trojans that turn home PCs into spam servers or zombies.Net neutrality only enters here when it is not universal , i.e. , some content is not pay-per-byte depending upon its origin ; perhaps content directly delivered by the ISP would fall under this category .
But I do n't see why that is -inherently- wrong .
Desirable for us nerds ?
Probably not .
But the fact that we are used to one pricing scheme does n't give us the moral right to that pricing scheme.You say " greedy pricks " here for a business trying to maximize its profits , yet you do not seem to think of yourself as a " greedy prick " for wanting to minimize your expenses .
I am not fan of the monopoly status ISPs have been granted by the state governments and various laws in place , but you and I are not much different than they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A universal price-pet-byte structure a la the 56k days has little, if anything, to do with net neutrality.This is one of the things of portions of the net neutrality crowd I don't get.
"Net neutrality" is -sometimes- used as a buzzword to mean "ISPs doing anything I don't like" due to people sloppily mixing up their agendas.
Truthfully, a price-per-byte structure may not be a bad thing.
The people that are the biggest problems for ISPs are those that max their connections 24/7.
While I agree that ISPs shouldn't advertise "unlimited" if they aren't or cannot provide "unlimited," as I understand it there are a often a minority of people use the greatest amount of bandwidth.
A price-per-byte structure, if properly implemented, could result in reduced monthly payments for grandma and a higher portion for the guy with the strange habit of downloading "Linux ISOs" all the time.
I don't think this is -necessarily- unfair, and I think most of the people that complain about this are likely the (like me) nerdier people that use their connection more.
It would also give people an incentive to make sure their PCs weren't clogged with trojans that turn home PCs into spam servers or zombies.Net neutrality only enters here when it is not universal, i.e., some content is not pay-per-byte depending upon its origin; perhaps content directly delivered by the ISP would fall under this category.
But I don't see why that is -inherently- wrong.
Desirable for us nerds?
Probably not.
But the fact that we are used to one pricing scheme doesn't give us the moral right to that pricing scheme.You say "greedy pricks" here for a business trying to maximize its profits, yet you do not seem to think of yourself as a "greedy prick" for wanting to minimize your expenses.
I am not fan of the monopoly status ISPs have been granted by the state governments and various laws in place, but you and I are not much different than they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768337</id>
	<title>Here's how it works</title>
	<author>slashdotjunker</author>
	<datestamp>1255706520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An explanation of net neutrality for engineers.
<br> <br>
Here's how an engineer thinks:
<br> <br>
"This part costs 10 cents. My manager wants to make a 50\% profit. Therefore, we will sell this part for 15 cents."
<br> <br>
Here's how a sales manager thinks.
<br> <br>
"Hmm, let's take a peek into this guy's wallet. If he's broke then we'll give it to him for free and release a press statement about how nice we are. If he's rich then we'll try to take every last penny he owns."
<br> <br>
Note that price, cost and value have no impact on the sales manager's thought process. Opponents of net neutrality want a sales driven world where they can freely charge any outrageous price (both overly high and overly low).</htmltext>
<tokenext>An explanation of net neutrality for engineers .
Here 's how an engineer thinks : " This part costs 10 cents .
My manager wants to make a 50 \ % profit .
Therefore , we will sell this part for 15 cents .
" Here 's how a sales manager thinks .
" Hmm , let 's take a peek into this guy 's wallet .
If he 's broke then we 'll give it to him for free and release a press statement about how nice we are .
If he 's rich then we 'll try to take every last penny he owns .
" Note that price , cost and value have no impact on the sales manager 's thought process .
Opponents of net neutrality want a sales driven world where they can freely charge any outrageous price ( both overly high and overly low ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An explanation of net neutrality for engineers.
Here's how an engineer thinks:
 
"This part costs 10 cents.
My manager wants to make a 50\% profit.
Therefore, we will sell this part for 15 cents.
"
 
Here's how a sales manager thinks.
"Hmm, let's take a peek into this guy's wallet.
If he's broke then we'll give it to him for free and release a press statement about how nice we are.
If he's rich then we'll try to take every last penny he owns.
"
 
Note that price, cost and value have no impact on the sales manager's thought process.
Opponents of net neutrality want a sales driven world where they can freely charge any outrageous price (both overly high and overly low).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764737</id>
	<title>Hinder Development of Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255614960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, new regulations would hinder the development of products and services that control and benefit from the control of the Internet. I.e. content control, throttling bandwidth I already bought, etc.</p><p>Fuck off, parasites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , new regulations would hinder the development of products and services that control and benefit from the control of the Internet .
I.e. content control , throttling bandwidth I already bought , etc.Fuck off , parasites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, new regulations would hinder the development of products and services that control and benefit from the control of the Internet.
I.e. content control, throttling bandwidth I already bought, etc.Fuck off, parasites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766459</id>
	<title>Nokia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255726680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Nokia's press release about being more open was just a feint and we need to look under the hood to see what kind of shit they are really trying to get away with.  Wasn't Nokia the one that had a 'Microsoft Friend' on the inside be its representative to the W3C's HTML5 committee.   Needless to say, the 'Microsoft Friend' helped make sure that open video standards got cut out of the specification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Nokia 's press release about being more open was just a feint and we need to look under the hood to see what kind of shit they are really trying to get away with .
Was n't Nokia the one that had a 'Microsoft Friend ' on the inside be its representative to the W3C 's HTML5 committee .
Needless to say , the 'Microsoft Friend ' helped make sure that open video standards got cut out of the specification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Nokia's press release about being more open was just a feint and we need to look under the hood to see what kind of shit they are really trying to get away with.
Wasn't Nokia the one that had a 'Microsoft Friend' on the inside be its representative to the W3C's HTML5 committee.
Needless to say, the 'Microsoft Friend' helped make sure that open video standards got cut out of the specification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765169</id>
	<title>That explains a lot</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1255619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations.</i>

</p><p>That pretty much guarantees it's good for the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations .
That pretty much guarantees it 's good for the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations.
That pretty much guarantees it's good for the public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764513</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>xlsior</author>
	<datestamp>1255612800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection</i> <br> <br>
If ISP's aren't allowed to mess with the traffic, then they won't need any new equipment that enables them to filter / shape / drop / eavesdrop / modify the data packets involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection If ISP 's are n't allowed to mess with the traffic , then they wo n't need any new equipment that enables them to filter / shape / drop / eavesdrop / modify the data packets involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection  
If ISP's aren't allowed to mess with the traffic, then they won't need any new equipment that enables them to filter / shape / drop / eavesdrop / modify the data packets involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767535</id>
	<title>The industry is EXACTLY RIGHT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Net neutrality is Marxist, Socialist garbage!</p><p>Government needs to stop restricting business and let business expand and create jobs.  Net Neutrlity restricts business!</p><p>Impeach ALL democrats!!!!   Impeach b.o.!!</p><p>remove the czars!!!</p><p>NO amnesty for illegal aliens - they are criminals by entering and / staying illegally!!!!</p><p>NO taxpayer funded health care expansion!!!!</p><p>Pay down the deficit!   By using all of the salaries of the democrats, independants, socialists, marxiosts, communists!!!!<br>\\</p><p>Stop spending money!!!!   Stop monitizing our debt!!!!  It erodes the value of the dollar!!!!!</p><p>Less government intervention in our lives and businesses!!!!</p><p>Lower taxes!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality is Marxist , Socialist garbage ! Government needs to stop restricting business and let business expand and create jobs .
Net Neutrlity restricts business ! Impeach ALL democrats ! ! ! !
Impeach b.o. !
! remove the czars ! !
! NO amnesty for illegal aliens - they are criminals by entering and / staying illegally ! ! !
! NO taxpayer funded health care expansion ! ! !
! Pay down the deficit !
By using all of the salaries of the democrats , independants , socialists , marxiosts , communists ! ! !
! \ \ Stop spending money ! ! ! !
Stop monitizing our debt ! ! ! !
It erodes the value of the dollar ! ! ! !
! Less government intervention in our lives and businesses ! ! !
! Lower taxes ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality is Marxist, Socialist garbage!Government needs to stop restricting business and let business expand and create jobs.
Net Neutrlity restricts business!Impeach ALL democrats!!!!
Impeach b.o.!
!remove the czars!!
!NO amnesty for illegal aliens - they are criminals by entering and / staying illegally!!!
!NO taxpayer funded health care expansion!!!
!Pay down the deficit!
By using all of the salaries of the democrats, independants, socialists, marxiosts, communists!!!
!\\Stop spending money!!!!
Stop monitizing our debt!!!!
It erodes the value of the dollar!!!!
!Less government intervention in our lives and businesses!!!
!Lower taxes!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29769881</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, actually only sell what they realistically can support.  Not some trumped up "unlimited" broadband per month.  They say this but if you actually hit that capacity and hold it for a straight week or so they silently slow you down.  That is BS.  Then they say its not BS since its in the ToS.  EVERY company has this in their ToS.  There is ALWAYS legalize to keep consumers from EVER using the products they buy any way they wish; this in turn is what kills innovation.</p><p>One of the issues of "innovation" is that companies seem to think that only large corporations with unlimited finances can innovate and this just isn't the case at all in the world of PCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , actually only sell what they realistically can support .
Not some trumped up " unlimited " broadband per month .
They say this but if you actually hit that capacity and hold it for a straight week or so they silently slow you down .
That is BS .
Then they say its not BS since its in the ToS .
EVERY company has this in their ToS .
There is ALWAYS legalize to keep consumers from EVER using the products they buy any way they wish ; this in turn is what kills innovation.One of the issues of " innovation " is that companies seem to think that only large corporations with unlimited finances can innovate and this just is n't the case at all in the world of PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, actually only sell what they realistically can support.
Not some trumped up "unlimited" broadband per month.
They say this but if you actually hit that capacity and hold it for a straight week or so they silently slow you down.
That is BS.
Then they say its not BS since its in the ToS.
EVERY company has this in their ToS.
There is ALWAYS legalize to keep consumers from EVER using the products they buy any way they wish; this in turn is what kills innovation.One of the issues of "innovation" is that companies seem to think that only large corporations with unlimited finances can innovate and this just isn't the case at all in the world of PCs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766611</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Adm.Wiggin</author>
	<datestamp>1255686540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!</p></div><p>You must be new here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get lost , and come back when you have something intelligent to say ! You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!You must be new here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29772675</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It pleases me that "throttle" is a synonym for "strangle"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It pleases me that " throttle " is a synonym for " strangle "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It pleases me that "throttle" is a synonym for "strangle"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764517</id>
	<title>They're equipment makers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filtering, packet inspection, etc, requires newer and more powerful networking gear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filtering , packet inspection , etc , requires newer and more powerful networking gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filtering, packet inspection, etc, requires newer and more powerful networking gear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766925</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1255691820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How much longer should I go on? Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk. Sure, it's got it's problems, but the idea that it's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong!</i></p><p><i>Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!</i></p><p>Wow, that's one heck of a tirade. Judging from your reaction alone my OP deserves a troll mod or 2, inadvertently as it my have been.</p><p>And yes, I was taking a stab at the libertards around here. Tongue in cheek and all that. And, as much as I hate to do this...the urge is too strong to resist. Whooooooosh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much longer should I go on ?
Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk .
Sure , it 's got it 's problems , but the idea that it 's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong ! Get lost , and come back when you have something intelligent to say ! Wow , that 's one heck of a tirade .
Judging from your reaction alone my OP deserves a troll mod or 2 , inadvertently as it my have been.And yes , I was taking a stab at the libertards around here .
Tongue in cheek and all that .
And , as much as I hate to do this...the urge is too strong to resist .
Whooooooosh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much longer should I go on?
Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk.
Sure, it's got it's problems, but the idea that it's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong!Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!Wow, that's one heck of a tirade.
Judging from your reaction alone my OP deserves a troll mod or 2, inadvertently as it my have been.And yes, I was taking a stab at the libertards around here.
Tongue in cheek and all that.
And, as much as I hate to do this...the urge is too strong to resist.
Whooooooosh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765785</id>
	<title>Lip service to free markets</title>
	<author>sydbarrett74</author>
	<datestamp>1255627680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny how most public officials blather on about competition and free markets -- as long as their pimps^H^H^H^H^Hcorporate campaign donors are exempt from having to compete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how most public officials blather on about competition and free markets -- as long as their pimps ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hcorporate campaign donors are exempt from having to compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how most public officials blather on about competition and free markets -- as long as their pimps^H^H^H^H^Hcorporate campaign donors are exempt from having to compete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255634280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.</i></p><p><i>So please, stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.</i></p><p>Moderated funny, I don't think that was your intent.</p><p>And it's bullsh-7. Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside. Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt, and it's clearly starting to undermine the United State's ability to maintain it's position of power.</p><p>If "da gubbmint" sucked at everything, why is it important to have one? If "da gubbmint" wasn't necessary, then <b>Rwanda (which effectively has no government) would be a fscking paradise. Yet, despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people, there's hardly a better example of hell on Earth.</b> Rapes and crime are so rampant, basic infrastructure like roads, water, and power are almost nonexistent. Starvation is the order of the day for those who haven't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.</p><p>Contrast that with YOUR privileged life: The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals, and make those frequencies available. FCC police keep it that way, too. Aircraft don't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.</p><p>And I can go on and on.</p><p>1) <b>Roads</b> that cost $1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like, anytime you want.</p><p>2) <b>Public education</b> available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,</p><p>3) Military that protects your interests very effectively.</p><p>4) <b>Police that keep "bad guys" from robbing you</b>, raping you, or killing you.</p><p>5) <b>Fresh, pure, clean water</b> so cheap that it's often not even measured. You walk to the sink. You jigger a handle and voila! A virtually endless supply of clean, cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.</p><p>6) <b>Cars that are safe to drive!</b> You'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars, but paradoxically, they've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the "gubbmint" to improve either safety or fuel economy. You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car, and even in these circumstances it's most likely that you'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries. You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it doesn't break the bank.</p><p>7) <b>Food that's safe to eat.</b> Go to China and you don't really quite know what's in your baby food. It might be good, protein-rich baby food, or it might be Melamine. How do you know? Well, it's the US "gubbmint" that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt. I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict "gubbmint" regulations on food handling. And China is a pretty good country - it's far worse elsewhere.</p><p>How much longer should I go on? Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk. Sure, it's got it's problems, but the idea that it's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong!</p><p>Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything the government does is evil , restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.So please , stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.Moderated funny , I do n't think that was your intent.And it 's bullsh-7 .
Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside .
Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt , and it 's clearly starting to undermine the United State 's ability to maintain it 's position of power.If " da gubbmint " sucked at everything , why is it important to have one ?
If " da gubbmint " was n't necessary , then Rwanda ( which effectively has no government ) would be a fscking paradise .
Yet , despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people , there 's hardly a better example of hell on Earth .
Rapes and crime are so rampant , basic infrastructure like roads , water , and power are almost nonexistent .
Starvation is the order of the day for those who have n't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.Contrast that with YOUR privileged life : The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals , and make those frequencies available .
FCC police keep it that way , too .
Aircraft do n't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.And I can go on and on.1 ) Roads that cost $ 1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like , anytime you want.2 ) Public education available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,3 ) Military that protects your interests very effectively.4 ) Police that keep " bad guys " from robbing you , raping you , or killing you.5 ) Fresh , pure , clean water so cheap that it 's often not even measured .
You walk to the sink .
You jigger a handle and voila !
A virtually endless supply of clean , cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.6 ) Cars that are safe to drive !
You 'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars , but paradoxically , they 've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the " gubbmint " to improve either safety or fuel economy .
You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car , and even in these circumstances it 's most likely that you 'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries .
You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it does n't break the bank.7 ) Food that 's safe to eat .
Go to China and you do n't really quite know what 's in your baby food .
It might be good , protein-rich baby food , or it might be Melamine .
How do you know ?
Well , it 's the US " gubbmint " that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt .
I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict " gubbmint " regulations on food handling .
And China is a pretty good country - it 's far worse elsewhere.How much longer should I go on ?
Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk .
Sure , it 's got it 's problems , but the idea that it 's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong ! Get lost , and come back when you have something intelligent to say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.So please, stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.Moderated funny, I don't think that was your intent.And it's bullsh-7.
Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside.
Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt, and it's clearly starting to undermine the United State's ability to maintain it's position of power.If "da gubbmint" sucked at everything, why is it important to have one?
If "da gubbmint" wasn't necessary, then Rwanda (which effectively has no government) would be a fscking paradise.
Yet, despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people, there's hardly a better example of hell on Earth.
Rapes and crime are so rampant, basic infrastructure like roads, water, and power are almost nonexistent.
Starvation is the order of the day for those who haven't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.Contrast that with YOUR privileged life: The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals, and make those frequencies available.
FCC police keep it that way, too.
Aircraft don't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.And I can go on and on.1) Roads that cost $1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like, anytime you want.2) Public education available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,3) Military that protects your interests very effectively.4) Police that keep "bad guys" from robbing you, raping you, or killing you.5) Fresh, pure, clean water so cheap that it's often not even measured.
You walk to the sink.
You jigger a handle and voila!
A virtually endless supply of clean, cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.6) Cars that are safe to drive!
You'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars, but paradoxically, they've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the "gubbmint" to improve either safety or fuel economy.
You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car, and even in these circumstances it's most likely that you'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries.
You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it doesn't break the bank.7) Food that's safe to eat.
Go to China and you don't really quite know what's in your baby food.
It might be good, protein-rich baby food, or it might be Melamine.
How do you know?
Well, it's the US "gubbmint" that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt.
I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict "gubbmint" regulations on food handling.
And China is a pretty good country - it's far worse elsewhere.How much longer should I go on?
Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk.
Sure, it's got it's problems, but the idea that it's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong!Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767605</id>
	<title>Re:Motorola's take...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255701540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Joe,</p><p>Can you stop by my office for a quick discussion on your career aspirations and your performance last quarter ?</p><p>thanks<br>Your Manager</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Joe,Can you stop by my office for a quick discussion on your career aspirations and your performance last quarter ? thanksYour Manager</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joe,Can you stop by my office for a quick discussion on your career aspirations and your performance last quarter ?thanksYour Manager</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</id>
	<title>What's the catch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767109</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well gee I thought the OP was being tongue in cheek.  How much fun would you be at the party of fun o\_O</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well gee I thought the OP was being tongue in cheek .
How much fun would you be at the party of fun o \ _O</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well gee I thought the OP was being tongue in cheek.
How much fun would you be at the party of fun o\_O</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764591</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty simple.  They've already sold loads of kit to provide the current network neutral generation of technology, and if network neutrality is abolished, they can make skad loads of cash selling traffic shaping/filtering hardware to the network providers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty simple .
They 've already sold loads of kit to provide the current network neutral generation of technology , and if network neutrality is abolished , they can make skad loads of cash selling traffic shaping/filtering hardware to the network providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty simple.
They've already sold loads of kit to provide the current network neutral generation of technology, and if network neutrality is abolished, they can make skad loads of cash selling traffic shaping/filtering hardware to the network providers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29770069</id>
	<title>Blacklist all of those fuckers</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1255715040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im running a small business offering it services, web development, hosting to individuals and businesses and i am one of the direct customers of these fuckers. not to mention that im also a web developer, leaving aside being an end customer of some of the devices a few of those companies make, like cellular phones.</p><p>from now on i will put each one of those bastards into my blacklist and will avoid them like the plague. serves them only right for working against the very thing that made internet possible and made me able to make a living and offer services to people. not only i will avoid them, but also i will advise my colleagues, my family and my close circle to avoid them too.</p><p>do the same. its 2009. the time to tolerate those who work against online freedoms is long past by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im running a small business offering it services , web development , hosting to individuals and businesses and i am one of the direct customers of these fuckers .
not to mention that im also a web developer , leaving aside being an end customer of some of the devices a few of those companies make , like cellular phones.from now on i will put each one of those bastards into my blacklist and will avoid them like the plague .
serves them only right for working against the very thing that made internet possible and made me able to make a living and offer services to people .
not only i will avoid them , but also i will advise my colleagues , my family and my close circle to avoid them too.do the same .
its 2009. the time to tolerate those who work against online freedoms is long past by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im running a small business offering it services, web development, hosting to individuals and businesses and i am one of the direct customers of these fuckers.
not to mention that im also a web developer, leaving aside being an end customer of some of the devices a few of those companies make, like cellular phones.from now on i will put each one of those bastards into my blacklist and will avoid them like the plague.
serves them only right for working against the very thing that made internet possible and made me able to make a living and offer services to people.
not only i will avoid them, but also i will advise my colleagues, my family and my close circle to avoid them too.do the same.
its 2009. the time to tolerate those who work against online freedoms is long past by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29770055</id>
	<title>Re:Traitors to Freedom</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1255715040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy to figure out which senators are in the pocket of big business: they are the ones with the word "Senator" in front of their name.</p><p>Ok, there are some exceptions (notably Bernie Sanders), but that's a good general rule to go by until proven otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to figure out which senators are in the pocket of big business : they are the ones with the word " Senator " in front of their name.Ok , there are some exceptions ( notably Bernie Sanders ) , but that 's a good general rule to go by until proven otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to figure out which senators are in the pocket of big business: they are the ones with the word "Senator" in front of their name.Ok, there are some exceptions (notably Bernie Sanders), but that's a good general rule to go by until proven otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</id>
	<title>According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.</p><p>So please, stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.</p><p>In other news, Google moves to Russia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything the government does is evil , restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.So please , stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.In other news , Google moves to Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.So please, stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.In other news, Google moves to Russia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764759</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1255615080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet</p></div></blockquote><p> We have already spent  man hours developing... features that would cripp... smothe... smooth out traffic flow, and you're about to regulate the (perceived) market away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet We have already spent man hours developing... features that would cripp... smothe... smooth out traffic flow , and you 're about to regulate the ( perceived ) market away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet We have already spent  man hours developing... features that would cripp... smothe... smooth out traffic flow, and you're about to regulate the (perceived) market away.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535</id>
	<title>not fixing the real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When there's little choice in what providers are available in your area, there's very little reason for ISPs to provide better service.  Internet users need to be able to move to viable alternatives when Comcast and friends implement anti-net neutrality measures.  If you don't like your p2p being throttled, there should be somewhere else to take your money.  Get rid of those local monopolies; they are more trouble than they are worth.  There are a lot of changes to the current system that would improve the situation that involve little more than discouraging monopolies and stronger enforcement of current laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When there 's little choice in what providers are available in your area , there 's very little reason for ISPs to provide better service .
Internet users need to be able to move to viable alternatives when Comcast and friends implement anti-net neutrality measures .
If you do n't like your p2p being throttled , there should be somewhere else to take your money .
Get rid of those local monopolies ; they are more trouble than they are worth .
There are a lot of changes to the current system that would improve the situation that involve little more than discouraging monopolies and stronger enforcement of current laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When there's little choice in what providers are available in your area, there's very little reason for ISPs to provide better service.
Internet users need to be able to move to viable alternatives when Comcast and friends implement anti-net neutrality measures.
If you don't like your p2p being throttled, there should be somewhere else to take your money.
Get rid of those local monopolies; they are more trouble than they are worth.
There are a lot of changes to the current system that would improve the situation that involve little more than discouraging monopolies and stronger enforcement of current laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766717</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255688340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Rwanda (which effectively has no government) would be a fscking paradise. Yet, despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people, there's hardly a better example of hell on Earth.</b> </p></div><p>Rwanda has a relatively stable and democratically elected government.</p><p>You're probably thinking Somalia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rwanda ( which effectively has no government ) would be a fscking paradise .
Yet , despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people , there 's hardly a better example of hell on Earth .
Rwanda has a relatively stable and democratically elected government.You 're probably thinking Somalia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Rwanda (which effectively has no government) would be a fscking paradise.
Yet, despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people, there's hardly a better example of hell on Earth.
Rwanda has a relatively stable and democratically elected government.You're probably thinking Somalia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469</id>
	<title>"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..."</title>
	<author>skirtsteak\_asshat</author>
	<datestamp>1255612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, new regulations could hinder THEIR DEVELOPMENT of price per byte structure which they've been salivating about for a LONG TIME.

Greedy pricks.  Green-wash as you are able, we will see through it and hold you accountable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , new regulations could hinder THEIR DEVELOPMENT of price per byte structure which they 've been salivating about for a LONG TIME .
Greedy pricks .
Green-wash as you are able , we will see through it and hold you accountable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, new regulations could hinder THEIR DEVELOPMENT of price per byte structure which they've been salivating about for a LONG TIME.
Greedy pricks.
Green-wash as you are able, we will see through it and hold you accountable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765043</id>
	<title>Traitors to Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255617660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations."

</p><p>

They make it too easy to figure out who's in the pocket of big business.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations .
" They make it too easy to figure out who 's in the pocket of big business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations.
"



They make it too easy to figure out who's in the pocket of big business.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765581</id>
	<title>Re:This is what happens when gov't picks winners</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1255624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong! Your conclusion is totally flawed. The corporations would exist whether or not government existed. In fact, they would be even more powerful. All they have to do is consolidate, merge and buy themselves into a monopoly position. Apparently you seem to be completely ignorant about the fact that monopolies are in fact quite common and do happen with regularity. Even without a monopoly, corporations can still abuse consumers as with this net censorship. Without government there would be very little to stop censorship by ISPs, the FCC would not even be trying to accomplish this under the Obama Administration. A corporation, with its control and ownership of assetts and its private police forces is all it needs to take away all of your rights. In fact, it would be able to do that with even more speed without government there to stop it. Get off this anti-government garbage. The fact is, we need a government to protect our rights since it has the power and capability to do so, to regulate these corporations. if we want freedom, instead of no government, we need a government that is on our side and works for us. The way to accomplish that is to get the corporate money out of elections and the lobbyists out of washington. it is us the politicians should answer to and accountable to, not the corporations. The corporations would just LOVE for you to destroy your government, then there would be nothing left of any real significance to stop them from implementing their totalitarian regime, except perhaps a violent revolution to try to overthrow them. Corporations fund the Republicans particularly because they will allow them to expand their power by dismantling governmental oversite. Then corporations use their vast funds they acquired due to their abusive practices to fund the republicans, its a vicious cycle. Democratic government is the civilised way to make sure that the corporations are forced to respect us and that they are required to obey laws, that there will be no censorship and that they will not treat us like rubbish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong !
Your conclusion is totally flawed .
The corporations would exist whether or not government existed .
In fact , they would be even more powerful .
All they have to do is consolidate , merge and buy themselves into a monopoly position .
Apparently you seem to be completely ignorant about the fact that monopolies are in fact quite common and do happen with regularity .
Even without a monopoly , corporations can still abuse consumers as with this net censorship .
Without government there would be very little to stop censorship by ISPs , the FCC would not even be trying to accomplish this under the Obama Administration .
A corporation , with its control and ownership of assetts and its private police forces is all it needs to take away all of your rights .
In fact , it would be able to do that with even more speed without government there to stop it .
Get off this anti-government garbage .
The fact is , we need a government to protect our rights since it has the power and capability to do so , to regulate these corporations .
if we want freedom , instead of no government , we need a government that is on our side and works for us .
The way to accomplish that is to get the corporate money out of elections and the lobbyists out of washington .
it is us the politicians should answer to and accountable to , not the corporations .
The corporations would just LOVE for you to destroy your government , then there would be nothing left of any real significance to stop them from implementing their totalitarian regime , except perhaps a violent revolution to try to overthrow them .
Corporations fund the Republicans particularly because they will allow them to expand their power by dismantling governmental oversite .
Then corporations use their vast funds they acquired due to their abusive practices to fund the republicans , its a vicious cycle .
Democratic government is the civilised way to make sure that the corporations are forced to respect us and that they are required to obey laws , that there will be no censorship and that they will not treat us like rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong!
Your conclusion is totally flawed.
The corporations would exist whether or not government existed.
In fact, they would be even more powerful.
All they have to do is consolidate, merge and buy themselves into a monopoly position.
Apparently you seem to be completely ignorant about the fact that monopolies are in fact quite common and do happen with regularity.
Even without a monopoly, corporations can still abuse consumers as with this net censorship.
Without government there would be very little to stop censorship by ISPs, the FCC would not even be trying to accomplish this under the Obama Administration.
A corporation, with its control and ownership of assetts and its private police forces is all it needs to take away all of your rights.
In fact, it would be able to do that with even more speed without government there to stop it.
Get off this anti-government garbage.
The fact is, we need a government to protect our rights since it has the power and capability to do so, to regulate these corporations.
if we want freedom, instead of no government, we need a government that is on our side and works for us.
The way to accomplish that is to get the corporate money out of elections and the lobbyists out of washington.
it is us the politicians should answer to and accountable to, not the corporations.
The corporations would just LOVE for you to destroy your government, then there would be nothing left of any real significance to stop them from implementing their totalitarian regime, except perhaps a violent revolution to try to overthrow them.
Corporations fund the Republicans particularly because they will allow them to expand their power by dismantling governmental oversite.
Then corporations use their vast funds they acquired due to their abusive practices to fund the republicans, its a vicious cycle.
Democratic government is the civilised way to make sure that the corporations are forced to respect us and that they are required to obey laws, that there will be no censorship and that they will not treat us like rubbish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766203</id>
	<title>Well, let's see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255635240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far, the net has been neutral.  And it's worked pretty damn well.</p><p>Probably moves more data and generates more revenue than phone, television, movies, newspaper, and radio combined.</p><p>If companies like Cisco, AT&amp;T, an Motorola can't compete and aren't money in the internet business the way it is now (i.e.: neutral), they should go do something else.  Because thousands of companies will step up and make money on the neutral net.</p><p>Oh, they *are* making money.  They just want to make more.  Here's a suggestion: get a different business plan, ya friggin' idiots.  When you need the government to create a captive market through regulation, YOU HAVE NOTHING.  Man up, ya pansies.  You're just just looking for a government handout.  Maybe hire a friggin' Engineer as CEO, at least they're not such whiny bitches looking for the government to make a lame-ass business plan work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , the net has been neutral .
And it 's worked pretty damn well.Probably moves more data and generates more revenue than phone , television , movies , newspaper , and radio combined.If companies like Cisco , AT&amp;T , an Motorola ca n't compete and are n't money in the internet business the way it is now ( i.e .
: neutral ) , they should go do something else .
Because thousands of companies will step up and make money on the neutral net.Oh , they * are * making money .
They just want to make more .
Here 's a suggestion : get a different business plan , ya friggin ' idiots .
When you need the government to create a captive market through regulation , YOU HAVE NOTHING .
Man up , ya pansies .
You 're just just looking for a government handout .
Maybe hire a friggin ' Engineer as CEO , at least they 're not such whiny bitches looking for the government to make a lame-ass business plan work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, the net has been neutral.
And it's worked pretty damn well.Probably moves more data and generates more revenue than phone, television, movies, newspaper, and radio combined.If companies like Cisco, AT&amp;T, an Motorola can't compete and aren't money in the internet business the way it is now (i.e.
: neutral), they should go do something else.
Because thousands of companies will step up and make money on the neutral net.Oh, they *are* making money.
They just want to make more.
Here's a suggestion: get a different business plan, ya friggin' idiots.
When you need the government to create a captive market through regulation, YOU HAVE NOTHING.
Man up, ya pansies.
You're just just looking for a government handout.
Maybe hire a friggin' Engineer as CEO, at least they're not such whiny bitches looking for the government to make a lame-ass business plan work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764651</id>
	<title>Must be right...</title>
	<author>MasterLock</author>
	<datestamp>1255613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a chunk of the GOP is against something from the start, it's probably the right thing to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a chunk of the GOP is against something from the start , it 's probably the right thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a chunk of the GOP is against something from the start, it's probably the right thing to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764493</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>Philip K Dickhead</author>
	<datestamp>1255612560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simplify?<br>The meter-makers want a customer.  Otherwise, the old stuff still works fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simplify ? The meter-makers want a customer .
Otherwise , the old stuff still works fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simplify?The meter-makers want a customer.
Otherwise, the old stuff still works fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764515</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their largest customers are the telcos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their largest customers are the telcos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their largest customers are the telcos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29777969</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255798500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.</i> </p><p> <i>So please, stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.</i> </p><p>Moderated funny, I don't think that was your intent.</p><p>And it's bullsh-7. Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside. Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt, and it's clearly starting to undermine the United State's ability to maintain it's position of power.</p><p>If "da gubbmint" sucked at everything, why is it important to have one? If "da gubbmint" wasn't necessary, then <b>Rwanda (which effectively has no government) would be a fscking paradise. Yet, despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people, there's hardly a better example of hell on Earth.</b> Rapes and crime are so rampant, basic infrastructure like roads, water, and power are almost nonexistent. Starvation is the order of the day for those who haven't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.</p><p>Contrast that with YOUR privileged life: The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals, and make those frequencies available. FCC police keep it that way, too. Aircraft don't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.</p><p>And I can go on and on.</p><p>1) <b>Roads</b> that cost $1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like, anytime you want.</p><p>2) <b>Public education</b> available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,</p><p>3) Military that protects your interests very effectively.</p><p>4) <b>Police that keep "bad guys" from robbing you</b>, raping you, or killing you.</p><p>5) <b>Fresh, pure, clean water</b> so cheap that it's often not even measured. You walk to the sink. You jigger a handle and voila! A virtually endless supply of clean, cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.</p><p>6) <b>Cars that are safe to drive!</b> You'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars, but paradoxically, they've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the "gubbmint" to improve either safety or fuel economy. You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car, and even in these circumstances it's most likely that you'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries. You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it doesn't break the bank.</p><p>7) <b>Food that's safe to eat.</b> Go to China and you don't really quite know what's in your baby food. It might be good, protein-rich baby food, or it might be Melamine. How do you know? Well, it's the US "gubbmint" that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt. I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict "gubbmint" regulations on food handling. And China is a pretty good country - it's far worse elsewhere.</p><p>How much longer should I go on? Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk. Sure, it's got it's problems, but the idea that it's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong!</p><p>Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.</i> </p><p> <i>So please, stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.</i> </p><p>Moderated funny, I don't think that was your intent.</p><p>And it's bullsh-7. Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside. Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt, and it's clearly starting to undermine the United State's ability to maintain it's position of power.</p><p>If "da gubbmint" sucked at everything, why is it important to have one? If "da gubbmint" wasn't necessary, then <b>Rwanda (which effectively has no government) would be a fscking paradise. Yet, despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people, there's hardly a better example of hell on Earth.</b> Rapes and crime are so rampant, basic infrastructure like roads, water, and power are almost nonexistent. Starvation is the order of the day for those who haven't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.</p><p>Contrast that with YOUR privileged life: The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals, and make those frequencies available. FCC police keep it that way, too. Aircraft don't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.</p><p>And I can go on and on.</p><p>1) <b>Roads</b> that cost $1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like, anytime you want.</p><p>2) <b>Public education</b> available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,</p><p>3) Military that protects your interests very effectively.</p><p>4) <b>Police that keep "bad guys" from robbing you</b>, raping you, or killing you.</p><p>5) <b>Fresh, pure, clean water</b> so cheap that it's often not even measured. You walk to the sink. You jigger a handle and voila! A virtually endless supply of clean, cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.</p><p>6) <b>Cars that are safe to drive!</b> You'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars, but paradoxically, they've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the "gubbmint" to improve either safety or fuel economy. You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car, and even in these circumstances it's most likely that you'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries. You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it doesn't break the bank.</p><p>7) <b>Food that's safe to eat.</b> Go to China and you don't really quite know what's in your baby food. It might be good, protein-rich baby food, or it might be Melamine. How do you know? Well, it's the US "gubbmint" that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt. I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict "gubbmint" regulations on food handling. And China is a pretty good country - it's far worse elsewhere.</p><p>How much longer should I go on? Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk. Sure, it's got it's problems, but the idea that it's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong!</p><p>Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!</p></div><p>And of course not to mention 40 hours of labour(whenever difficult or not is different question), death and texes.<br>YOU pay taxes, remember?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything the government does is evil , restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition .
So please , stop this evil FCC man in his tracks .
Moderated funny , I do n't think that was your intent.And it 's bullsh-7 .
Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside .
Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt , and it 's clearly starting to undermine the United State 's ability to maintain it 's position of power.If " da gubbmint " sucked at everything , why is it important to have one ?
If " da gubbmint " was n't necessary , then Rwanda ( which effectively has no government ) would be a fscking paradise .
Yet , despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people , there 's hardly a better example of hell on Earth .
Rapes and crime are so rampant , basic infrastructure like roads , water , and power are almost nonexistent .
Starvation is the order of the day for those who have n't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.Contrast that with YOUR privileged life : The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals , and make those frequencies available .
FCC police keep it that way , too .
Aircraft do n't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.And I can go on and on.1 ) Roads that cost $ 1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like , anytime you want.2 ) Public education available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,3 ) Military that protects your interests very effectively.4 ) Police that keep " bad guys " from robbing you , raping you , or killing you.5 ) Fresh , pure , clean water so cheap that it 's often not even measured .
You walk to the sink .
You jigger a handle and voila !
A virtually endless supply of clean , cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.6 ) Cars that are safe to drive !
You 'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars , but paradoxically , they 've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the " gubbmint " to improve either safety or fuel economy .
You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car , and even in these circumstances it 's most likely that you 'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries .
You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it does n't break the bank.7 ) Food that 's safe to eat .
Go to China and you do n't really quite know what 's in your baby food .
It might be good , protein-rich baby food , or it might be Melamine .
How do you know ?
Well , it 's the US " gubbmint " that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt .
I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict " gubbmint " regulations on food handling .
And China is a pretty good country - it 's far worse elsewhere.How much longer should I go on ?
Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk .
Sure , it 's got it 's problems , but the idea that it 's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong ! Get lost , and come back when you have something intelligent to say !
Anything the government does is evil , restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition .
So please , stop this evil FCC man in his tracks .
Moderated funny , I do n't think that was your intent.And it 's bullsh-7 .
Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside .
Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt , and it 's clearly starting to undermine the United State 's ability to maintain it 's position of power.If " da gubbmint " sucked at everything , why is it important to have one ?
If " da gubbmint " was n't necessary , then Rwanda ( which effectively has no government ) would be a fscking paradise .
Yet , despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people , there 's hardly a better example of hell on Earth .
Rapes and crime are so rampant , basic infrastructure like roads , water , and power are almost nonexistent .
Starvation is the order of the day for those who have n't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.Contrast that with YOUR privileged life : The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals , and make those frequencies available .
FCC police keep it that way , too .
Aircraft do n't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.And I can go on and on.1 ) Roads that cost $ 1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like , anytime you want.2 ) Public education available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,3 ) Military that protects your interests very effectively.4 ) Police that keep " bad guys " from robbing you , raping you , or killing you.5 ) Fresh , pure , clean water so cheap that it 's often not even measured .
You walk to the sink .
You jigger a handle and voila !
A virtually endless supply of clean , cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.6 ) Cars that are safe to drive !
You 'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars , but paradoxically , they 've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the " gubbmint " to improve either safety or fuel economy .
You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car , and even in these circumstances it 's most likely that you 'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries .
You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it does n't break the bank.7 ) Food that 's safe to eat .
Go to China and you do n't really quite know what 's in your baby food .
It might be good , protein-rich baby food , or it might be Melamine .
How do you know ?
Well , it 's the US " gubbmint " that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt .
I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict " gubbmint " regulations on food handling .
And China is a pretty good country - it 's far worse elsewhere.How much longer should I go on ?
Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk .
Sure , it 's got it 's problems , but the idea that it 's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong ! Get lost , and come back when you have something intelligent to say ! And of course not to mention 40 hours of labour ( whenever difficult or not is different question ) , death and texes.YOU pay taxes , remember ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.
So please, stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.
Moderated funny, I don't think that was your intent.And it's bullsh-7.
Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside.
Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt, and it's clearly starting to undermine the United State's ability to maintain it's position of power.If "da gubbmint" sucked at everything, why is it important to have one?
If "da gubbmint" wasn't necessary, then Rwanda (which effectively has no government) would be a fscking paradise.
Yet, despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people, there's hardly a better example of hell on Earth.
Rapes and crime are so rampant, basic infrastructure like roads, water, and power are almost nonexistent.
Starvation is the order of the day for those who haven't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.Contrast that with YOUR privileged life: The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals, and make those frequencies available.
FCC police keep it that way, too.
Aircraft don't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.And I can go on and on.1) Roads that cost $1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like, anytime you want.2) Public education available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,3) Military that protects your interests very effectively.4) Police that keep "bad guys" from robbing you, raping you, or killing you.5) Fresh, pure, clean water so cheap that it's often not even measured.
You walk to the sink.
You jigger a handle and voila!
A virtually endless supply of clean, cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.6) Cars that are safe to drive!
You'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars, but paradoxically, they've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the "gubbmint" to improve either safety or fuel economy.
You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car, and even in these circumstances it's most likely that you'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries.
You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it doesn't break the bank.7) Food that's safe to eat.
Go to China and you don't really quite know what's in your baby food.
It might be good, protein-rich baby food, or it might be Melamine.
How do you know?
Well, it's the US "gubbmint" that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt.
I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict "gubbmint" regulations on food handling.
And China is a pretty good country - it's far worse elsewhere.How much longer should I go on?
Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk.
Sure, it's got it's problems, but the idea that it's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong!Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!
Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.
So please, stop this evil FCC man in his tracks.
Moderated funny, I don't think that was your intent.And it's bullsh-7.
Take your bullsh17 anti-gubbmint sentiment and cram it up your backside.
Spreading this kind of toxic poison can only serve to get people hurt, and it's clearly starting to undermine the United State's ability to maintain it's position of power.If "da gubbmint" sucked at everything, why is it important to have one?
If "da gubbmint" wasn't necessary, then Rwanda (which effectively has no government) would be a fscking paradise.
Yet, despite having no evil gubbmint holding down the people, there's hardly a better example of hell on Earth.
Rapes and crime are so rampant, basic infrastructure like roads, water, and power are almost nonexistent.
Starvation is the order of the day for those who haven't already been killed by the nearest tyrant.Contrast that with YOUR privileged life: The glorious cell phone at your hip that work so well do so because of gubbmint regulations that standardize their broadcast signals, and make those frequencies available.
FCC police keep it that way, too.
Aircraft don't typically fall out of the sky because of stiff gubbmint regulations that require frequent mechanic reviews so well that an otherwise very dangerous activity has become one of the safest means of transportation... period.And I can go on and on.1) Roads that cost $1,000,000 per mile that are so extensive that you generally expect to go anywhere you like, anytime you want.2) Public education available for nearly your entire childhood that made it possible for you to read this post,3) Military that protects your interests very effectively.4) Police that keep "bad guys" from robbing you, raping you, or killing you.5) Fresh, pure, clean water so cheap that it's often not even measured.
You walk to the sink.
You jigger a handle and voila!
A virtually endless supply of clean, cheap water so pure that you can pour it straight into your car.6) Cars that are safe to drive!
You'd think it was in the interests of the car companies to make safe cars, but paradoxically, they've bitterly opposed every single measure introduced by the "gubbmint" to improve either safety or fuel economy.
You can get into a car crash at highway speeds and total the car, and even in these circumstances it's most likely that you'll live and suffer only minor to moderate injuries.
You get 250 or more miles on a tank and it doesn't break the bank.7) Food that's safe to eat.
Go to China and you don't really quite know what's in your baby food.
It might be good, protein-rich baby food, or it might be Melamine.
How do you know?
Well, it's the US "gubbmint" that identified the problem and stopped the flow of melamine-infested food before too many people got hurt.
I buy my chicken at the local grocery store without having to worry about much more than the price because of strict "gubbmint" regulations on food handling.
And China is a pretty good country - it's far worse elsewhere.How much longer should I go on?
Talking like gubbmint is somehow universally bad is just idiot talk.
Sure, it's got it's problems, but the idea that it's somehow the definition of evil is... wrong!Get lost, and come back when you have something intelligent to say!And of course not to mention 40 hours of labour(whenever difficult or not is different question), death and texes.YOU pay taxes, remember?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766151</id>
	<title>Same with Nokia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255634520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't work for the big N anymore but used to be a project engineer there.</p><p>The situation you describe is certainly Nokia's main problem in getting to USA markets. In most of the world Nokia is the largest cellphone manufacturer but the business model is different. Here in Finland you buy phone and the contract with network provider separately from each other and can later change one without changing the other. In this system, manufacturers don't need to negotiate with network providers and I personally think it is preferrable for the reasons stated by the parent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't work for the big N anymore but used to be a project engineer there.The situation you describe is certainly Nokia 's main problem in getting to USA markets .
In most of the world Nokia is the largest cellphone manufacturer but the business model is different .
Here in Finland you buy phone and the contract with network provider separately from each other and can later change one without changing the other .
In this system , manufacturers do n't need to negotiate with network providers and I personally think it is preferrable for the reasons stated by the parent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't work for the big N anymore but used to be a project engineer there.The situation you describe is certainly Nokia's main problem in getting to USA markets.
In most of the world Nokia is the largest cellphone manufacturer but the business model is different.
Here in Finland you buy phone and the contract with network provider separately from each other and can later change one without changing the other.
In this system, manufacturers don't need to negotiate with network providers and I personally think it is preferrable for the reasons stated by the parent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767099</id>
	<title>Solution: a Public Option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as the insurance companies are quaking in their boots at the thought of Public Health care; the cable/telco duopoly needs government competition. The government created the problem, by limiting access to the last mile, and offer Public Internet to its citizens. Unrestricted Internet access should be the mission of the US, because it enables free speech. If corporate America has to suffer, so what? This is the same corporate America that has a steady stream of jobs leaving to other nations. Why should we as citizens continue to prop them up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as the insurance companies are quaking in their boots at the thought of Public Health care ; the cable/telco duopoly needs government competition .
The government created the problem , by limiting access to the last mile , and offer Public Internet to its citizens .
Unrestricted Internet access should be the mission of the US , because it enables free speech .
If corporate America has to suffer , so what ?
This is the same corporate America that has a steady stream of jobs leaving to other nations .
Why should we as citizens continue to prop them up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as the insurance companies are quaking in their boots at the thought of Public Health care; the cable/telco duopoly needs government competition.
The government created the problem, by limiting access to the last mile, and offer Public Internet to its citizens.
Unrestricted Internet access should be the mission of the US, because it enables free speech.
If corporate America has to suffer, so what?
This is the same corporate America that has a steady stream of jobs leaving to other nations.
Why should we as citizens continue to prop them up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767053</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255694340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you are paying for every byte you sent in that message, you are a hypocrite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are paying for every byte you sent in that message , you are a hypocrite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are paying for every byte you sent in that message, you are a hypocrite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764609</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my god Im going to poop!<br>
&nbsp; <br>There will be So much poop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my god Im going to poop !
  There will be So much poop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my god Im going to poop!
  There will be So much poop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768597</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255707840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By this logic, government regulation of the telephone networks should have prevented the internet, yes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this logic , government regulation of the telephone networks should have prevented the internet , yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this logic, government regulation of the telephone networks should have prevented the internet, yes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765667</id>
	<title>Any guesses as to...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1255626000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the identities of the major campaign contributors for those 18 senators?  And how much those contributors would really like to see net neutrality go away?  I'm sure they've, you know, casually reminded those senators how many jobs they've got in their states that could disappear should net neutrality be allowed to be FCC policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the identities of the major campaign contributors for those 18 senators ?
And how much those contributors would really like to see net neutrality go away ?
I 'm sure they 've , you know , casually reminded those senators how many jobs they 've got in their states that could disappear should net neutrality be allowed to be FCC policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the identities of the major campaign contributors for those 18 senators?
And how much those contributors would really like to see net neutrality go away?
I'm sure they've, you know, casually reminded those senators how many jobs they've got in their states that could disappear should net neutrality be allowed to be FCC policy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29769877</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>garetjax6955</author>
	<datestamp>1255714080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So - the FCC says that a carrier cannot prevent that snot nose 13 yr old twirp 2 houses down from bit-torrenting my internet connection to death ?. s-t-o-o-o-o-o-p-i-d!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So - the FCC says that a carrier can not prevent that snot nose 13 yr old twirp 2 houses down from bit-torrenting my internet connection to death ? .
s-t-o-o-o-o-o-p-i-d ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So - the FCC says that a carrier cannot prevent that snot nose 13 yr old twirp 2 houses down from bit-torrenting my internet connection to death ?.
s-t-o-o-o-o-o-p-i-d!!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767191</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255696800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude jesus christ I'm with you here but you make yourself look like a douchebag by intentionally misspelling government. Whatever point you're trying to make by doing that is lost on the fact that you come across as an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude jesus christ I 'm with you here but you make yourself look like a douchebag by intentionally misspelling government .
Whatever point you 're trying to make by doing that is lost on the fact that you come across as an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude jesus christ I'm with you here but you make yourself look like a douchebag by intentionally misspelling government.
Whatever point you're trying to make by doing that is lost on the fact that you come across as an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764579</id>
	<title>Let the richest website win!</title>
	<author>EE\_Vandy\_Undergrad</author>
	<datestamp>1255613280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cant wait until the only websites that an ISP will provide are the ones that bribe the ISP with enough money.
<br>
<br>
I see it now, the new internet, with 3 websites, facebook twitter and youtube!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I cant wait until the only websites that an ISP will provide are the ones that bribe the ISP with enough money .
I see it now , the new internet , with 3 websites , facebook twitter and youtube !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cant wait until the only websites that an ISP will provide are the ones that bribe the ISP with enough money.
I see it now, the new internet, with 3 websites, facebook twitter and youtube!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765191</id>
	<title>Where is this letter? Pls list the 44 companies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255619700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see the 44 companies listed against net neutrality in order to not buy their products.   I will only buy products from companies that are pro-net-neutrality.<br>It's obvious, the consumer needs to participate in structuring the future by speaking with his buying power.  Buying power is a very important voice.  I also intend on using my buying power when buying my next PC, TV, MP3 player ensuring the manufacturers are pro-digital-freedom and have clear ANTI-DRM(Digital Rights Management) positions.  This implies that I won't be buying the "Kindle ebook reader"(built-in DRM), and the Sony TV(built-in DRM), and the Sony Playstation(built-in DRM).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see the 44 companies listed against net neutrality in order to not buy their products .
I will only buy products from companies that are pro-net-neutrality.It 's obvious , the consumer needs to participate in structuring the future by speaking with his buying power .
Buying power is a very important voice .
I also intend on using my buying power when buying my next PC , TV , MP3 player ensuring the manufacturers are pro-digital-freedom and have clear ANTI-DRM ( Digital Rights Management ) positions .
This implies that I wo n't be buying the " Kindle ebook reader " ( built-in DRM ) , and the Sony TV ( built-in DRM ) , and the Sony Playstation ( built-in DRM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see the 44 companies listed against net neutrality in order to not buy their products.
I will only buy products from companies that are pro-net-neutrality.It's obvious, the consumer needs to participate in structuring the future by speaking with his buying power.
Buying power is a very important voice.
I also intend on using my buying power when buying my next PC, TV, MP3 player ensuring the manufacturers are pro-digital-freedom and have clear ANTI-DRM(Digital Rights Management) positions.
This implies that I won't be buying the "Kindle ebook reader"(built-in DRM), and the Sony TV(built-in DRM), and the Sony Playstation(built-in DRM).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766631</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>APL bigot</author>
	<datestamp>1255686960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow! Take a deep breath. The OP was using sarcasm to make his point. Although I can understand your reaction, because of the flood of corporate BS, err... doublespeak, we have been subjected to for years.<br>
Your points are valid, and we're not all dupes of the corporations and their bribed congress critters.<br> <br>

Perhaps it's time to press for a Bill of Responsibilities to accompany the Bill of Rights. Things like:<br>
When the pursuit of profit conflicts with the good of the country, it will be considered treason.<br> <br> I have other thoughts along this line, but I think this is enough to illustrate what I mean and what we the people need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Take a deep breath .
The OP was using sarcasm to make his point .
Although I can understand your reaction , because of the flood of corporate BS , err... doublespeak , we have been subjected to for years .
Your points are valid , and we 're not all dupes of the corporations and their bribed congress critters .
Perhaps it 's time to press for a Bill of Responsibilities to accompany the Bill of Rights .
Things like : When the pursuit of profit conflicts with the good of the country , it will be considered treason .
I have other thoughts along this line , but I think this is enough to illustrate what I mean and what we the people need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Take a deep breath.
The OP was using sarcasm to make his point.
Although I can understand your reaction, because of the flood of corporate BS, err... doublespeak, we have been subjected to for years.
Your points are valid, and we're not all dupes of the corporations and their bribed congress critters.
Perhaps it's time to press for a Bill of Responsibilities to accompany the Bill of Rights.
Things like:
When the pursuit of profit conflicts with the good of the country, it will be considered treason.
I have other thoughts along this line, but I think this is enough to illustrate what I mean and what we the people need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765055</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255617780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection</i></p><p>They helped set up the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Firewall" title="wikipedia.org">Great Firewall</a> [wikipedia.org] by selling equipment to China now they want to sell the equipment to US ISPs as well.  It's nothing more than the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objectionThey helped set up the Great Firewall [ wikipedia.org ] by selling equipment to China now they want to sell the equipment to US ISPs as well .
It 's nothing more than the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objectionThey helped set up the Great Firewall [wikipedia.org] by selling equipment to China now they want to sell the equipment to US ISPs as well.
It's nothing more than the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765999</id>
	<title>Re:Motorola's take...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1255631160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having read TFA, I think that the letter signers are more concerned that the government will botch the implementation of net neutrality. They may support the idea in principle, as Greg Brown apparently does, but feel that the government will bungle it and they may have a point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read TFA , I think that the letter signers are more concerned that the government will botch the implementation of net neutrality .
They may support the idea in principle , as Greg Brown apparently does , but feel that the government will bungle it and they may have a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read TFA, I think that the letter signers are more concerned that the government will botch the implementation of net neutrality.
They may support the idea in principle, as Greg Brown apparently does, but feel that the government will bungle it and they may have a point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766281</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255723680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous bytes. We'll sell them to you as much as 100 Milion in a second, in any direction.</p><p>You pay only for the most bytes sent or received.</p><p>Bytes delivered/transmitted at less than 100Mbps, will be priced accordingly</p><p>Bytes start at $.062/GB</p><p>Bulk rates are available.</p><p>Not responsible for inabilty to send/receibe bytes.</p><p>If your connection is down, we don't charge... 'cause you aren't using bytes</p><p>If you need help sending and receiving, there are many professionals who will assist you for a fee.</p><p>free market RULES.</p><p>Should the Gum'mint "help" us be more fair than that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous bytes .
We 'll sell them to you as much as 100 Milion in a second , in any direction.You pay only for the most bytes sent or received.Bytes delivered/transmitted at less than 100Mbps , will be priced accordinglyBytes start at $ .062/GBBulk rates are available.Not responsible for inabilty to send/receibe bytes.If your connection is down , we do n't charge... 'cause you are n't using bytesIf you need help sending and receiving , there are many professionals who will assist you for a fee.free market RULES.Should the Gum'mint " help " us be more fair than that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous bytes.
We'll sell them to you as much as 100 Milion in a second, in any direction.You pay only for the most bytes sent or received.Bytes delivered/transmitted at less than 100Mbps, will be priced accordinglyBytes start at $.062/GBBulk rates are available.Not responsible for inabilty to send/receibe bytes.If your connection is down, we don't charge... 'cause you aren't using bytesIf you need help sending and receiving, there are many professionals who will assist you for a fee.free market RULES.Should the Gum'mint "help" us be more fair than that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767083</id>
	<title>Re:Motorola's take...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they were promised a better deal, it they support the carriers in this matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they were promised a better deal , it they support the carriers in this matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they were promised a better deal, it they support the carriers in this matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764481</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>yuriks</author>
	<datestamp>1255612440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection</p></div><p>Selling traffic shaping solutions, presumably.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objectionSelling traffic shaping solutions , presumably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objectionSelling traffic shaping solutions, presumably.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765727</id>
	<title>Republicans are less relevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255626900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each day the Republicans make themselves less and less relevant to the actual people of America.  They are extremely relevant to the corporations though, and the have election power due to their rhetoric about conservatism.  They are nothing of the sort.  They helped usher in the Corporate Fascist America.  Research Gerald Celente on youtube.  We are being had by the corporations.  Now they are working to remove our freedom of speech through non-network neutrality.  Pony up those fees if you want anyone to hear you.  Even then, they may just not like you and turn you off anyway.  Network Neutrality is about access, information and thus democracy.  It's kind of like corporations being able stop you at the voting booth on election day and asking: "Will you vote for Obama or McCain"  Anyone voting for the non-corporate party would have to pay an access fee to place their votes.  The problem is that they both are the corporate party.</p><p>How about the Republicrats actually respect the constitution and it's implied democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each day the Republicans make themselves less and less relevant to the actual people of America .
They are extremely relevant to the corporations though , and the have election power due to their rhetoric about conservatism .
They are nothing of the sort .
They helped usher in the Corporate Fascist America .
Research Gerald Celente on youtube .
We are being had by the corporations .
Now they are working to remove our freedom of speech through non-network neutrality .
Pony up those fees if you want anyone to hear you .
Even then , they may just not like you and turn you off anyway .
Network Neutrality is about access , information and thus democracy .
It 's kind of like corporations being able stop you at the voting booth on election day and asking : " Will you vote for Obama or McCain " Anyone voting for the non-corporate party would have to pay an access fee to place their votes .
The problem is that they both are the corporate party.How about the Republicrats actually respect the constitution and it 's implied democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each day the Republicans make themselves less and less relevant to the actual people of America.
They are extremely relevant to the corporations though, and the have election power due to their rhetoric about conservatism.
They are nothing of the sort.
They helped usher in the Corporate Fascist America.
Research Gerald Celente on youtube.
We are being had by the corporations.
Now they are working to remove our freedom of speech through non-network neutrality.
Pony up those fees if you want anyone to hear you.
Even then, they may just not like you and turn you off anyway.
Network Neutrality is about access, information and thus democracy.
It's kind of like corporations being able stop you at the voting booth on election day and asking: "Will you vote for Obama or McCain"  Anyone voting for the non-corporate party would have to pay an access fee to place their votes.
The problem is that they both are the corporate party.How about the Republicrats actually respect the constitution and it's implied democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29773633</id>
	<title>Here come the corporations</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1255691760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The listed corporations are largely those who make network transport / filtering equipment. If net neutrality becomes the rule, then they won't be able to sell those products.<p>
And the arguments are the same old "if we can't have it our way, then it's going to cost you more" nonsense that they trot out every time things look like they won't be going their way. I strongly suspect that if the corporations had it their way, the internet would be just like television - 200 "channels" of crap that some corporate group decided that you wanted to view - without your input, of course.</p><p>
The internet was built out at public expense, remember? The explosion of internet sites and small businesses was only possible because it was a level playing field. Now that some things have matured into real profit generating businesses, the corporations want to take over and lock everyone else out. Regardless of what stories they tell to get their way now, if they can they'll use every possible way to increase their profits - and blocking or throttling competing businesses would be the first but not the worst of what they'd do. The "piracy" or "counterfeiting" problems are what they use to give their arguments legitimacy.</p><p>
The media corporations have distorted their areas of operation so badly already - if you think about what they've done to their own businesses you'd see that letting them run the internet would be a disaster. Think about it; let's take music as an example: There's the RIAA stomping around but they don't write or record any music and not one penny of what they "recover" goes to the people who do. The RIAA is just the record company's sock puppet - and those record companies don't write or perform any music either. The people who actually write and perform the music will be stuck paying back contracted expenses for the rest of their careers and thanks to some relatively new "work product" laws they don't have a voice anymore.</p><p>
So let's just do independent productions and bypass that nonsense, right - nope, now we're talking about the specialty of the recording industry - distribution. They've enjoyed having this locked up tightly for years and now that this control is slipping they're fighting back in every and any way they can. Here's how it "works": suppose you and your friends wrote and recorded the perfect album and you want to take your place in the spotlight - if you want to avoid the RIAA members, you'll need to pay to have your album recorded, mastered, and duplicated. Now let's sell them - your local "record store" won't touch your album because they depend on having access to the catalog of music distributed by their distributor(s). If they put your disk on the shelf they might find that they can't get any stock on the next big hit from Hollywood. So let's see if we can get a distributor to handle it - nope. They depend on handling the output of the RIAA companies and if they handle your album they'd risk running into low or no stock problems on the RIAA products. It's not worth it, so they won't handle your album either. You might be able to sell your album at the local crafts fair but it won't be in the record store or on the radio - those distribution and promotional venues are closed to you.</p><p>
There's quite a few "media moguls" who live very well on the fees they collect from their member companies and artists. If these artists or independent artists were able to promote and sell their albums independently, the media mogul's gravy train would jump the tracks. So here's this internet thing and it works great at getting music from the artist to the fan directly - this doesn't line their pocket at all so it MUST BE STOPPED.<br>
The "sue everyone" plan isn't working out too well so they're going to move on to filtering and controlling the internet. What the media moguls want is simple - they want the same control and profit from music distribution as they've always had and the internet needs to pay its share, too. So will we let this happen - are you going to sit back and watch while it does, or are you going to get off your tail and get involved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The listed corporations are largely those who make network transport / filtering equipment .
If net neutrality becomes the rule , then they wo n't be able to sell those products .
And the arguments are the same old " if we ca n't have it our way , then it 's going to cost you more " nonsense that they trot out every time things look like they wo n't be going their way .
I strongly suspect that if the corporations had it their way , the internet would be just like television - 200 " channels " of crap that some corporate group decided that you wanted to view - without your input , of course .
The internet was built out at public expense , remember ?
The explosion of internet sites and small businesses was only possible because it was a level playing field .
Now that some things have matured into real profit generating businesses , the corporations want to take over and lock everyone else out .
Regardless of what stories they tell to get their way now , if they can they 'll use every possible way to increase their profits - and blocking or throttling competing businesses would be the first but not the worst of what they 'd do .
The " piracy " or " counterfeiting " problems are what they use to give their arguments legitimacy .
The media corporations have distorted their areas of operation so badly already - if you think about what they 've done to their own businesses you 'd see that letting them run the internet would be a disaster .
Think about it ; let 's take music as an example : There 's the RIAA stomping around but they do n't write or record any music and not one penny of what they " recover " goes to the people who do .
The RIAA is just the record company 's sock puppet - and those record companies do n't write or perform any music either .
The people who actually write and perform the music will be stuck paying back contracted expenses for the rest of their careers and thanks to some relatively new " work product " laws they do n't have a voice anymore .
So let 's just do independent productions and bypass that nonsense , right - nope , now we 're talking about the specialty of the recording industry - distribution .
They 've enjoyed having this locked up tightly for years and now that this control is slipping they 're fighting back in every and any way they can .
Here 's how it " works " : suppose you and your friends wrote and recorded the perfect album and you want to take your place in the spotlight - if you want to avoid the RIAA members , you 'll need to pay to have your album recorded , mastered , and duplicated .
Now let 's sell them - your local " record store " wo n't touch your album because they depend on having access to the catalog of music distributed by their distributor ( s ) .
If they put your disk on the shelf they might find that they ca n't get any stock on the next big hit from Hollywood .
So let 's see if we can get a distributor to handle it - nope .
They depend on handling the output of the RIAA companies and if they handle your album they 'd risk running into low or no stock problems on the RIAA products .
It 's not worth it , so they wo n't handle your album either .
You might be able to sell your album at the local crafts fair but it wo n't be in the record store or on the radio - those distribution and promotional venues are closed to you .
There 's quite a few " media moguls " who live very well on the fees they collect from their member companies and artists .
If these artists or independent artists were able to promote and sell their albums independently , the media mogul 's gravy train would jump the tracks .
So here 's this internet thing and it works great at getting music from the artist to the fan directly - this does n't line their pocket at all so it MUST BE STOPPED .
The " sue everyone " plan is n't working out too well so they 're going to move on to filtering and controlling the internet .
What the media moguls want is simple - they want the same control and profit from music distribution as they 've always had and the internet needs to pay its share , too .
So will we let this happen - are you going to sit back and watch while it does , or are you going to get off your tail and get involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The listed corporations are largely those who make network transport / filtering equipment.
If net neutrality becomes the rule, then they won't be able to sell those products.
And the arguments are the same old "if we can't have it our way, then it's going to cost you more" nonsense that they trot out every time things look like they won't be going their way.
I strongly suspect that if the corporations had it their way, the internet would be just like television - 200 "channels" of crap that some corporate group decided that you wanted to view - without your input, of course.
The internet was built out at public expense, remember?
The explosion of internet sites and small businesses was only possible because it was a level playing field.
Now that some things have matured into real profit generating businesses, the corporations want to take over and lock everyone else out.
Regardless of what stories they tell to get their way now, if they can they'll use every possible way to increase their profits - and blocking or throttling competing businesses would be the first but not the worst of what they'd do.
The "piracy" or "counterfeiting" problems are what they use to give their arguments legitimacy.
The media corporations have distorted their areas of operation so badly already - if you think about what they've done to their own businesses you'd see that letting them run the internet would be a disaster.
Think about it; let's take music as an example: There's the RIAA stomping around but they don't write or record any music and not one penny of what they "recover" goes to the people who do.
The RIAA is just the record company's sock puppet - and those record companies don't write or perform any music either.
The people who actually write and perform the music will be stuck paying back contracted expenses for the rest of their careers and thanks to some relatively new "work product" laws they don't have a voice anymore.
So let's just do independent productions and bypass that nonsense, right - nope, now we're talking about the specialty of the recording industry - distribution.
They've enjoyed having this locked up tightly for years and now that this control is slipping they're fighting back in every and any way they can.
Here's how it "works": suppose you and your friends wrote and recorded the perfect album and you want to take your place in the spotlight - if you want to avoid the RIAA members, you'll need to pay to have your album recorded, mastered, and duplicated.
Now let's sell them - your local "record store" won't touch your album because they depend on having access to the catalog of music distributed by their distributor(s).
If they put your disk on the shelf they might find that they can't get any stock on the next big hit from Hollywood.
So let's see if we can get a distributor to handle it - nope.
They depend on handling the output of the RIAA companies and if they handle your album they'd risk running into low or no stock problems on the RIAA products.
It's not worth it, so they won't handle your album either.
You might be able to sell your album at the local crafts fair but it won't be in the record store or on the radio - those distribution and promotional venues are closed to you.
There's quite a few "media moguls" who live very well on the fees they collect from their member companies and artists.
If these artists or independent artists were able to promote and sell their albums independently, the media mogul's gravy train would jump the tracks.
So here's this internet thing and it works great at getting music from the artist to the fan directly - this doesn't line their pocket at all so it MUST BE STOPPED.
The "sue everyone" plan isn't working out too well so they're going to move on to filtering and controlling the internet.
What the media moguls want is simple - they want the same control and profit from music distribution as they've always had and the internet needs to pay its share, too.
So will we let this happen - are you going to sit back and watch while it does, or are you going to get off your tail and get involved?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765951</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1255630140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only QoSing an internet router should be doing is using DoD-spec traffic class, qos bits, and the like to determine packet priorities.</p><p>We already have the capability to give VoIP the low-latency treatment it needs...it's called "RTFRFC", or "Read the fucking RFC".</p><p>Applications like VoIP are EXACTLY what those bits are for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only QoSing an internet router should be doing is using DoD-spec traffic class , qos bits , and the like to determine packet priorities.We already have the capability to give VoIP the low-latency treatment it needs...it 's called " RTFRFC " , or " Read the fucking RFC " .Applications like VoIP are EXACTLY what those bits are for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only QoSing an internet router should be doing is using DoD-spec traffic class, qos bits, and the like to determine packet priorities.We already have the capability to give VoIP the low-latency treatment it needs...it's called "RTFRFC", or "Read the fucking RFC".Applications like VoIP are EXACTLY what those bits are for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764499</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1255612560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Passing packets freely is, relatively speaking, computationally cheap. Deep packet inspecting, and QoSing, and sorting, and ranking, and grading, and whatnoting packets as they pass by is computationally expensive.<br> <br>

It sure would be bad for business if potential customers (er, I mean, "the future health of the internet") didn't need sophisticated networking gear dedicated to price discrimination...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Passing packets freely is , relatively speaking , computationally cheap .
Deep packet inspecting , and QoSing , and sorting , and ranking , and grading , and whatnoting packets as they pass by is computationally expensive .
It sure would be bad for business if potential customers ( er , I mean , " the future health of the internet " ) did n't need sophisticated networking gear dedicated to price discrimination.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Passing packets freely is, relatively speaking, computationally cheap.
Deep packet inspecting, and QoSing, and sorting, and ranking, and grading, and whatnoting packets as they pass by is computationally expensive.
It sure would be bad for business if potential customers (er, I mean, "the future health of the internet") didn't need sophisticated networking gear dedicated to price discrimination...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766139</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>skirtsteak\_asshat</author>
	<datestamp>1255634400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Net neutrality \_means\_ internet access to the whole internet, unfiltered, uncensored, ungoverned, including all ports, protocols, and pr0n therein.  Amen.

We pay the local connection fee to the ISP.  The content handling is mostly paid for by advertising and click-thru-purchases, as I understand it.
Shouldn't they be mandated to explain EXACTLY how they are throttling the service we are paying for, instead of obfuscating that information?
What, exactly, is the difference between throttling something to the edge of usability and flat-out denying access?  Please, tell me.

Money trickles down, or companies go out of business.  That's how it works currently, and you can see LOTS of revenue being made as-is.
The internet is not going bankrupt under the current management.   Mind you, 18 Republicans support deregulation.  REPUBLICANS!

When you begin to charge a fee for any larger segment of the internet, you are sliding headlong down the slippery slope towards information control.
When you begin to throttle the connection of those deemed 'undesirable' where EXACTLY do you, sir, draw the line of desirability?   Aha.

Are the corporations and lobbyist groups the guarantors of online rights and privileges?   Or is the internet a greater entity, a medium,  which must be protected as speech is?
We are deciding these tenets of our future society now.  I would prefer a world of equals to a world of powerful tyrants, but perhaps you'll sell me something shiny instead.

These corporate lobbyist groups and their Republican handlers don't have a great track record when it comes to honesty or altruism.

"you and I are not much different than they are" - MindlessAutomata indeed!  You are an apologist for the corporate excesses that have bankrupted our world economy.

I'm not damning ALL corporations, I'm damning the IDEA that corporate rights are synonymous with human dignities and that they are granted the rights in our constitution.
They are not living beings.  They are not citizens.  They are profit motivated collections of groupthink consumerist elites hell bent on world domination.  Spin it as you like.
A corporation cannot vote, cannot be drafted, cannot own a firearm or be shot dead by one.  They do not require, and should not be granted, such inalienable rights as we are.

Our only hope is in rallying behind organizations like the EFF to fight for our future rights online and the very shape of our future society.  They are our champions.
Not congress.  NOT Comcast!  They are willing conspirators of control, if for different motives.  They cannot be trusted to act benevolently, now or in the future.

As for the mindless automata, willing to trade freedom for convenience, may your simple dreams be the nightmares of those who went before.  Repeat history as you will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality \ _means \ _ internet access to the whole internet , unfiltered , uncensored , ungoverned , including all ports , protocols , and pr0n therein .
Amen . We pay the local connection fee to the ISP .
The content handling is mostly paid for by advertising and click-thru-purchases , as I understand it .
Should n't they be mandated to explain EXACTLY how they are throttling the service we are paying for , instead of obfuscating that information ?
What , exactly , is the difference between throttling something to the edge of usability and flat-out denying access ?
Please , tell me .
Money trickles down , or companies go out of business .
That 's how it works currently , and you can see LOTS of revenue being made as-is .
The internet is not going bankrupt under the current management .
Mind you , 18 Republicans support deregulation .
REPUBLICANS ! When you begin to charge a fee for any larger segment of the internet , you are sliding headlong down the slippery slope towards information control .
When you begin to throttle the connection of those deemed 'undesirable ' where EXACTLY do you , sir , draw the line of desirability ?
Aha . Are the corporations and lobbyist groups the guarantors of online rights and privileges ?
Or is the internet a greater entity , a medium , which must be protected as speech is ?
We are deciding these tenets of our future society now .
I would prefer a world of equals to a world of powerful tyrants , but perhaps you 'll sell me something shiny instead .
These corporate lobbyist groups and their Republican handlers do n't have a great track record when it comes to honesty or altruism .
" you and I are not much different than they are " - MindlessAutomata indeed !
You are an apologist for the corporate excesses that have bankrupted our world economy .
I 'm not damning ALL corporations , I 'm damning the IDEA that corporate rights are synonymous with human dignities and that they are granted the rights in our constitution .
They are not living beings .
They are not citizens .
They are profit motivated collections of groupthink consumerist elites hell bent on world domination .
Spin it as you like .
A corporation can not vote , can not be drafted , can not own a firearm or be shot dead by one .
They do not require , and should not be granted , such inalienable rights as we are .
Our only hope is in rallying behind organizations like the EFF to fight for our future rights online and the very shape of our future society .
They are our champions .
Not congress .
NOT Comcast !
They are willing conspirators of control , if for different motives .
They can not be trusted to act benevolently , now or in the future .
As for the mindless automata , willing to trade freedom for convenience , may your simple dreams be the nightmares of those who went before .
Repeat history as you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality \_means\_ internet access to the whole internet, unfiltered, uncensored, ungoverned, including all ports, protocols, and pr0n therein.
Amen.

We pay the local connection fee to the ISP.
The content handling is mostly paid for by advertising and click-thru-purchases, as I understand it.
Shouldn't they be mandated to explain EXACTLY how they are throttling the service we are paying for, instead of obfuscating that information?
What, exactly, is the difference between throttling something to the edge of usability and flat-out denying access?
Please, tell me.
Money trickles down, or companies go out of business.
That's how it works currently, and you can see LOTS of revenue being made as-is.
The internet is not going bankrupt under the current management.
Mind you, 18 Republicans support deregulation.
REPUBLICANS!

When you begin to charge a fee for any larger segment of the internet, you are sliding headlong down the slippery slope towards information control.
When you begin to throttle the connection of those deemed 'undesirable' where EXACTLY do you, sir, draw the line of desirability?
Aha.

Are the corporations and lobbyist groups the guarantors of online rights and privileges?
Or is the internet a greater entity, a medium,  which must be protected as speech is?
We are deciding these tenets of our future society now.
I would prefer a world of equals to a world of powerful tyrants, but perhaps you'll sell me something shiny instead.
These corporate lobbyist groups and their Republican handlers don't have a great track record when it comes to honesty or altruism.
"you and I are not much different than they are" - MindlessAutomata indeed!
You are an apologist for the corporate excesses that have bankrupted our world economy.
I'm not damning ALL corporations, I'm damning the IDEA that corporate rights are synonymous with human dignities and that they are granted the rights in our constitution.
They are not living beings.
They are not citizens.
They are profit motivated collections of groupthink consumerist elites hell bent on world domination.
Spin it as you like.
A corporation cannot vote, cannot be drafted, cannot own a firearm or be shot dead by one.
They do not require, and should not be granted, such inalienable rights as we are.
Our only hope is in rallying behind organizations like the EFF to fight for our future rights online and the very shape of our future society.
They are our champions.
Not congress.
NOT Comcast!
They are willing conspirators of control, if for different motives.
They cannot be trusted to act benevolently, now or in the future.
As for the mindless automata, willing to trade freedom for convenience, may your simple dreams be the nightmares of those who went before.
Repeat history as you will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764541</id>
	<title>Well then if the Republicans...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well if both the Corporations and the Republicans are against it it must be a good thing for the Public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if both the Corporations and the Republicans are against it it must be a good thing for the Public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if both the Corporations and the Republicans are against it it must be a good thing for the Public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29770637</id>
	<title>FCC Chair Julius Genachowski Email Addr</title>
	<author>solszew</author>
	<datestamp>1255717800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov</p><p>Please consider emailing the FCC chair with your concerns and questions.  Don't let the evil bastards be the only ones who have a say in this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Julius.Genachowski @ fcc.govPlease consider emailing the FCC chair with your concerns and questions .
Do n't let the evil bastards be the only ones who have a say in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Julius.Genachowski@fcc.govPlease consider emailing the FCC chair with your concerns and questions.
Don't let the evil bastards be the only ones who have a say in this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768571</id>
	<title>Economic incentives to create bandwidth scarcity.</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said TopSpin!</p><p>Without net neutrality laws, content providers, and network operators both have economic incentive to keep bandwidth scarce.</p><p>Network operators, thanks to monopoly or duopoly status, can keep their network capacity scarce, and still charge high prices, while deferring costly upgrades.</p><p>Content providers can lock out smaller competitors by purchasing "prioritized network capacity" at prices smaller content providers can not afford.</p><p>It's a lose-lose for consumers and the internet as a whole.</p><p>Look at the progress in industries where "capacity" was abundant - like silicon transistors in chip manufacturing.  Chip designers paid little attention to transistor count knowing that future process technologies would allow their designs to be made in a cost-effective manner.  This allowed the industry to produce very powerful chips at very low cost.</p><p>Similar progress will be made in network capacity and speeds to meet the demands of the network users, but this can only occur if the network treats all traffic/content equally.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said TopSpin ! Without net neutrality laws , content providers , and network operators both have economic incentive to keep bandwidth scarce.Network operators , thanks to monopoly or duopoly status , can keep their network capacity scarce , and still charge high prices , while deferring costly upgrades.Content providers can lock out smaller competitors by purchasing " prioritized network capacity " at prices smaller content providers can not afford.It 's a lose-lose for consumers and the internet as a whole.Look at the progress in industries where " capacity " was abundant - like silicon transistors in chip manufacturing .
Chip designers paid little attention to transistor count knowing that future process technologies would allow their designs to be made in a cost-effective manner .
This allowed the industry to produce very powerful chips at very low cost.Similar progress will be made in network capacity and speeds to meet the demands of the network users , but this can only occur if the network treats all traffic/content equally.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said TopSpin!Without net neutrality laws, content providers, and network operators both have economic incentive to keep bandwidth scarce.Network operators, thanks to monopoly or duopoly status, can keep their network capacity scarce, and still charge high prices, while deferring costly upgrades.Content providers can lock out smaller competitors by purchasing "prioritized network capacity" at prices smaller content providers can not afford.It's a lose-lose for consumers and the internet as a whole.Look at the progress in industries where "capacity" was abundant - like silicon transistors in chip manufacturing.
Chip designers paid little attention to transistor count knowing that future process technologies would allow their designs to be made in a cost-effective manner.
This allowed the industry to produce very powerful chips at very low cost.Similar progress will be made in network capacity and speeds to meet the demands of the network users, but this can only occur if the network treats all traffic/content equally.-ted</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764563</id>
	<title>This is what happens when gov't picks winners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When government picks winners, groups that get called "lobbyists" and "special interests" exercise their <b>Constitutional RIGHTS</b> to petition the government and try to affect the outcome of the government rule making.</p><p>Don't like it?</p><p>Don't give the government the power that attracts those groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When government picks winners , groups that get called " lobbyists " and " special interests " exercise their Constitutional RIGHTS to petition the government and try to affect the outcome of the government rule making.Do n't like it ? Do n't give the government the power that attracts those groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When government picks winners, groups that get called "lobbyists" and "special interests" exercise their Constitutional RIGHTS to petition the government and try to affect the outcome of the government rule making.Don't like it?Don't give the government the power that attracts those groups.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765273</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255620600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more like inhibits thier profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more like inhibits thier profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more like inhibits thier profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767427</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1255699920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of all the hundreds of posts on whinging on Slashdot, we should probably be writing Mr. Genachowski ourselves and let him know that he has our support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of all the hundreds of posts on whinging on Slashdot , we should probably be writing Mr. Genachowski ourselves and let him know that he has our support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of all the hundreds of posts on whinging on Slashdot, we should probably be writing Mr. Genachowski ourselves and let him know that he has our support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766037</id>
	<title>Re:So be it</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1255631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a free market guy too, but...</p><p>It would only be a free market if the local government owned all the cable and phone lines, and simply leased access to them so that customers could chose from multiple companies to be their cable provider, phone company, or what have you. Instead, individual providers are given unfettered, perpetual monopolies on virtually all of the last-mile connections to the vast majority of the market's consumers. And this is something that can't be easily undone now. The shortest route to ensure that the incumbent providers play fair is to regulate them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a free market guy too , but...It would only be a free market if the local government owned all the cable and phone lines , and simply leased access to them so that customers could chose from multiple companies to be their cable provider , phone company , or what have you .
Instead , individual providers are given unfettered , perpetual monopolies on virtually all of the last-mile connections to the vast majority of the market 's consumers .
And this is something that ca n't be easily undone now .
The shortest route to ensure that the incumbent providers play fair is to regulate them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a free market guy too, but...It would only be a free market if the local government owned all the cable and phone lines, and simply leased access to them so that customers could chose from multiple companies to be their cable provider, phone company, or what have you.
Instead, individual providers are given unfettered, perpetual monopolies on virtually all of the last-mile connections to the vast majority of the market's consumers.
And this is something that can't be easily undone now.
The shortest route to ensure that the incumbent providers play fair is to regulate them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765945</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1255630080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of the problem is ISPs advertising false promises of "unlimited use" plans for flat monthly rates in conjunction with eye-popping speeds and then hiding what "unlimited use" really means in pages of contract fine print which states that speeds are not guaranteed, throttling or packet shaping may be used, etc. Perhaps it is time to start regulating some basic statistics of the data plan being offered; as for example with credit cards contracts where the annual percentage rates are printed front and center in larger fonts and conspicuous boxes. That way everyone will better understand what is being bought and at what price. At the very least, they should not be allowed to use the word "unlimited" in combination with any sort of advertised speeds <i>unless</i> they can get within some acceptable margin (i.e. 90\%+) of that speed all of the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem is ISPs advertising false promises of " unlimited use " plans for flat monthly rates in conjunction with eye-popping speeds and then hiding what " unlimited use " really means in pages of contract fine print which states that speeds are not guaranteed , throttling or packet shaping may be used , etc .
Perhaps it is time to start regulating some basic statistics of the data plan being offered ; as for example with credit cards contracts where the annual percentage rates are printed front and center in larger fonts and conspicuous boxes .
That way everyone will better understand what is being bought and at what price .
At the very least , they should not be allowed to use the word " unlimited " in combination with any sort of advertised speeds unless they can get within some acceptable margin ( i.e .
90 \ % + ) of that speed all of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the problem is ISPs advertising false promises of "unlimited use" plans for flat monthly rates in conjunction with eye-popping speeds and then hiding what "unlimited use" really means in pages of contract fine print which states that speeds are not guaranteed, throttling or packet shaping may be used, etc.
Perhaps it is time to start regulating some basic statistics of the data plan being offered; as for example with credit cards contracts where the annual percentage rates are printed front and center in larger fonts and conspicuous boxes.
That way everyone will better understand what is being bought and at what price.
At the very least, they should not be allowed to use the word "unlimited" in combination with any sort of advertised speeds unless they can get within some acceptable margin (i.e.
90\%+) of that speed all of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29775763</id>
	<title>wonder...</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1255716000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...I wonder what has hindered it up until now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet " ...I wonder what has hindered it up until now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet" ...I wonder what has hindered it up until now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766367</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255725180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fist of all didn't you fall out a balloon? And secondly, how is the badaid better than getting back to genuine trust busting. I doubt that anyone is truely sugesting such, but the problem is lack of compotion yes? So, getting back into the trust bustion business that America was supposed to be doing would solve the problem with natural market forces... is that not so? Too big to fail is everyones problem... hence the current situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fist of all did n't you fall out a balloon ?
And secondly , how is the badaid better than getting back to genuine trust busting .
I doubt that anyone is truely sugesting such , but the problem is lack of compotion yes ?
So , getting back into the trust bustion business that America was supposed to be doing would solve the problem with natural market forces... is that not so ?
Too big to fail is everyones problem... hence the current situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fist of all didn't you fall out a balloon?
And secondly, how is the badaid better than getting back to genuine trust busting.
I doubt that anyone is truely sugesting such, but the problem is lack of compotion yes?
So, getting back into the trust bustion business that America was supposed to be doing would solve the problem with natural market forces... is that not so?
Too big to fail is everyones problem... hence the current situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764771</id>
	<title>The inventor of the world wide web disagrees</title>
	<author>earthforce\_1</author>
	<datestamp>1255615200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1036\_3-6075472.html" title="cnet.com">http://news.cnet.com/2100-1036\_3-6075472.html</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>But he isn't a trusted expert on anything, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.cnet.com/2100-1036 \ _3-6075472.html [ cnet.com ] But he is n't a trusted expert on anything , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.cnet.com/2100-1036\_3-6075472.html [cnet.com]But he isn't a trusted expert on anything, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685</id>
	<title>Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255614300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now they throttle people who actually use their connection to its fullest because there's little monetary incentive for the ISPs not to do this.  They are for profit corporations, if it is profitable to throttle people, that is exactly what they will do.  The system needs to be set up in such a way as to make it profitable for them not to throttle or otherwise restrict people's connections not just a simple legislative band-aid but actively attack the root causes of the throttling and general anti-net neutral policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now they throttle people who actually use their connection to its fullest because there 's little monetary incentive for the ISPs not to do this .
They are for profit corporations , if it is profitable to throttle people , that is exactly what they will do .
The system needs to be set up in such a way as to make it profitable for them not to throttle or otherwise restrict people 's connections not just a simple legislative band-aid but actively attack the root causes of the throttling and general anti-net neutral policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now they throttle people who actually use their connection to its fullest because there's little monetary incentive for the ISPs not to do this.
They are for profit corporations, if it is profitable to throttle people, that is exactly what they will do.
The system needs to be set up in such a way as to make it profitable for them not to throttle or otherwise restrict people's connections not just a simple legislative band-aid but actively attack the root causes of the throttling and general anti-net neutral policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29787913</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1255868280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.</p><p>Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.</p><p>Reg: Yes.</p><p>Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.</p><p>Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return? (he pauses smugly)</p><p>Xerxes: The aqueduct?</p><p>Reg: What?</p><p>Xerxes: The aqueduct.</p><p>Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.</p><p>Masked Commando: And the sanitation!</p><p>Stan: Oh yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.</p><p>Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Matthias: And the roads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Another Masked Commando: Irrigation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Other Masked Voices: Medicine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Education<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Health</p><p>Reg: Yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... all right, fair enough<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Commando Nearer The Front: And the wine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>General Audience: Oh yes! True!</p><p>Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.</p><p>Masked Commando At Back: Public baths!</p><p>Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.</p><p>Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (general nodding)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this. (more general murmurs of agreement)</p><p>Reg: All right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... all right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what have the Romans done for us?</p><p>Xerxes: Brought peace!</p><p>Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (scornfully) Peace, yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... shut up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reg : They 've bled us white , the bastards .
They 've taken everything we had , not just from us , from our fathers and from our fathers ' fathers.Stan : And from our fathers ' fathers ' fathers.Reg : Yes.Stan : And from our fathers ' fathers ' fathers ' fathers.Reg : All right , Stan .
Do n't labour the point .
And what have they ever given us in return ?
( he pauses smugly ) Xerxes : The aqueduct ? Reg : What ? Xerxes : The aqueduct.Reg : Oh yeah , yeah they gave us that .
Yeah. That 's true.Masked Commando : And the sanitation ! Stan : Oh yes ... sanitation , Reg , you remember what the city used to be like.Reg : All right , I 'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done ...Matthias : And the roads ...Reg : ( sharply ) Well yes obviously the roads ... the roads go without saying .
But apart from the aqueduct , the sanitation and the roads ...Another Masked Commando : Irrigation ...Other Masked Voices : Medicine ... Education ... HealthReg : Yes ... all right , fair enough ...Commando Nearer The Front : And the wine ...General Audience : Oh yes !
True ! Francis : Yeah .
That 's something we 'd really miss if the Romans left , Reg.Masked Commando At Back : Public baths ! Stan : And it 's safe to walk in the streets at night now.Francis : Yes , they certainly know how to keep order ... ( general nodding ) ... let 's face it , they 're the only ones who could in a place like this .
( more general murmurs of agreement ) Reg : All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what have the Romans done for us ? Xerxes : Brought peace ! Reg : ( very angry , he 's not having a good meeting at all ) What ! ?
Oh ... ( scornfully ) Peace , yes ... shut up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards.
They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.Reg: Yes.Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.Reg: All right, Stan.
Don't labour the point.
And what have they ever given us in return?
(he pauses smugly)Xerxes: The aqueduct?Reg: What?Xerxes: The aqueduct.Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that.
Yeah. That's true.Masked Commando: And the sanitation!Stan: Oh yes ... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done ...Matthias: And the roads ...Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads ... the roads go without saying.
But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads ...Another Masked Commando: Irrigation ...Other Masked Voices: Medicine ... Education ... HealthReg: Yes ... all right, fair enough ...Commando Nearer The Front: And the wine ...General Audience: Oh yes!
True!Francis: Yeah.
That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.Masked Commando At Back: Public baths!Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order ... (general nodding) ... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
(more general murmurs of agreement)Reg: All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what have the Romans done for us?Xerxes: Brought peace!Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!?
Oh ... (scornfully) Peace, yes ... shut up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764615</id>
	<title>Hinder development?  Riiiiight....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Total lack of regulation, in the name of not "hindering development" is what got us into the banking crisis.   Yeah, let's screw up the internet too, by allowing it to be the wet dream of corporate interests.   Without regulations to help keep the playing field level, it becomes "might makes right."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Total lack of regulation , in the name of not " hindering development " is what got us into the banking crisis .
Yeah , let 's screw up the internet too , by allowing it to be the wet dream of corporate interests .
Without regulations to help keep the playing field level , it becomes " might makes right .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total lack of regulation, in the name of not "hindering development" is what got us into the banking crisis.
Yeah, let's screw up the internet too, by allowing it to be the wet dream of corporate interests.
Without regulations to help keep the playing field level, it becomes "might makes right.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29772301</id>
	<title>Motorola? Ackkk!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255726680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No surprise Motorola's part of the group that wants to strangle the open internet. In Canada they have a near monopoly on the Cable "DVR" box, and it's the worst bit of crud I've ever had to use.<br>Motorola should be legally forbidden from ever writing software again. Can't have torrents competing with their crud, can we? (Actually the hardware bites too, standard definition recording looks worse than VHS)..</p><p>Bah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No surprise Motorola 's part of the group that wants to strangle the open internet .
In Canada they have a near monopoly on the Cable " DVR " box , and it 's the worst bit of crud I 've ever had to use.Motorola should be legally forbidden from ever writing software again .
Ca n't have torrents competing with their crud , can we ?
( Actually the hardware bites too , standard definition recording looks worse than VHS ) ..Bah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No surprise Motorola's part of the group that wants to strangle the open internet.
In Canada they have a near monopoly on the Cable "DVR" box, and it's the worst bit of crud I've ever had to use.Motorola should be legally forbidden from ever writing software again.
Can't have torrents competing with their crud, can we?
(Actually the hardware bites too, standard definition recording looks worse than VHS)..Bah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29777549</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>rant64</author>
	<datestamp>1255794120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anything that Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia do is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.</p><p>So please, stop this evil QoS in it's tracks.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything that Cisco Systems , Alcatel-Lucent , Corning , Ericsson , Motorola and Nokia do is evil , restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.So please , stop this evil QoS in it 's tracks.There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything that Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia do is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.So please, stop this evil QoS in it's tracks.There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29770311</id>
	<title>Its not about 'business' and 'profits' sometimes</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1255716180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its about progress.</p><p>violating net neutrality may be good for a number of companies and their shareholders. but it harms internet a lot in the long run and in general. you can not count the number of businesses, individuals, sectors that could be harmed if we dont have solid net neutrality.</p><p>the mere proposition of an anti net neutrality concept is beyond STUPID itself :</p><p>imagine a world that private companies, not the government builds and maintains roads and collect tolls from those who use the roads. imagine that those companies are allowed to decide 'what happens on their road'. imagine they ban some routes, some cargo, or some people from their roads, as their profits require. what kind of world would it be ?</p><p>there is NO difference in between what these morons are proposing and this. its basically this in plainspeak : "we have built infrastructure on PUBLIC land, we are running the main communication lines for entire nation/world, we monopolize entire regions/states/countries through our licenses granted, but we want to decide what happens in 'our' networks".</p><p>the number of fallacies, amount of foolery and bastardiness in this proposition are innumerable and endless :</p><p>- first, it is NOT your fucking network. all your infrastructure was built on land that was leased to you by the nation, the public. the land STILL belongs to them, its on lease, and its still public's property.</p><p>- second, most of you have MONOPOLY licenses that cover entire regions, states, even countries. you basically are the sole controllers of the flow of information and business over those region/state/countries' networks. you can NOT freehandedly decide whatever you want to do in those monopolies, because it will directly affect the freedoms of people living on those areas. and no, moronic statements like 'hey, there are competitors providing dialup' doesnt count - having to go with a 128 kbit dialup provider because they are the only competitor to a big 4 mbit connection provider that cornered the market, or has a competitor license does NOT count as 'freedom of choice'.</p><p>- third, internet is a strategic resource now. its no small scale operation, in some european countries and some countries around the world most of the government functions are conducted in between the ministries' sites and citizens' computers in their homes or businesses. because it is very effective to do as such, saves hoards of cash and time for both government and the citizen, and increases efficiency. a lot of private companies are even using that method of conducting business. so, internet is no hobbyists' or enthusiasts' pastime anymore. it IS an important tool for the running of daily life. you can NOT decide what happens on your network, because it would mean leaving people's freedoms in the hands of a private decisionmaker in a goddamn company. we didnt fight independence wars and mounted revolutions and established democracies for that.</p><p>so, its not about business or profits. its about progress. just like the roads, just like the american revolution and french revolution, just like a democracy, its about freedoms sometimes.</p><p>and dont excuse me - the freedoms of people and public are ABOVE profits or interests of any private interest group or company. companies are there to better the lives of people, not people to better the companies' profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its about progress.violating net neutrality may be good for a number of companies and their shareholders .
but it harms internet a lot in the long run and in general .
you can not count the number of businesses , individuals , sectors that could be harmed if we dont have solid net neutrality.the mere proposition of an anti net neutrality concept is beyond STUPID itself : imagine a world that private companies , not the government builds and maintains roads and collect tolls from those who use the roads .
imagine that those companies are allowed to decide 'what happens on their road' .
imagine they ban some routes , some cargo , or some people from their roads , as their profits require .
what kind of world would it be ? there is NO difference in between what these morons are proposing and this .
its basically this in plainspeak : " we have built infrastructure on PUBLIC land , we are running the main communication lines for entire nation/world , we monopolize entire regions/states/countries through our licenses granted , but we want to decide what happens in 'our ' networks " .the number of fallacies , amount of foolery and bastardiness in this proposition are innumerable and endless : - first , it is NOT your fucking network .
all your infrastructure was built on land that was leased to you by the nation , the public .
the land STILL belongs to them , its on lease , and its still public 's property.- second , most of you have MONOPOLY licenses that cover entire regions , states , even countries .
you basically are the sole controllers of the flow of information and business over those region/state/countries ' networks .
you can NOT freehandedly decide whatever you want to do in those monopolies , because it will directly affect the freedoms of people living on those areas .
and no , moronic statements like 'hey , there are competitors providing dialup ' doesnt count - having to go with a 128 kbit dialup provider because they are the only competitor to a big 4 mbit connection provider that cornered the market , or has a competitor license does NOT count as 'freedom of choice'.- third , internet is a strategic resource now .
its no small scale operation , in some european countries and some countries around the world most of the government functions are conducted in between the ministries ' sites and citizens ' computers in their homes or businesses .
because it is very effective to do as such , saves hoards of cash and time for both government and the citizen , and increases efficiency .
a lot of private companies are even using that method of conducting business .
so , internet is no hobbyists ' or enthusiasts ' pastime anymore .
it IS an important tool for the running of daily life .
you can NOT decide what happens on your network , because it would mean leaving people 's freedoms in the hands of a private decisionmaker in a goddamn company .
we didnt fight independence wars and mounted revolutions and established democracies for that.so , its not about business or profits .
its about progress .
just like the roads , just like the american revolution and french revolution , just like a democracy , its about freedoms sometimes.and dont excuse me - the freedoms of people and public are ABOVE profits or interests of any private interest group or company .
companies are there to better the lives of people , not people to better the companies ' profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its about progress.violating net neutrality may be good for a number of companies and their shareholders.
but it harms internet a lot in the long run and in general.
you can not count the number of businesses, individuals, sectors that could be harmed if we dont have solid net neutrality.the mere proposition of an anti net neutrality concept is beyond STUPID itself :imagine a world that private companies, not the government builds and maintains roads and collect tolls from those who use the roads.
imagine that those companies are allowed to decide 'what happens on their road'.
imagine they ban some routes, some cargo, or some people from their roads, as their profits require.
what kind of world would it be ?there is NO difference in between what these morons are proposing and this.
its basically this in plainspeak : "we have built infrastructure on PUBLIC land, we are running the main communication lines for entire nation/world, we monopolize entire regions/states/countries through our licenses granted, but we want to decide what happens in 'our' networks".the number of fallacies, amount of foolery and bastardiness in this proposition are innumerable and endless :- first, it is NOT your fucking network.
all your infrastructure was built on land that was leased to you by the nation, the public.
the land STILL belongs to them, its on lease, and its still public's property.- second, most of you have MONOPOLY licenses that cover entire regions, states, even countries.
you basically are the sole controllers of the flow of information and business over those region/state/countries' networks.
you can NOT freehandedly decide whatever you want to do in those monopolies, because it will directly affect the freedoms of people living on those areas.
and no, moronic statements like 'hey, there are competitors providing dialup' doesnt count - having to go with a 128 kbit dialup provider because they are the only competitor to a big 4 mbit connection provider that cornered the market, or has a competitor license does NOT count as 'freedom of choice'.- third, internet is a strategic resource now.
its no small scale operation, in some european countries and some countries around the world most of the government functions are conducted in between the ministries' sites and citizens' computers in their homes or businesses.
because it is very effective to do as such, saves hoards of cash and time for both government and the citizen, and increases efficiency.
a lot of private companies are even using that method of conducting business.
so, internet is no hobbyists' or enthusiasts' pastime anymore.
it IS an important tool for the running of daily life.
you can NOT decide what happens on your network, because it would mean leaving people's freedoms in the hands of a private decisionmaker in a goddamn company.
we didnt fight independence wars and mounted revolutions and established democracies for that.so, its not about business or profits.
its about progress.
just like the roads, just like the american revolution and french revolution, just like a democracy, its about freedoms sometimes.and dont excuse me - the freedoms of people and public are ABOVE profits or interests of any private interest group or company.
companies are there to better the lives of people, not people to better the companies' profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765347</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255621620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cisco makes far more money selling upgrades to carriers than it does selling traffic shaping, the reason the hardware manufacturers are against it is the same reason the carriers are for it - getting the government to essentially allow them to control what content is allowed (by tarriff) to traverse the net, they can ration the existing bandwidth and charge more for it rather than continue to have to upgrade their networks to meet rising demand. Be on the side of the hardware manufacturers on this one, they are on the side of the average netizen here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cisco makes far more money selling upgrades to carriers than it does selling traffic shaping , the reason the hardware manufacturers are against it is the same reason the carriers are for it - getting the government to essentially allow them to control what content is allowed ( by tarriff ) to traverse the net , they can ration the existing bandwidth and charge more for it rather than continue to have to upgrade their networks to meet rising demand .
Be on the side of the hardware manufacturers on this one , they are on the side of the average netizen here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cisco makes far more money selling upgrades to carriers than it does selling traffic shaping, the reason the hardware manufacturers are against it is the same reason the carriers are for it - getting the government to essentially allow them to control what content is allowed (by tarriff) to traverse the net, they can ration the existing bandwidth and charge more for it rather than continue to have to upgrade their networks to meet rising demand.
Be on the side of the hardware manufacturers on this one, they are on the side of the average netizen here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765829</id>
	<title>Re:Is "net neutrality" really neutral?</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1255628160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>My experience with this type of government regulation is that it usually favors some group (usually a corporation or group of corporations) over some other group (often individuals and groups of individuals).</i> <br> <br>you make a very specific claim here, please provide some sort of example, this should be easy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with this type of government regulation is that it usually favors some group ( usually a corporation or group of corporations ) over some other group ( often individuals and groups of individuals ) .
you make a very specific claim here , please provide some sort of example , this should be easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with this type of government regulation is that it usually favors some group (usually a corporation or group of corporations) over some other group (often individuals and groups of individuals).
you make a very specific claim here, please provide some sort of example, this should be easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766013</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255631340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(the same two as above)</p></div><p>I can only assume your talking about the RIAA and child-porn terrorists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( the same two as above ) I can only assume your talking about the RIAA and child-porn terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(the same two as above)I can only assume your talking about the RIAA and child-porn terrorists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764487</id>
	<title>Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given how the Telcos are the largest customers of those companies, it's not particularly surprising which side they support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given how the Telcos are the largest customers of those companies , it 's not particularly surprising which side they support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given how the Telcos are the largest customers of those companies, it's not particularly surprising which side they support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764599</id>
	<title>wholesale cheap bape air force ones male shoes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Http://www.tntshoes.com</p><p>Specializing in retro Jordans, Nike SB, Nike Air Force 1.Check out our line at You can check out our FULL line at Sole on Ice 475 W. San Carlos Street in Downtown San Jose, Ca. 95113 Sole on Ice is a Consignment center specializing in bringing you the elite lines through out the past two decades.All shoes are 100\% authentic. We do not sell, accept, or deal with fakes or factory variants.If interested in selling through consignment please contact us</p><p>
&nbsp; OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Http : //www.tntshoes.comSpecializing in retro Jordans , Nike SB , Nike Air Force 1.Check out our line at You can check out our FULL line at Sole on Ice 475 W. San Carlos Street in Downtown San Jose , Ca .
95113 Sole on Ice is a Consignment center specializing in bringing you the elite lines through out the past two decades.All shoes are 100 \ % authentic .
We do not sell , accept , or deal with fakes or factory variants.If interested in selling through consignment please contact us   OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                         Http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Http://www.tntshoes.comSpecializing in retro Jordans, Nike SB, Nike Air Force 1.Check out our line at You can check out our FULL line at Sole on Ice 475 W. San Carlos Street in Downtown San Jose, Ca.
95113 Sole on Ice is a Consignment center specializing in bringing you the elite lines through out the past two decades.All shoes are 100\% authentic.
We do not sell, accept, or deal with fakes or factory variants.If interested in selling through consignment please contact us
  OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                        Http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764959</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.</p></div><p>Well I mean, it DOES restrict the freedom of telecos to make you pay more for sites that haven't paid their protection fees.  I'm sure the RIAA would argue that this will make blocking illegal child-porn terrorist activities much more inefficient.  And obviously the senators who have had sizeable campaign contributions from various concerned sources (the same two as above) would characterize net neutrality as evil.  Some of them could post on slashdot.  And even slashdotters who don't own telecos, work for the RIAA, or recieve bribes from them, there are probably a few who are so convinced their political fortune cookie knowledge applies absolutely to every situation that they could rationalize those guys' viewpoints.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything the government does is evil , restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.Well I mean , it DOES restrict the freedom of telecos to make you pay more for sites that have n't paid their protection fees .
I 'm sure the RIAA would argue that this will make blocking illegal child-porn terrorist activities much more inefficient .
And obviously the senators who have had sizeable campaign contributions from various concerned sources ( the same two as above ) would characterize net neutrality as evil .
Some of them could post on slashdot .
And even slashdotters who do n't own telecos , work for the RIAA , or recieve bribes from them , there are probably a few who are so convinced their political fortune cookie knowledge applies absolutely to every situation that they could rationalize those guys ' viewpoints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything the government does is evil, restricts freedoms and is inefficient by definition.Well I mean, it DOES restrict the freedom of telecos to make you pay more for sites that haven't paid their protection fees.
I'm sure the RIAA would argue that this will make blocking illegal child-porn terrorist activities much more inefficient.
And obviously the senators who have had sizeable campaign contributions from various concerned sources (the same two as above) would characterize net neutrality as evil.
Some of them could post on slashdot.
And even slashdotters who don't own telecos, work for the RIAA, or recieve bribes from them, there are probably a few who are so convinced their political fortune cookie knowledge applies absolutely to every situation that they could rationalize those guys' viewpoints.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767661</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1255702020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WHOOSH</htmltext>
<tokenext>WHOOSH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHOOSH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765443</id>
	<title>Is "net neutrality" really neutral?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1255622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The concern I always have when we discuss the idea of government regulation designed to enforce "net neutrality" is how neutral will these regulations actually be? My experience with this type of government regulation is that it usually favors some group (usually a corporation or group of corporations) over some other group (often individuals and groups of individuals). The other thing these regulations almost always do is strengthen the government at the expense of the common man. I favor the idea of net neutrality that is most often supported on this board, but I have no confidence that that is what we will get from government regulation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The concern I always have when we discuss the idea of government regulation designed to enforce " net neutrality " is how neutral will these regulations actually be ?
My experience with this type of government regulation is that it usually favors some group ( usually a corporation or group of corporations ) over some other group ( often individuals and groups of individuals ) .
The other thing these regulations almost always do is strengthen the government at the expense of the common man .
I favor the idea of net neutrality that is most often supported on this board , but I have no confidence that that is what we will get from government regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concern I always have when we discuss the idea of government regulation designed to enforce "net neutrality" is how neutral will these regulations actually be?
My experience with this type of government regulation is that it usually favors some group (usually a corporation or group of corporations) over some other group (often individuals and groups of individuals).
The other thing these regulations almost always do is strengthen the government at the expense of the common man.
I favor the idea of net neutrality that is most often supported on this board, but I have no confidence that that is what we will get from government regulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766797</id>
	<title>As always, Republican involvement...</title>
	<author>Asterra</author>
	<datestamp>1255689360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>makes it easy to figure out which side is working for the man on the street, and which is serving commercial interests.  Thanks, Republicans!  Without your involvement, I may not have had a clue what to think about this here "Net Neutrality".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>makes it easy to figure out which side is working for the man on the street , and which is serving commercial interests .
Thanks , Republicans !
Without your involvement , I may not have had a clue what to think about this here " Net Neutrality " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>makes it easy to figure out which side is working for the man on the street, and which is serving commercial interests.
Thanks, Republicans!
Without your involvement, I may not have had a clue what to think about this here "Net Neutrality".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051</id>
	<title>Motorola's take...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255617720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
According to Motorola CEO Greg Brown, <a href="http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/motorolas-brown-supports-net-neutrality-handset-exclusivity/2009-10-13" title="fiercewireless.com" rel="nofollow">Net Neutrality</a> [fiercewireless.com] is, in principle, a good thing.
</p><p>
So I was surprised to see them in the list of supporters of this letter.  It makes no sense for Motorola to allow the carriers to arbitrarily exclude devices from their networks.  For those who don't know, Motorola has a love-hate relationship with the carriers.  We can't just sell phones to a given carrier's customers - we must first sell it to the carrier, who then decides key things:
</p><ol> <li>How much they will pay us for each phone sold, and</li>
<li>How much they will charge the customer for each phone sold.</li>
<li>What features their customers will get, and how much they will pay for them.</li>
</ol><p>
As an employee of Motorola, it constantly frustrates me that the carriers have the ability to make or break a phone, regardless of it's technical merits or feature set.  If the carrier doesn't want a compelling feature to work on their network, it doesn't.  It makes no difference if we make the best camera phone in the business if the carrier decides the <a href="http://www.uscellular.com/" title="uscellular.com" rel="nofollow">user has to pay</a> [uscellular.com] for each picture taken with the phone.  It makes no difference if we have the best phone games on the market if the carrier decides those games won't ship on phones bought by their customers.  You get the point - the carriers get in the way of Motorola's business model.
</p><p>
I hate posting anonymously, but I'm paranoid about the repercussions this might cause at work.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Motorola CEO Greg Brown , Net Neutrality [ fiercewireless.com ] is , in principle , a good thing .
So I was surprised to see them in the list of supporters of this letter .
It makes no sense for Motorola to allow the carriers to arbitrarily exclude devices from their networks .
For those who do n't know , Motorola has a love-hate relationship with the carriers .
We ca n't just sell phones to a given carrier 's customers - we must first sell it to the carrier , who then decides key things : How much they will pay us for each phone sold , and How much they will charge the customer for each phone sold .
What features their customers will get , and how much they will pay for them .
As an employee of Motorola , it constantly frustrates me that the carriers have the ability to make or break a phone , regardless of it 's technical merits or feature set .
If the carrier does n't want a compelling feature to work on their network , it does n't .
It makes no difference if we make the best camera phone in the business if the carrier decides the user has to pay [ uscellular.com ] for each picture taken with the phone .
It makes no difference if we have the best phone games on the market if the carrier decides those games wo n't ship on phones bought by their customers .
You get the point - the carriers get in the way of Motorola 's business model .
I hate posting anonymously , but I 'm paranoid about the repercussions this might cause at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
According to Motorola CEO Greg Brown, Net Neutrality [fiercewireless.com] is, in principle, a good thing.
So I was surprised to see them in the list of supporters of this letter.
It makes no sense for Motorola to allow the carriers to arbitrarily exclude devices from their networks.
For those who don't know, Motorola has a love-hate relationship with the carriers.
We can't just sell phones to a given carrier's customers - we must first sell it to the carrier, who then decides key things:
 How much they will pay us for each phone sold, and
How much they will charge the customer for each phone sold.
What features their customers will get, and how much they will pay for them.
As an employee of Motorola, it constantly frustrates me that the carriers have the ability to make or break a phone, regardless of it's technical merits or feature set.
If the carrier doesn't want a compelling feature to work on their network, it doesn't.
It makes no difference if we make the best camera phone in the business if the carrier decides the user has to pay [uscellular.com] for each picture taken with the phone.
It makes no difference if we have the best phone games on the market if the carrier decides those games won't ship on phones bought by their customers.
You get the point - the carriers get in the way of Motorola's business model.
I hate posting anonymously, but I'm paranoid about the repercussions this might cause at work.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767317</id>
	<title>Considder the source!</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1255698780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of COURSE the people who make packet sniffing and filtering technology, backhaul switches, and high bandwidth components compatible with it are going to be against ANYTHING the prevents them from selling their rediculously expensive sniffing and filtering gear.</p><p>NATURALLY these companies are going to be ALL FOR letting firms be able to buy their kit and use it.  If filtering was made illegal, then Cisco, Alcatel, Lucent, etc would have a hard time justifying their highly profitable expensive switches vs the competitors systems which are simpler, streamlined for high bandwidth, and cost a fraction to deploy, and for which their own similar switches still cost more to subsidize the development and sale of the big gear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of COURSE the people who make packet sniffing and filtering technology , backhaul switches , and high bandwidth components compatible with it are going to be against ANYTHING the prevents them from selling their rediculously expensive sniffing and filtering gear.NATURALLY these companies are going to be ALL FOR letting firms be able to buy their kit and use it .
If filtering was made illegal , then Cisco , Alcatel , Lucent , etc would have a hard time justifying their highly profitable expensive switches vs the competitors systems which are simpler , streamlined for high bandwidth , and cost a fraction to deploy , and for which their own similar switches still cost more to subsidize the development and sale of the big gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of COURSE the people who make packet sniffing and filtering technology, backhaul switches, and high bandwidth components compatible with it are going to be against ANYTHING the prevents them from selling their rediculously expensive sniffing and filtering gear.NATURALLY these companies are going to be ALL FOR letting firms be able to buy their kit and use it.
If filtering was made illegal, then Cisco, Alcatel, Lucent, etc would have a hard time justifying their highly profitable expensive switches vs the competitors systems which are simpler, streamlined for high bandwidth, and cost a fraction to deploy, and for which their own similar switches still cost more to subsidize the development and sale of the big gear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768485</id>
	<title>Re:not fixing the real problem</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1255707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Limited competition in last mile connections is only one tiny part of the problem.  Businesses that own those connections might enjoy monopoly profits in the bandwidth business, but as long as that's their ONLY business, we're still in decent shape.</p><p>The REAL problem is that the big telecom companies want to start a system of tiered service over the backbones, similar to what you see at the post office.  You can ship standard ground, first class, or overnight express . . . for a FEE.  Their mission is to set up bidding wars, e.g. between Google and Microsoft for search results.  Oh, this packet originated from "Google", and they paid big $$$ for express service, so they get their data transferred faster.  "littlesearchengine.com" didn't pay for top of the line service, so we'll de-prioritize their traffic.</p><p>That's the problem NN is trying to address.  Too bad that the government has to stick its nose in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Limited competition in last mile connections is only one tiny part of the problem .
Businesses that own those connections might enjoy monopoly profits in the bandwidth business , but as long as that 's their ONLY business , we 're still in decent shape.The REAL problem is that the big telecom companies want to start a system of tiered service over the backbones , similar to what you see at the post office .
You can ship standard ground , first class , or overnight express .
. .
for a FEE .
Their mission is to set up bidding wars , e.g .
between Google and Microsoft for search results .
Oh , this packet originated from " Google " , and they paid big $ $ $ for express service , so they get their data transferred faster .
" littlesearchengine.com " did n't pay for top of the line service , so we 'll de-prioritize their traffic.That 's the problem NN is trying to address .
Too bad that the government has to stick its nose in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Limited competition in last mile connections is only one tiny part of the problem.
Businesses that own those connections might enjoy monopoly profits in the bandwidth business, but as long as that's their ONLY business, we're still in decent shape.The REAL problem is that the big telecom companies want to start a system of tiered service over the backbones, similar to what you see at the post office.
You can ship standard ground, first class, or overnight express .
. .
for a FEE.
Their mission is to set up bidding wars, e.g.
between Google and Microsoft for search results.
Oh, this packet originated from "Google", and they paid big $$$ for express service, so they get their data transferred faster.
"littlesearchengine.com" didn't pay for top of the line service, so we'll de-prioritize their traffic.That's the problem NN is trying to address.
Too bad that the government has to stick its nose in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766255</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255636620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Google, Russia searches you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Google , Russia searches you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Google, Russia searches you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764899</id>
	<title>Re:So be it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255616400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that it's especially poignant, to say that corporations only want capitalism when they can act like robber barons, but otherwise want socialism to protect them from competition they can't freely stifle and mistakes they won't correct or prevent.</p><p>That said, if net neutrality isn't entered into law, we should withdraw every subsidy, every land grant, and every sweetheart deal that we give the telcos. If they want our money and our land but don't want to play by our rules, they can fend for their fucking selves. A little known fact outside of this site is that American tax dollars and land grants valued in the hundreds of billions built this infrastructure just as much as the magic of the marketplace did.</p><p>We practically own every wire and every fiber ever laid in this land, thanks to that, and it's been that way since the telegraph days. I doubt this jives with any 'conservative' standpoint, but on those grounds alone I wouldn't see anything morally wrong with the citizens confiscating this infrastructure for themselves, considering it may as well be their property to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that it 's especially poignant , to say that corporations only want capitalism when they can act like robber barons , but otherwise want socialism to protect them from competition they ca n't freely stifle and mistakes they wo n't correct or prevent.That said , if net neutrality is n't entered into law , we should withdraw every subsidy , every land grant , and every sweetheart deal that we give the telcos .
If they want our money and our land but do n't want to play by our rules , they can fend for their fucking selves .
A little known fact outside of this site is that American tax dollars and land grants valued in the hundreds of billions built this infrastructure just as much as the magic of the marketplace did.We practically own every wire and every fiber ever laid in this land , thanks to that , and it 's been that way since the telegraph days .
I doubt this jives with any 'conservative ' standpoint , but on those grounds alone I would n't see anything morally wrong with the citizens confiscating this infrastructure for themselves , considering it may as well be their property to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that it's especially poignant, to say that corporations only want capitalism when they can act like robber barons, but otherwise want socialism to protect them from competition they can't freely stifle and mistakes they won't correct or prevent.That said, if net neutrality isn't entered into law, we should withdraw every subsidy, every land grant, and every sweetheart deal that we give the telcos.
If they want our money and our land but don't want to play by our rules, they can fend for their fucking selves.
A little known fact outside of this site is that American tax dollars and land grants valued in the hundreds of billions built this infrastructure just as much as the magic of the marketplace did.We practically own every wire and every fiber ever laid in this land, thanks to that, and it's been that way since the telegraph days.
I doubt this jives with any 'conservative' standpoint, but on those grounds alone I wouldn't see anything morally wrong with the citizens confiscating this infrastructure for themselves, considering it may as well be their property to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765145</id>
	<title>There's a big surprise.</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1255618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just in:<blockquote><div><p>including Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia &mdash; have sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet</p></div></blockquote><p>
Translation:
Major infrastructure vendors don't like new regulations that'll hurt the <i>development of their bottom line</i>.  Nothing to see here folks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in : including Cisco Systems , Alcatel-Lucent , Corning , Ericsson , Motorola and Nokia    have sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet Translation : Major infrastructure vendors do n't like new regulations that 'll hurt the development of their bottom line .
Nothing to see here folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in:including Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia — have sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet
Translation:
Major infrastructure vendors don't like new regulations that'll hurt the development of their bottom line.
Nothing to see here folks.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768773</id>
	<title>Hey wait a minute.</title>
	<author>Zarf\_is\_with\_you</author>
	<datestamp>1255708620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>" However, 44 companies &amp;mdash; including Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia &amp;mdash; have sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet."<br><br>Don't these companies have a Traffic Shaping solution?<br><br>I suggest it more about the Hindering of there Pocket Books not the Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" However , 44 companies    including Cisco Systems , Alcatel-Lucent , Corning , Ericsson , Motorola and Nokia    have sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet .
" Do n't these companies have a Traffic Shaping solution ? I suggest it more about the Hindering of there Pocket Books not the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" However, 44 companies — including Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia — have sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet.
"Don't these companies have a Traffic Shaping solution?I suggest it more about the Hindering of there Pocket Books not the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661</id>
	<title>So be it</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1255613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then let the "development" of the Internet it be "hindered".  If IPTV takes another decade because new business models have be created to adapt to a neutral network, then so be it.  I am happy to wait.  If the capacity available to me grows more slowly because there are fewer deal making opportunities for ISPs and content producers then so be it.  I've got enough bandwidth.  Corrupting the relatively simple model of the existing network by letting Disney et al. carve it up into lucrative morsels to be passes among the elite is not appealing.  Whichever content providers don't like it can just keep their stuff on cable until we drop our cable service as we've dropped our landlines.  Their stuff just isn't that important to me.</p><p>The capitalist claims the market is agile.  Adaptation is supposed to be swift.  I believe this.  I therefore believe we should permit the market to prove this by preventing the aforementioned companies from molding the Internet into models they are already comfortable with.  Let them adapt to a neutral network.  The Internet isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed by Time Warner.  The Internet will not fail if Ted Turner doesn't get a cut of my ISP's revenue.</p><p>There you go; an argument for Net Neutrality from the conservative perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then let the " development " of the Internet it be " hindered " .
If IPTV takes another decade because new business models have be created to adapt to a neutral network , then so be it .
I am happy to wait .
If the capacity available to me grows more slowly because there are fewer deal making opportunities for ISPs and content producers then so be it .
I 've got enough bandwidth .
Corrupting the relatively simple model of the existing network by letting Disney et al .
carve it up into lucrative morsels to be passes among the elite is not appealing .
Whichever content providers do n't like it can just keep their stuff on cable until we drop our cable service as we 've dropped our landlines .
Their stuff just is n't that important to me.The capitalist claims the market is agile .
Adaptation is supposed to be swift .
I believe this .
I therefore believe we should permit the market to prove this by preventing the aforementioned companies from molding the Internet into models they are already comfortable with .
Let them adapt to a neutral network .
The Internet is n't broken and does n't need to be fixed by Time Warner .
The Internet will not fail if Ted Turner does n't get a cut of my ISP 's revenue.There you go ; an argument for Net Neutrality from the conservative perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then let the "development" of the Internet it be "hindered".
If IPTV takes another decade because new business models have be created to adapt to a neutral network, then so be it.
I am happy to wait.
If the capacity available to me grows more slowly because there are fewer deal making opportunities for ISPs and content producers then so be it.
I've got enough bandwidth.
Corrupting the relatively simple model of the existing network by letting Disney et al.
carve it up into lucrative morsels to be passes among the elite is not appealing.
Whichever content providers don't like it can just keep their stuff on cable until we drop our cable service as we've dropped our landlines.
Their stuff just isn't that important to me.The capitalist claims the market is agile.
Adaptation is supposed to be swift.
I believe this.
I therefore believe we should permit the market to prove this by preventing the aforementioned companies from molding the Internet into models they are already comfortable with.
Let them adapt to a neutral network.
The Internet isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed by Time Warner.
The Internet will not fail if Ted Turner doesn't get a cut of my ISP's revenue.There you go; an argument for Net Neutrality from the conservative perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766011</id>
	<title>Re:not fixing the real problem</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1255631340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I say let's have it all: proprietary ISPs and municipal networks side by side, neutral networks and filtered networks, fiber and coax and copper and wireless. Any network, proprietary or municipal, can implement any network service level as long as a neutral network of equal or better bandwidth is available at an equal or lower price and equal service reliability.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, that's the problem, isn't it? In almost every local area, the last-mile solutions (cable and phone lines) weren't built with public funds and then leased to whoever wanted to provide service and compete amongst one another, the exclusive rights were sold out-right to the highest bidder who gets to keep them in perpetuity. Sometimes, taxpayer money even subsidized the for-profit monopoly. Most people believe their only options for broadband are either cable or DSL from the incumbent providers. In some places, these *are* their only options. In others, they don't even get to choose between the two.</p><p>The whole idea of almost every municipality in the U.S. giving a single company permanent, exclusive control over the telecommunications infrastructure of an entire area was a huge mistake. One that we're paying for by falling behind the rest of the developed world in terms of broadband adoption. Unfortunately, it's too late to change this because you have to do it on a local level in every single city. The companies that profited so heavily on their legal monopolies have politicians in their pocket, so no grassroots effort is really going to make much headway.</p><p>This is why, a decade ago, I had great hope that wireless broadband technologies like WiMax would let any entrepreneur set up an antenna on a tower or building and start competing with other last-mile providers, driving broadband adoption up while driving prices down. Unfortunately, none of that seems to have taken off partly due to technical reasons and partly due to fierce opposition from the cellular giants who knew that cheap VoIP would eventually obliterate their business model. Remember all the analog TV spectrum that was auctioned off awhile back? Know who bought most of it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say let 's have it all : proprietary ISPs and municipal networks side by side , neutral networks and filtered networks , fiber and coax and copper and wireless .
Any network , proprietary or municipal , can implement any network service level as long as a neutral network of equal or better bandwidth is available at an equal or lower price and equal service reliability.Well , that 's the problem , is n't it ?
In almost every local area , the last-mile solutions ( cable and phone lines ) were n't built with public funds and then leased to whoever wanted to provide service and compete amongst one another , the exclusive rights were sold out-right to the highest bidder who gets to keep them in perpetuity .
Sometimes , taxpayer money even subsidized the for-profit monopoly .
Most people believe their only options for broadband are either cable or DSL from the incumbent providers .
In some places , these * are * their only options .
In others , they do n't even get to choose between the two.The whole idea of almost every municipality in the U.S. giving a single company permanent , exclusive control over the telecommunications infrastructure of an entire area was a huge mistake .
One that we 're paying for by falling behind the rest of the developed world in terms of broadband adoption .
Unfortunately , it 's too late to change this because you have to do it on a local level in every single city .
The companies that profited so heavily on their legal monopolies have politicians in their pocket , so no grassroots effort is really going to make much headway.This is why , a decade ago , I had great hope that wireless broadband technologies like WiMax would let any entrepreneur set up an antenna on a tower or building and start competing with other last-mile providers , driving broadband adoption up while driving prices down .
Unfortunately , none of that seems to have taken off partly due to technical reasons and partly due to fierce opposition from the cellular giants who knew that cheap VoIP would eventually obliterate their business model .
Remember all the analog TV spectrum that was auctioned off awhile back ?
Know who bought most of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say let's have it all: proprietary ISPs and municipal networks side by side, neutral networks and filtered networks, fiber and coax and copper and wireless.
Any network, proprietary or municipal, can implement any network service level as long as a neutral network of equal or better bandwidth is available at an equal or lower price and equal service reliability.Well, that's the problem, isn't it?
In almost every local area, the last-mile solutions (cable and phone lines) weren't built with public funds and then leased to whoever wanted to provide service and compete amongst one another, the exclusive rights were sold out-right to the highest bidder who gets to keep them in perpetuity.
Sometimes, taxpayer money even subsidized the for-profit monopoly.
Most people believe their only options for broadband are either cable or DSL from the incumbent providers.
In some places, these *are* their only options.
In others, they don't even get to choose between the two.The whole idea of almost every municipality in the U.S. giving a single company permanent, exclusive control over the telecommunications infrastructure of an entire area was a huge mistake.
One that we're paying for by falling behind the rest of the developed world in terms of broadband adoption.
Unfortunately, it's too late to change this because you have to do it on a local level in every single city.
The companies that profited so heavily on their legal monopolies have politicians in their pocket, so no grassroots effort is really going to make much headway.This is why, a decade ago, I had great hope that wireless broadband technologies like WiMax would let any entrepreneur set up an antenna on a tower or building and start competing with other last-mile providers, driving broadband adoption up while driving prices down.
Unfortunately, none of that seems to have taken off partly due to technical reasons and partly due to fierce opposition from the cellular giants who knew that cheap VoIP would eventually obliterate their business model.
Remember all the analog TV spectrum that was auctioned off awhile back?
Know who bought most of it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765125</id>
	<title>Re:What's the catch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255618680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were manufacturing QoS and shaping equipment, wouldn't you be pissed that the FCC was about to render your products useless?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were manufacturing QoS and shaping equipment , would n't you be pissed that the FCC was about to render your products useless ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were manufacturing QoS and shaping equipment, wouldn't you be pissed that the FCC was about to render your products useless?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29775867</id>
	<title>Re:According to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255718640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..wow you're a tool, did you even read the post or just find it a good excuse to go on a moronic rant that was TL;DR.</p><p>note the topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..wow you 're a tool , did you even read the post or just find it a good excuse to go on a moronic rant that was TL ; DR.note the topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..wow you're a tool, did you even read the post or just find it a good excuse to go on a moronic rant that was TL;DR.note the topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765429</id>
	<title>I'm sorry, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255622580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blocking or slowing Web content and applications (bandwidth throttling) is NOT innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blocking or slowing Web content and applications ( bandwidth throttling ) is NOT innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blocking or slowing Web content and applications (bandwidth throttling) is NOT innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764879</id>
	<title>Re:not fixing the real problem</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1255616220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole discussion and the concept of network neutrality has a bipolar disorder syndrome. <b>This</b> or <i>that</i>, <b>network neutrality</b> or <i>filtered access</i>,<b>monopoly ISPs</b> or <i>carrier choice</i>. I say let's have it all: proprietary ISPs and municipal networks side by side, neutral networks and filtered networks, fiber and coax and copper and wireless. Any network, proprietary or municipal, can implement any network service level as long as a neutral network of equal or better bandwidth is available at an equal or lower price and equal service reliability. Then we would really see which business model survives, which needs financial support, and which is just ineffective. And remove this whole unhealthy bipolar debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole discussion and the concept of network neutrality has a bipolar disorder syndrome .
This or that , network neutrality or filtered access,monopoly ISPs or carrier choice .
I say let 's have it all : proprietary ISPs and municipal networks side by side , neutral networks and filtered networks , fiber and coax and copper and wireless .
Any network , proprietary or municipal , can implement any network service level as long as a neutral network of equal or better bandwidth is available at an equal or lower price and equal service reliability .
Then we would really see which business model survives , which needs financial support , and which is just ineffective .
And remove this whole unhealthy bipolar debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole discussion and the concept of network neutrality has a bipolar disorder syndrome.
This or that, network neutrality or filtered access,monopoly ISPs or carrier choice.
I say let's have it all: proprietary ISPs and municipal networks side by side, neutral networks and filtered networks, fiber and coax and copper and wireless.
Any network, proprietary or municipal, can implement any network service level as long as a neutral network of equal or better bandwidth is available at an equal or lower price and equal service reliability.
Then we would really see which business model survives, which needs financial support, and which is just ineffective.
And remove this whole unhealthy bipolar debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765551</id>
	<title>Re:This is what happens when gov't picks winners</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255624200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When government picks winners, groups that get called "lobbyists" and "special interests" exercise their <b>Constitutional RIGHTS</b> to petition the government and try to affect the outcome of the government rule making.</i></p><p>Corporations have no right to lobby government, only people do.  And I don't recall ever getting any sort of ballot, petition, or questionnaire from a corporation I owned stocks in asking me what government policies I support and what I don't support.</p><p><i>Don't like it?</i></p><p><i>Don't give the government the power that attracts those groups.</i></p><p>Now here I agree.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When government picks winners , groups that get called " lobbyists " and " special interests " exercise their Constitutional RIGHTS to petition the government and try to affect the outcome of the government rule making.Corporations have no right to lobby government , only people do .
And I do n't recall ever getting any sort of ballot , petition , or questionnaire from a corporation I owned stocks in asking me what government policies I support and what I do n't support.Do n't like it ? Do n't give the government the power that attracts those groups.Now here I agree .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When government picks winners, groups that get called "lobbyists" and "special interests" exercise their Constitutional RIGHTS to petition the government and try to affect the outcome of the government rule making.Corporations have no right to lobby government, only people do.
And I don't recall ever getting any sort of ballot, petition, or questionnaire from a corporation I owned stocks in asking me what government policies I support and what I don't support.Don't like it?Don't give the government the power that attracts those groups.Now here I agree.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764791</id>
	<title>Wholesaler Garment Shoes Handbag ,Watch Hat Sungla</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255615380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles, You will find what your like.<br>Features:<br>1) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11(some US13/UK12)<br>Size for women US5-8/10<br>2) Packing: 1pr/box, 12prs/carton, 12prs/style/color(original box and retro card)<br>3) Many designs and colors available<br>4) Delivery can be prompt shipping<br>5) We accept paypal +++aaa quality .</p><p>OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Http : //www.tntshoes.com     The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles , You will find what your like.Features : 1 ) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11 ( some US13/UK12 ) Size for women US5-8/102 ) Packing : 1pr/box , 12prs/carton , 12prs/style/color ( original box and retro card ) 3 ) Many designs and colors available4 ) Delivery can be prompt shipping5 ) We accept paypal + + + aaa quality .OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                     Http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Http://www.tntshoes.com
    The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles, You will find what your like.Features:1) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11(some US13/UK12)Size for women US5-8/102) Packing: 1pr/box, 12prs/carton, 12prs/style/color(original box and retro card)3) Many designs and colors available4) Delivery can be prompt shipping5) We accept paypal +++aaa quality .OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                    Http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764713</id>
	<title>18 republican senators... nuff said?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255614480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as the renublicans get behind it, you KNOW it smacks of evil world domination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as the renublicans get behind it , you KNOW it smacks of evil world domination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as the renublicans get behind it, you KNOW it smacks of evil world domination.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764767</id>
	<title>Re:Well then if the Republicans...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1255615140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everything that corporations are against is good for the public.  It is quite possible for government action to both make the situation worse for the public and be at odds with what the corps want.  The real issue is whether or not that government action actually improves the situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everything that corporations are against is good for the public .
It is quite possible for government action to both make the situation worse for the public and be at odds with what the corps want .
The real issue is whether or not that government action actually improves the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everything that corporations are against is good for the public.
It is quite possible for government action to both make the situation worse for the public and be at odds with what the corps want.
The real issue is whether or not that government action actually improves the situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764541</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29769877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29777549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29772675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29787913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29775867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29769881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29770055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29777969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_001254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29769877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29777549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29775867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767109
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29787913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29777969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29772675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29769881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29770055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29772301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29766011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29768485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29767099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29765463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_001254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_001254.29764651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
