<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_2026206</id>
	<title>Comcast's New Throttling Plan Uses Trigger Conditions, Not Silent Blocking</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257323880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>clang\_jangle writes  with this excerpt from <em>The Inquirer</em> outlining <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050238/comcast-internet-throttling-running">Comcast's new traffic-throttling scheme</a>,  based on information from <a href="http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment\_B\_Future\_Practices.pdf">Comcast's latest FCC filing</a>. <i>"Its network throttling implements a two-tier packet queueing system at the routers, driven by two trigger conditions.  Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes.  Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to &ndash; along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers &ndash; gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible. Tripping either of Comcast's high bandwidth usage rate triggers results in throttling for at least 15 minutes, or until your average bandwidth utilisation rate drops below 50 per cent for 15 minutes."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>clang \ _jangle writes with this excerpt from The Inquirer outlining Comcast 's new traffic-throttling scheme , based on information from Comcast 's latest FCC filing .
" Its network throttling implements a two-tier packet queueing system at the routers , driven by two trigger conditions .
Comcast 's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes .
Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you 're hooked-up to    along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers    gets congested , and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible .
Tripping either of Comcast 's high bandwidth usage rate triggers results in throttling for at least 15 minutes , or until your average bandwidth utilisation rate drops below 50 per cent for 15 minutes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>clang\_jangle writes  with this excerpt from The Inquirer outlining Comcast's new traffic-throttling scheme,  based on information from Comcast's latest FCC filing.
"Its network throttling implements a two-tier packet queueing system at the routers, driven by two trigger conditions.
Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes.
Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to – along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers – gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible.
Tripping either of Comcast's high bandwidth usage rate triggers results in throttling for at least 15 minutes, or until your average bandwidth utilisation rate drops below 50 per cent for 15 minutes.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988786</id>
	<title>Re:#1 sounds reasonable. #2 does not.</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256996400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno about two <i>shows</i> at once, but I regularly watch Netflix/Hulu on one monitor and play a game on the other...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about two shows at once , but I regularly watch Netflix/Hulu on one monitor and play a game on the other.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about two shows at once, but I regularly watch Netflix/Hulu on one monitor and play a game on the other...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29994434</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257434400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I FUCKIN PAY for the bandwith I BOUGHT!</p><p>And you openly add a function that makes it impossible for you to fulfill your FUCKIN' CONTRACT??</p><p>YOU BREAK THE CONTRACT FUCKIN' ASSHOLES!</p><p>Someone is getting sued to hell and back! I expect at least a trillion dollars damage. Plus assrape in PMITA prison for the bosses by next Monday!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I FUCKIN PAY for the bandwith I BOUGHT ! And you openly add a function that makes it impossible for you to fulfill your FUCKIN ' CONTRACT ?
? YOU BREAK THE CONTRACT FUCKIN ' ASSHOLES ! Someone is getting sued to hell and back !
I expect at least a trillion dollars damage .
Plus assrape in PMITA prison for the bosses by next Monday !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I FUCKIN PAY for the bandwith I BOUGHT!And you openly add a function that makes it impossible for you to fulfill your FUCKIN' CONTRACT?
?YOU BREAK THE CONTRACT FUCKIN' ASSHOLES!Someone is getting sued to hell and back!
I expect at least a trillion dollars damage.
Plus assrape in PMITA prison for the bosses by next Monday!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988320</id>
	<title>This sounds familiar.</title>
	<author>quag7</author>
	<datestamp>1256994120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know who else used a similar throttling scheme?</p><p>Nazi Germany.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know who else used a similar throttling scheme ? Nazi Germany .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know who else used a similar throttling scheme?Nazi Germany.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985352</id>
	<title>Re:Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>rant64</author>
	<datestamp>1256982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA: <p><div class="quote"><p>Internet packets to and from a specific subscriber are assigned 'Priority Best Effort' (PBE) queueing by default, and the traffic rate is throttled by switching packets to lower priority 'Best Effort' (BE) queueing.</p></div><p>So, throttling in this case simple means that your traffic is delivered after alle PBE traffic (all other customers) was dealt with in the router's queues.<br>That also means that you'll hardly notice the difference when there's no congestion, but it may also cause complete packet loss at busy times.<br>
Something TFS fails to note is this, at the bottom of TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Comcast has also imposed a monthly 250GB bandwidth usage cap on all of its customers, and it will, after one warning, terminate service for one year to those who exceed that cap twice within a six-month period.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : Internet packets to and from a specific subscriber are assigned 'Priority Best Effort ' ( PBE ) queueing by default , and the traffic rate is throttled by switching packets to lower priority 'Best Effort ' ( BE ) queueing.So , throttling in this case simple means that your traffic is delivered after alle PBE traffic ( all other customers ) was dealt with in the router 's queues.That also means that you 'll hardly notice the difference when there 's no congestion , but it may also cause complete packet loss at busy times .
Something TFS fails to note is this , at the bottom of TFA : Comcast has also imposed a monthly 250GB bandwidth usage cap on all of its customers , and it will , after one warning , terminate service for one year to those who exceed that cap twice within a six-month period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: Internet packets to and from a specific subscriber are assigned 'Priority Best Effort' (PBE) queueing by default, and the traffic rate is throttled by switching packets to lower priority 'Best Effort' (BE) queueing.So, throttling in this case simple means that your traffic is delivered after alle PBE traffic (all other customers) was dealt with in the router's queues.That also means that you'll hardly notice the difference when there's no congestion, but it may also cause complete packet loss at busy times.
Something TFS fails to note is this, at the bottom of TFA:Comcast has also imposed a monthly 250GB bandwidth usage cap on all of its customers, and it will, after one warning, terminate service for one year to those who exceed that cap twice within a six-month period.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987246</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1256989560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the ads / agreements, they always clearly say "speeds up to X".  They do not say "you will get X".  Time Warner (at least where I live) offers a "turbo" package for $10 more than their 8 Mbps - it clearly says "when bandwidth allows, speeds up to 15 Mbps using Turbo" - they make it clear that they only guarantee "up to 8 Mbps, and when there's not much activity on your pipe, up to 15 Mbps".  So you are fully warned, at least if you bother to read what you're buying.</p><p>I think that Comcast is doing this the wrong way....maybe say after 3 hours of using your full bandwidth, knock you down to 95\%, then for each hour that you're still maxing out your bandwidth, another 1\% drop.  I dislike throttling, but if there are a few users on a pipe hogging all the bandwidth and keeping others from really using what they pay for, then they should throttle it some.  Of course, the BEST solution is for them just to upgrade their network.....but that's me being a crazy person!  =p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the ads / agreements , they always clearly say " speeds up to X " .
They do not say " you will get X " .
Time Warner ( at least where I live ) offers a " turbo " package for $ 10 more than their 8 Mbps - it clearly says " when bandwidth allows , speeds up to 15 Mbps using Turbo " - they make it clear that they only guarantee " up to 8 Mbps , and when there 's not much activity on your pipe , up to 15 Mbps " .
So you are fully warned , at least if you bother to read what you 're buying.I think that Comcast is doing this the wrong way....maybe say after 3 hours of using your full bandwidth , knock you down to 95 \ % , then for each hour that you 're still maxing out your bandwidth , another 1 \ % drop .
I dislike throttling , but if there are a few users on a pipe hogging all the bandwidth and keeping others from really using what they pay for , then they should throttle it some .
Of course , the BEST solution is for them just to upgrade their network.....but that 's me being a crazy person !
= p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the ads / agreements, they always clearly say "speeds up to X".
They do not say "you will get X".
Time Warner (at least where I live) offers a "turbo" package for $10 more than their 8 Mbps - it clearly says "when bandwidth allows, speeds up to 15 Mbps using Turbo" - they make it clear that they only guarantee "up to 8 Mbps, and when there's not much activity on your pipe, up to 15 Mbps".
So you are fully warned, at least if you bother to read what you're buying.I think that Comcast is doing this the wrong way....maybe say after 3 hours of using your full bandwidth, knock you down to 95\%, then for each hour that you're still maxing out your bandwidth, another 1\% drop.
I dislike throttling, but if there are a few users on a pipe hogging all the bandwidth and keeping others from really using what they pay for, then they should throttle it some.
Of course, the BEST solution is for them just to upgrade their network.....but that's me being a crazy person!
=p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986982</id>
	<title>Why speculate based on the FCC filings?</title>
	<author>larse</author>
	<datestamp>1256988540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why speculate based on the FCC filings? The entire scheme is described right here: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-woundy-congestion-mgmt" title="ietf.org" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-woundy-congestion-mgmt</a> [ietf.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why speculate based on the FCC filings ?
The entire scheme is described right here : http : //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-woundy-congestion-mgmt [ ietf.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why speculate based on the FCC filings?
The entire scheme is described right here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-woundy-congestion-mgmt [ietf.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986390</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256986140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast has for a long time inserted the phrase "Up to" before all advertised speed ratings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast has for a long time inserted the phrase " Up to " before all advertised speed ratings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast has for a long time inserted the phrase "Up to" before all advertised speed ratings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986570</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256986860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can and do frequently. I actually have to watch my comcast cap because I do stream soo much. when you have a lot of free time and no real interest in TV with commericals Hulu and Netflix really start eating into your "Unlimited" service...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can and do frequently .
I actually have to watch my comcast cap because I do stream soo much .
when you have a lot of free time and no real interest in TV with commericals Hulu and Netflix really start eating into your " Unlimited " service.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can and do frequently.
I actually have to watch my comcast cap because I do stream soo much.
when you have a lot of free time and no real interest in TV with commericals Hulu and Netflix really start eating into your "Unlimited" service...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</id>
	<title>Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>RichardDeVries</author>
	<datestamp>1256982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if you throttle your own connection for 5 seconds every 14 minutes? (No, I don't agree with the policy. At all.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you throttle your own connection for 5 seconds every 14 minutes ?
( No , I do n't agree with the policy .
At all .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you throttle your own connection for 5 seconds every 14 minutes?
(No, I don't agree with the policy.
At all.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988012</id>
	<title>Isp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256992560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you get throttled for using what you're paying for, ISP providers are awesome these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you get throttled for using what you 're paying for , ISP providers are awesome these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you get throttled for using what you're paying for, ISP providers are awesome these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985850</id>
	<title>Re:Video and Phone Provider</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1256984400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> So if I'm watching video or using VoIP for more than 15 minutes I'll get put in the lower priority queue? And I'll lose frames or drop calls?</p></div><p>Since neither of those will come near hitting 70\% of you max, you won't have a problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I 'm watching video or using VoIP for more than 15 minutes I 'll get put in the lower priority queue ?
And I 'll lose frames or drop calls ? Since neither of those will come near hitting 70 \ % of you max , you wo n't have a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So if I'm watching video or using VoIP for more than 15 minutes I'll get put in the lower priority queue?
And I'll lose frames or drop calls?Since neither of those will come near hitting 70\% of you max, you won't have a problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29996170</id>
	<title>Bandwidth caps and throttling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257443040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is also missing from the discussion is that many small businesses and NGO's buy cheap services to provide public Internet access.  Many of these agencies may "peak" during certain times of the day or consume an exaggerated amount of bandwidth during lab hours.  Sure you can make the argument that they consume much and should have to pay more, but you also have to realize you are adding a huge cost and burden to them as well.  Can you imagine the small local community organization having to cap what you can view during open lab hours?  Can you imagine an after school program having to restrict children from viewing video tutorials or accessing certain websites because they are consuming bandwidth needed for daily operations?  Also understand many who operate these organizations are not tech savvy at all.  I can't imagine what a nightmare it will be to have to determine how much bandwidth should be allocated between staff usage and lab time.  I can see how many will just opt out of providing open services as it will just be too costly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is also missing from the discussion is that many small businesses and NGO 's buy cheap services to provide public Internet access .
Many of these agencies may " peak " during certain times of the day or consume an exaggerated amount of bandwidth during lab hours .
Sure you can make the argument that they consume much and should have to pay more , but you also have to realize you are adding a huge cost and burden to them as well .
Can you imagine the small local community organization having to cap what you can view during open lab hours ?
Can you imagine an after school program having to restrict children from viewing video tutorials or accessing certain websites because they are consuming bandwidth needed for daily operations ?
Also understand many who operate these organizations are not tech savvy at all .
I ca n't imagine what a nightmare it will be to have to determine how much bandwidth should be allocated between staff usage and lab time .
I can see how many will just opt out of providing open services as it will just be too costly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is also missing from the discussion is that many small businesses and NGO's buy cheap services to provide public Internet access.
Many of these agencies may "peak" during certain times of the day or consume an exaggerated amount of bandwidth during lab hours.
Sure you can make the argument that they consume much and should have to pay more, but you also have to realize you are adding a huge cost and burden to them as well.
Can you imagine the small local community organization having to cap what you can view during open lab hours?
Can you imagine an after school program having to restrict children from viewing video tutorials or accessing certain websites because they are consuming bandwidth needed for daily operations?
Also understand many who operate these organizations are not tech savvy at all.
I can't imagine what a nightmare it will be to have to determine how much bandwidth should be allocated between staff usage and lab time.
I can see how many will just opt out of providing open services as it will just be too costly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985546</id>
	<title>They have enough money. they want to buy NBC.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Comcast can afford NBC, they can afford the bandwidth being used by its subscribers. This is just a way to increase profits at the cost of service.</p><p>Any broadband provider that fails to understand that bandwidth usage ALWAYS increases... might as well start selling tomatoes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Comcast can afford NBC , they can afford the bandwidth being used by its subscribers .
This is just a way to increase profits at the cost of service.Any broadband provider that fails to understand that bandwidth usage ALWAYS increases... might as well start selling tomatoes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Comcast can afford NBC, they can afford the bandwidth being used by its subscribers.
This is just a way to increase profits at the cost of service.Any broadband provider that fails to understand that bandwidth usage ALWAYS increases... might as well start selling tomatoes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987756</id>
	<title>The REAL question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does this affect me and my illegal torrent activity?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this affect me and my illegal torrent activity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this affect me and my illegal torrent activity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</id>
	<title>Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1256983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets do a little math.  Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix.  At that rate, this is ~9 hours of video a DAY before you get to the 250 GB cap.  Do you watch 9 hours of video a DAY over netflix's service?</p><p>Time/Warner's previous attempts to do a 50 GB cap?  Thats anticompetitive.</p><p>But comcast's is sooo high that you basically have to be a massive Warez trader or doing something very stupid (offsite backup better handled by Sneakernet) to get to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets do a little math .
Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix .
At that rate , this is ~ 9 hours of video a DAY before you get to the 250 GB cap .
Do you watch 9 hours of video a DAY over netflix 's service ? Time/Warner 's previous attempts to do a 50 GB cap ?
Thats anticompetitive.But comcast 's is sooo high that you basically have to be a massive Warez trader or doing something very stupid ( offsite backup better handled by Sneakernet ) to get to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets do a little math.
Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix.
At that rate, this is ~9 hours of video a DAY before you get to the 250 GB cap.
Do you watch 9 hours of video a DAY over netflix's service?Time/Warner's previous attempts to do a 50 GB cap?
Thats anticompetitive.But comcast's is sooo high that you basically have to be a massive Warez trader or doing something very stupid (offsite backup better handled by Sneakernet) to get to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986160</id>
	<title>Re:lag</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1256985300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're hosting?  Comcast TOS agreement prohibits using their service to run a server, where server is defined as any program that accepts incoming connections.  Every ISP has this clause, as far as I know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're hosting ?
Comcast TOS agreement prohibits using their service to run a server , where server is defined as any program that accepts incoming connections .
Every ISP has this clause , as far as I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're hosting?
Comcast TOS agreement prohibits using their service to run a server, where server is defined as any program that accepts incoming connections.
Every ISP has this clause, as far as I know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987492</id>
	<title>Come to Australia</title>
	<author>SlightOverdose</author>
	<datestamp>1256990400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have quotas, but then again so do you- our ISPs are just honest about it.

And no shaping going on here folks (At least with the major reputable ISPs like iiNet and Internode). I can happily pull down 24mbits of not stop goodness till the cows come home.

Or the quota runs out, whichever comes first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have quotas , but then again so do you- our ISPs are just honest about it .
And no shaping going on here folks ( At least with the major reputable ISPs like iiNet and Internode ) .
I can happily pull down 24mbits of not stop goodness till the cows come home .
Or the quota runs out , whichever comes first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have quotas, but then again so do you- our ISPs are just honest about it.
And no shaping going on here folks (At least with the major reputable ISPs like iiNet and Internode).
I can happily pull down 24mbits of not stop goodness till the cows come home.
Or the quota runs out, whichever comes first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985936</id>
	<title>250gb monthly limit</title>
	<author>NotRangerJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1256984700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe Comcast may not enforce the 250gb limit in areas where they have direct competition. Every month this year I have passed the limit in upload and download combined and last month in download alone without ever receiving a warning. In my area we also have the option of AT&amp;T U-Verse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Comcast may not enforce the 250gb limit in areas where they have direct competition .
Every month this year I have passed the limit in upload and download combined and last month in download alone without ever receiving a warning .
In my area we also have the option of AT&amp;T U-Verse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Comcast may not enforce the 250gb limit in areas where they have direct competition.
Every month this year I have passed the limit in upload and download combined and last month in download alone without ever receiving a warning.
In my area we also have the option of AT&amp;T U-Verse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050</id>
	<title>Throttled how far down?</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1256982180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How far down are they throttling?  Down to 50\% capacity?  Or REALLY far down? <br> <br>
10 mbps on a 20 mbps line I can understand and live with<br>
100kbps on a 20 mbps line I can't</htmltext>
<tokenext>How far down are they throttling ?
Down to 50 \ % capacity ?
Or REALLY far down ?
10 mbps on a 20 mbps line I can understand and live with 100kbps on a 20 mbps line I ca n't</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How far down are they throttling?
Down to 50\% capacity?
Or REALLY far down?
10 mbps on a 20 mbps line I can understand and live with
100kbps on a 20 mbps line I can't</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985922</id>
	<title>accurate title:  Comcast kills streaming movies/TV</title>
	<author>rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1256984640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you start to watch a movie or TV show online.  After 15 minutes, Comcast throttles you causing lower quality, stuttering, and/or buffering delays.  They inflict this punishment even if they otherwise have plenty of bandwidth available.</p><p>Comcast wins in 2 ways:  (1) they save a bunch of bandwidth by killing this emerging use and (2) they kill the threat this emerging use represents to their cable TV business.</p><p>Your options are (1) ditch Comcast and go with DSL if possible (noticeably - DSL rarely has the ongoing malarkey associated with cable ISPs) or (2) resort to Bit Torrents where it may not be streaming, but it is no cost, commercial free and immune to this particular harassment (Comcast will eventually "get you" with caps).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you start to watch a movie or TV show online .
After 15 minutes , Comcast throttles you causing lower quality , stuttering , and/or buffering delays .
They inflict this punishment even if they otherwise have plenty of bandwidth available.Comcast wins in 2 ways : ( 1 ) they save a bunch of bandwidth by killing this emerging use and ( 2 ) they kill the threat this emerging use represents to their cable TV business.Your options are ( 1 ) ditch Comcast and go with DSL if possible ( noticeably - DSL rarely has the ongoing malarkey associated with cable ISPs ) or ( 2 ) resort to Bit Torrents where it may not be streaming , but it is no cost , commercial free and immune to this particular harassment ( Comcast will eventually " get you " with caps ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you start to watch a movie or TV show online.
After 15 minutes, Comcast throttles you causing lower quality, stuttering, and/or buffering delays.
They inflict this punishment even if they otherwise have plenty of bandwidth available.Comcast wins in 2 ways:  (1) they save a bunch of bandwidth by killing this emerging use and (2) they kill the threat this emerging use represents to their cable TV business.Your options are (1) ditch Comcast and go with DSL if possible (noticeably - DSL rarely has the ongoing malarkey associated with cable ISPs) or (2) resort to Bit Torrents where it may not be streaming, but it is no cost, commercial free and immune to this particular harassment (Comcast will eventually "get you" with caps).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990356</id>
	<title>Am I stoopid?</title>
	<author>MrBalloonKnot</author>
	<datestamp>1257006240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more I drive my car, the more I pay--gas, service, maintenance, upkeep, etc...

The more I use appliances, the more I pay--TVs, heating/cooling, cooking, lighting, etc...

The more I use my phone, the more I pay--Minutes, texts, data usage, etc...

The more I use water, the more I pay--watering the lawn, showering, peeing, etc...

The more I eat, the more I pay...get the picture?

Why is bandwidth treated differently? Stupid marketing sets up stupid expectations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I drive my car , the more I pay--gas , service , maintenance , upkeep , etc.. . The more I use appliances , the more I pay--TVs , heating/cooling , cooking , lighting , etc.. . The more I use my phone , the more I pay--Minutes , texts , data usage , etc.. . The more I use water , the more I pay--watering the lawn , showering , peeing , etc.. . The more I eat , the more I pay...get the picture ?
Why is bandwidth treated differently ?
Stupid marketing sets up stupid expectations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I drive my car, the more I pay--gas, service, maintenance, upkeep, etc...

The more I use appliances, the more I pay--TVs, heating/cooling, cooking, lighting, etc...

The more I use my phone, the more I pay--Minutes, texts, data usage, etc...

The more I use water, the more I pay--watering the lawn, showering, peeing, etc...

The more I eat, the more I pay...get the picture?
Why is bandwidth treated differently?
Stupid marketing sets up stupid expectations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989616</id>
	<title>so if you were a consumer router manufacturer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257000780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would build a device which automatically throttles customer's bandwidth to just below the Comcast threshold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would build a device which automatically throttles customer 's bandwidth to just below the Comcast threshold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would build a device which automatically throttles customer's bandwidth to just below the Comcast threshold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991202</id>
	<title>the can do better, without money grubbers</title>
	<author>ClickWir</author>
	<datestamp>1257013260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>F you comcast. I pay for service, not dis-service. You can give me a faster cap, no total download limit, treat all traffic the neutrally and none of this 'throttling because you are using it' crap, for less money. Other ISP's can, time for you to cut off the top... and I mean your management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>F you comcast .
I pay for service , not dis-service .
You can give me a faster cap , no total download limit , treat all traffic the neutrally and none of this 'throttling because you are using it ' crap , for less money .
Other ISP 's can , time for you to cut off the top... and I mean your management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F you comcast.
I pay for service, not dis-service.
You can give me a faster cap, no total download limit, treat all traffic the neutrally and none of this 'throttling because you are using it' crap, for less money.
Other ISP's can, time for you to cut off the top... and I mean your management.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985232</id>
	<title>Re:Throttled how far down?</title>
	<author>Joe85</author>
	<datestamp>1256982660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think they would throttle it to below 50\% capacity, else why add the condition to return it to normal if bandwidth use stays under 50\% for 15 minutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they would throttle it to below 50 \ % capacity , else why add the condition to return it to normal if bandwidth use stays under 50 \ % for 15 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they would throttle it to below 50\% capacity, else why add the condition to return it to normal if bandwidth use stays under 50\% for 15 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986782</id>
	<title>Re:250GB cap is meant to discourage competing serv</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1256987640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does the cap also apply to Comcasts video services?</p><p>I'm guessing, no.</p><p>What we need a law that bans ISP from media affiliation in every way shape and form. If you own shares in a media company you cannot own shares in an ISP ect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does the cap also apply to Comcasts video services ? I 'm guessing , no.What we need a law that bans ISP from media affiliation in every way shape and form .
If you own shares in a media company you can not own shares in an ISP ect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does the cap also apply to Comcasts video services?I'm guessing, no.What we need a law that bans ISP from media affiliation in every way shape and form.
If you own shares in a media company you cannot own shares in an ISP ect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985792</id>
	<title>Re:Video and Phone Provider</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1256984220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Voip does not come anywhere NEAR your maximum bandwidth.</p><p>Video, MIGHT, for really high def video, but it uses virtually none of your upload bandwidth.  Still I've watched hour long HD movies on the net with never a glitch on comcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Voip does not come anywhere NEAR your maximum bandwidth.Video , MIGHT , for really high def video , but it uses virtually none of your upload bandwidth .
Still I 've watched hour long HD movies on the net with never a glitch on comcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voip does not come anywhere NEAR your maximum bandwidth.Video, MIGHT, for really high def video, but it uses virtually none of your upload bandwidth.
Still I've watched hour long HD movies on the net with never a glitch on comcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985310</id>
	<title>#1 sounds reasonable.  #2 does not.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to - along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers - gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>What if it's prime-time and all 15000 people decided to watch Heroes at the same time.  Why should I be targeted just because I decided to watch both Heroes and CSI on two separate windows?  This is a case of everybody being at fault, not just one person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; when the Cable Modem Termination System you 're hooked-up to - along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers - gets congested , and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible. &gt; &gt; &gt; What if it 's prime-time and all 15000 people decided to watch Heroes at the same time .
Why should I be targeted just because I decided to watch both Heroes and CSI on two separate windows ?
This is a case of everybody being at fault , not just one person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to - along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers - gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible.&gt;&gt;&gt;What if it's prime-time and all 15000 people decided to watch Heroes at the same time.
Why should I be targeted just because I decided to watch both Heroes and CSI on two separate windows?
This is a case of everybody being at fault, not just one person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986874</id>
	<title>Bandwidth;not a limited resource like electricity</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1256987940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are Comcast and other ISPs playing this trottling game anyhow? It is not like internet access speed is a limited resource. Gold, oil and water are limited resources, but bandwidth is not! It appears that this is more a marketing ploy worse than the artificial scarcity of diamonds created by De Beers.</p><p>Let's look at the different parts:<br>==Backbone==<br>A fiberoptic cable in the backbone may consist of 1000 fibers. The cable is cheap compared to the cost of digging and terminating. Each fiber can carry 100 colors of 10Gb/s each. That is a whopping 1 Petabit/s. It is about 1 million houses in the SF bay area (5 million people), so one cable can give each house 1Gb/s.</p><p>==Metro==<br>A single router (In actual installs probably more) can tie the backbone to multiple metro fiber nets. Cost is $100 for 1Gb/s. Biggest cost is laying fiber.</p><p>==Last mile==<br>Many have fibers. 1Gb/s is cheap. With CATV distribution, you get 30Mb/s, and with DSl, 6Mb/s. Cheap mass produced ISP side equipment will trunk this into 10GB</p><p>Bottom line is that incremental capital costs to give a customer 1Gb/s is $200 in many of the more densely populated areas. This should cost the user $20/ month with both a good ROI on investments and a decent operational margin for the ISP.</p><p>Start demanding that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are Comcast and other ISPs playing this trottling game anyhow ?
It is not like internet access speed is a limited resource .
Gold , oil and water are limited resources , but bandwidth is not !
It appears that this is more a marketing ploy worse than the artificial scarcity of diamonds created by De Beers.Let 's look at the different parts : = = Backbone = = A fiberoptic cable in the backbone may consist of 1000 fibers .
The cable is cheap compared to the cost of digging and terminating .
Each fiber can carry 100 colors of 10Gb/s each .
That is a whopping 1 Petabit/s .
It is about 1 million houses in the SF bay area ( 5 million people ) , so one cable can give each house 1Gb/s. = = Metro = = A single router ( In actual installs probably more ) can tie the backbone to multiple metro fiber nets .
Cost is $ 100 for 1Gb/s .
Biggest cost is laying fiber. = = Last mile = = Many have fibers .
1Gb/s is cheap .
With CATV distribution , you get 30Mb/s , and with DSl , 6Mb/s .
Cheap mass produced ISP side equipment will trunk this into 10GBBottom line is that incremental capital costs to give a customer 1Gb/s is $ 200 in many of the more densely populated areas .
This should cost the user $ 20/ month with both a good ROI on investments and a decent operational margin for the ISP.Start demanding that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are Comcast and other ISPs playing this trottling game anyhow?
It is not like internet access speed is a limited resource.
Gold, oil and water are limited resources, but bandwidth is not!
It appears that this is more a marketing ploy worse than the artificial scarcity of diamonds created by De Beers.Let's look at the different parts:==Backbone==A fiberoptic cable in the backbone may consist of 1000 fibers.
The cable is cheap compared to the cost of digging and terminating.
Each fiber can carry 100 colors of 10Gb/s each.
That is a whopping 1 Petabit/s.
It is about 1 million houses in the SF bay area (5 million people), so one cable can give each house 1Gb/s.==Metro==A single router (In actual installs probably more) can tie the backbone to multiple metro fiber nets.
Cost is $100 for 1Gb/s.
Biggest cost is laying fiber.==Last mile==Many have fibers.
1Gb/s is cheap.
With CATV distribution, you get 30Mb/s, and with DSl, 6Mb/s.
Cheap mass produced ISP side equipment will trunk this into 10GBBottom line is that incremental capital costs to give a customer 1Gb/s is $200 in many of the more densely populated areas.
This should cost the user $20/ month with both a good ROI on investments and a decent operational margin for the ISP.Start demanding that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985668</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea...</title>
	<author>AikonMGB</author>
	<datestamp>1256983860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best reply to the article.</p><p>Aikon-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best reply to the article.Aikon-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best reply to the article.Aikon-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985256</id>
	<title>Re:Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1256982720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely they just check each minute to see if the total bytes for the last 15 minutes exceeded bandwidth*15*0.7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely they just check each minute to see if the total bytes for the last 15 minutes exceeded bandwidth * 15 * 0.7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely they just check each minute to see if the total bytes for the last 15 minutes exceeded bandwidth*15*0.7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985654</id>
	<title>Workaround coming?</title>
	<author>Kreychek</author>
	<datestamp>1256983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how long til someone creates a workaround that maximizes net bandwidth (not just setting hard caps on your speeds) while avoiding tripping the triggers? First seems not too hard to avoid, but the 2nd...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how long til someone creates a workaround that maximizes net bandwidth ( not just setting hard caps on your speeds ) while avoiding tripping the triggers ?
First seems not too hard to avoid , but the 2nd.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how long til someone creates a workaround that maximizes net bandwidth (not just setting hard caps on your speeds) while avoiding tripping the triggers?
First seems not too hard to avoid, but the 2nd...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986792</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds reasonable</title>
	<author>Wiechman</author>
	<datestamp>1256987640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good analogy, if you are driving and the speed limit is 60 mph on the highway, and you drive 60 mph, but after 15 mins, your speed is required to drop to 30 mph. In this scenario (based on the first trigger),we are not even assuming/considering if there is additional traffic, only if you are going the full speed limit.

The cable company's description of their service is disingenuous.

The first trigger is only checking how much of the allotted bandwidth you are using, not that if your bandwidth is affecting other local users. This seems wrong when you are advertised to have up to speeds but don't respect the availability based on corporate self imposed limits. The only thing that should affect your speed for this trigger is network congestion, not artificial limitations.

The second trigger sounds better, except when a company like Comcast check their Cable Modem Termination System to determine throttling, they have no incentive to limit the number of users/households per system. This causes lower transfers based on the poor infrastructure implementation by Comcast.

These two triggers are rigged twice to hurt the consumer.

A better solution would have been to check the Cable Modem Termination System if it is reaching its max bandwidth or a high percent, and then have it adjust a households bandwidth for the largest users sudo dynamically. This would affect the people using the most when the resources are "truly" limited, and only limit enough to keep traffic moving. - The beauty with this plan is if they put too many people on a System at the same time, everyone's traffic will be affected. This is not good from the consumer perspective, but it would cause people to complain, hopefully leading to Comcast getting their act together and invest in better infrastructure and to not overload the connections to their system. This is standard network administration. I think you could see why the Cable companies wouldn't go with this method.

Since we are limited to the up to speed they advertise, I think that when they throttle down the bandwidth, they should throttle down the cost we pay for service until they get their act together.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good analogy , if you are driving and the speed limit is 60 mph on the highway , and you drive 60 mph , but after 15 mins , your speed is required to drop to 30 mph .
In this scenario ( based on the first trigger ) ,we are not even assuming/considering if there is additional traffic , only if you are going the full speed limit .
The cable company 's description of their service is disingenuous .
The first trigger is only checking how much of the allotted bandwidth you are using , not that if your bandwidth is affecting other local users .
This seems wrong when you are advertised to have up to speeds but do n't respect the availability based on corporate self imposed limits .
The only thing that should affect your speed for this trigger is network congestion , not artificial limitations .
The second trigger sounds better , except when a company like Comcast check their Cable Modem Termination System to determine throttling , they have no incentive to limit the number of users/households per system .
This causes lower transfers based on the poor infrastructure implementation by Comcast .
These two triggers are rigged twice to hurt the consumer .
A better solution would have been to check the Cable Modem Termination System if it is reaching its max bandwidth or a high percent , and then have it adjust a households bandwidth for the largest users sudo dynamically .
This would affect the people using the most when the resources are " truly " limited , and only limit enough to keep traffic moving .
- The beauty with this plan is if they put too many people on a System at the same time , everyone 's traffic will be affected .
This is not good from the consumer perspective , but it would cause people to complain , hopefully leading to Comcast getting their act together and invest in better infrastructure and to not overload the connections to their system .
This is standard network administration .
I think you could see why the Cable companies would n't go with this method .
Since we are limited to the up to speed they advertise , I think that when they throttle down the bandwidth , they should throttle down the cost we pay for service until they get their act together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good analogy, if you are driving and the speed limit is 60 mph on the highway, and you drive 60 mph, but after 15 mins, your speed is required to drop to 30 mph.
In this scenario (based on the first trigger),we are not even assuming/considering if there is additional traffic, only if you are going the full speed limit.
The cable company's description of their service is disingenuous.
The first trigger is only checking how much of the allotted bandwidth you are using, not that if your bandwidth is affecting other local users.
This seems wrong when you are advertised to have up to speeds but don't respect the availability based on corporate self imposed limits.
The only thing that should affect your speed for this trigger is network congestion, not artificial limitations.
The second trigger sounds better, except when a company like Comcast check their Cable Modem Termination System to determine throttling, they have no incentive to limit the number of users/households per system.
This causes lower transfers based on the poor infrastructure implementation by Comcast.
These two triggers are rigged twice to hurt the consumer.
A better solution would have been to check the Cable Modem Termination System if it is reaching its max bandwidth or a high percent, and then have it adjust a households bandwidth for the largest users sudo dynamically.
This would affect the people using the most when the resources are "truly" limited, and only limit enough to keep traffic moving.
- The beauty with this plan is if they put too many people on a System at the same time, everyone's traffic will be affected.
This is not good from the consumer perspective, but it would cause people to complain, hopefully leading to Comcast getting their act together and invest in better infrastructure and to not overload the connections to their system.
This is standard network administration.
I think you could see why the Cable companies wouldn't go with this method.
Since we are limited to the up to speed they advertise, I think that when they throttle down the bandwidth, they should throttle down the cost we pay for service until they get their act together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985320</id>
	<title>I will bet it is not implemented as worded.</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256982900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As worded we see "by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes"<br>Which would imply that a few seconds gap of less than 70\% traffic every 15 minutes would allow you to go at 100\% for the rest of the time.</p><p>I bet it is actually done as "using more than 70 percent bandwidth averaged over 15 minutes". In which case 12 minutes of 100\% followed by 3 minutes of silence is 12/15 -&gt; 80\% usage.</p><p>And also they don't mean a short burst that uses 100\% of the load 5 sec out of every minute for 15 minutes.</p><p>So they are talking average bandwidth load vs short term load.</p><p>Typical non-technical notice not able to conceive the difference between throughput usage and bandwidth capacity. But then they want to sell you the capacity but not the usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As worded we see " by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes " Which would imply that a few seconds gap of less than 70 \ % traffic every 15 minutes would allow you to go at 100 \ % for the rest of the time.I bet it is actually done as " using more than 70 percent bandwidth averaged over 15 minutes " .
In which case 12 minutes of 100 \ % followed by 3 minutes of silence is 12/15 - &gt; 80 \ % usage.And also they do n't mean a short burst that uses 100 \ % of the load 5 sec out of every minute for 15 minutes.So they are talking average bandwidth load vs short term load.Typical non-technical notice not able to conceive the difference between throughput usage and bandwidth capacity .
But then they want to sell you the capacity but not the usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As worded we see "by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes"Which would imply that a few seconds gap of less than 70\% traffic every 15 minutes would allow you to go at 100\% for the rest of the time.I bet it is actually done as "using more than 70 percent bandwidth averaged over 15 minutes".
In which case 12 minutes of 100\% followed by 3 minutes of silence is 12/15 -&gt; 80\% usage.And also they don't mean a short burst that uses 100\% of the load 5 sec out of every minute for 15 minutes.So they are talking average bandwidth load vs short term load.Typical non-technical notice not able to conceive the difference between throughput usage and bandwidth capacity.
But then they want to sell you the capacity but not the usage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988076</id>
	<title>This argument is not about bandwidth.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256992860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all. This argument is not about bandwidth. Comcast is deathly afraid that IPTV is going to kill their ability to sell you TV at their premium prices. No more $175 a month revenues from subscribers if it gets popular. So they whine about the bandwidth and throttle customers so you have to pay them for their overpriced content since you can't download or watch video streams with their throttling.</p><p>If this was really about the technology they would be looking into local caching like many other ISP's have already. Technologies like bit torrent and P2P look for local users with content first before going to slower external sources anyway so their transit costs are essentially non exisistant.</p><p>This is just another business looking to limit consumer choices so they can profit. And they are using bandwidth as a diversion to prevent people from looking at the real issues. How many DSL providers throttle and use Sandvine to kill their customers downloads? And how many of those DSL providers are also content providers as their primary business?</p><p>America has the largest backbone network in the world yet we have the slowest and most expensive internet access because of companies like Comcast. There's plenty of bandwidth out there and miles and miles of unused dark fibre. Companies like Comcast are toll trolls on the information superhighway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all .
This argument is not about bandwidth .
Comcast is deathly afraid that IPTV is going to kill their ability to sell you TV at their premium prices .
No more $ 175 a month revenues from subscribers if it gets popular .
So they whine about the bandwidth and throttle customers so you have to pay them for their overpriced content since you ca n't download or watch video streams with their throttling.If this was really about the technology they would be looking into local caching like many other ISP 's have already .
Technologies like bit torrent and P2P look for local users with content first before going to slower external sources anyway so their transit costs are essentially non exisistant.This is just another business looking to limit consumer choices so they can profit .
And they are using bandwidth as a diversion to prevent people from looking at the real issues .
How many DSL providers throttle and use Sandvine to kill their customers downloads ?
And how many of those DSL providers are also content providers as their primary business ? America has the largest backbone network in the world yet we have the slowest and most expensive internet access because of companies like Comcast .
There 's plenty of bandwidth out there and miles and miles of unused dark fibre .
Companies like Comcast are toll trolls on the information superhighway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all.
This argument is not about bandwidth.
Comcast is deathly afraid that IPTV is going to kill their ability to sell you TV at their premium prices.
No more $175 a month revenues from subscribers if it gets popular.
So they whine about the bandwidth and throttle customers so you have to pay them for their overpriced content since you can't download or watch video streams with their throttling.If this was really about the technology they would be looking into local caching like many other ISP's have already.
Technologies like bit torrent and P2P look for local users with content first before going to slower external sources anyway so their transit costs are essentially non exisistant.This is just another business looking to limit consumer choices so they can profit.
And they are using bandwidth as a diversion to prevent people from looking at the real issues.
How many DSL providers throttle and use Sandvine to kill their customers downloads?
And how many of those DSL providers are also content providers as their primary business?America has the largest backbone network in the world yet we have the slowest and most expensive internet access because of companies like Comcast.
There's plenty of bandwidth out there and miles and miles of unused dark fibre.
Companies like Comcast are toll trolls on the information superhighway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986396</id>
	<title>Re:250GB cap is meant to discourage competing serv</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1256986140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If this isn't the very definition of an abusive monopoly, I don't know what is.</p></div><p>I agree, but good luck getting the case heard. The laws have been bought and paid for</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is n't the very definition of an abusive monopoly , I do n't know what is.I agree , but good luck getting the case heard .
The laws have been bought and paid for</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this isn't the very definition of an abusive monopoly, I don't know what is.I agree, but good luck getting the case heard.
The laws have been bought and paid for
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987238</id>
	<title>Re:250GB cap is meant to discourage competing serv</title>
	<author>global\_diffusion</author>
	<datestamp>1256989500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree.  This is all about the video services they want to sell.  I've noticed in the past month that my connection to Hulu has become extremely slow.

On another point, I actually talked to the comcast people about my connection slowing down, and the comcast customer care center told me that my connection speed was due to my cookies -- I could pay to have someone come over and clean out my cookies for me, and that would make my connection faster....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
This is all about the video services they want to sell .
I 've noticed in the past month that my connection to Hulu has become extremely slow .
On another point , I actually talked to the comcast people about my connection slowing down , and the comcast customer care center told me that my connection speed was due to my cookies -- I could pay to have someone come over and clean out my cookies for me , and that would make my connection faster... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
This is all about the video services they want to sell.
I've noticed in the past month that my connection to Hulu has become extremely slow.
On another point, I actually talked to the comcast people about my connection slowing down, and the comcast customer care center told me that my connection speed was due to my cookies -- I could pay to have someone come over and clean out my cookies for me, and that would make my connection faster....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026</id>
	<title>let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>YouWantFriesWithThat</author>
	<datestamp>1256982120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so you sell me a package that advertises a maximum download speed of X, but if i use it for 15 minutes straight you will take it away for 15 minutes?
<br> <br>
so i have to use less than 70\% of X at all times or risk having my service interrupted.  hmm, that seems like it is a little one-sided.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so you sell me a package that advertises a maximum download speed of X , but if i use it for 15 minutes straight you will take it away for 15 minutes ?
so i have to use less than 70 \ % of X at all times or risk having my service interrupted .
hmm , that seems like it is a little one-sided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so you sell me a package that advertises a maximum download speed of X, but if i use it for 15 minutes straight you will take it away for 15 minutes?
so i have to use less than 70\% of X at all times or risk having my service interrupted.
hmm, that seems like it is a little one-sided.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986494</id>
	<title>Re:They just kill my connection</title>
	<author>limaxray</author>
	<datestamp>1256986560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a combination of a bad cable modem and/or poor torrent configuration and not a case of throttling.  Torrents use a lot of simultaneous connections, and it's not uncommon for modems to crash when trying to handle so many connections.  At the very least, the connections may be thrashing your modem or router to the point of near unresponsiveness.  You should limit the maximum number of connections your torrent client uses - start with 10 and work your way up until you start to have problems.  Or head over to <a href="http://www.sbhacker.net/" title="sbhacker.net">SBHacker</a> [sbhacker.net] and load some better firmware on your modem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a combination of a bad cable modem and/or poor torrent configuration and not a case of throttling .
Torrents use a lot of simultaneous connections , and it 's not uncommon for modems to crash when trying to handle so many connections .
At the very least , the connections may be thrashing your modem or router to the point of near unresponsiveness .
You should limit the maximum number of connections your torrent client uses - start with 10 and work your way up until you start to have problems .
Or head over to SBHacker [ sbhacker.net ] and load some better firmware on your modem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a combination of a bad cable modem and/or poor torrent configuration and not a case of throttling.
Torrents use a lot of simultaneous connections, and it's not uncommon for modems to crash when trying to handle so many connections.
At the very least, the connections may be thrashing your modem or router to the point of near unresponsiveness.
You should limit the maximum number of connections your torrent client uses - start with 10 and work your way up until you start to have problems.
Or head over to SBHacker [sbhacker.net] and load some better firmware on your modem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987622</id>
	<title>70 percent trigger?</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1256990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So can I only pay them 70\% of my bill?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So can I only pay them 70 \ % of my bill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So can I only pay them 70\% of my bill?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985598</id>
	<title>Re:Throttled how far down?</title>
	<author>immortalpob</author>
	<datestamp>1256983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They do not throttle you to a particular bandwidth limit. They put your traffic and a second queue, this queue will only empty if the first queue is empty. A two queue system as they are implementing is susceptible to starvation, so if the network is congested your service could drop entirely. However if there is no congestion your service is not affected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do not throttle you to a particular bandwidth limit .
They put your traffic and a second queue , this queue will only empty if the first queue is empty .
A two queue system as they are implementing is susceptible to starvation , so if the network is congested your service could drop entirely .
However if there is no congestion your service is not affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do not throttle you to a particular bandwidth limit.
They put your traffic and a second queue, this queue will only empty if the first queue is empty.
A two queue system as they are implementing is susceptible to starvation, so if the network is congested your service could drop entirely.
However if there is no congestion your service is not affected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985950</id>
	<title>It actually seems better in some ways</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256984700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It addresses the problem not by cutting anyone off or otherwise doing any sort of denial of service, but rather, slows down ALL traffic exceeding certain parameters.  I leave it as an exercise for others to find reasons to protest, but to me it is starting to sound more reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It addresses the problem not by cutting anyone off or otherwise doing any sort of denial of service , but rather , slows down ALL traffic exceeding certain parameters .
I leave it as an exercise for others to find reasons to protest , but to me it is starting to sound more reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It addresses the problem not by cutting anyone off or otherwise doing any sort of denial of service, but rather, slows down ALL traffic exceeding certain parameters.
I leave it as an exercise for others to find reasons to protest, but to me it is starting to sound more reasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987156</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1256989260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How can they advertise xx mbps when you can only use said speed for 15 minutes? Shouldn't it be advertised as a burst speed with a real speed of 70\% of burst speed.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I wonder how they would react if you only paid 70\% of the bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can they advertise xx mbps when you can only use said speed for 15 minutes ?
Should n't it be advertised as a burst speed with a real speed of 70 \ % of burst speed .
I wonder how they would react if you only paid 70 \ % of the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can they advertise xx mbps when you can only use said speed for 15 minutes?
Shouldn't it be advertised as a burst speed with a real speed of 70\% of burst speed.
I wonder how they would react if you only paid 70\% of the bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987064</id>
	<title>Re:Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>brentrad</author>
	<datestamp>1256988900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Throttle yourself too often and you'll go blind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Throttle yourself too often and you 'll go blind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throttle yourself too often and you'll go blind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985988</id>
	<title>thanks for the updated recipe</title>
	<author>digitalsushi</author>
	<datestamp>1256984820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, so now I can update my firewall script and leave my connection pegged at 70\% use 100\% of the time.  I don't have to do anything at all with my user applications on the LAN if I use my linux firewall.</p><p>Grab a copy here  <a href="http://digitalsushi.com/midashi/inet/rc.firewall.txt" title="digitalsushi.com">http://digitalsushi.com/midashi/inet/rc.firewall.txt</a> [digitalsushi.com]</p><p>And then modify it.  Or reply to my post with snarky comments on why something in the example is stupid.  Then I'll update mine if they're also smart.  (Been doing this for about 8 years with slashdot posts.  My firewall keeps getting better|more complicated|worse).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so now I can update my firewall script and leave my connection pegged at 70 \ % use 100 \ % of the time .
I do n't have to do anything at all with my user applications on the LAN if I use my linux firewall.Grab a copy here http : //digitalsushi.com/midashi/inet/rc.firewall.txt [ digitalsushi.com ] And then modify it .
Or reply to my post with snarky comments on why something in the example is stupid .
Then I 'll update mine if they 're also smart .
( Been doing this for about 8 years with slashdot posts .
My firewall keeps getting better | more complicated | worse ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so now I can update my firewall script and leave my connection pegged at 70\% use 100\% of the time.
I don't have to do anything at all with my user applications on the LAN if I use my linux firewall.Grab a copy here  http://digitalsushi.com/midashi/inet/rc.firewall.txt [digitalsushi.com]And then modify it.
Or reply to my post with snarky comments on why something in the example is stupid.
Then I'll update mine if they're also smart.
(Been doing this for about 8 years with slashdot posts.
My firewall keeps getting better|more complicated|worse).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986074</id>
	<title>Re:250GB cap is meant to discourage competing serv</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1256985120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the point is, now you know the limit. To use their system means you will follow their usage terms.<br>
That's somewhat better then before which was that they consider you an excessive user without knowing why.<br>
This enables you to decide if another service (if available) offers a higher cap, or to negotiate with Comcast for a new service that allows a higher cap.<br>
Before, you didn't know so there was no way to compare.<br> For me 250GB is well beyond my current access, and I play online games, watch netflix on demand, and TV shows online.<br>
If their numbers are believable their info page says 125 standard definition movies (at ~2GB each) which is ~ 4 full movies per day every day for a month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the point is , now you know the limit .
To use their system means you will follow their usage terms .
That 's somewhat better then before which was that they consider you an excessive user without knowing why .
This enables you to decide if another service ( if available ) offers a higher cap , or to negotiate with Comcast for a new service that allows a higher cap .
Before , you did n't know so there was no way to compare .
For me 250GB is well beyond my current access , and I play online games , watch netflix on demand , and TV shows online .
If their numbers are believable their info page says 125 standard definition movies ( at ~ 2GB each ) which is ~ 4 full movies per day every day for a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the point is, now you know the limit.
To use their system means you will follow their usage terms.
That's somewhat better then before which was that they consider you an excessive user without knowing why.
This enables you to decide if another service (if available) offers a higher cap, or to negotiate with Comcast for a new service that allows a higher cap.
Before, you didn't know so there was no way to compare.
For me 250GB is well beyond my current access, and I play online games, watch netflix on demand, and TV shows online.
If their numbers are believable their info page says 125 standard definition movies (at ~2GB each) which is ~ 4 full movies per day every day for a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990404</id>
	<title>Re:Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1257006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with the cap in principle, but even realistically, even when I downloaded over a hundred hours of HD video, I only hit around 150GB for the month. People who go over 250GB regularly are probably using an unreasonable amount of bandwidth.</p><p>Again though, I disgree with it in principle, because there is nothing stopping them from lowering it in the future, or forcing them to raise it as usage patters for the internet change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the cap in principle , but even realistically , even when I downloaded over a hundred hours of HD video , I only hit around 150GB for the month .
People who go over 250GB regularly are probably using an unreasonable amount of bandwidth.Again though , I disgree with it in principle , because there is nothing stopping them from lowering it in the future , or forcing them to raise it as usage patters for the internet change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with the cap in principle, but even realistically, even when I downloaded over a hundred hours of HD video, I only hit around 150GB for the month.
People who go over 250GB regularly are probably using an unreasonable amount of bandwidth.Again though, I disgree with it in principle, because there is nothing stopping them from lowering it in the future, or forcing them to raise it as usage patters for the internet change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29984994</id>
	<title>Laws</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1256982000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes.</p></div><p>Eh? In scandinavia countries new laws will state that "the speed of the line must be atleast 75\% of the said one during 24 hour measurement period". And you get throttled with comcast if you're actually using more 70\% of what you should have? Why do you put up with this shit?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast 's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes.Eh ?
In scandinavia countries new laws will state that " the speed of the line must be atleast 75 \ % of the said one during 24 hour measurement period " .
And you get throttled with comcast if you 're actually using more 70 \ % of what you should have ?
Why do you put up with this shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes.Eh?
In scandinavia countries new laws will state that "the speed of the line must be atleast 75\% of the said one during 24 hour measurement period".
And you get throttled with comcast if you're actually using more 70\% of what you should have?
Why do you put up with this shit?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985960</id>
	<title>!throttling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256984760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That works.  If you do that, you won't get throttled at all.  Though, if you don't do that, you won't get throttled either.</p><p>See, the network has to be congested AND you have to be a heavy user.  Then, your connection just gets a lower priority then everyone else.  NO THROTTLING EVER HAPPENS.  Of course, you will get a slow down, since this happens when the network is congested.  The article is wrong in saying that it is either/or.</p><p>Once in the low priority state, the situation is checked every 15 minutes.  If your heavy usage has gone down OR the congestion has gone away, then your priority is restored.</p><p>Heavy users get lower priority during busy times.  Seems fair to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That works .
If you do that , you wo n't get throttled at all .
Though , if you do n't do that , you wo n't get throttled either.See , the network has to be congested AND you have to be a heavy user .
Then , your connection just gets a lower priority then everyone else .
NO THROTTLING EVER HAPPENS .
Of course , you will get a slow down , since this happens when the network is congested .
The article is wrong in saying that it is either/or.Once in the low priority state , the situation is checked every 15 minutes .
If your heavy usage has gone down OR the congestion has gone away , then your priority is restored.Heavy users get lower priority during busy times .
Seems fair to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That works.
If you do that, you won't get throttled at all.
Though, if you don't do that, you won't get throttled either.See, the network has to be congested AND you have to be a heavy user.
Then, your connection just gets a lower priority then everyone else.
NO THROTTLING EVER HAPPENS.
Of course, you will get a slow down, since this happens when the network is congested.
The article is wrong in saying that it is either/or.Once in the low priority state, the situation is checked every 15 minutes.
If your heavy usage has gone down OR the congestion has gone away, then your priority is restored.Heavy users get lower priority during busy times.
Seems fair to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986152</id>
	<title>As if I get 100\% anyway</title>
	<author>GrumpySteen</author>
	<datestamp>1256985300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even wee hours of the morning, I rarely get much more than 60\% of the advertised bandwidth that I pay for (and at peak times, it's usually more like 40-50\%).  I would be THRILLED if they "throttled" me to 70\% of what they advertise that I'm getting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even wee hours of the morning , I rarely get much more than 60 \ % of the advertised bandwidth that I pay for ( and at peak times , it 's usually more like 40-50 \ % ) .
I would be THRILLED if they " throttled " me to 70 \ % of what they advertise that I 'm getting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even wee hours of the morning, I rarely get much more than 60\% of the advertised bandwidth that I pay for (and at peak times, it's usually more like 40-50\%).
I would be THRILLED if they "throttled" me to 70\% of what they advertise that I'm getting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990224</id>
	<title>New Speed measurements</title>
	<author>mrpete.au</author>
	<datestamp>1257005280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't Comcast measure their speed in Mbph (Megabits per hour)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't Comcast measure their speed in Mbph ( Megabits per hour ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't Comcast measure their speed in Mbph (Megabits per hour)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991208</id>
	<title>Re:lag</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1257013320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem w/ the 1st one isn't how reasonable it is to implement it is the result. If they can simply throttle congested networks freely with no lower limit then they have no reason to upgrade networks, indeed they can split lines further. <br> <br>A house turns into an apartment building doubling the use on the block? No need to upgrade, you can just throttle when you near the limit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem w/ the 1st one is n't how reasonable it is to implement it is the result .
If they can simply throttle congested networks freely with no lower limit then they have no reason to upgrade networks , indeed they can split lines further .
A house turns into an apartment building doubling the use on the block ?
No need to upgrade , you can just throttle when you near the limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem w/ the 1st one isn't how reasonable it is to implement it is the result.
If they can simply throttle congested networks freely with no lower limit then they have no reason to upgrade networks, indeed they can split lines further.
A house turns into an apartment building doubling the use on the block?
No need to upgrade, you can just throttle when you near the limit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988354</id>
	<title>Can I just donate my bandwidth?</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1256994300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sigh, I don't get this world anymore, you get people dying because of starvation and people paying for weight loss; now, you have people dying for a broadband connection and people being throttled using their bandwidth they paid for. Can I just donate my other 30\% download and 50\% upload I paid for to developing countries please!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh , I do n't get this world anymore , you get people dying because of starvation and people paying for weight loss ; now , you have people dying for a broadband connection and people being throttled using their bandwidth they paid for .
Can I just donate my other 30 \ % download and 50 \ % upload I paid for to developing countries please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh, I don't get this world anymore, you get people dying because of starvation and people paying for weight loss; now, you have people dying for a broadband connection and people being throttled using their bandwidth they paid for.
Can I just donate my other 30\% download and 50\% upload I paid for to developing countries please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988828</id>
	<title>Re:lag</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256996640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read Comcast's ToS carefully (because I'm a subscriber), you can host a game server provided that the following things are true:</p><p>- you are not hosting the game on a standalone server meant exclusively to act as a server<br>- it is for personal use only<br>- your usage does not interfere with other customers' experience</p><p>Hosting a StarCraft game meets those requirements; hooking a pair of 1U rack servers up to your router and charging rent for Counter-Strike slots does not.</p><p>(IANAL.  This post is my own interpretation of Comcast's ToS.  If you're actually concerned, you should ask a lawyer to review their ToS with you.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read Comcast 's ToS carefully ( because I 'm a subscriber ) , you can host a game server provided that the following things are true : - you are not hosting the game on a standalone server meant exclusively to act as a server- it is for personal use only- your usage does not interfere with other customers ' experienceHosting a StarCraft game meets those requirements ; hooking a pair of 1U rack servers up to your router and charging rent for Counter-Strike slots does not. ( IANAL .
This post is my own interpretation of Comcast 's ToS .
If you 're actually concerned , you should ask a lawyer to review their ToS with you .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read Comcast's ToS carefully (because I'm a subscriber), you can host a game server provided that the following things are true:- you are not hosting the game on a standalone server meant exclusively to act as a server- it is for personal use only- your usage does not interfere with other customers' experienceHosting a StarCraft game meets those requirements; hooking a pair of 1U rack servers up to your router and charging rent for Counter-Strike slots does not.(IANAL.
This post is my own interpretation of Comcast's ToS.
If you're actually concerned, you should ask a lawyer to review their ToS with you.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30001586</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257424920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still do false RST injection, they're just stealthier about it now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still do false RST injection , they 're just stealthier about it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still do false RST injection, they're just stealthier about it now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985316</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256982900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.</p><p>We can find a middle ground here. If they provide us with:</p><p>a. Well defined "burst speed limits"<br>b. Well defined "maximum speed limits"<br>c. Information about bulk bandwidth periods (similar as to how after 7:00 pm calls are free because there is less traffic)<br>d. Better router hardware</p><p>Much of the problems will be avoided, nay, welcomed by consumers. If you let me download at 2600 kB/s (kilobytes per second) for 15 minutes, then that would make my life so much easier. If I then can have it scale back to 1800 kB/s (~ 70\%), that would still be fine.</p><p>Furthermore, if you allow me to use 2600 kB/s between the hours of 1am to 6am, I would gladly offload my high bandwidth actions to a time when there is less network traffic.</p><p>But, unfortunately, we all see the reality. It's just a slippery slope. As soon as we accept a little bit of provider abuse, the gloves are off. So, people like us shout "HELL NO". So we're stuck in that deadlock.</p><p>If only communities were allowed to deploy their own high speed networks, like Credit Unions. It would be a lot more sensible! But that's a whole other bag of eggs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree.We can find a middle ground here .
If they provide us with : a. Well defined " burst speed limits " b. Well defined " maximum speed limits " c. Information about bulk bandwidth periods ( similar as to how after 7 : 00 pm calls are free because there is less traffic ) d. Better router hardwareMuch of the problems will be avoided , nay , welcomed by consumers .
If you let me download at 2600 kB/s ( kilobytes per second ) for 15 minutes , then that would make my life so much easier .
If I then can have it scale back to 1800 kB/s ( ~ 70 \ % ) , that would still be fine.Furthermore , if you allow me to use 2600 kB/s between the hours of 1am to 6am , I would gladly offload my high bandwidth actions to a time when there is less network traffic.But , unfortunately , we all see the reality .
It 's just a slippery slope .
As soon as we accept a little bit of provider abuse , the gloves are off .
So , people like us shout " HELL NO " .
So we 're stuck in that deadlock.If only communities were allowed to deploy their own high speed networks , like Credit Unions .
It would be a lot more sensible !
But that 's a whole other bag of eggs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.We can find a middle ground here.
If they provide us with:a. Well defined "burst speed limits"b. Well defined "maximum speed limits"c. Information about bulk bandwidth periods (similar as to how after 7:00 pm calls are free because there is less traffic)d. Better router hardwareMuch of the problems will be avoided, nay, welcomed by consumers.
If you let me download at 2600 kB/s (kilobytes per second) for 15 minutes, then that would make my life so much easier.
If I then can have it scale back to 1800 kB/s (~ 70\%), that would still be fine.Furthermore, if you allow me to use 2600 kB/s between the hours of 1am to 6am, I would gladly offload my high bandwidth actions to a time when there is less network traffic.But, unfortunately, we all see the reality.
It's just a slippery slope.
As soon as we accept a little bit of provider abuse, the gloves are off.
So, people like us shout "HELL NO".
So we're stuck in that deadlock.If only communities were allowed to deploy their own high speed networks, like Credit Unions.
It would be a lot more sensible!
But that's a whole other bag of eggs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985224</id>
	<title>News for nerds?</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1256982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is from January. Maybe it got throttled somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is from January .
Maybe it got throttled somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is from January.
Maybe it got throttled somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988378</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Karrots</author>
	<datestamp>1256994420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Educause thinks we all should have 100mbps connections and that the average house hold would consume 150mbps between multiple TV sessions, web browsing and other activities. See page 21</p><p><a href="http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0801.pdf" title="educause.edu" rel="nofollow">http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0801.pdf</a> [educause.edu]</p><p>In summary they think a household can take 150mbps with TV, Gaming, and browsing. They also think everyone should have 100mbps min.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Educause thinks we all should have 100mbps connections and that the average house hold would consume 150mbps between multiple TV sessions , web browsing and other activities .
See page 21http : //net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0801.pdf [ educause.edu ] In summary they think a household can take 150mbps with TV , Gaming , and browsing .
They also think everyone should have 100mbps min .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Educause thinks we all should have 100mbps connections and that the average house hold would consume 150mbps between multiple TV sessions, web browsing and other activities.
See page 21http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0801.pdf [educause.edu]In summary they think a household can take 150mbps with TV, Gaming, and browsing.
They also think everyone should have 100mbps min.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986456</id>
	<title>Traffic Shaping?</title>
	<author>Stenchwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1256986440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then, to stay under the radar you could set your router's traffic shaping to allow only 69\% of your bandwidth at all times, right?</p><p>Of course, that's assuming you are given 100\% of what you are actually paying for, which is almost never the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then , to stay under the radar you could set your router 's traffic shaping to allow only 69 \ % of your bandwidth at all times , right ? Of course , that 's assuming you are given 100 \ % of what you are actually paying for , which is almost never the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then, to stay under the radar you could set your router's traffic shaping to allow only 69\% of your bandwidth at all times, right?Of course, that's assuming you are given 100\% of what you are actually paying for, which is almost never the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985210</id>
	<title>Video and Phone Provider</title>
	<author>Talennor</author>
	<datestamp>1256982540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I'm watching video or using VoIP for more than 15 minutes I'll get put in the lower priority queue?  And I'll lose frames or drop calls?</p><p>Oh wait, Comcast wants to sell me cable TV and VoIP that doesn't get messed up after 15 minutes, but asks a large fee for it?  I think I see what's going on here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I 'm watching video or using VoIP for more than 15 minutes I 'll get put in the lower priority queue ?
And I 'll lose frames or drop calls ? Oh wait , Comcast wants to sell me cable TV and VoIP that does n't get messed up after 15 minutes , but asks a large fee for it ?
I think I see what 's going on here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I'm watching video or using VoIP for more than 15 minutes I'll get put in the lower priority queue?
And I'll lose frames or drop calls?Oh wait, Comcast wants to sell me cable TV and VoIP that doesn't get messed up after 15 minutes, but asks a large fee for it?
I think I see what's going on here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985556</id>
	<title>They do advertise it as burst speed</title>
	<author>George\_Ou</author>
	<datestamp>1256983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They advertise it as "up to" and not "at least".  It is confusing, but it's not misleading.  That's why I've proposed a better transparency standard <a href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/the-need-for-a-broadband-transparency-standard/" title="digitalsociety.org">http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/the-need-for-a-broadband-transparency-standard/</a> [digitalsociety.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>They advertise it as " up to " and not " at least " .
It is confusing , but it 's not misleading .
That 's why I 've proposed a better transparency standard http : //www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/the-need-for-a-broadband-transparency-standard/ [ digitalsociety.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They advertise it as "up to" and not "at least".
It is confusing, but it's not misleading.
That's why I've proposed a better transparency standard http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/the-need-for-a-broadband-transparency-standard/ [digitalsociety.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985542</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1256983500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can they advertise a 250GB cap when they make it incredibly difficult to reach it?</p><p>Their standard tier is 12Mbps. That means that downloading a 1GB file can cause you to become throttled, because it would take longer than 15 minutes at 70\% of your capacity.</p><p>This means that pretty much any large download (buy a video from iTunes, download a large update to WoW, buy a game on Steam, etc) will throttle you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can they advertise a 250GB cap when they make it incredibly difficult to reach it ? Their standard tier is 12Mbps .
That means that downloading a 1GB file can cause you to become throttled , because it would take longer than 15 minutes at 70 \ % of your capacity.This means that pretty much any large download ( buy a video from iTunes , download a large update to WoW , buy a game on Steam , etc ) will throttle you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can they advertise a 250GB cap when they make it incredibly difficult to reach it?Their standard tier is 12Mbps.
That means that downloading a 1GB file can cause you to become throttled, because it would take longer than 15 minutes at 70\% of your capacity.This means that pretty much any large download (buy a video from iTunes, download a large update to WoW, buy a game on Steam, etc) will throttle you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</id>
	<title>Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256982060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can they advertise xx mbps when you can only use said speed for 15 minutes? Shouldn't it be advertised as a burst speed with a real speed of 70\% of burst speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can they advertise xx mbps when you can only use said speed for 15 minutes ?
Should n't it be advertised as a burst speed with a real speed of 70 \ % of burst speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can they advertise xx mbps when you can only use said speed for 15 minutes?
Shouldn't it be advertised as a burst speed with a real speed of 70\% of burst speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986128</id>
	<title>Re:#1 sounds reasonable. #2 does not.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got like, chameleon eyes or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got like , chameleon eyes or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got like, chameleon eyes or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474</id>
	<title>Sounds reasonable</title>
	<author>ceswiedler</author>
	<datestamp>1256983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds reasonable to me. If it doesn't, you may need to accept the fact that you're not <b>at all</b> guaranteed that you can get your full 6Mb download bandwidth 24/7. If you thought you did, sorry; you misunderstood, possibly because of shady (but probably not illegal) advertising, in which case I don't blame you for being angry. But a reliably 6Mb connection is vastly more expensive than the $50/month you're paying, so your anger is akin to being disappointed that the 120 MPH car you bought isn't guaranteed to make your 10 mile commute in 5 minutes during rush hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds reasonable to me .
If it does n't , you may need to accept the fact that you 're not at all guaranteed that you can get your full 6Mb download bandwidth 24/7 .
If you thought you did , sorry ; you misunderstood , possibly because of shady ( but probably not illegal ) advertising , in which case I do n't blame you for being angry .
But a reliably 6Mb connection is vastly more expensive than the $ 50/month you 're paying , so your anger is akin to being disappointed that the 120 MPH car you bought is n't guaranteed to make your 10 mile commute in 5 minutes during rush hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds reasonable to me.
If it doesn't, you may need to accept the fact that you're not at all guaranteed that you can get your full 6Mb download bandwidth 24/7.
If you thought you did, sorry; you misunderstood, possibly because of shady (but probably not illegal) advertising, in which case I don't blame you for being angry.
But a reliably 6Mb connection is vastly more expensive than the $50/month you're paying, so your anger is akin to being disappointed that the 120 MPH car you bought isn't guaranteed to make your 10 mile commute in 5 minutes during rush hour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985156</id>
	<title>So Comcast is ...</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256982420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Falsely advertising.  Isn't that what this really comes down to?  It seems like Comcast is allowed to do what they want with the service <i>they</i> provide.  But they need to advertise it correctly.</p><p>Not sure about the monopoly bits though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Falsely advertising .
Is n't that what this really comes down to ?
It seems like Comcast is allowed to do what they want with the service they provide .
But they need to advertise it correctly.Not sure about the monopoly bits though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Falsely advertising.
Isn't that what this really comes down to?
It seems like Comcast is allowed to do what they want with the service they provide.
But they need to advertise it correctly.Not sure about the monopoly bits though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988438</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1256994720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A "reasonable" approach would also include guidelines for increasing bandwidth infrastructure, not just guidelines for degrading service, similarly to what the government requires of electric companies rather than accepting 8 hours of electricity per day as "fair."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A " reasonable " approach would also include guidelines for increasing bandwidth infrastructure , not just guidelines for degrading service , similarly to what the government requires of electric companies rather than accepting 8 hours of electricity per day as " fair .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "reasonable" approach would also include guidelines for increasing bandwidth infrastructure, not just guidelines for degrading service, similarly to what the government requires of electric companies rather than accepting 8 hours of electricity per day as "fair.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986366</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds reasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256986020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do know the difference between "not guaranteeing to have the advertised rate at all time" and "guaranteeing to not have the advertised rate", do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know the difference between " not guaranteeing to have the advertised rate at all time " and " guaranteeing to not have the advertised rate " , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know the difference between "not guaranteeing to have the advertised rate at all time" and "guaranteeing to not have the advertised rate", do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990004</id>
	<title>Re:Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1257003840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It likely uses a 15minute average.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It likely uses a 15minute average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It likely uses a 15minute average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986352</id>
	<title>this is news?</title>
	<author>ObjetDart</author>
	<datestamp>1256985960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't anyone notice the date on the article?  It's 10 months old.  So this throttling policy isn't "new" at all, it's supposedly been in effect already for almost a year.</p><p>I've been a Comcast customer the entire time.  I frequently exceed the stated limits and have never noticed any throttling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't anyone notice the date on the article ?
It 's 10 months old .
So this throttling policy is n't " new " at all , it 's supposedly been in effect already for almost a year.I 've been a Comcast customer the entire time .
I frequently exceed the stated limits and have never noticed any throttling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't anyone notice the date on the article?
It's 10 months old.
So this throttling policy isn't "new" at all, it's supposedly been in effect already for almost a year.I've been a Comcast customer the entire time.
I frequently exceed the stated limits and have never noticed any throttling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990094</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds reasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like you can't go @ 80mph after paying toll. 120 mph car is more analogous to your modem or NIC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like you ca n't go @ 80mph after paying toll .
120 mph car is more analogous to your modem or NIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like you can't go @ 80mph after paying toll.
120 mph car is more analogous to your modem or NIC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29996912</id>
	<title>ridiculous!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257446760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why don't comcast users protest this nonsense?  If I am paying for a line with given speed, I should be able to use that speed!  It's like telling someone they bought an unlimited plan with their cell phone, but if you use it for 15 minutes straight, they're going to shut off your connection.  What the heck man!?  A simple download for a DVD can go longer than 15 minutes.  So users cannot even download a DVD?</p><p>Give people what they pay for!  Start the protest already and stop these ridiculous companies from making horrible practices that only cost consumers!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why do n't comcast users protest this nonsense ?
If I am paying for a line with given speed , I should be able to use that speed !
It 's like telling someone they bought an unlimited plan with their cell phone , but if you use it for 15 minutes straight , they 're going to shut off your connection .
What the heck man ! ?
A simple download for a DVD can go longer than 15 minutes .
So users can not even download a DVD ? Give people what they pay for !
Start the protest already and stop these ridiculous companies from making horrible practices that only cost consumers ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why don't comcast users protest this nonsense?
If I am paying for a line with given speed, I should be able to use that speed!
It's like telling someone they bought an unlimited plan with their cell phone, but if you use it for 15 minutes straight, they're going to shut off your connection.
What the heck man!?
A simple download for a DVD can go longer than 15 minutes.
So users cannot even download a DVD?Give people what they pay for!
Start the protest already and stop these ridiculous companies from making horrible practices that only cost consumers!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985608</id>
	<title>I think it's a great plan ...</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256983740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it should go both ways. If I'm on hold for more than 15 minutes and because of the crappy on-hold music they play I don't have the mental bandwidth to do anything else, they owe me a month's free service. If we detect their lawyers consume more than a certain amount of their allocated air, another free month. Sounds fair to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it should go both ways .
If I 'm on hold for more than 15 minutes and because of the crappy on-hold music they play I do n't have the mental bandwidth to do anything else , they owe me a month 's free service .
If we detect their lawyers consume more than a certain amount of their allocated air , another free month .
Sounds fair to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it should go both ways.
If I'm on hold for more than 15 minutes and because of the crappy on-hold music they play I don't have the mental bandwidth to do anything else, they owe me a month's free service.
If we detect their lawyers consume more than a certain amount of their allocated air, another free month.
Sounds fair to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1256983860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All cable modem contracts have been written on the assumption that your bandwidth is shared between multiple users.  You can burst up to the advertised rate, but you are never guaranteed to get it 100\% of the time.</p><p>As much as I hate Comcast, this is in my opinion a pretty reasonable approach.  You get throttled *only* if the network is congested (compared to Sandvining which was implemented no matter what the network state) and you get throttled only down to 50\% of your maximum (which is a hell of a lot better than Cablevision OptimumOffline's stealthcapping, indefinately at 10\% of your initial upstream without notification once you tripped the threshold.)  It's a pretty fair scheme.</p><p>Of course the key is whether the throttling will be done in a normal traffic shaping manner, or Sandvine style with false RST injection.  I am assuming false RST injection is out of the question since that got Comcast sued before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All cable modem contracts have been written on the assumption that your bandwidth is shared between multiple users .
You can burst up to the advertised rate , but you are never guaranteed to get it 100 \ % of the time.As much as I hate Comcast , this is in my opinion a pretty reasonable approach .
You get throttled * only * if the network is congested ( compared to Sandvining which was implemented no matter what the network state ) and you get throttled only down to 50 \ % of your maximum ( which is a hell of a lot better than Cablevision OptimumOffline 's stealthcapping , indefinately at 10 \ % of your initial upstream without notification once you tripped the threshold .
) It 's a pretty fair scheme.Of course the key is whether the throttling will be done in a normal traffic shaping manner , or Sandvine style with false RST injection .
I am assuming false RST injection is out of the question since that got Comcast sued before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All cable modem contracts have been written on the assumption that your bandwidth is shared between multiple users.
You can burst up to the advertised rate, but you are never guaranteed to get it 100\% of the time.As much as I hate Comcast, this is in my opinion a pretty reasonable approach.
You get throttled *only* if the network is congested (compared to Sandvining which was implemented no matter what the network state) and you get throttled only down to 50\% of your maximum (which is a hell of a lot better than Cablevision OptimumOffline's stealthcapping, indefinately at 10\% of your initial upstream without notification once you tripped the threshold.
)  It's a pretty fair scheme.Of course the key is whether the throttling will be done in a normal traffic shaping manner, or Sandvine style with false RST injection.
I am assuming false RST injection is out of the question since that got Comcast sued before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985252</id>
	<title>Don't use a UPS</title>
	<author>Rhys</author>
	<datestamp>1256982720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... or if you do and have a 10-minute power blip, expect to get throttled. Well, assuming Comcast's equipment actually stays up during the power blip. I've seen it go both ways depending on exactly where and how the power drop hits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or if you do and have a 10-minute power blip , expect to get throttled .
Well , assuming Comcast 's equipment actually stays up during the power blip .
I 've seen it go both ways depending on exactly where and how the power drop hits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or if you do and have a 10-minute power blip, expect to get throttled.
Well, assuming Comcast's equipment actually stays up during the power blip.
I've seen it go both ways depending on exactly where and how the power drop hits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29992474</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257417000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So maybe it's just a tad too early to stream 1080p over the Net, then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So maybe it 's just a tad too early to stream 1080p over the Net , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So maybe it's just a tad too early to stream 1080p over the Net, then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987810</id>
	<title>Re:Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256991600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 / (14 * 60) -&gt; you are still using 99.4\% of your max bandwidth, and would be throttled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 / ( 14 * 60 ) - &gt; you are still using 99.4 \ % of your max bandwidth , and would be throttled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 / (14 * 60) -&gt; you are still using 99.4\% of your max bandwidth, and would be throttled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272</id>
	<title>I have an idea...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1256982780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they are going to "throttle" my service, it seems only fair for me to "throttle" my payments.<br> <br>

"Oh, you've been billing 100\% of the advertised rate for the last 4 months? I'm going to have to cut you down to 50\% until your annual average is under 75\%..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are going to " throttle " my service , it seems only fair for me to " throttle " my payments .
" Oh , you 've been billing 100 \ % of the advertised rate for the last 4 months ?
I 'm going to have to cut you down to 50 \ % until your annual average is under 75 \ % ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are going to "throttle" my service, it seems only fair for me to "throttle" my payments.
"Oh, you've been billing 100\% of the advertised rate for the last 4 months?
I'm going to have to cut you down to 50\% until your annual average is under 75\%..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</id>
	<title>250GB cap is meant to discourage competing service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256982540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you've hit the 250GB cap, but you aren't a pirate.  You pay for everything you consume - including bandwidth.  Your only crime is that you went to another company for video service.  You like your Apple TV and the iTunes store, or you like using a slingbox, or you like movies on demand from your Roku, or your DirecTV receiver.</p><p>All of these technologies may cause you to run over your cap, and they all have one thing in common - they directly compete with Comcast's video services.</p><p>Now Comcast appears to be using their broadband monopoly, in the form of transfer caps, to discourage the use of competing services.</p><p>If this isn't the very definition of an abusive monopoly, I don't know what is.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 've hit the 250GB cap , but you are n't a pirate .
You pay for everything you consume - including bandwidth .
Your only crime is that you went to another company for video service .
You like your Apple TV and the iTunes store , or you like using a slingbox , or you like movies on demand from your Roku , or your DirecTV receiver.All of these technologies may cause you to run over your cap , and they all have one thing in common - they directly compete with Comcast 's video services.Now Comcast appears to be using their broadband monopoly , in the form of transfer caps , to discourage the use of competing services.If this is n't the very definition of an abusive monopoly , I do n't know what is.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you've hit the 250GB cap, but you aren't a pirate.
You pay for everything you consume - including bandwidth.
Your only crime is that you went to another company for video service.
You like your Apple TV and the iTunes store, or you like using a slingbox, or you like movies on demand from your Roku, or your DirecTV receiver.All of these technologies may cause you to run over your cap, and they all have one thing in common - they directly compete with Comcast's video services.Now Comcast appears to be using their broadband monopoly, in the form of transfer caps, to discourage the use of competing services.If this isn't the very definition of an abusive monopoly, I don't know what is.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987234</id>
	<title>That many more infections of new Windows systems</title>
	<author>ChipMonk</author>
	<datestamp>1256989500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone gets a new Windows system, and starts downloading the latest security updates from Microsoft.<br> <br>

God help the owner of that system, if the Internet connection is from Comcast. Instead of taking 15 minutes, will it take 45 to get those updates? Will that be triple the window of opportunity for a worm to find the new, unprotected system, and take it over before the patches are applied?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone gets a new Windows system , and starts downloading the latest security updates from Microsoft .
God help the owner of that system , if the Internet connection is from Comcast .
Instead of taking 15 minutes , will it take 45 to get those updates ?
Will that be triple the window of opportunity for a worm to find the new , unprotected system , and take it over before the patches are applied ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone gets a new Windows system, and starts downloading the latest security updates from Microsoft.
God help the owner of that system, if the Internet connection is from Comcast.
Instead of taking 15 minutes, will it take 45 to get those updates?
Will that be triple the window of opportunity for a worm to find the new, unprotected system, and take it over before the patches are applied?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986232</id>
	<title>70 or 50\%?</title>
	<author>\_KiTA\_</author>
	<datestamp>1256985540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then people should be paying 70\% or 50\%.  Or they should be required to advertise as 70\% or 50\%.  You know, a disclaimer.  "Warning:  You are not allowed to actually use your 5 megabit Cable connection, doing so will cause us to automatically screw you over in a way that would do the Insurance Industry Proud."</p><p>Of course, it's even better -- I'm sure that it's written vaguely enough that the total amount of changes the guys on the Comcast servers will need to do to implement this change is nill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then people should be paying 70 \ % or 50 \ % .
Or they should be required to advertise as 70 \ % or 50 \ % .
You know , a disclaimer .
" Warning : You are not allowed to actually use your 5 megabit Cable connection , doing so will cause us to automatically screw you over in a way that would do the Insurance Industry Proud .
" Of course , it 's even better -- I 'm sure that it 's written vaguely enough that the total amount of changes the guys on the Comcast servers will need to do to implement this change is nill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then people should be paying 70\% or 50\%.
Or they should be required to advertise as 70\% or 50\%.
You know, a disclaimer.
"Warning:  You are not allowed to actually use your 5 megabit Cable connection, doing so will cause us to automatically screw you over in a way that would do the Insurance Industry Proud.
"Of course, it's even better -- I'm sure that it's written vaguely enough that the total amount of changes the guys on the Comcast servers will need to do to implement this change is nill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985296</id>
	<title>PBE vs. BE</title>
	<author>Pearlswine</author>
	<datestamp>1256982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can anyone explain the difference between 'Priority Best Effort' (PBE) queueing and 'Best Effort' (BE) queueing?

If a node isn't saturated, are the BE packets delayed and if it is saturated will they just not arrive?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain the difference between 'Priority Best Effort ' ( PBE ) queueing and 'Best Effort ' ( BE ) queueing ?
If a node is n't saturated , are the BE packets delayed and if it is saturated will they just not arrive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain the difference between 'Priority Best Effort' (PBE) queueing and 'Best Effort' (BE) queueing?
If a node isn't saturated, are the BE packets delayed and if it is saturated will they just not arrive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985998</id>
	<title>250GB cap is putty in my evil hands</title>
	<author>tempest69</author>
	<datestamp>1256984820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine you dislike a comcast subscriber, and you have access to a big internet pipe.<p>
What happens when you send UDP packets to your enemies IP address, when there either sleeping, or not home?<br>
Assume your smart enough to not get throttled.<br>
at 1MB/Sec you can eat 3.6GB/hr or 30GB<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Night  first 8 nights=~ 250gb.<br>
next 22 nights=~30GB/N*22N *$15/10GB=~ $999 in overage fees.<br>
now that's what I call abuse...

</p><p>
Storm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine you dislike a comcast subscriber , and you have access to a big internet pipe .
What happens when you send UDP packets to your enemies IP address , when there either sleeping , or not home ?
Assume your smart enough to not get throttled .
at 1MB/Sec you can eat 3.6GB/hr or 30GB /Night first 8 nights = ~ 250gb .
next 22 nights = ~ 30GB/N * 22N * $ 15/10GB = ~ $ 999 in overage fees .
now that 's what I call abuse.. . Storm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine you dislike a comcast subscriber, and you have access to a big internet pipe.
What happens when you send UDP packets to your enemies IP address, when there either sleeping, or not home?
Assume your smart enough to not get throttled.
at 1MB/Sec you can eat 3.6GB/hr or 30GB /Night  first 8 nights=~ 250gb.
next 22 nights=~30GB/N*22N *$15/10GB=~ $999 in overage fees.
now that's what I call abuse...


Storm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985456</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256983320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't it be sold by what you are promised to get, not what you might get if the solar flares, lunar alignment, and the Unicorn roaming Yellowstone are all just right?</p><p>They need to stop selling UP TO 15MB!!!@$!@$ and sell 5MB all the time, to everyone.</p><p>Selling by burst speeds are retarded.  You don't by a car that can 'burst to 150hp  for 15 minutes', you buy a car that has 150hp at X rpm, and Y torque.</p><p>They aren't lying, but they are misleading, as most women will tell you, its really the same thing.  Okay, at least mine does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't it be sold by what you are promised to get , not what you might get if the solar flares , lunar alignment , and the Unicorn roaming Yellowstone are all just right ? They need to stop selling UP TO 15MB ! ! ! @ $ !
@ $ and sell 5MB all the time , to everyone.Selling by burst speeds are retarded .
You do n't by a car that can 'burst to 150hp for 15 minutes ' , you buy a car that has 150hp at X rpm , and Y torque.They are n't lying , but they are misleading , as most women will tell you , its really the same thing .
Okay , at least mine does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't it be sold by what you are promised to get, not what you might get if the solar flares, lunar alignment, and the Unicorn roaming Yellowstone are all just right?They need to stop selling UP TO 15MB!!!@$!
@$ and sell 5MB all the time, to everyone.Selling by burst speeds are retarded.
You don't by a car that can 'burst to 150hp  for 15 minutes', you buy a car that has 150hp at X rpm, and Y torque.They aren't lying, but they are misleading, as most women will tell you, its really the same thing.
Okay, at least mine does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30008418</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea...</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1257539580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A proposal was actually made to do this in the UK, but it seems to have been quickly squashed.</p><p>The idea is that you pay for the service you actually get. Most broadband is sold as "up to" whatever speed they claim, with the average advertised speed being about 10Mb and the average received speed being about 2Mb. The regulator did want people to pay for what they were actually getting, and presumably that would also include any throttling, but it seems to have been dropped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A proposal was actually made to do this in the UK , but it seems to have been quickly squashed.The idea is that you pay for the service you actually get .
Most broadband is sold as " up to " whatever speed they claim , with the average advertised speed being about 10Mb and the average received speed being about 2Mb .
The regulator did want people to pay for what they were actually getting , and presumably that would also include any throttling , but it seems to have been dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A proposal was actually made to do this in the UK, but it seems to have been quickly squashed.The idea is that you pay for the service you actually get.
Most broadband is sold as "up to" whatever speed they claim, with the average advertised speed being about 10Mb and the average received speed being about 2Mb.
The regulator did want people to pay for what they were actually getting, and presumably that would also include any throttling, but it seems to have been dropped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988000</id>
	<title>How about this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256992560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about:</p><p>Instead of offering 12Mbps, offer 9Mbps instead and drop the 70\% trigger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about : Instead of offering 12Mbps , offer 9Mbps instead and drop the 70 \ % trigger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about:Instead of offering 12Mbps, offer 9Mbps instead and drop the 70\% trigger?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989152</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't understand, despite having some knowledge of TCP/IP, is how they expect customers to manage their bandwidth usage like this.</p><p>If I go to www.downloadlinux.foo and click on the big fat blueray image that DistroX has put up, then a connection is established and the TCP protocol will gradually increase speed until it is saturated.  Since that point will be above their trigger, and the file is going to take more than 15 minutes, I can't download the distribution image without throttling?</p><p>As far as I know the average user doesn't have a browser with an obvious way to set their own cap, and even if they did they have multiple users on a local network then they can still saturate it.</p><p>I looked it up, and there's an extension for Firefox (<a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5917" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Firefox Throttle</a> [mozilla.org]) that will let you cap your up/down speeds, but still I don't yet understand how Comcast's strategy here is reasonable when it will cause their unaware users to get throttled for what is normal use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand , despite having some knowledge of TCP/IP , is how they expect customers to manage their bandwidth usage like this.If I go to www.downloadlinux.foo and click on the big fat blueray image that DistroX has put up , then a connection is established and the TCP protocol will gradually increase speed until it is saturated .
Since that point will be above their trigger , and the file is going to take more than 15 minutes , I ca n't download the distribution image without throttling ? As far as I know the average user does n't have a browser with an obvious way to set their own cap , and even if they did they have multiple users on a local network then they can still saturate it.I looked it up , and there 's an extension for Firefox ( Firefox Throttle [ mozilla.org ] ) that will let you cap your up/down speeds , but still I do n't yet understand how Comcast 's strategy here is reasonable when it will cause their unaware users to get throttled for what is normal use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand, despite having some knowledge of TCP/IP, is how they expect customers to manage their bandwidth usage like this.If I go to www.downloadlinux.foo and click on the big fat blueray image that DistroX has put up, then a connection is established and the TCP protocol will gradually increase speed until it is saturated.
Since that point will be above their trigger, and the file is going to take more than 15 minutes, I can't download the distribution image without throttling?As far as I know the average user doesn't have a browser with an obvious way to set their own cap, and even if they did they have multiple users on a local network then they can still saturate it.I looked it up, and there's an extension for Firefox (Firefox Throttle [mozilla.org]) that will let you cap your up/down speeds, but still I don't yet understand how Comcast's strategy here is reasonable when it will cause their unaware users to get throttled for what is normal use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988544</id>
	<title>Any software suggestions?</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1256995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm looking for software that can trottle bandwidth based on time. Say 100\% for 15 minutes, then  49\% for 15 minutes then back to 100\%. Or am I going to have to write a 5 line perl script to circumvent this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking for software that can trottle bandwidth based on time .
Say 100 \ % for 15 minutes , then 49 \ % for 15 minutes then back to 100 \ % .
Or am I going to have to write a 5 line perl script to circumvent this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking for software that can trottle bandwidth based on time.
Say 100\% for 15 minutes, then  49\% for 15 minutes then back to 100\%.
Or am I going to have to write a 5 line perl script to circumvent this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985046</id>
	<title>Sadly in America</title>
	<author>Super Dave Osbourne</author>
	<datestamp>1256982120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We apparently here don't believe in customer service, or quality of service, just monopolies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We apparently here do n't believe in customer service , or quality of service , just monopolies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We apparently here don't believe in customer service, or quality of service, just monopolies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991868</id>
	<title>This is a good thing</title>
	<author>Cyfun</author>
	<datestamp>1257452400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is one benefit to ISPs abusing their monopolies like this: It will help inspire people to seek alternatives, such as forming co-op ISPs to compete with the big bullies.  I've been interested in doing this for years, but never thought it'd be feasible after seeing how others got steamrolled.  Lately, though, it looks like those who never gave up are seeing positive results, either by being able to sustain a business and provide faster/cheaper service, or by forcing their local provider to compete with them and provide the same.

I for one am embarrassed to hear about how so many other countries are way ahead of us in terms of networking, and I've decided to do something about it.  Either I'm going to actually try starting a co-op ISP here, or I'll just throw a drunken hissy-fit in the parking lot of my local cable ISP and probably get arrested.  Keep an eye on the Montana news to see which path I take.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one benefit to ISPs abusing their monopolies like this : It will help inspire people to seek alternatives , such as forming co-op ISPs to compete with the big bullies .
I 've been interested in doing this for years , but never thought it 'd be feasible after seeing how others got steamrolled .
Lately , though , it looks like those who never gave up are seeing positive results , either by being able to sustain a business and provide faster/cheaper service , or by forcing their local provider to compete with them and provide the same .
I for one am embarrassed to hear about how so many other countries are way ahead of us in terms of networking , and I 've decided to do something about it .
Either I 'm going to actually try starting a co-op ISP here , or I 'll just throw a drunken hissy-fit in the parking lot of my local cable ISP and probably get arrested .
Keep an eye on the Montana news to see which path I take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one benefit to ISPs abusing their monopolies like this: It will help inspire people to seek alternatives, such as forming co-op ISPs to compete with the big bullies.
I've been interested in doing this for years, but never thought it'd be feasible after seeing how others got steamrolled.
Lately, though, it looks like those who never gave up are seeing positive results, either by being able to sustain a business and provide faster/cheaper service, or by forcing their local provider to compete with them and provide the same.
I for one am embarrassed to hear about how so many other countries are way ahead of us in terms of networking, and I've decided to do something about it.
Either I'm going to actually try starting a co-op ISP here, or I'll just throw a drunken hissy-fit in the parking lot of my local cable ISP and probably get arrested.
Keep an eye on the Montana news to see which path I take.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986526</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1256986680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>480p @ 2 Mbps is NOT good video.  1080p @ 7-9 Mbps is good video.  And when Comcast advertises, sells, and CHARGES for "20 Mbps", I expect to be able to get 9 Mbps no problem... (which is rarely true).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>480p @ 2 Mbps is NOT good video .
1080p @ 7-9 Mbps is good video .
And when Comcast advertises , sells , and CHARGES for " 20 Mbps " , I expect to be able to get 9 Mbps no problem... ( which is rarely true ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>480p @ 2 Mbps is NOT good video.
1080p @ 7-9 Mbps is good video.
And when Comcast advertises, sells, and CHARGES for "20 Mbps", I expect to be able to get 9 Mbps no problem... (which is rarely true).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986018</id>
	<title>Well, at least we know the rules.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1256984940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you Comcast subscribers, your bandwidth is 70\% of maximum for sustained usage.</p><p>At least you know what you're buying.</p><p>Now to hear the reports of subscribers getting throttled at only 50\%, or for only a few minutes' usage.</p><p>Evil documented is still Evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you Comcast subscribers , your bandwidth is 70 \ % of maximum for sustained usage.At least you know what you 're buying.Now to hear the reports of subscribers getting throttled at only 50 \ % , or for only a few minutes ' usage.Evil documented is still Evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you Comcast subscribers, your bandwidth is 70\% of maximum for sustained usage.At least you know what you're buying.Now to hear the reports of subscribers getting throttled at only 50\%, or for only a few minutes' usage.Evil documented is still Evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987268</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256989620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, why don't the just cut everyone's available bandwidth in half if their going to do this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , why do n't the just cut everyone 's available bandwidth in half if their going to do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, why don't the just cut everyone's available bandwidth in half if their going to do this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987858</id>
	<title>VOIP/phone service? net neutrality/conflict ?</title>
	<author>neurocutie</author>
	<datestamp>1256991840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mmm so what's this mean about VOIP? and phone service that Comcast might sell you vs Vonage or MagicJack?</p><p>so the kids view tons of videos, etc and all of a sudden you can't make usage phone calls? and will Comcast-supplied VOIP phone service work but Vonage or MJ fail?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mmm so what 's this mean about VOIP ?
and phone service that Comcast might sell you vs Vonage or MagicJack ? so the kids view tons of videos , etc and all of a sudden you ca n't make usage phone calls ?
and will Comcast-supplied VOIP phone service work but Vonage or MJ fail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mmm so what's this mean about VOIP?
and phone service that Comcast might sell you vs Vonage or MagicJack?so the kids view tons of videos, etc and all of a sudden you can't make usage phone calls?
and will Comcast-supplied VOIP phone service work but Vonage or MJ fail?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985876</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>IgnoramusMaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1256984520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lets do a little math. Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix. At that rate, this is ~9 hours of video a DAY before you get to the 250 GB cap. Do you watch 9 hours of video a DAY over netflix's service?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Your "math" is full of unwarranted assumptions. Chief amongst them the mother's-basement-dwelling single nerd's view-point. Lets try this with a family of 4 using Hulu/Netflix/iTunes/what-not combo to watch TV, movies, sports, buy music, get Anime etc. That's slightly over 2 hours a day per person. Not so "unreasonable" anymore, is it now? And 2 hours a day for kids/teenagers is somewhat a conservative estimation (and am I not master of understatement or what?).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets do a little math .
Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix .
At that rate , this is ~ 9 hours of video a DAY before you get to the 250 GB cap .
Do you watch 9 hours of video a DAY over netflix 's service ?
Your " math " is full of unwarranted assumptions .
Chief amongst them the mother 's-basement-dwelling single nerd 's view-point .
Lets try this with a family of 4 using Hulu/Netflix/iTunes/what-not combo to watch TV , movies , sports , buy music , get Anime etc .
That 's slightly over 2 hours a day per person .
Not so " unreasonable " anymore , is it now ?
And 2 hours a day for kids/teenagers is somewhat a conservative estimation ( and am I not master of understatement or what ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets do a little math.
Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix.
At that rate, this is ~9 hours of video a DAY before you get to the 250 GB cap.
Do you watch 9 hours of video a DAY over netflix's service?
Your "math" is full of unwarranted assumptions.
Chief amongst them the mother's-basement-dwelling single nerd's view-point.
Lets try this with a family of 4 using Hulu/Netflix/iTunes/what-not combo to watch TV, movies, sports, buy music, get Anime etc.
That's slightly over 2 hours a day per person.
Not so "unreasonable" anymore, is it now?
And 2 hours a day for kids/teenagers is somewhat a conservative estimation (and am I not master of understatement or what?
).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985522</id>
	<title>Business clas customers please note</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256983440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 250GB cap mentioned in the article does not affect business customers (I called to confirm it).  I know I have a contract for 3 years (they were the only ones who could deliver service in my area), and was so floored by the assertion that all customers would be subject to bandwidth caps, I called about it.  The rep informed me that there is no bandwidth cap for business customers, although if you do use a lot of bandwidth, they will let you know about it (I have no idea what limit would trigger that event or anything, but then again, neither did the rep I spoke with).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 250GB cap mentioned in the article does not affect business customers ( I called to confirm it ) .
I know I have a contract for 3 years ( they were the only ones who could deliver service in my area ) , and was so floored by the assertion that all customers would be subject to bandwidth caps , I called about it .
The rep informed me that there is no bandwidth cap for business customers , although if you do use a lot of bandwidth , they will let you know about it ( I have no idea what limit would trigger that event or anything , but then again , neither did the rep I spoke with ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 250GB cap mentioned in the article does not affect business customers (I called to confirm it).
I know I have a contract for 3 years (they were the only ones who could deliver service in my area), and was so floored by the assertion that all customers would be subject to bandwidth caps, I called about it.
The rep informed me that there is no bandwidth cap for business customers, although if you do use a lot of bandwidth, they will let you know about it (I have no idea what limit would trigger that event or anything, but then again, neither did the rep I spoke with).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29992032</id>
	<title>Suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257454680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I is no genius, but if they throttle you for using more then 70\% of your (payed for) bandwidth to keep the network running, shouldn't they just sell you 70\% of that amount to begin with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I is no genius , but if they throttle you for using more then 70 \ % of your ( payed for ) bandwidth to keep the network running , should n't they just sell you 70 \ % of that amount to begin with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I is no genius, but if they throttle you for using more then 70\% of your (payed for) bandwidth to keep the network running, shouldn't they just sell you 70\% of that amount to begin with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991592</id>
	<title>Re:VOIP/phone service? net neutrality/conflict ?</title>
	<author>SeaFox</author>
	<datestamp>1257017280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>mmm so what's this mean about VOIP? and phone service that Comcast might sell you vs Vonage or MagicJack?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>If it's phone service Comcast is selling you, nothing will happen. Their VoIP packets will be tagged to get a higher priority, they may not even be running in the same band as your regular Internet service to start with. If you're using Vonage or MagicJack, you're S.O.L. These are third-party services and are nothing more than another device using your internet connection as far as Comcast is concerned.</p><p>If your VoIP stops working properly, there's no one to really blame. Vonage has no control over the data transport service so they can't fix it, Comcast is selling you Internet service meant for being used for browsing the web with a computer (there's a clause somewhere in all ISP's TOS that states exactly this). They aren't providing you phone so they have no responsibility to make sure your Vonage works. You can put up with what happens, or change providers. But since they all are going to behave in a similar fashion when it comes to VoIP companies that are directly competing with their own services, none are going to make dealing with these issues a very high priority.</p><p>Welcome to that little secret the VoIP companies don't tell you about in their sales brochure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>mmm so what 's this mean about VOIP ?
and phone service that Comcast might sell you vs Vonage or MagicJack ?
If it 's phone service Comcast is selling you , nothing will happen .
Their VoIP packets will be tagged to get a higher priority , they may not even be running in the same band as your regular Internet service to start with .
If you 're using Vonage or MagicJack , you 're S.O.L .
These are third-party services and are nothing more than another device using your internet connection as far as Comcast is concerned.If your VoIP stops working properly , there 's no one to really blame .
Vonage has no control over the data transport service so they ca n't fix it , Comcast is selling you Internet service meant for being used for browsing the web with a computer ( there 's a clause somewhere in all ISP 's TOS that states exactly this ) .
They are n't providing you phone so they have no responsibility to make sure your Vonage works .
You can put up with what happens , or change providers .
But since they all are going to behave in a similar fashion when it comes to VoIP companies that are directly competing with their own services , none are going to make dealing with these issues a very high priority.Welcome to that little secret the VoIP companies do n't tell you about in their sales brochure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> mmm so what's this mean about VOIP?
and phone service that Comcast might sell you vs Vonage or MagicJack?
If it's phone service Comcast is selling you, nothing will happen.
Their VoIP packets will be tagged to get a higher priority, they may not even be running in the same band as your regular Internet service to start with.
If you're using Vonage or MagicJack, you're S.O.L.
These are third-party services and are nothing more than another device using your internet connection as far as Comcast is concerned.If your VoIP stops working properly, there's no one to really blame.
Vonage has no control over the data transport service so they can't fix it, Comcast is selling you Internet service meant for being used for browsing the web with a computer (there's a clause somewhere in all ISP's TOS that states exactly this).
They aren't providing you phone so they have no responsibility to make sure your Vonage works.
You can put up with what happens, or change providers.
But since they all are going to behave in a similar fashion when it comes to VoIP companies that are directly competing with their own services, none are going to make dealing with these issues a very high priority.Welcome to that little secret the VoIP companies don't tell you about in their sales brochure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988976</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1256997360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should be have been taken to task by the FCC, wire-fraud for each forged RST packet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should be have been taken to task by the FCC , wire-fraud for each forged RST packet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should be have been taken to task by the FCC, wire-fraud for each forged RST packet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987162</id>
	<title>wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256989260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you pay to have a certain amount of bandwidth each month..  Then you make use of part of that bandwidth and they throttle you?<br>Am I understanding this correctly?</p><p>Sounds like they have heavily oversold themselves and are now screwing customers so they don't have to fork out the money for upgrades...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you pay to have a certain amount of bandwidth each month.. Then you make use of part of that bandwidth and they throttle you ? Am I understanding this correctly ? Sounds like they have heavily oversold themselves and are now screwing customers so they do n't have to fork out the money for upgrades.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you pay to have a certain amount of bandwidth each month..  Then you make use of part of that bandwidth and they throttle you?Am I understanding this correctly?Sounds like they have heavily oversold themselves and are now screwing customers so they don't have to fork out the money for upgrades...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986172</id>
	<title>Re:So Comcast is ...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256985360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad we don't have an ASA like the British do. Here, only a competitor can sue for false advertising, so a monopolist can lie all he wants.</p><p>And people wonder why ads are so cheap these days...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad we do n't have an ASA like the British do .
Here , only a competitor can sue for false advertising , so a monopolist can lie all he wants.And people wonder why ads are so cheap these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad we don't have an ASA like the British do.
Here, only a competitor can sue for false advertising, so a monopolist can lie all he wants.And people wonder why ads are so cheap these days...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991420</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds reasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257015360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if 6Mb download is what I paid for and what I was told I would get, that's what I should receive.  That's outside of what is reasonable as far as pricing or network capability.  Those aren't my problem, those are my ISP's problem.  The available bandwith I was quoted should not be based on the useage of others on the network, and if it is, they should be noting as such.</p><p>Peak speed versus typical speed should both be required in advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if 6Mb download is what I paid for and what I was told I would get , that 's what I should receive .
That 's outside of what is reasonable as far as pricing or network capability .
Those are n't my problem , those are my ISP 's problem .
The available bandwith I was quoted should not be based on the useage of others on the network , and if it is , they should be noting as such.Peak speed versus typical speed should both be required in advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if 6Mb download is what I paid for and what I was told I would get, that's what I should receive.
That's outside of what is reasonable as far as pricing or network capability.
Those aren't my problem, those are my ISP's problem.
The available bandwith I was quoted should not be based on the useage of others on the network, and if it is, they should be noting as such.Peak speed versus typical speed should both be required in advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30003224</id>
	<title>Question: Can I throttle myself at 69\%</title>
	<author>ImNotAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1257446460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I can't control this myself to avoid hitting the trigger how is this fair?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I ca n't control this myself to avoid hitting the trigger how is this fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I can't control this myself to avoid hitting the trigger how is this fair?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985738</id>
	<title>Virgin media in the UK</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1256984040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the uk, one of the fastest mainstream providers also uses a throttleing policy which can be viewed at <a href="http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html" title="virginmedia.com">http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html</a> [virginmedia.com] . The summary is that there is no bandwidth cap, but during certain periods of the day, if you download more than a set amount within that period (exact amount depends on package taken), you are throttled for 5 hours, usually to about 25\%. It is quite annoying to loose so much for so long, but with a little planning, you can set any large download to run over night and avoid any throttleing since from 9PM to 10AM, nothing is counted against any limits for throttleing. I believe they are experimenting with small variations, such as upping the throttleing to a greater length, but removing any throttling after 11PM. Its obviously not quite ideal, but they dont try to hide it, and its more fair than some policies might be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the uk , one of the fastest mainstream providers also uses a throttleing policy which can be viewed at http : //allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html [ virginmedia.com ] .
The summary is that there is no bandwidth cap , but during certain periods of the day , if you download more than a set amount within that period ( exact amount depends on package taken ) , you are throttled for 5 hours , usually to about 25 \ % .
It is quite annoying to loose so much for so long , but with a little planning , you can set any large download to run over night and avoid any throttleing since from 9PM to 10AM , nothing is counted against any limits for throttleing .
I believe they are experimenting with small variations , such as upping the throttleing to a greater length , but removing any throttling after 11PM .
Its obviously not quite ideal , but they dont try to hide it , and its more fair than some policies might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the uk, one of the fastest mainstream providers also uses a throttleing policy which can be viewed at http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html [virginmedia.com] .
The summary is that there is no bandwidth cap, but during certain periods of the day, if you download more than a set amount within that period (exact amount depends on package taken), you are throttled for 5 hours, usually to about 25\%.
It is quite annoying to loose so much for so long, but with a little planning, you can set any large download to run over night and avoid any throttleing since from 9PM to 10AM, nothing is counted against any limits for throttleing.
I believe they are experimenting with small variations, such as upping the throttleing to a greater length, but removing any throttling after 11PM.
Its obviously not quite ideal, but they dont try to hide it, and its more fair than some policies might be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985780</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1256984160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, my friend uses that much netflix, youtube, hulu and the like a day for him to hit the cap every month.  He does not pirate movies online, he uses his netflix to get them in the mail and rip them himself so thats not it.  However, Comcast refuses to talk to him about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , my friend uses that much netflix , youtube , hulu and the like a day for him to hit the cap every month .
He does not pirate movies online , he uses his netflix to get them in the mail and rip them himself so thats not it .
However , Comcast refuses to talk to him about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, my friend uses that much netflix, youtube, hulu and the like a day for him to hit the cap every month.
He does not pirate movies online, he uses his netflix to get them in the mail and rip them himself so thats not it.
However, Comcast refuses to talk to him about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988516</id>
	<title>SCREW\_THE\_CABLE\_COMPANIES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait for 4G to roll out Nation wide.  SCREW the cable companies.  100MB/s+ everywhere I go?  Count me in!  I'll watch TV on the internet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait for 4G to roll out Nation wide .
SCREW the cable companies .
100MB/s + everywhere I go ?
Count me in !
I 'll watch TV on the internet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait for 4G to roll out Nation wide.
SCREW the cable companies.
100MB/s+ everywhere I go?
Count me in!
I'll watch TV on the internet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985552</id>
	<title>Just to be clear...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1256983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the actual PDF:
<ul>
<li>... create two Quality of Service ("QoS") levels for Internet traffic going to and from the cable modem: (1) "Priority Best-Effort" traffic ("PBE"); and (2) "Best-Effort" traffic ("BE").</li>
<li>During the time that a subscriber's traffic is assigned the lower priority status, such
traffic will not be delayed so long as the network segment is not actually congested.
If, however, the network segment becomes congested, such traffic could be delayed.</li>
<li>Given our experience so far, we have determined that a starting point for the upstream
Port Utilization Threshold should be 70 percent and the downstream Port Utilization Threshold
should be 80 percent. (The term "port" as used here generally contemplates single channels on a CMTS, but these statements will apply to virtual channels, also known as "bonded groups," in a DOCSIS 3.0 environment.) -- (Basically, a "port" is the neighborhood connection.)</li>
<li>(Given the above) When a subscriber uses an average of 70 percent or more of his or her (individually) provisioned upstream or downstream bandwidth over a particular 15-minute period, that user will be in an Extended High Consumption State.</li>
</ul><p>
Simply put, there are four steps to determining whether the traffic associated with a
particular cable modem is designated as PBE or BE:
</p><ol>
<li>Determine if the CMTS port is in a Near Congestion State.</li>
<li>If yes, determine whether any users are in an Extended High Consumption State.</li>
<li> If yes, change those users' traffic to BE from PBE. If the answer at either step one or
step two is no, no action is taken.</li>
<li>If a user's traffic has been designated BE, check user consumption at next interval. If
user consumption has declined below predetermined threshold, reassign the user's
traffic as PBE. If not, recheck at next interval</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the actual PDF : ... create two Quality of Service ( " QoS " ) levels for Internet traffic going to and from the cable modem : ( 1 ) " Priority Best-Effort " traffic ( " PBE " ) ; and ( 2 ) " Best-Effort " traffic ( " BE " ) .
During the time that a subscriber 's traffic is assigned the lower priority status , such traffic will not be delayed so long as the network segment is not actually congested .
If , however , the network segment becomes congested , such traffic could be delayed .
Given our experience so far , we have determined that a starting point for the upstream Port Utilization Threshold should be 70 percent and the downstream Port Utilization Threshold should be 80 percent .
( The term " port " as used here generally contemplates single channels on a CMTS , but these statements will apply to virtual channels , also known as " bonded groups , " in a DOCSIS 3.0 environment .
) -- ( Basically , a " port " is the neighborhood connection .
) ( Given the above ) When a subscriber uses an average of 70 percent or more of his or her ( individually ) provisioned upstream or downstream bandwidth over a particular 15-minute period , that user will be in an Extended High Consumption State .
Simply put , there are four steps to determining whether the traffic associated with a particular cable modem is designated as PBE or BE : Determine if the CMTS port is in a Near Congestion State .
If yes , determine whether any users are in an Extended High Consumption State .
If yes , change those users ' traffic to BE from PBE .
If the answer at either step one or step two is no , no action is taken .
If a user 's traffic has been designated BE , check user consumption at next interval .
If user consumption has declined below predetermined threshold , reassign the user 's traffic as PBE .
If not , recheck at next interval</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the actual PDF:

... create two Quality of Service ("QoS") levels for Internet traffic going to and from the cable modem: (1) "Priority Best-Effort" traffic ("PBE"); and (2) "Best-Effort" traffic ("BE").
During the time that a subscriber's traffic is assigned the lower priority status, such
traffic will not be delayed so long as the network segment is not actually congested.
If, however, the network segment becomes congested, such traffic could be delayed.
Given our experience so far, we have determined that a starting point for the upstream
Port Utilization Threshold should be 70 percent and the downstream Port Utilization Threshold
should be 80 percent.
(The term "port" as used here generally contemplates single channels on a CMTS, but these statements will apply to virtual channels, also known as "bonded groups," in a DOCSIS 3.0 environment.
) -- (Basically, a "port" is the neighborhood connection.
)
(Given the above) When a subscriber uses an average of 70 percent or more of his or her (individually) provisioned upstream or downstream bandwidth over a particular 15-minute period, that user will be in an Extended High Consumption State.
Simply put, there are four steps to determining whether the traffic associated with a
particular cable modem is designated as PBE or BE:

Determine if the CMTS port is in a Near Congestion State.
If yes, determine whether any users are in an Extended High Consumption State.
If yes, change those users' traffic to BE from PBE.
If the answer at either step one or
step two is no, no action is taken.
If a user's traffic has been designated BE, check user consumption at next interval.
If
user consumption has declined below predetermined threshold, reassign the user's
traffic as PBE.
If not, recheck at next interval
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986462</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1256986440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, back in 2004 when ADSL was just taking off in New Zealand, a 10GB/month cap was a top-shelf offering, only taken up by users willing to pay a premium.</p><p>In high-speed enlightened connected 2009 the high-end cap is now... 10GB/month.</p><p>*weeps quietly into teacup*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , back in 2004 when ADSL was just taking off in New Zealand , a 10GB/month cap was a top-shelf offering , only taken up by users willing to pay a premium.In high-speed enlightened connected 2009 the high-end cap is now.. .
10GB/month. * weeps quietly into teacup *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, back in 2004 when ADSL was just taking off in New Zealand, a 10GB/month cap was a top-shelf offering, only taken up by users willing to pay a premium.In high-speed enlightened connected 2009 the high-end cap is now...
10GB/month.*weeps quietly into teacup*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30000594</id>
	<title>Comcast sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257419460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had more than one Friday or Saturday night where my Comcast internet has just SHUT OFF for anywhere between 30 minutes and 2 or 3 hours. And, usually, when I'm right in the middle of a long download running at like 30kbps. And that kills the download.<br>One time, my service was down for over a day. I called and the rep said, we'll have to send a technician over, let's schedule a time, blah blah blah.<br>I said, whoa, wait a minute. It could be something else.<br>I called another rep who said, they turned off your service to do an upgrade and forgot to turn you back on.<br>Where do they FIND these people?<br>So, if Comcast throttles your service, do they cut back on your bill, since you're not getting what you paid for?<br>Yeah, right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had more than one Friday or Saturday night where my Comcast internet has just SHUT OFF for anywhere between 30 minutes and 2 or 3 hours .
And , usually , when I 'm right in the middle of a long download running at like 30kbps .
And that kills the download.One time , my service was down for over a day .
I called and the rep said , we 'll have to send a technician over , let 's schedule a time , blah blah blah.I said , whoa , wait a minute .
It could be something else.I called another rep who said , they turned off your service to do an upgrade and forgot to turn you back on.Where do they FIND these people ? So , if Comcast throttles your service , do they cut back on your bill , since you 're not getting what you paid for ? Yeah , right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had more than one Friday or Saturday night where my Comcast internet has just SHUT OFF for anywhere between 30 minutes and 2 or 3 hours.
And, usually, when I'm right in the middle of a long download running at like 30kbps.
And that kills the download.One time, my service was down for over a day.
I called and the rep said, we'll have to send a technician over, let's schedule a time, blah blah blah.I said, whoa, wait a minute.
It could be something else.I called another rep who said, they turned off your service to do an upgrade and forgot to turn you back on.Where do they FIND these people?So, if Comcast throttles your service, do they cut back on your bill, since you're not getting what you paid for?Yeah, right...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985470</id>
	<title>Re:let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Stephen Samuel</author>
	<datestamp>1256983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>uhm, No. You have to use less than 50\% of your rated bandwidth to avoid being blocked.  the 70\% rule is only one of a number of triggers, <i>any <b>one</b> </i> of which can trigger rate limiting.   by the rules that they document, about the only thing that can keep you up to full bandwidth capability is to be under 50\% of your rated bandwidth for the last 15 minutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>uhm , No .
You have to use less than 50 \ % of your rated bandwidth to avoid being blocked .
the 70 \ % rule is only one of a number of triggers , any one of which can trigger rate limiting .
by the rules that they document , about the only thing that can keep you up to full bandwidth capability is to be under 50 \ % of your rated bandwidth for the last 15 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uhm, No.
You have to use less than 50\% of your rated bandwidth to avoid being blocked.
the 70\% rule is only one of a number of triggers, any one  of which can trigger rate limiting.
by the rules that they document, about the only thing that can keep you up to full bandwidth capability is to be under 50\% of your rated bandwidth for the last 15 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985586</id>
	<title>Re:Throttled how far down?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supposedly they aren't throttling your packets/connection, but changing the priority of your packets.  That way somebody's youtube video stream will have a higher priority over your vonage voip call...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supposedly they are n't throttling your packets/connection , but changing the priority of your packets .
That way somebody 's youtube video stream will have a higher priority over your vonage voip call.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supposedly they aren't throttling your packets/connection, but changing the priority of your packets.
That way somebody's youtube video stream will have a higher priority over your vonage voip call...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29995746</id>
	<title>More than throttling - outright disconnection?</title>
	<author>DigicamGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1257441180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm suspecting that Comcast is doing more than just throttling connections, but they may be outright interrupting data streams they don't like. No clear-cut evidence, but we use a Comcast link to rsync files from a local server to/from our main web server out on the internet every night, in the wee hours of the AM (so I don't think we'd be dealing with node congestion, or inconveniencing any significant number of other users). Total transfers vary, but can get moderately large: A really big xfer might be 2-3 GB, and that amount might move both upstream and downstream over the course of a night's syncs.<br> <br>

After years of pretty much flawless operation, in the last few months we've seen the rsyncs fail fairly frequently. It's clearly not been an issue with the server on either end of the connection, and the connection itself seems to stay active. - Just relaunching the rsync a little while later usually gets everything across that we need to. Running sample rsyncs manually shows that what seems to be happening is that just the particular rsync link seems to go dead for a few minutes at a time, while the rest of the connection stays alive. (Eg, we can still browse, check email, etc over our Comcast link.) Rsync is pretty robust, but if the connection is interrupted long enough, it'll time out. Simply relaunching the rsync once it times out lets everything start back up again just fine.<br> <br>

I'm no network engineer, but it sure looks to me like Comcast is deliberately glitching specific traffic streams it doesn't like, in this case the rsync stream, after "x" amount of data has transferred. It's not a matter of throttling, because (a) the link just goes dead, rather than simply slowing down, and (b) other services over the same Comcast connection seem to continue working just fine.<br> <br>

For this particular application, I'd be perfectly fine if they cut our bandwidth to 1/2 or 1/3 of normal, as the syncs aren't time-critical; we just need them to be done by the next AM. But I'd *really* like them to tell us in detail what the actual terms of service are. <br> <br>

I could just switch our servers' connections over to the redundant AT&amp;T DSL connection we maintain, but Comcast's higher speed (in bursts) is very handy during the day when we want to move smaller chunks of data quickly. So I do have an alternative available, it's just less attractive for various reasons. I do think they should disclose fully what it is their customers are buying, though, and should be required to disclose changes in their bandwidth-management practices. We didn't actually lose any data here, but the consequences could have been severe if we'd had a device failure and needed to call on our "backup".<br> <br>

Has anyone else seen what looks like deliberate interruption of specific data streams like this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm suspecting that Comcast is doing more than just throttling connections , but they may be outright interrupting data streams they do n't like .
No clear-cut evidence , but we use a Comcast link to rsync files from a local server to/from our main web server out on the internet every night , in the wee hours of the AM ( so I do n't think we 'd be dealing with node congestion , or inconveniencing any significant number of other users ) .
Total transfers vary , but can get moderately large : A really big xfer might be 2-3 GB , and that amount might move both upstream and downstream over the course of a night 's syncs .
After years of pretty much flawless operation , in the last few months we 've seen the rsyncs fail fairly frequently .
It 's clearly not been an issue with the server on either end of the connection , and the connection itself seems to stay active .
- Just relaunching the rsync a little while later usually gets everything across that we need to .
Running sample rsyncs manually shows that what seems to be happening is that just the particular rsync link seems to go dead for a few minutes at a time , while the rest of the connection stays alive .
( Eg , we can still browse , check email , etc over our Comcast link .
) Rsync is pretty robust , but if the connection is interrupted long enough , it 'll time out .
Simply relaunching the rsync once it times out lets everything start back up again just fine .
I 'm no network engineer , but it sure looks to me like Comcast is deliberately glitching specific traffic streams it does n't like , in this case the rsync stream , after " x " amount of data has transferred .
It 's not a matter of throttling , because ( a ) the link just goes dead , rather than simply slowing down , and ( b ) other services over the same Comcast connection seem to continue working just fine .
For this particular application , I 'd be perfectly fine if they cut our bandwidth to 1/2 or 1/3 of normal , as the syncs are n't time-critical ; we just need them to be done by the next AM .
But I 'd * really * like them to tell us in detail what the actual terms of service are .
I could just switch our servers ' connections over to the redundant AT&amp;T DSL connection we maintain , but Comcast 's higher speed ( in bursts ) is very handy during the day when we want to move smaller chunks of data quickly .
So I do have an alternative available , it 's just less attractive for various reasons .
I do think they should disclose fully what it is their customers are buying , though , and should be required to disclose changes in their bandwidth-management practices .
We did n't actually lose any data here , but the consequences could have been severe if we 'd had a device failure and needed to call on our " backup " .
Has anyone else seen what looks like deliberate interruption of specific data streams like this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm suspecting that Comcast is doing more than just throttling connections, but they may be outright interrupting data streams they don't like.
No clear-cut evidence, but we use a Comcast link to rsync files from a local server to/from our main web server out on the internet every night, in the wee hours of the AM (so I don't think we'd be dealing with node congestion, or inconveniencing any significant number of other users).
Total transfers vary, but can get moderately large: A really big xfer might be 2-3 GB, and that amount might move both upstream and downstream over the course of a night's syncs.
After years of pretty much flawless operation, in the last few months we've seen the rsyncs fail fairly frequently.
It's clearly not been an issue with the server on either end of the connection, and the connection itself seems to stay active.
- Just relaunching the rsync a little while later usually gets everything across that we need to.
Running sample rsyncs manually shows that what seems to be happening is that just the particular rsync link seems to go dead for a few minutes at a time, while the rest of the connection stays alive.
(Eg, we can still browse, check email, etc over our Comcast link.
) Rsync is pretty robust, but if the connection is interrupted long enough, it'll time out.
Simply relaunching the rsync once it times out lets everything start back up again just fine.
I'm no network engineer, but it sure looks to me like Comcast is deliberately glitching specific traffic streams it doesn't like, in this case the rsync stream, after "x" amount of data has transferred.
It's not a matter of throttling, because (a) the link just goes dead, rather than simply slowing down, and (b) other services over the same Comcast connection seem to continue working just fine.
For this particular application, I'd be perfectly fine if they cut our bandwidth to 1/2 or 1/3 of normal, as the syncs aren't time-critical; we just need them to be done by the next AM.
But I'd *really* like them to tell us in detail what the actual terms of service are.
I could just switch our servers' connections over to the redundant AT&amp;T DSL connection we maintain, but Comcast's higher speed (in bursts) is very handy during the day when we want to move smaller chunks of data quickly.
So I do have an alternative available, it's just less attractive for various reasons.
I do think they should disclose fully what it is their customers are buying, though, and should be required to disclose changes in their bandwidth-management practices.
We didn't actually lose any data here, but the consequences could have been severe if we'd had a device failure and needed to call on our "backup".
Has anyone else seen what looks like deliberate interruption of specific data streams like this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991644</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in Australia, I have a 5GB cap, where does that leave me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in Australia , I have a 5GB cap , where does that leave me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in Australia, I have a 5GB cap, where does that leave me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985952</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Xphile101361</author>
	<datestamp>1256984700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How well does your math work when you have multiple people buying games off of Steam in a given month?  Those people also tend to watch Streaming TV and Movies as well.  Toss in a Windows Service pack or other large software update as well (Note, multiple computers usually means multiple updates).  That limit doens't seem so high now does it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How well does your math work when you have multiple people buying games off of Steam in a given month ?
Those people also tend to watch Streaming TV and Movies as well .
Toss in a Windows Service pack or other large software update as well ( Note , multiple computers usually means multiple updates ) .
That limit doens't seem so high now does it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How well does your math work when you have multiple people buying games off of Steam in a given month?
Those people also tend to watch Streaming TV and Movies as well.
Toss in a Windows Service pack or other large software update as well (Note, multiple computers usually means multiple updates).
That limit doens't seem so high now does it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987316</id>
	<title>Bad News</title>
	<author>FyberOptic</author>
	<datestamp>1256989800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there any info on how Comcast plans to actually measure bandwidth usage?  There's so many potential loopholes to their proposed plan which would make it no better than it is now, hardly.</p><p>Say they sample your bandwidth usage at specific intervals.  Well, if you're browsing the web, maybe doing homework or research or just Youtubing or whatever, then you might very well be at "peak usage" each time it samples.  Though your bandwidth isn't in constant use, it's just periodic.  But if it happens to sample you each time you're active, then after 15 minutes, bam.  Throttled.  Consistently.</p><p>FCC should just knock this bullshit out totally.  Comcast seems to be the only ISP adamantly saying this is "necessary" enough to be implementing anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any info on how Comcast plans to actually measure bandwidth usage ?
There 's so many potential loopholes to their proposed plan which would make it no better than it is now , hardly.Say they sample your bandwidth usage at specific intervals .
Well , if you 're browsing the web , maybe doing homework or research or just Youtubing or whatever , then you might very well be at " peak usage " each time it samples .
Though your bandwidth is n't in constant use , it 's just periodic .
But if it happens to sample you each time you 're active , then after 15 minutes , bam .
Throttled. Consistently.FCC should just knock this bullshit out totally .
Comcast seems to be the only ISP adamantly saying this is " necessary " enough to be implementing anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any info on how Comcast plans to actually measure bandwidth usage?
There's so many potential loopholes to their proposed plan which would make it no better than it is now, hardly.Say they sample your bandwidth usage at specific intervals.
Well, if you're browsing the web, maybe doing homework or research or just Youtubing or whatever, then you might very well be at "peak usage" each time it samples.
Though your bandwidth isn't in constant use, it's just periodic.
But if it happens to sample you each time you're active, then after 15 minutes, bam.
Throttled.  Consistently.FCC should just knock this bullshit out totally.
Comcast seems to be the only ISP adamantly saying this is "necessary" enough to be implementing anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985528</id>
	<title>Re:250GB cap is meant to discourage competing serv</title>
	<author>Rayeth</author>
	<datestamp>1256983440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Comcast is not a monopoly.  They are pretty close, and they certainly operate like one in certain local areas, but on the whole there is competition nationwide.  So trying to prosecute under monopoly statues is impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast is not a monopoly .
They are pretty close , and they certainly operate like one in certain local areas , but on the whole there is competition nationwide .
So trying to prosecute under monopoly statues is impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast is not a monopoly.
They are pretty close, and they certainly operate like one in certain local areas, but on the whole there is competition nationwide.
So trying to prosecute under monopoly statues is impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986130</id>
	<title>Missing the escape clause</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1256985240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>your traffic is <b>somehow</b> identified as being responsible</p></div></blockquote><p>People are missing the point; it's easy enough to set the maximum upload/download speed in P2P applications. Their escape clause is the word "somehow" that in effect neither explain how you're identified (for a company that can't find its own ass to pull its own head out of, with both hands and a mirror, their ability to identify bandwidth hogs on their network is at best questionable) nor are you offer a way to defend yourself if they decided to finger you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>your traffic is somehow identified as being responsiblePeople are missing the point ; it 's easy enough to set the maximum upload/download speed in P2P applications .
Their escape clause is the word " somehow " that in effect neither explain how you 're identified ( for a company that ca n't find its own ass to pull its own head out of , with both hands and a mirror , their ability to identify bandwidth hogs on their network is at best questionable ) nor are you offer a way to defend yourself if they decided to finger you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your traffic is somehow identified as being responsiblePeople are missing the point; it's easy enough to set the maximum upload/download speed in P2P applications.
Their escape clause is the word "somehow" that in effect neither explain how you're identified (for a company that can't find its own ass to pull its own head out of, with both hands and a mirror, their ability to identify bandwidth hogs on their network is at best questionable) nor are you offer a way to defend yourself if they decided to finger you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987408</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds reasonable</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1256990100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in a rural area serviced by a telephone coop.  I am about 1.8 miles from the phone company.  I have fiber to the house.  My download is 20mps, my upload is 5mps.  Last I checked my download was actually 23 mps.  So what do I pay?  $80/month.  This does not seem to me to vastly more expensive than $50/month.  If I have an issue, in my experience, they come out the same day, even Sunday.  I guess they put their first fiber in 20 years ago, to a neighboring telco.  18 years ago they started conduiting their copper.  Four years ago they started doing fiber to the home.  Now this is not one big massive rollout, Maybe what comcast would do if they had to do it was do a massive rollout.  The coop just keeps working on it as they can.</p><p>Everyone here knows that new tech devalues old tech.  This is true whether it is your cell phone or an income producing capital item.  But as long as the capital item produces the necessary revenue stream, monetarist economic policy supports maintaining the devalued capital asset on the balance sheet at the original value.  Sure, accounting depreciation reduces the original value over time, but there is some room there for error.  For instance, maybe the depreciation period is unreasonably long for reality.  Setting it long helps your income statement.  I guess Bell Telephone used to have a depreciation period set at maybe 50 years and look at all the new tech you got from them.</p><p>Now if there is competition, real competition, your competitor may be able to eat your lunch with new tech.  So the old tech capitalist tends to upgrade the tech, at least if the banks are making loans for such things.  And government economic policy can have a big effect on the decision.  And some capitalists for whatever reason do the right thing anyway.  Some of these people can get very rich, which is certainly a motivation.</p><p>So is it really the right thing.  I know most of the readers like new tech, but is it really important?  I think it is very clear that is important.  Look at it this way.  Humans have always been overpopulated, from the very beginning.  For instance, the mastadons ran out.  Resource are always finite, given a fixed level of tech.  New tech in the productive process creates new resources.  This is how we have traditionally avoided malthusian processes for the most part.  But we have screwed up.  The human population now exceeds the carrying power of the planet, given our tech level.  A good way to look at the problem is as caused by monetarist economic policy.  I guess some people are already floating the idea of solving the problem by killing 5 billion people.  This is not just some sort of abstract third-world problem.  They are talking about you also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in a rural area serviced by a telephone coop .
I am about 1.8 miles from the phone company .
I have fiber to the house .
My download is 20mps , my upload is 5mps .
Last I checked my download was actually 23 mps .
So what do I pay ?
$ 80/month. This does not seem to me to vastly more expensive than $ 50/month .
If I have an issue , in my experience , they come out the same day , even Sunday .
I guess they put their first fiber in 20 years ago , to a neighboring telco .
18 years ago they started conduiting their copper .
Four years ago they started doing fiber to the home .
Now this is not one big massive rollout , Maybe what comcast would do if they had to do it was do a massive rollout .
The coop just keeps working on it as they can.Everyone here knows that new tech devalues old tech .
This is true whether it is your cell phone or an income producing capital item .
But as long as the capital item produces the necessary revenue stream , monetarist economic policy supports maintaining the devalued capital asset on the balance sheet at the original value .
Sure , accounting depreciation reduces the original value over time , but there is some room there for error .
For instance , maybe the depreciation period is unreasonably long for reality .
Setting it long helps your income statement .
I guess Bell Telephone used to have a depreciation period set at maybe 50 years and look at all the new tech you got from them.Now if there is competition , real competition , your competitor may be able to eat your lunch with new tech .
So the old tech capitalist tends to upgrade the tech , at least if the banks are making loans for such things .
And government economic policy can have a big effect on the decision .
And some capitalists for whatever reason do the right thing anyway .
Some of these people can get very rich , which is certainly a motivation.So is it really the right thing .
I know most of the readers like new tech , but is it really important ?
I think it is very clear that is important .
Look at it this way .
Humans have always been overpopulated , from the very beginning .
For instance , the mastadons ran out .
Resource are always finite , given a fixed level of tech .
New tech in the productive process creates new resources .
This is how we have traditionally avoided malthusian processes for the most part .
But we have screwed up .
The human population now exceeds the carrying power of the planet , given our tech level .
A good way to look at the problem is as caused by monetarist economic policy .
I guess some people are already floating the idea of solving the problem by killing 5 billion people .
This is not just some sort of abstract third-world problem .
They are talking about you also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in a rural area serviced by a telephone coop.
I am about 1.8 miles from the phone company.
I have fiber to the house.
My download is 20mps, my upload is 5mps.
Last I checked my download was actually 23 mps.
So what do I pay?
$80/month.  This does not seem to me to vastly more expensive than $50/month.
If I have an issue, in my experience, they come out the same day, even Sunday.
I guess they put their first fiber in 20 years ago, to a neighboring telco.
18 years ago they started conduiting their copper.
Four years ago they started doing fiber to the home.
Now this is not one big massive rollout, Maybe what comcast would do if they had to do it was do a massive rollout.
The coop just keeps working on it as they can.Everyone here knows that new tech devalues old tech.
This is true whether it is your cell phone or an income producing capital item.
But as long as the capital item produces the necessary revenue stream, monetarist economic policy supports maintaining the devalued capital asset on the balance sheet at the original value.
Sure, accounting depreciation reduces the original value over time, but there is some room there for error.
For instance, maybe the depreciation period is unreasonably long for reality.
Setting it long helps your income statement.
I guess Bell Telephone used to have a depreciation period set at maybe 50 years and look at all the new tech you got from them.Now if there is competition, real competition, your competitor may be able to eat your lunch with new tech.
So the old tech capitalist tends to upgrade the tech, at least if the banks are making loans for such things.
And government economic policy can have a big effect on the decision.
And some capitalists for whatever reason do the right thing anyway.
Some of these people can get very rich, which is certainly a motivation.So is it really the right thing.
I know most of the readers like new tech, but is it really important?
I think it is very clear that is important.
Look at it this way.
Humans have always been overpopulated, from the very beginning.
For instance, the mastadons ran out.
Resource are always finite, given a fixed level of tech.
New tech in the productive process creates new resources.
This is how we have traditionally avoided malthusian processes for the most part.
But we have screwed up.
The human population now exceeds the carrying power of the planet, given our tech level.
A good way to look at the problem is as caused by monetarist economic policy.
I guess some people are already floating the idea of solving the problem by killing 5 billion people.
This is not just some sort of abstract third-world problem.
They are talking about you also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985262</id>
	<title>This actually makes sense</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1256982780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know there will be lots of complaints about throttling, and they are probably valid.  But before that starts I'd like to point out that this kind of throttling actually makes sense!  I just want to know why it never occurred to them before to implement these kind of simple rules before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there will be lots of complaints about throttling , and they are probably valid .
But before that starts I 'd like to point out that this kind of throttling actually makes sense !
I just want to know why it never occurred to them before to implement these kind of simple rules before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there will be lots of complaints about throttling, and they are probably valid.
But before that starts I'd like to point out that this kind of throttling actually makes sense!
I just want to know why it never occurred to them before to implement these kind of simple rules before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986158</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With today's video bit rates Comcast's limits are not too high. What about the next generation streaming? What about HD? What about a household with 2 people watching video 4.5 hours per day. What about a household where you watch video, stream music, download whatever you want, and check your e-mail. It's very easy for some households to hit that cap.</p><p>The point of the caps is to prevent services that compete with their own. It doesn't matter what the artificial limit is 50 or 250, it's there to prevent people from dropping cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With today 's video bit rates Comcast 's limits are not too high .
What about the next generation streaming ?
What about HD ?
What about a household with 2 people watching video 4.5 hours per day .
What about a household where you watch video , stream music , download whatever you want , and check your e-mail .
It 's very easy for some households to hit that cap.The point of the caps is to prevent services that compete with their own .
It does n't matter what the artificial limit is 50 or 250 , it 's there to prevent people from dropping cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With today's video bit rates Comcast's limits are not too high.
What about the next generation streaming?
What about HD?
What about a household with 2 people watching video 4.5 hours per day.
What about a household where you watch video, stream music, download whatever you want, and check your e-mail.
It's very easy for some households to hit that cap.The point of the caps is to prevent services that compete with their own.
It doesn't matter what the artificial limit is 50 or 250, it's there to prevent people from dropping cable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29995142</id>
	<title>Re:Just to be clear...</title>
	<author>SquareOfS</author>
	<datestamp>1257438180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this opens up an interesting possibility to provide an incentive to properly mark packets for QoS (on the user's end).
<p>
If Comcast added to this the following wrinkle: packets marked for "bulk" QoS automatically get assigned to the BE traffic level, but do not count against the consumption metric used to prioritize the rest of your traffic.
</p><p>
Presto: anyone who both torrents and watches streamed video now has an incentive to use a torrent app that marks its traffic as bulk.
</p><p>
Additionally, maybe streaming providers start getting sophisticated about how they deliver their streamed video to try to make part of that bulk as well, or at least do so adaptively when congestion is low.  And downloads to iTunes, etc., easily go bulk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this opens up an interesting possibility to provide an incentive to properly mark packets for QoS ( on the user 's end ) .
If Comcast added to this the following wrinkle : packets marked for " bulk " QoS automatically get assigned to the BE traffic level , but do not count against the consumption metric used to prioritize the rest of your traffic .
Presto : anyone who both torrents and watches streamed video now has an incentive to use a torrent app that marks its traffic as bulk .
Additionally , maybe streaming providers start getting sophisticated about how they deliver their streamed video to try to make part of that bulk as well , or at least do so adaptively when congestion is low .
And downloads to iTunes , etc. , easily go bulk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this opens up an interesting possibility to provide an incentive to properly mark packets for QoS (on the user's end).
If Comcast added to this the following wrinkle: packets marked for "bulk" QoS automatically get assigned to the BE traffic level, but do not count against the consumption metric used to prioritize the rest of your traffic.
Presto: anyone who both torrents and watches streamed video now has an incentive to use a torrent app that marks its traffic as bulk.
Additionally, maybe streaming providers start getting sophisticated about how they deliver their streamed video to try to make part of that bulk as well, or at least do so adaptively when congestion is low.
And downloads to iTunes, etc., easily go bulk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29995292</id>
	<title>Double speeds on Docsis 3.0</title>
	<author>imaginieus</author>
	<datestamp>1257438840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast recently upgrades my area to Docsis 3.0, giving me double the speed I previously had for the same price. For the last few months I have been getting a consistent 9-12mbps instead of the 4-6 I previously had.</p><p>Last night, after watching a movie on netflix, however, I checked my bandwidth, and I was getting only 5-6mbps. As it appears, they've lowered my speeds after 15 minutes of usage. While I did enjoy the 9-12 mbps, getting a consistent 5+mbps means that with a good QOS policy on my router I can stream from netflix in hd without any interrupts, so I am satisfied.</p><p>When I get home tonight, I am going to set my router to throttle at 8.3 mbps, that should put me just under the limit, so I can get a consistent speed instead of dropping to 5. If that works I'll still be getting a 50\% boost in speed, which is not too bad considering I'm still paying the same amount, though I do wish they were a little more honest about "doubling" my speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast recently upgrades my area to Docsis 3.0 , giving me double the speed I previously had for the same price .
For the last few months I have been getting a consistent 9-12mbps instead of the 4-6 I previously had.Last night , after watching a movie on netflix , however , I checked my bandwidth , and I was getting only 5-6mbps .
As it appears , they 've lowered my speeds after 15 minutes of usage .
While I did enjoy the 9-12 mbps , getting a consistent 5 + mbps means that with a good QOS policy on my router I can stream from netflix in hd without any interrupts , so I am satisfied.When I get home tonight , I am going to set my router to throttle at 8.3 mbps , that should put me just under the limit , so I can get a consistent speed instead of dropping to 5 .
If that works I 'll still be getting a 50 \ % boost in speed , which is not too bad considering I 'm still paying the same amount , though I do wish they were a little more honest about " doubling " my speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast recently upgrades my area to Docsis 3.0, giving me double the speed I previously had for the same price.
For the last few months I have been getting a consistent 9-12mbps instead of the 4-6 I previously had.Last night, after watching a movie on netflix, however, I checked my bandwidth, and I was getting only 5-6mbps.
As it appears, they've lowered my speeds after 15 minutes of usage.
While I did enjoy the 9-12 mbps, getting a consistent 5+mbps means that with a good QOS policy on my router I can stream from netflix in hd without any interrupts, so I am satisfied.When I get home tonight, I am going to set my router to throttle at 8.3 mbps, that should put me just under the limit, so I can get a consistent speed instead of dropping to 5.
If that works I'll still be getting a 50\% boost in speed, which is not too bad considering I'm still paying the same amount, though I do wish they were a little more honest about "doubling" my speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29994752</id>
	<title>Re:This sounds familiar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257436080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fail..  you lose</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail.. you lose</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail..  you lose</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987800</id>
	<title>BS</title>
	<author>Bagellord</author>
	<datestamp>1256991540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is BS. If we pay for x download and x upload we should be allowed to use that. Not have it throttled down when we use to be slower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is BS .
If we pay for x download and x upload we should be allowed to use that .
Not have it throttled down when we use to be slower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is BS.
If we pay for x download and x upload we should be allowed to use that.
Not have it throttled down when we use to be slower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985286</id>
	<title>Re:Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>elbles</author>
	<datestamp>1256982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. If this policy stands, I can't imagine it'll be long before someone writes some iptables/QoS rules for DD-WRT/OpenWRT/et cetera that automatically perform the throttling for you, as needed. Just enter your bandwidth&mdash;or have your router perform a speed test&mdash;and restrict as necessary. Allow peak bandwidth for a maximum of 14 minutes, 55 seconds, and then restrict to 69\% or whatever.

Someone will definitely automate that. Definitely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
If this policy stands , I ca n't imagine it 'll be long before someone writes some iptables/QoS rules for DD-WRT/OpenWRT/et cetera that automatically perform the throttling for you , as needed .
Just enter your bandwidth    or have your router perform a speed test    and restrict as necessary .
Allow peak bandwidth for a maximum of 14 minutes , 55 seconds , and then restrict to 69 \ % or whatever .
Someone will definitely automate that .
Definitely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
If this policy stands, I can't imagine it'll be long before someone writes some iptables/QoS rules for DD-WRT/OpenWRT/et cetera that automatically perform the throttling for you, as needed.
Just enter your bandwidth—or have your router perform a speed test—and restrict as necessary.
Allow peak bandwidth for a maximum of 14 minutes, 55 seconds, and then restrict to 69\% or whatever.
Someone will definitely automate that.
Definitely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985696</id>
	<title>Re:Throttled how far down?</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1256983920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The linked PDF says what is required, though in reading the FCC filing, the summary is a bit incorrect.<br>
Basically Comcast has 2 levels in the tier (called PBE and BE)<br>
Everyone starts out as PBE level.<br>
To get moved from PBE to BE, all of the following have to occur<br>
 - That particular network segment needs to be 'nearing congestion' defined as 70\% upstream limits or 80\% downstream limits for 15 minutes.<br>
 - A particular user has to be 'significantly contributing' defined as 70\% upstream or downstream limits for 15 minutes.<br>
Being placed in BE means that if there is congestion (meaning priorities have to be determined) any delays will affect BE traffic before PBE traffic.<br>
<br>
To be removed from BE status you have to drop below 50\% for 15 minutes<br>
<br>
I think it is good that these are coming out in the open and being shared, and I think it is a step in the right direction since they state they will no longer use a protocol based management method. If there is congestion on a network, someone has to suffer, and it seems reasonable that those placing the highest load should be the ones to feel the effects first.<br>
<br>
I do think, however, they need to mention more explicitly that the speeds they market are theoretical maximum allotments, and to give a average attainable bandwidth if everyone in their (block, building, etc) were to maximize usage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked PDF says what is required , though in reading the FCC filing , the summary is a bit incorrect .
Basically Comcast has 2 levels in the tier ( called PBE and BE ) Everyone starts out as PBE level .
To get moved from PBE to BE , all of the following have to occur - That particular network segment needs to be 'nearing congestion ' defined as 70 \ % upstream limits or 80 \ % downstream limits for 15 minutes .
- A particular user has to be 'significantly contributing ' defined as 70 \ % upstream or downstream limits for 15 minutes .
Being placed in BE means that if there is congestion ( meaning priorities have to be determined ) any delays will affect BE traffic before PBE traffic .
To be removed from BE status you have to drop below 50 \ % for 15 minutes I think it is good that these are coming out in the open and being shared , and I think it is a step in the right direction since they state they will no longer use a protocol based management method .
If there is congestion on a network , someone has to suffer , and it seems reasonable that those placing the highest load should be the ones to feel the effects first .
I do think , however , they need to mention more explicitly that the speeds they market are theoretical maximum allotments , and to give a average attainable bandwidth if everyone in their ( block , building , etc ) were to maximize usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked PDF says what is required, though in reading the FCC filing, the summary is a bit incorrect.
Basically Comcast has 2 levels in the tier (called PBE and BE)
Everyone starts out as PBE level.
To get moved from PBE to BE, all of the following have to occur
 - That particular network segment needs to be 'nearing congestion' defined as 70\% upstream limits or 80\% downstream limits for 15 minutes.
- A particular user has to be 'significantly contributing' defined as 70\% upstream or downstream limits for 15 minutes.
Being placed in BE means that if there is congestion (meaning priorities have to be determined) any delays will affect BE traffic before PBE traffic.
To be removed from BE status you have to drop below 50\% for 15 minutes

I think it is good that these are coming out in the open and being shared, and I think it is a step in the right direction since they state they will no longer use a protocol based management method.
If there is congestion on a network, someone has to suffer, and it seems reasonable that those placing the highest load should be the ones to feel the effects first.
I do think, however, they need to mention more explicitly that the speeds they market are theoretical maximum allotments, and to give a average attainable bandwidth if everyone in their (block, building, etc) were to maximize usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989060</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1256997720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The average American TV viewer watches <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/24/us.video.nielsen/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">5 hours</a> [cnn.com] of TV per day.  I'd say even &gt;9 hours isn't "unreasonable" for an adult, it's more "depressing" and "wasteful".  Either way, a family could easily watch 10 or 15 hours of programming between them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The average American TV viewer watches 5 hours [ cnn.com ] of TV per day .
I 'd say even &gt; 9 hours is n't " unreasonable " for an adult , it 's more " depressing " and " wasteful " .
Either way , a family could easily watch 10 or 15 hours of programming between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average American TV viewer watches 5 hours [cnn.com] of TV per day.
I'd say even &gt;9 hours isn't "unreasonable" for an adult, it's more "depressing" and "wasteful".
Either way, a family could easily watch 10 or 15 hours of programming between them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985350</id>
	<title>Re:Throttled how far down?</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1256982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed exactly this the other day when I was downloading a bunch of big ISOs from Technet. My typical d/l speed when maxed out is around 1.5mbyte/s. After the first few files it dropped right down to 200kbyte/s and stayed there until those files were done (which took quite a while!). So in my case it went from ~12mpbs to ~1.6mbps. Now I know it's policy and not just a glitch, I'll be calling FIOS in the morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed exactly this the other day when I was downloading a bunch of big ISOs from Technet .
My typical d/l speed when maxed out is around 1.5mbyte/s .
After the first few files it dropped right down to 200kbyte/s and stayed there until those files were done ( which took quite a while ! ) .
So in my case it went from ~ 12mpbs to ~ 1.6mbps .
Now I know it 's policy and not just a glitch , I 'll be calling FIOS in the morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed exactly this the other day when I was downloading a bunch of big ISOs from Technet.
My typical d/l speed when maxed out is around 1.5mbyte/s.
After the first few files it dropped right down to 200kbyte/s and stayed there until those files were done (which took quite a while!).
So in my case it went from ~12mpbs to ~1.6mbps.
Now I know it's policy and not just a glitch, I'll be calling FIOS in the morning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988106</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256993100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great idea, go for it!</p><p>Singed,<br>Everyone else on your block</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea , go for it ! Singed,Everyone else on your block</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea, go for it!Singed,Everyone else on your block</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986458</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256986440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix.</p></div><p>MAYBE that's true for netflix.  It isn't true for other services.</p><p>I'm looking at season 1 of "Parks and Recreation" from Itunes at 720p.<br>The bitrate of these episodes is roughly 4.5Mbps and it is just at the bare minimum of what I consider acceptable.  They are going to need to more than double that for good quality 1080p, say at least 13Mbps for broadcast-quality (not blu-ray) 1080p.  For example, NBC's nationwide 1080i backhaul is 15Mbps h264 and they are the lowest bitrate of all the major networks, ABC is roughly 35Mbps h264 for their 720p backhaul.</p><p>So, 13Mbps for decent 1080p material - that works out to:<br>~4.0GB at good 1080p<br>~1.5GB at itunes quality 720p<br>for typical 42 minute show with no commercials.</p><p>That puts comcast's cap at about 2 hours a day for good 1080p or 5.5 hours at itunes quality.<br>For an entire family, with no commercials.</p><p>The average television is <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-09-21-homes-tv\_x.htm" title="usatoday.com">on for more than 8 hours a day</a> [usatoday.com] in the US.</p><p>That puts comcast's 250GB cap at about half of the necessary level for itunes quality television, and a quarter for good quality 1080p.  For the AVERAGE family. It doesn't account for the bell-curve at all.  The cap needs to be more like 2TB to cover the average household video consumption out to the 1st standard deviation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix.MAYBE that 's true for netflix .
It is n't true for other services.I 'm looking at season 1 of " Parks and Recreation " from Itunes at 720p.The bitrate of these episodes is roughly 4.5Mbps and it is just at the bare minimum of what I consider acceptable .
They are going to need to more than double that for good quality 1080p , say at least 13Mbps for broadcast-quality ( not blu-ray ) 1080p .
For example , NBC 's nationwide 1080i backhaul is 15Mbps h264 and they are the lowest bitrate of all the major networks , ABC is roughly 35Mbps h264 for their 720p backhaul.So , 13Mbps for decent 1080p material - that works out to : ~ 4.0GB at good 1080p ~ 1.5GB at itunes quality 720pfor typical 42 minute show with no commercials.That puts comcast 's cap at about 2 hours a day for good 1080p or 5.5 hours at itunes quality.For an entire family , with no commercials.The average television is on for more than 8 hours a day [ usatoday.com ] in the US.That puts comcast 's 250GB cap at about half of the necessary level for itunes quality television , and a quarter for good quality 1080p .
For the AVERAGE family .
It does n't account for the bell-curve at all .
The cap needs to be more like 2TB to cover the average household video consumption out to the 1st standard deviation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good video over the net is 2 Mbps for Netflix.MAYBE that's true for netflix.
It isn't true for other services.I'm looking at season 1 of "Parks and Recreation" from Itunes at 720p.The bitrate of these episodes is roughly 4.5Mbps and it is just at the bare minimum of what I consider acceptable.
They are going to need to more than double that for good quality 1080p, say at least 13Mbps for broadcast-quality (not blu-ray) 1080p.
For example, NBC's nationwide 1080i backhaul is 15Mbps h264 and they are the lowest bitrate of all the major networks, ABC is roughly 35Mbps h264 for their 720p backhaul.So, 13Mbps for decent 1080p material - that works out to:~4.0GB at good 1080p~1.5GB at itunes quality 720pfor typical 42 minute show with no commercials.That puts comcast's cap at about 2 hours a day for good 1080p or 5.5 hours at itunes quality.For an entire family, with no commercials.The average television is on for more than 8 hours a day [usatoday.com] in the US.That puts comcast's 250GB cap at about half of the necessary level for itunes quality television, and a quarter for good quality 1080p.
For the AVERAGE family.
It doesn't account for the bell-curve at all.
The cap needs to be more like 2TB to cover the average household video consumption out to the 1st standard deviation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985212</id>
	<title>Power Drain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the company that brought you Power Boost.  Introducing Power Drain!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the company that brought you Power Boost .
Introducing Power Drain !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the company that brought you Power Boost.
Introducing Power Drain!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29998870</id>
	<title>New ISP</title>
	<author>mikep554</author>
	<datestamp>1257412200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to start up a new ISP: 1 terabit/second speeds!*</p><p>*speeds may vary for transfers greater than one bit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to start up a new ISP : 1 terabit/second speeds !
* * speeds may vary for transfers greater than one bit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to start up a new ISP: 1 terabit/second speeds!
**speeds may vary for transfers greater than one bit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988184</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256993460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they are going to "throttle" my service, it seems only fair for me to "throttle" my payments.</p><p>"Oh, you've been billing 100\% of the advertised rate for the last 4 months? I'm going to have to cut you down to 50\% until your annual average is under 75\%..."</p></div><p>This. I like this idea. Muchly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are going to " throttle " my service , it seems only fair for me to " throttle " my payments .
" Oh , you 've been billing 100 \ % of the advertised rate for the last 4 months ?
I 'm going to have to cut you down to 50 \ % until your annual average is under 75 \ % ... " This .
I like this idea .
Muchly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are going to "throttle" my service, it seems only fair for me to "throttle" my payments.
"Oh, you've been billing 100\% of the advertised rate for the last 4 months?
I'm going to have to cut you down to 50\% until your annual average is under 75\%..."This.
I like this idea.
Muchly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987854</id>
	<title>Speed percentages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I can't use the advertised speed Im paying for, for more than a 15 minute period without it getting throttled down. So I'm assuming this also means while I'm being throttled Im being charged a lower price for my new lower speed right?</p><p>Oh, no?</p><p>No, no, its okay I WANTED to pay you more money for less product just because I'm good like that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I ca n't use the advertised speed Im paying for , for more than a 15 minute period without it getting throttled down .
So I 'm assuming this also means while I 'm being throttled Im being charged a lower price for my new lower speed right ? Oh , no ? No , no , its okay I WANTED to pay you more money for less product just because I 'm good like that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can't use the advertised speed Im paying for, for more than a 15 minute period without it getting throttled down.
So I'm assuming this also means while I'm being throttled Im being charged a lower price for my new lower speed right?Oh, no?No, no, its okay I WANTED to pay you more money for less product just because I'm good like that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986330</id>
	<title>Re:250GB cap is meant to discourage competing serv</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1256985780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Comcast is not a monopoly.</p><p>Close enough.  If you live in a Comcast area you probably have at most two viable choices for broadband.</p><p>Option 1: The government controlled monopoly telco.  Government sets the rates, availibility and specifies reliability requirements.  Government grants your RBOC an absolute monopoly on the right to string phone wires.  Muddied recently by the cable co's new ability to offer dialtone.</p><p>Option 2: The government controlled monopoly cable co.  Government grants regional monopolies on running CATV wires, sets rates, etc.   If they were government owned outright the service wouldn't be much worse.</p><p>And in 90\% of the country you have those two choices and no others.  Broadband by wireless (ground or geosync) is only viable for people who can't get one of the others.  Slow, laggy and heavily capped sum up all wireless offerings.</p><p>All you guys whinging about the invasive effects of government with network neutrality missed the boat, it sailed already.  If you want to fix the problem, get to the root cause.  Break the monopolies one more time, but this time break them along the natural faultline.  Two government regulated utilities that owns the physical plant (the building, head end or switch and the wires, poles, boxes, etc) and two more unregulated companies that supplies dialtone, IP or TV programming by buying carriage rights from the monopolies on a 100\% non-discriminatory basis with anyone else who wants to compete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Comcast is not a monopoly.Close enough .
If you live in a Comcast area you probably have at most two viable choices for broadband.Option 1 : The government controlled monopoly telco .
Government sets the rates , availibility and specifies reliability requirements .
Government grants your RBOC an absolute monopoly on the right to string phone wires .
Muddied recently by the cable co 's new ability to offer dialtone.Option 2 : The government controlled monopoly cable co. Government grants regional monopolies on running CATV wires , sets rates , etc .
If they were government owned outright the service would n't be much worse.And in 90 \ % of the country you have those two choices and no others .
Broadband by wireless ( ground or geosync ) is only viable for people who ca n't get one of the others .
Slow , laggy and heavily capped sum up all wireless offerings.All you guys whinging about the invasive effects of government with network neutrality missed the boat , it sailed already .
If you want to fix the problem , get to the root cause .
Break the monopolies one more time , but this time break them along the natural faultline .
Two government regulated utilities that owns the physical plant ( the building , head end or switch and the wires , poles , boxes , etc ) and two more unregulated companies that supplies dialtone , IP or TV programming by buying carriage rights from the monopolies on a 100 \ % non-discriminatory basis with anyone else who wants to compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Comcast is not a monopoly.Close enough.
If you live in a Comcast area you probably have at most two viable choices for broadband.Option 1: The government controlled monopoly telco.
Government sets the rates, availibility and specifies reliability requirements.
Government grants your RBOC an absolute monopoly on the right to string phone wires.
Muddied recently by the cable co's new ability to offer dialtone.Option 2: The government controlled monopoly cable co.  Government grants regional monopolies on running CATV wires, sets rates, etc.
If they were government owned outright the service wouldn't be much worse.And in 90\% of the country you have those two choices and no others.
Broadband by wireless (ground or geosync) is only viable for people who can't get one of the others.
Slow, laggy and heavily capped sum up all wireless offerings.All you guys whinging about the invasive effects of government with network neutrality missed the boat, it sailed already.
If you want to fix the problem, get to the root cause.
Break the monopolies one more time, but this time break them along the natural faultline.
Two government regulated utilities that owns the physical plant (the building, head end or switch and the wires, poles, boxes, etc) and two more unregulated companies that supplies dialtone, IP or TV programming by buying carriage rights from the monopolies on a 100\% non-discriminatory basis with anyone else who wants to compete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29995760</id>
	<title>So why the fuck are they charging for 100\% bw</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257441240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whereas they allow you to utilize 50\% of your bandwidth at all times ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whereas they allow you to utilize 50 \ % of your bandwidth at all times ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whereas they allow you to utilize 50\% of your bandwidth at all times ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985140</id>
	<title>obligatory...</title>
	<author>AmericanGladiator</author>
	<datestamp>1256982360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, network throttling trigger trip YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , network throttling trigger trip YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, network throttling trigger trip YOU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985920</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256984640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>640k ought to be enough for everyone, right? Nope. You stated one reason why one might go over this cap yourself: offsite backups. What about sharing the connection within a household? All the emails, attachments, youtube videos, bloated websites all add up. There are tons of legal downloads available (steam for instance). And many programs recommend/require you to update regularly (windows update, anti-virus, MMOs such as WoW). The sole purpose for all this capping and throttling is to avoid "expensive" upgrades on their network and getting maximum profit. From a business point of a view, cost reduction makes perfect sense. But in a non-competitive market it is highly destructive to consumers.</p><p>IANACC (Comcast Customer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>640k ought to be enough for everyone , right ?
Nope. You stated one reason why one might go over this cap yourself : offsite backups .
What about sharing the connection within a household ?
All the emails , attachments , youtube videos , bloated websites all add up .
There are tons of legal downloads available ( steam for instance ) .
And many programs recommend/require you to update regularly ( windows update , anti-virus , MMOs such as WoW ) .
The sole purpose for all this capping and throttling is to avoid " expensive " upgrades on their network and getting maximum profit .
From a business point of a view , cost reduction makes perfect sense .
But in a non-competitive market it is highly destructive to consumers.IANACC ( Comcast Customer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>640k ought to be enough for everyone, right?
Nope. You stated one reason why one might go over this cap yourself: offsite backups.
What about sharing the connection within a household?
All the emails, attachments, youtube videos, bloated websites all add up.
There are tons of legal downloads available (steam for instance).
And many programs recommend/require you to update regularly (windows update, anti-virus, MMOs such as WoW).
The sole purpose for all this capping and throttling is to avoid "expensive" upgrades on their network and getting maximum profit.
From a business point of a view, cost reduction makes perfect sense.
But in a non-competitive market it is highly destructive to consumers.IANACC (Comcast Customer)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986100</id>
	<title>Re:let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>rant64</author>
	<datestamp>1256985120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't take it away. You just get the leftover bandwidth, after everybody who uses the internet in bursts. Strictly speaking, you must be causing delays to other customer's traffic first before you notice any throttling.</p><p>TFA says that it may cause packet loss in extreme situations, but I wonder if they couldn't just guarantee 25\% or so just to keep the connection reliable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't take it away .
You just get the leftover bandwidth , after everybody who uses the internet in bursts .
Strictly speaking , you must be causing delays to other customer 's traffic first before you notice any throttling.TFA says that it may cause packet loss in extreme situations , but I wonder if they could n't just guarantee 25 \ % or so just to keep the connection reliable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't take it away.
You just get the leftover bandwidth, after everybody who uses the internet in bursts.
Strictly speaking, you must be causing delays to other customer's traffic first before you notice any throttling.TFA says that it may cause packet loss in extreme situations, but I wonder if they couldn't just guarantee 25\% or so just to keep the connection reliable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988222</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I have municipal cable</title>
	<author>AaronW</author>
	<datestamp>1256993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even back when I had residential I regularly saw well over 1MB/second with Comcast, but I was paying for 16/3 at the time. I now have 16/3 business and almost always see all of my bandwidth available with bursts over 20Mbps. I think my segment may be lightly loaded though (plus the main Comcast head-end complex is just up the street from me). I regularly get 2MB/sec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even back when I had residential I regularly saw well over 1MB/second with Comcast , but I was paying for 16/3 at the time .
I now have 16/3 business and almost always see all of my bandwidth available with bursts over 20Mbps .
I think my segment may be lightly loaded though ( plus the main Comcast head-end complex is just up the street from me ) .
I regularly get 2MB/sec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even back when I had residential I regularly saw well over 1MB/second with Comcast, but I was paying for 16/3 at the time.
I now have 16/3 business and almost always see all of my bandwidth available with bursts over 20Mbps.
I think my segment may be lightly loaded though (plus the main Comcast head-end complex is just up the street from me).
I regularly get 2MB/sec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985790</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256984220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Six People in my house.  Four Adults, Two Kids.<br>Everyone has a slightly different schedule.<br>We use more than twenty hours of internet a day between us, much of which is video.</p><p>Yes, some people do actually use that bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Six People in my house .
Four Adults , Two Kids.Everyone has a slightly different schedule.We use more than twenty hours of internet a day between us , much of which is video.Yes , some people do actually use that bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Six People in my house.
Four Adults, Two Kids.Everyone has a slightly different schedule.We use more than twenty hours of internet a day between us, much of which is video.Yes, some people do actually use that bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29994498</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea...</title>
	<author>chapstercni</author>
	<datestamp>1257434820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>**Snicker**</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * Snicker * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>**Snicker**</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985254</id>
	<title>Hack your router</title>
	<author>Datamonstar</author>
	<datestamp>1256982720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is the answer. You're only getting what you really payed for. FUCK the DMCA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is the answer .
You 're only getting what you really payed for .
FUCK the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is the answer.
You're only getting what you really payed for.
FUCK the DMCA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989302</id>
	<title>Issue is not failure to guarantee speed...</title>
	<author>QuestorTapes</author>
	<datestamp>1256999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...cable modem contracts [assume] that your bandwidth is shared... You can burst up to the<br>&gt; advertised rate, but you are never guaranteed to get it 100\% of the time.</p><p>The offensive part of this is not that there is no guarantee of availability, but that there is a guarantee that it will -not- be available for more than 15 minute increments.</p><p>&gt; You get throttled *only* if the network is congested...</p><p>That's not what I saw in the summary. The summary states that you will be throttled if the network becomes congested -or- if you use more than 70\% for 15 minutes. I would agree that throttling if the network becomes congested is reasonable, and scaling back the peak users at those times is the obvious measure.</p><p>But the "70\% for 15 minutes" cap, when there is no congestion seems to be unsupportable. I can imagine thousands of legitimate scenarios where home users would use 70\% plus for longer than 15 minute increments; not 24/7, but for longer periods than 15 minutes. If no other users are competing for the bandwidth, what is the justification for throttling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...cable modem contracts [ assume ] that your bandwidth is shared... You can burst up to the &gt; advertised rate , but you are never guaranteed to get it 100 \ % of the time.The offensive part of this is not that there is no guarantee of availability , but that there is a guarantee that it will -not- be available for more than 15 minute increments. &gt; You get throttled * only * if the network is congested...That 's not what I saw in the summary .
The summary states that you will be throttled if the network becomes congested -or- if you use more than 70 \ % for 15 minutes .
I would agree that throttling if the network becomes congested is reasonable , and scaling back the peak users at those times is the obvious measure.But the " 70 \ % for 15 minutes " cap , when there is no congestion seems to be unsupportable .
I can imagine thousands of legitimate scenarios where home users would use 70 \ % plus for longer than 15 minute increments ; not 24/7 , but for longer periods than 15 minutes .
If no other users are competing for the bandwidth , what is the justification for throttling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...cable modem contracts [assume] that your bandwidth is shared... You can burst up to the&gt; advertised rate, but you are never guaranteed to get it 100\% of the time.The offensive part of this is not that there is no guarantee of availability, but that there is a guarantee that it will -not- be available for more than 15 minute increments.&gt; You get throttled *only* if the network is congested...That's not what I saw in the summary.
The summary states that you will be throttled if the network becomes congested -or- if you use more than 70\% for 15 minutes.
I would agree that throttling if the network becomes congested is reasonable, and scaling back the peak users at those times is the obvious measure.But the "70\% for 15 minutes" cap, when there is no congestion seems to be unsupportable.
I can imagine thousands of legitimate scenarios where home users would use 70\% plus for longer than 15 minute increments; not 24/7, but for longer periods than 15 minutes.
If no other users are competing for the bandwidth, what is the justification for throttling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985278</id>
	<title>Snowballing...</title>
	<author>Evelas</author>
	<datestamp>1256982780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just keeps getting worse and worse...surely there must be something we can do to end this. (not a comcast user)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just keeps getting worse and worse...surely there must be something we can do to end this .
( not a comcast user )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just keeps getting worse and worse...surely there must be something we can do to end this.
(not a comcast user)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986302</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I do, I basically have my netflix running all day long when I'm home. My wife plays a lot of kids shows over it also during the day I'm at work for the baby. It's not hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I do , I basically have my netflix running all day long when I 'm home .
My wife plays a lot of kids shows over it also during the day I 'm at work for the baby .
It 's not hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I do, I basically have my netflix running all day long when I'm home.
My wife plays a lot of kids shows over it also during the day I'm at work for the baby.
It's not hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986210</id>
	<title>Wait, so Comcast is ripping off their customers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You see, if you pay for an unlimited internet plan, you should be able to use your maximum bandwidth as much as you want.  You paid for it, right?</p><p>Comcast, throtting someone's internet connection is considered limiting it, and if you are limiting something that is suppose to be unlimited, you are not giving your customers what they are paying for, thus, the customer shouldn't even pay you for the crappy service then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You see , if you pay for an unlimited internet plan , you should be able to use your maximum bandwidth as much as you want .
You paid for it , right ? Comcast , throtting someone 's internet connection is considered limiting it , and if you are limiting something that is suppose to be unlimited , you are not giving your customers what they are paying for , thus , the customer should n't even pay you for the crappy service then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see, if you pay for an unlimited internet plan, you should be able to use your maximum bandwidth as much as you want.
You paid for it, right?Comcast, throtting someone's internet connection is considered limiting it, and if you are limiting something that is suppose to be unlimited, you are not giving your customers what they are paying for, thus, the customer shouldn't even pay you for the crappy service then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985356</id>
	<title>lag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to &ndash; along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers &ndash; gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible.</p></div> </blockquote><p>This I don't like, but I understand. If this happens often Comcast should be upping capacity, but as a short-term solution the principle seems reasonable and fair (putting aside the filtering looking a bit extreme). </p><blockquote><div><p>Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes</p></div></blockquote><p>This however appears to be a solution without requiring there to be a problem. Being penalised regardless of whether there is congestion or not, simply for utilising three-quarters of what you paid for. The description in TFA does seem to imply that if there is no congestion the actual bandwidth won't change too much, but I guess it would significantly impact gaming lag (particularly if you're hosting).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you 're hooked-up to    along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers    gets congested , and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible .
This I do n't like , but I understand .
If this happens often Comcast should be upping capacity , but as a short-term solution the principle seems reasonable and fair ( putting aside the filtering looking a bit extreme ) .
Comcast 's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutesThis however appears to be a solution without requiring there to be a problem .
Being penalised regardless of whether there is congestion or not , simply for utilising three-quarters of what you paid for .
The description in TFA does seem to imply that if there is no congestion the actual bandwidth wo n't change too much , but I guess it would significantly impact gaming lag ( particularly if you 're hosting ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to – along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers – gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible.
This I don't like, but I understand.
If this happens often Comcast should be upping capacity, but as a short-term solution the principle seems reasonable and fair (putting aside the filtering looking a bit extreme).
Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutesThis however appears to be a solution without requiring there to be a problem.
Being penalised regardless of whether there is congestion or not, simply for utilising three-quarters of what you paid for.
The description in TFA does seem to imply that if there is no congestion the actual bandwidth won't change too much, but I guess it would significantly impact gaming lag (particularly if you're hosting).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986902</id>
	<title>X Mbps burst, Y Mbps/30 min, 250Mb per month</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1256988180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they would advertise honestly and have a means to measure traffic people would complain less.</p><p>After all, when I'm downloading the latest Linux distro I want to know how long it will take, not wait not knowing if it will ever complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they would advertise honestly and have a means to measure traffic people would complain less.After all , when I 'm downloading the latest Linux distro I want to know how long it will take , not wait not knowing if it will ever complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they would advertise honestly and have a means to measure traffic people would complain less.After all, when I'm downloading the latest Linux distro I want to know how long it will take, not wait not knowing if it will ever complete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986492</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, its not...</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1256986560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, given that the <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/11/americans-now-w.html" title="latimes.com">average American household watches 8 hours 18 minutes of television a day</a> [latimes.com], all you'd have to do is consider the proportion of the people who use Netflix/Hulu as their television.  Just under half of them will be hitting that 250GB cap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , given that the average American household watches 8 hours 18 minutes of television a day [ latimes.com ] , all you 'd have to do is consider the proportion of the people who use Netflix/Hulu as their television .
Just under half of them will be hitting that 250GB cap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, given that the average American household watches 8 hours 18 minutes of television a day [latimes.com], all you'd have to do is consider the proportion of the people who use Netflix/Hulu as their television.
Just under half of them will be hitting that 250GB cap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985218</id>
	<title>What the hell...</title>
	<author>danking</author>
	<datestamp>1256982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell is the point of having download/upload speeds if you can't utilize them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is the point of having download/upload speeds if you ca n't utilize them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is the point of having download/upload speeds if you can't utilize them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985514</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea...</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1256983440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Crap like this makes me want to "throttle" Comcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap like this makes me want to " throttle " Comcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap like this makes me want to "throttle" Comcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985906</id>
	<title>Customers are sheep</title>
	<author>c4str4t0</author>
	<datestamp>1256984580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So instead of upgrading infrastructure and offering more bandwidth to customers like other civilized nations, comcast punishes customers by limiting throughput.  As long as customers keep paying for their service, comcast can afford to do this.  Customers need to stop acting like sheep and speak out against such ba-a-a-a-a-d service!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of upgrading infrastructure and offering more bandwidth to customers like other civilized nations , comcast punishes customers by limiting throughput .
As long as customers keep paying for their service , comcast can afford to do this .
Customers need to stop acting like sheep and speak out against such ba-a-a-a-a-d service !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of upgrading infrastructure and offering more bandwidth to customers like other civilized nations, comcast punishes customers by limiting throughput.
As long as customers keep paying for their service, comcast can afford to do this.
Customers need to stop acting like sheep and speak out against such ba-a-a-a-a-d service!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986140</id>
	<title>This shouldn't be a problem...</title>
	<author>flibbidyfloo</author>
	<datestamp>1256985240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect this won't affect most people because I almost never get anywhere near the supposed 12Mb speeds Comcast promises, and neither does anyone else I know. If I got 9Mb speeds for 15 minutes straight I'd probably drop dead of shock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect this wo n't affect most people because I almost never get anywhere near the supposed 12Mb speeds Comcast promises , and neither does anyone else I know .
If I got 9Mb speeds for 15 minutes straight I 'd probably drop dead of shock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect this won't affect most people because I almost never get anywhere near the supposed 12Mb speeds Comcast promises, and neither does anyone else I know.
If I got 9Mb speeds for 15 minutes straight I'd probably drop dead of shock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986336</id>
	<title>Re:let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you believe they are committing false advertising then please contact your state attorney general and the FTC. Bitching online doesn't solve the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe they are committing false advertising then please contact your state attorney general and the FTC .
Bitching online does n't solve the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe they are committing false advertising then please contact your state attorney general and the FTC.
Bitching online doesn't solve the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29992216</id>
	<title>What freedom? lol</title>
	<author>plastick</author>
	<datestamp>1257413880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's no shocker that Comcast is trying to rip us off. Some people think the government will save us... whatever. They want their power control of the internet as well and we've seen enough evidence of that. Just look at the laws they passed and the new laws they want to pass.
<br> <br>
Let's just own up and face it, the democans and the republicrats are all the same garbage. Seriously? We can wrap all of the peoples' needs into two "parties" when they are more loyal to the party than the public?
<br> <br>
We don't have freedom of voting. lol  What a joke. You know what we have? "Here's a couple of people the Counsel of Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve picked. Choose one." People wind up voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
<br> <br>
Ya, so much for freedom. It's all rigged. We lost most of our rights a long time ago but now they are just being more obvious about it.
<br> <br>
People who defend Obama are seriously deluded... just as deluded as the people who defend Bush. When are people gonna wake up and realize that this whole Republican and Democrat scam is a distraction and the clowns all work together, eat together, and make deals behind closed doors together?
<br> <br>
Let's just hope people realize before it's too late and we wind up like China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no shocker that Comcast is trying to rip us off .
Some people think the government will save us... whatever. They want their power control of the internet as well and we 've seen enough evidence of that .
Just look at the laws they passed and the new laws they want to pass .
Let 's just own up and face it , the democans and the republicrats are all the same garbage .
Seriously ? We can wrap all of the peoples ' needs into two " parties " when they are more loyal to the party than the public ?
We do n't have freedom of voting .
lol What a joke .
You know what we have ?
" Here 's a couple of people the Counsel of Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve picked .
Choose one .
" People wind up voting for the lesser of 2 evils .
Ya , so much for freedom .
It 's all rigged .
We lost most of our rights a long time ago but now they are just being more obvious about it .
People who defend Obama are seriously deluded... just as deluded as the people who defend Bush .
When are people gon na wake up and realize that this whole Republican and Democrat scam is a distraction and the clowns all work together , eat together , and make deals behind closed doors together ?
Let 's just hope people realize before it 's too late and we wind up like China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no shocker that Comcast is trying to rip us off.
Some people think the government will save us... whatever. They want their power control of the internet as well and we've seen enough evidence of that.
Just look at the laws they passed and the new laws they want to pass.
Let's just own up and face it, the democans and the republicrats are all the same garbage.
Seriously? We can wrap all of the peoples' needs into two "parties" when they are more loyal to the party than the public?
We don't have freedom of voting.
lol  What a joke.
You know what we have?
"Here's a couple of people the Counsel of Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve picked.
Choose one.
" People wind up voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Ya, so much for freedom.
It's all rigged.
We lost most of our rights a long time ago but now they are just being more obvious about it.
People who defend Obama are seriously deluded... just as deluded as the people who defend Bush.
When are people gonna wake up and realize that this whole Republican and Democrat scam is a distraction and the clowns all work together, eat together, and make deals behind closed doors together?
Let's just hope people realize before it's too late and we wind up like China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985600</id>
	<title>A Solution!</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1256983740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I understand correctly:<br> <br>

Option 1<br>
I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast.<br>
I don't like those conditions.<br>
Therefore the government forces Comcast to do things I do like.<br> <br>

Alternatively.<br>
Option 2<br>
I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast.<br>
I don't like those conditions.<br>
Therefore people laugh at me for buying thins I don't like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand correctly : Option 1 I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast .
I do n't like those conditions .
Therefore the government forces Comcast to do things I do like .
Alternatively . Option 2 I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast .
I do n't like those conditions .
Therefore people laugh at me for buying thins I do n't like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand correctly: 

Option 1
I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast.
I don't like those conditions.
Therefore the government forces Comcast to do things I do like.
Alternatively.
Option 2
I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast.
I don't like those conditions.
Therefore people laugh at me for buying thins I don't like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30006938</id>
	<title>Not new and not evil</title>
	<author>beej69</author>
	<datestamp>1257531300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first, this isn't new.  this is "news" from 1/09.  second, this is an IMPROVEMENT that comcast made, imnsho.  good story about it here:<br><a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Slammed-For-NonExistent-Throttling-Changes-105380" title="dslreports.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Slammed-For-NonExistent-Throttling-Changes-105380</a> [dslreports.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first , this is n't new .
this is " news " from 1/09 .
second , this is an IMPROVEMENT that comcast made , imnsho .
good story about it here : http : //www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Slammed-For-NonExistent-Throttling-Changes-105380 [ dslreports.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first, this isn't new.
this is "news" from 1/09.
second, this is an IMPROVEMENT that comcast made, imnsho.
good story about it here:http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Slammed-For-NonExistent-Throttling-Changes-105380 [dslreports.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29997414</id>
	<title>Throttling is cheaper than developing network?</title>
	<author>the lliez</author>
	<datestamp>1257449340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Implementing such throttling mechanism must be expensive: development, QA, deployment, maintenance, support staff,... If you disconnect your users because of a bug in the throttling system, that would be counter productive.</p><p>But it is still cheaper and less risky than improving the network? Is that really an investment in the right direction?</p><p>There is not enough discussion about the network usage projection for the next few years. If throttling is already needed today, what about in 5 years?</p><p>Today, from home (2 adults, 2 kids) we have hard time staying under the 5gb Verizon limit (wireless broadband):<br>- Running OS updates (the last linux-loaded laptop update took 500mb) and all the app updates;<br>- Watching your friends pictures, videos (I have to tell my wife to restrain YouTube usage to just few clip a month);<br>- Watching/Reading the news (more and more multimedia stuff on the different sites);<br>- Gaming (My kids love Webkinz that seems to draw quite some bandwith);<br>- Weekend Skype video conf with remote relatives (I have to enforce a 15 minute limit);<br>- Downloading Podcasts;<br>- And simply working from home (exchanging docs, files, web search...).</p><p>I monitor our network usage such that we stay under 5gb. But that's tight. We were in the 2 to 3 gb a month a year ago. We are now near 4gb. But we are not even streaming music (Pandora, Last.fm) or using systems like Hulu. We might be an above average consumer type today, but that's just going to continue growing. What about Video on demand (Netflix, AppleTV)?</p><p>If throttling is needed today, that's scary for the near term future.</p><p>TT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Implementing such throttling mechanism must be expensive : development , QA , deployment , maintenance , support staff,... If you disconnect your users because of a bug in the throttling system , that would be counter productive.But it is still cheaper and less risky than improving the network ?
Is that really an investment in the right direction ? There is not enough discussion about the network usage projection for the next few years .
If throttling is already needed today , what about in 5 years ? Today , from home ( 2 adults , 2 kids ) we have hard time staying under the 5gb Verizon limit ( wireless broadband ) : - Running OS updates ( the last linux-loaded laptop update took 500mb ) and all the app updates ; - Watching your friends pictures , videos ( I have to tell my wife to restrain YouTube usage to just few clip a month ) ; - Watching/Reading the news ( more and more multimedia stuff on the different sites ) ; - Gaming ( My kids love Webkinz that seems to draw quite some bandwith ) ; - Weekend Skype video conf with remote relatives ( I have to enforce a 15 minute limit ) ; - Downloading Podcasts ; - And simply working from home ( exchanging docs , files , web search... ) .I monitor our network usage such that we stay under 5gb .
But that 's tight .
We were in the 2 to 3 gb a month a year ago .
We are now near 4gb .
But we are not even streaming music ( Pandora , Last.fm ) or using systems like Hulu .
We might be an above average consumer type today , but that 's just going to continue growing .
What about Video on demand ( Netflix , AppleTV ) ? If throttling is needed today , that 's scary for the near term future.TT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Implementing such throttling mechanism must be expensive: development, QA, deployment, maintenance, support staff,... If you disconnect your users because of a bug in the throttling system, that would be counter productive.But it is still cheaper and less risky than improving the network?
Is that really an investment in the right direction?There is not enough discussion about the network usage projection for the next few years.
If throttling is already needed today, what about in 5 years?Today, from home (2 adults, 2 kids) we have hard time staying under the 5gb Verizon limit (wireless broadband):- Running OS updates (the last linux-loaded laptop update took 500mb) and all the app updates;- Watching your friends pictures, videos (I have to tell my wife to restrain YouTube usage to just few clip a month);- Watching/Reading the news (more and more multimedia stuff on the different sites);- Gaming (My kids love Webkinz that seems to draw quite some bandwith);- Weekend Skype video conf with remote relatives (I have to enforce a 15 minute limit);- Downloading Podcasts;- And simply working from home (exchanging docs, files, web search...).I monitor our network usage such that we stay under 5gb.
But that's tight.
We were in the 2 to 3 gb a month a year ago.
We are now near 4gb.
But we are not even streaming music (Pandora, Last.fm) or using systems like Hulu.
We might be an above average consumer type today, but that's just going to continue growing.
What about Video on demand (Netflix, AppleTV)?If throttling is needed today, that's scary for the near term future.TT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985360</id>
	<title>Glad I have municipal cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256983020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in the SF Bay area, which is mostly Comcast country, but I'm really lucky to be in a city that has municipal cable. I have 12 mpbs down with no throttling. If there's a transfer cap, I've never run up against it.</p><p>I suspect what's going on with Comcast is their subscribers and bandwidth use are growing faster than they can (or at least want to) add capacity, so they're solving the problem with throttling. As a network engineer in a previous career life, I have a certain amount of sympathy for them in this case. Their bandwidth demands may be growing faster than they can add capacity while having their Internet business remain profitable. Throttling heavy users is one solution, and they are far from the first ISP to do so. The ISP I worked for 10 years ago did it in some cases. Our TOS allowed it in all cases, but it was usually only enforced in cases where a particular user was being regularly problematic.</p><p>Of course, my municipal cable provider seems to have no problem maintaining infrastructure, and IIRC they charge about the same as Comcast, so...</p><p>However, I do take issue with applying such a throttle after only 15 minutes. For most people, that's not long enough to download an install CD ISO (I can do it, since I usually see download speeds &gt;= 1 megabyte/sec for ISOs) but I don't think most Comcast users get a connection as fast as mine; correct me if I'm wrong). Since I'm sort of a distro whore, I tend to download a lot of install ISOs. For distros that install from DVD, that 15 minutes is even worse.  I think the throttling threshold should be at least 30 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in the SF Bay area , which is mostly Comcast country , but I 'm really lucky to be in a city that has municipal cable .
I have 12 mpbs down with no throttling .
If there 's a transfer cap , I 've never run up against it.I suspect what 's going on with Comcast is their subscribers and bandwidth use are growing faster than they can ( or at least want to ) add capacity , so they 're solving the problem with throttling .
As a network engineer in a previous career life , I have a certain amount of sympathy for them in this case .
Their bandwidth demands may be growing faster than they can add capacity while having their Internet business remain profitable .
Throttling heavy users is one solution , and they are far from the first ISP to do so .
The ISP I worked for 10 years ago did it in some cases .
Our TOS allowed it in all cases , but it was usually only enforced in cases where a particular user was being regularly problematic.Of course , my municipal cable provider seems to have no problem maintaining infrastructure , and IIRC they charge about the same as Comcast , so...However , I do take issue with applying such a throttle after only 15 minutes .
For most people , that 's not long enough to download an install CD ISO ( I can do it , since I usually see download speeds &gt; = 1 megabyte/sec for ISOs ) but I do n't think most Comcast users get a connection as fast as mine ; correct me if I 'm wrong ) .
Since I 'm sort of a distro whore , I tend to download a lot of install ISOs .
For distros that install from DVD , that 15 minutes is even worse .
I think the throttling threshold should be at least 30 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in the SF Bay area, which is mostly Comcast country, but I'm really lucky to be in a city that has municipal cable.
I have 12 mpbs down with no throttling.
If there's a transfer cap, I've never run up against it.I suspect what's going on with Comcast is their subscribers and bandwidth use are growing faster than they can (or at least want to) add capacity, so they're solving the problem with throttling.
As a network engineer in a previous career life, I have a certain amount of sympathy for them in this case.
Their bandwidth demands may be growing faster than they can add capacity while having their Internet business remain profitable.
Throttling heavy users is one solution, and they are far from the first ISP to do so.
The ISP I worked for 10 years ago did it in some cases.
Our TOS allowed it in all cases, but it was usually only enforced in cases where a particular user was being regularly problematic.Of course, my municipal cable provider seems to have no problem maintaining infrastructure, and IIRC they charge about the same as Comcast, so...However, I do take issue with applying such a throttle after only 15 minutes.
For most people, that's not long enough to download an install CD ISO (I can do it, since I usually see download speeds &gt;= 1 megabyte/sec for ISOs) but I don't think most Comcast users get a connection as fast as mine; correct me if I'm wrong).
Since I'm sort of a distro whore, I tend to download a lot of install ISOs.
For distros that install from DVD, that 15 minutes is even worse.
I think the throttling threshold should be at least 30 minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985726</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea...</title>
	<author>musicalmicah</author>
	<datestamp>1256984040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, that is similar to what many people do: Comcast is notorious for offering introductory rates, like $20/month, that last for 3-6 months. Afterwards, they go back to the "standard" rate of $60/month.

Many people have a regular routine of calling up Comcast after the introductory period to tell Comcast that they can't afford the new rate. Once the Comcast rep has to decide between losing the customer or keeping the rates low, they quite often go for the latter. Payment throttled!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that is similar to what many people do : Comcast is notorious for offering introductory rates , like $ 20/month , that last for 3-6 months .
Afterwards , they go back to the " standard " rate of $ 60/month .
Many people have a regular routine of calling up Comcast after the introductory period to tell Comcast that they ca n't afford the new rate .
Once the Comcast rep has to decide between losing the customer or keeping the rates low , they quite often go for the latter .
Payment throttled !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that is similar to what many people do: Comcast is notorious for offering introductory rates, like $20/month, that last for 3-6 months.
Afterwards, they go back to the "standard" rate of $60/month.
Many people have a regular routine of calling up Comcast after the introductory period to tell Comcast that they can't afford the new rate.
Once the Comcast rep has to decide between losing the customer or keeping the rates low, they quite often go for the latter.
Payment throttled!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988666</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1256995800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it was actually full they couldn't add new customers, new channels, or new services without laying their own cable each time, all of which they do all the time.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was actually full they could n't add new customers , new channels , or new services without laying their own cable each time , all of which they do all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was actually full they couldn't add new customers, new channels, or new services without laying their own cable each time, all of which they do all the time.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989436</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You get throttled to about 5\% of your bandwidth whenever it kicks in here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You get throttled to about 5 \ % of your bandwidth whenever it kicks in here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get throttled to about 5\% of your bandwidth whenever it kicks in here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985394</id>
	<title>They just kill my connection</title>
	<author>dae3dae3</author>
	<datestamp>1256983080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I torrent anything my cable modem will lose its connection.  I can go for weeks at a time with no problem but if I decide to torrent a TV show I missed my connection will be dead within 20 minutes and I have to power cycle the modem.  It is very annoying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I torrent anything my cable modem will lose its connection .
I can go for weeks at a time with no problem but if I decide to torrent a TV show I missed my connection will be dead within 20 minutes and I have to power cycle the modem .
It is very annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I torrent anything my cable modem will lose its connection.
I can go for weeks at a time with no problem but if I decide to torrent a TV show I missed my connection will be dead within 20 minutes and I have to power cycle the modem.
It is very annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985380</id>
	<title>Summary Backwards</title>
	<author>HoboCop</author>
	<datestamp>1256983080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the FCC paper.. the summary is full of errors.  The individual user does not get throttled until the entire CTMS port is in a congested state (that's 80\% downstream, 70\% upstream).  And 'throttled' is a loose term.. if the bandwidth is available you get it.  You are throttled if there are lower volume users on the shared pipe, and even then they just get a higher priority.  Depending on how bad the congestion is, you might not even notice this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the FCC paper.. the summary is full of errors .
The individual user does not get throttled until the entire CTMS port is in a congested state ( that 's 80 \ % downstream , 70 \ % upstream ) .
And 'throttled ' is a loose term.. if the bandwidth is available you get it .
You are throttled if there are lower volume users on the shared pipe , and even then they just get a higher priority .
Depending on how bad the congestion is , you might not even notice this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the FCC paper.. the summary is full of errors.
The individual user does not get throttled until the entire CTMS port is in a congested state (that's 80\% downstream, 70\% upstream).
And 'throttled' is a loose term.. if the bandwidth is available you get it.
You are throttled if there are lower volume users on the shared pipe, and even then they just get a higher priority.
Depending on how bad the congestion is, you might not even notice this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986930</id>
	<title>Seems fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256988300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's great.  So, I should just set it to 69\% of my plan to be sure that my streaming is never interrupted?</p><p>I really see this being a problem only for economy plan users who are streaming video.</p><p>It's just a smart thing for them to do from a business side.  They are going to be losing a ton of customers to online video (Hulu, Netflix, even Apple, Blockbuster, etc) on the cable side....I ditched them already.  This will force their Internet customers to at least pay them about the same....instead of the lower $25/mo plan.</p><p>Smart, fair, that's good enough.  The fact is a long haul fiber uplink, while down a lot, is still going to cost the ISP dearly.  Far more than $7.50/Mbit/mo (assuming $45 line 6Mbit down which seems like what it is...)...I doubt if even Comcast could do it for less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great .
So , I should just set it to 69 \ % of my plan to be sure that my streaming is never interrupted ? I really see this being a problem only for economy plan users who are streaming video.It 's just a smart thing for them to do from a business side .
They are going to be losing a ton of customers to online video ( Hulu , Netflix , even Apple , Blockbuster , etc ) on the cable side....I ditched them already .
This will force their Internet customers to at least pay them about the same....instead of the lower $ 25/mo plan.Smart , fair , that 's good enough .
The fact is a long haul fiber uplink , while down a lot , is still going to cost the ISP dearly .
Far more than $ 7.50/Mbit/mo ( assuming $ 45 line 6Mbit down which seems like what it is... ) ...I doubt if even Comcast could do it for less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great.
So, I should just set it to 69\% of my plan to be sure that my streaming is never interrupted?I really see this being a problem only for economy plan users who are streaming video.It's just a smart thing for them to do from a business side.
They are going to be losing a ton of customers to online video (Hulu, Netflix, even Apple, Blockbuster, etc) on the cable side....I ditched them already.
This will force their Internet customers to at least pay them about the same....instead of the lower $25/mo plan.Smart, fair, that's good enough.
The fact is a long haul fiber uplink, while down a lot, is still going to cost the ISP dearly.
Far more than $7.50/Mbit/mo (assuming $45 line 6Mbit down which seems like what it is...)...I doubt if even Comcast could do it for less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29998410</id>
	<title>Re:Advertised Speed</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1257453300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're not throttled <i>to</i> 50\%.  You're throttled until your <i>average</i> reaches 50\%.  Perhaps that means that if you were at 70\% for 15 minutes, you might be throttled to 30\% for 15 minutes.  Or 1\% for a shorter period?</p><p><i>Comcast says that a throttled subscriber's connection that is forced into the lower BE quality of service queue "may or may not result in the user's traffic being delayed or, in extreme cases, dropped before PBE traffic is dropped."</i></p><p>So in "extreme cases", whatever those are, you'll be failing to download any file which takes &gt; 15 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're not throttled to 50 \ % .
You 're throttled until your average reaches 50 \ % .
Perhaps that means that if you were at 70 \ % for 15 minutes , you might be throttled to 30 \ % for 15 minutes .
Or 1 \ % for a shorter period ? Comcast says that a throttled subscriber 's connection that is forced into the lower BE quality of service queue " may or may not result in the user 's traffic being delayed or , in extreme cases , dropped before PBE traffic is dropped .
" So in " extreme cases " , whatever those are , you 'll be failing to download any file which takes &gt; 15 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're not throttled to 50\%.
You're throttled until your average reaches 50\%.
Perhaps that means that if you were at 70\% for 15 minutes, you might be throttled to 30\% for 15 minutes.
Or 1\% for a shorter period?Comcast says that a throttled subscriber's connection that is forced into the lower BE quality of service queue "may or may not result in the user's traffic being delayed or, in extreme cases, dropped before PBE traffic is dropped.
"So in "extreme cases", whatever those are, you'll be failing to download any file which takes &gt; 15 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985416</id>
	<title>Re:250GB cap is meant to discourage competing serv</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1256983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though you're right, Comcast will argue that it's only pirates that they're trying to limit. And since the people making the laws don't understand how computers work, they stand a good chance of winning. It will be interesting to see if the FCC's new net neutrality regulations will be applied here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though you 're right , Comcast will argue that it 's only pirates that they 're trying to limit .
And since the people making the laws do n't understand how computers work , they stand a good chance of winning .
It will be interesting to see if the FCC 's new net neutrality regulations will be applied here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though you're right, Comcast will argue that it's only pirates that they're trying to limit.
And since the people making the laws don't understand how computers work, they stand a good chance of winning.
It will be interesting to see if the FCC's new net neutrality regulations will be applied here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29993372</id>
	<title>Re:Then throttle yourself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257427500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love for that program to be written<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Right now I just capped myself at 69\%. We'll see what happens at 5:10PM today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love for that program to be written : ) Right now I just capped myself at 69 \ % .
We 'll see what happens at 5 : 10PM today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love for that program to be written :)Right now I just capped myself at 69\%.
We'll see what happens at 5:10PM today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987788</id>
	<title>better solution comcast</title>
	<author>masshuu</author>
	<datestamp>1256991480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop overselling like its the 1990s</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop overselling like its the 1990s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop overselling like its the 1990s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29999922</id>
	<title>A little late to /.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257416460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article was posted in January on The Inquirer, how exactly is this news NOW, 11 months later?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article was posted in January on The Inquirer , how exactly is this news NOW , 11 months later ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article was posted in January on The Inquirer, how exactly is this news NOW, 11 months later?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986552</id>
	<title>The summary and TFA are wrong.</title>
	<author>roachdabug</author>
	<datestamp>1256986740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you actually read the filing with the FCC, you'd find that so long as the overall bandwidth limit at the the CMTS are not exceeded, a user can use 100\% of his provisioned bandwidth indefinitely. It is ONLY after network congestion reaches its limit that the system searches for high-usage users and moves them to a lower priority.</p><p>The summary and TFA incorrectly state that when EITHER condition is met, a user's connection will be throttled, when actually BOTH conditions need to be true.</p><p>Also, TFA is from January 2009...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually read the filing with the FCC , you 'd find that so long as the overall bandwidth limit at the the CMTS are not exceeded , a user can use 100 \ % of his provisioned bandwidth indefinitely .
It is ONLY after network congestion reaches its limit that the system searches for high-usage users and moves them to a lower priority.The summary and TFA incorrectly state that when EITHER condition is met , a user 's connection will be throttled , when actually BOTH conditions need to be true.Also , TFA is from January 2009.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually read the filing with the FCC, you'd find that so long as the overall bandwidth limit at the the CMTS are not exceeded, a user can use 100\% of his provisioned bandwidth indefinitely.
It is ONLY after network congestion reaches its limit that the system searches for high-usage users and moves them to a lower priority.The summary and TFA incorrectly state that when EITHER condition is met, a user's connection will be throttled, when actually BOTH conditions need to be true.Also, TFA is from January 2009...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985846</id>
	<title>This is ridiculous</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1256984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I downloaded an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.iso image from Microsoft licensing last night and it took me about twenty two minutes to get the file.  If I was on Comcast they'd throttle my connection for that?!</p><p>They need to adjust their filtering policies to allow legitimate traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I downloaded an .iso image from Microsoft licensing last night and it took me about twenty two minutes to get the file .
If I was on Comcast they 'd throttle my connection for that ?
! They need to adjust their filtering policies to allow legitimate traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I downloaded an .iso image from Microsoft licensing last night and it took me about twenty two minutes to get the file.
If I was on Comcast they'd throttle my connection for that?
!They need to adjust their filtering policies to allow legitimate traffic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985940</id>
	<title>How does this affect gamers?  (MMOs specifically)</title>
	<author>MalikyeMoon</author>
	<datestamp>1256984700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does this affect gamers then, specifically MMOs?  You are connected at a constant up/down stream connection that takes advantage of whatever available bandwidth you have as far as I know (unconfirmed).  You are generally connected for a lot longer than 15 min. and you are not downloading anything p2p, yet your heavy usage is going to be punished now I assume.  For those of us that purchase the higher bandwidth connections to begin with in order to game, this bytes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

Can anyone confirm how they prioritize gaming traffic over their networks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this affect gamers then , specifically MMOs ?
You are connected at a constant up/down stream connection that takes advantage of whatever available bandwidth you have as far as I know ( unconfirmed ) .
You are generally connected for a lot longer than 15 min .
and you are not downloading anything p2p , yet your heavy usage is going to be punished now I assume .
For those of us that purchase the higher bandwidth connections to begin with in order to game , this bytes : ) Can anyone confirm how they prioritize gaming traffic over their networks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this affect gamers then, specifically MMOs?
You are connected at a constant up/down stream connection that takes advantage of whatever available bandwidth you have as far as I know (unconfirmed).
You are generally connected for a lot longer than 15 min.
and you are not downloading anything p2p, yet your heavy usage is going to be punished now I assume.
For those of us that purchase the higher bandwidth connections to begin with in order to game, this bytes :)

Can anyone confirm how they prioritize gaming traffic over their networks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987558</id>
	<title>I'm actually mostly satisfied with this</title>
	<author>californication</author>
	<datestamp>1256990640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm actually mostly satisfied with this, because:</p><p>1)  They're being transparent about it.  Using this information, the end user can figure out how to configure stuff on their end to get the maximum total download, if they need it.  I wonder if you can download more by downloading at max speed and taking the throttling or by staying just below the trigger that throttles you?</p><p>2)  It sounds like there is no deep packet inspection going on at all to decide traffic prioritization.  This means services that run over the internet like VoIP can compete based on price and quality of service, things the consumer likes, not based on who has a better relationship with the ISP that the consumer is paying to transfer the traffic.</p><p>The things I am worried about are:</p><p>1)  If they advertise using maximum available bandwidth only, that is misleading advertising.  They should advertise the speed that you can download at without threat of throttling and mention that you can achieve higher speeds than that for limited periods of time.</p><p>2)  If the cap applies to third party services but not to the ISP's services, like high definition television, this is anti-competitive and shows a desire to limit consumer choice.  Third-party internet television providers won't be able to compete because their customers will constantly be hitting that cap, so the cable companies will fulfill their own prophecy that consumers want their television service and not a third-party's.</p><p>3)  What does this mean: "your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible [for congestion]"?  This does not sound transparent.  I didn't read the full FCC filing, but if someone has an answer as to how they figure out which user's traffic is causing the congestion, it'd be appreciated.  If they're looking at the kind of data you are transferring to decide whether to throttle you or not, that's not acceptable.  ISPs should not be digging around in our packages to decide what to do with the data we pay them to transfer.  Throttle the heaviest user of the CMTS, the one that's been using it the longest, whatever, as long as you're not looking to see what kind of data we are transferring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm actually mostly satisfied with this , because : 1 ) They 're being transparent about it .
Using this information , the end user can figure out how to configure stuff on their end to get the maximum total download , if they need it .
I wonder if you can download more by downloading at max speed and taking the throttling or by staying just below the trigger that throttles you ? 2 ) It sounds like there is no deep packet inspection going on at all to decide traffic prioritization .
This means services that run over the internet like VoIP can compete based on price and quality of service , things the consumer likes , not based on who has a better relationship with the ISP that the consumer is paying to transfer the traffic.The things I am worried about are : 1 ) If they advertise using maximum available bandwidth only , that is misleading advertising .
They should advertise the speed that you can download at without threat of throttling and mention that you can achieve higher speeds than that for limited periods of time.2 ) If the cap applies to third party services but not to the ISP 's services , like high definition television , this is anti-competitive and shows a desire to limit consumer choice .
Third-party internet television providers wo n't be able to compete because their customers will constantly be hitting that cap , so the cable companies will fulfill their own prophecy that consumers want their television service and not a third-party 's.3 ) What does this mean : " your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible [ for congestion ] " ?
This does not sound transparent .
I did n't read the full FCC filing , but if someone has an answer as to how they figure out which user 's traffic is causing the congestion , it 'd be appreciated .
If they 're looking at the kind of data you are transferring to decide whether to throttle you or not , that 's not acceptable .
ISPs should not be digging around in our packages to decide what to do with the data we pay them to transfer .
Throttle the heaviest user of the CMTS , the one that 's been using it the longest , whatever , as long as you 're not looking to see what kind of data we are transferring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm actually mostly satisfied with this, because:1)  They're being transparent about it.
Using this information, the end user can figure out how to configure stuff on their end to get the maximum total download, if they need it.
I wonder if you can download more by downloading at max speed and taking the throttling or by staying just below the trigger that throttles you?2)  It sounds like there is no deep packet inspection going on at all to decide traffic prioritization.
This means services that run over the internet like VoIP can compete based on price and quality of service, things the consumer likes, not based on who has a better relationship with the ISP that the consumer is paying to transfer the traffic.The things I am worried about are:1)  If they advertise using maximum available bandwidth only, that is misleading advertising.
They should advertise the speed that you can download at without threat of throttling and mention that you can achieve higher speeds than that for limited periods of time.2)  If the cap applies to third party services but not to the ISP's services, like high definition television, this is anti-competitive and shows a desire to limit consumer choice.
Third-party internet television providers won't be able to compete because their customers will constantly be hitting that cap, so the cable companies will fulfill their own prophecy that consumers want their television service and not a third-party's.3)  What does this mean: "your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible [for congestion]"?
This does not sound transparent.
I didn't read the full FCC filing, but if someone has an answer as to how they figure out which user's traffic is causing the congestion, it'd be appreciated.
If they're looking at the kind of data you are transferring to decide whether to throttle you or not, that's not acceptable.
ISPs should not be digging around in our packages to decide what to do with the data we pay them to transfer.
Throttle the heaviest user of the CMTS, the one that's been using it the longest, whatever, as long as you're not looking to see what kind of data we are transferring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29998410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30008418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29993372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29995142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29992474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29994498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30001586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29994752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2026206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30008418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29994498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29994752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29998410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.30001586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29984994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29995746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29993372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29995142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29990094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985876
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29989060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986458
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29991644
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29992474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29987238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29986396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2026206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29985360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2026206.29988222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
